I would like some magnification but I dont need anything too fancy. What is the simplest way to go if I still want magnification. So which Acog is the one I am looking for? Also, how much do they run. I dont know anything about them. Also how does the CQ/T compare to ACOGs? Thanks in advance for any help.

TAO1 or TAO1NSN


Both are 4x the NSN has BUIS

31F/RCO


It will run ya between $800-$1000.  It's the standard by which all others are measured.


Major

How does the Leupold CQ/T compare?

I have 2 ACOG TA01's  and I am happy with them.  Shop around on-line- I paid $600 or less for each of them, new.

Here's an excellent post on this subject, from a gentleman who knows his shit:

Quoted: Harv,        I really like it.  Looking forward to the finished product.         Just a word on optics, if you are considering the ACOG, take a hard look at the TA11.  Same features as the TA31 (I've owned several of both, bought my first TA11 back in 1998), but the TA11 is a little larger and 3.5x instead of 4x (I can't tell much of a difference between the magnification the two different models).        The advantages I've found with the TA11 is that the longer / more generous eye relief is a BIG advantage when running and gunning and shooting from different positions.  I am noticeably more faster with the TA11 than I am with the TA31.  Eye relief is much more critical on the TA31 / TA01 series which costs you time when trying to get on a target fast.  I have also owned the chevron and donut reticles.  I thought I would be more accurate with the chevron, but didn't notice much difference in accuracy between the two different reticles, but I did notice that I am (as are most shooters) faster with the donut reticle.  Just my personal experience. Take care and stay safe Semper Fi, Jeff

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=315449

My personal experiences with the CQ/T.  Posted this on another board:



Leupold CQ/T 1-3x14mm


It depends on your application. A lot of competition / 3 gunners use them and really like them. The glass is not bad, just doesn't have a lot of features that lends it's self to being a good optic for *most* military / police / tactical applications:


-On 3x the eye relief is extreemly short (about the width of my index finger),

-the field of view is like looking through a straw,

-the reticle is not visible during day light hours,

-at 3 yards the large circle is touching the "C" on an IPSC target (ie. it's almost too large to be practical),

-it's long and heavy (8.8", 17.5 oz),

-mounting options suck (unless LaRue starts making a mount for them again), the amber lit reticle sucks


-etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.


In short, for my application LEO / SWAT, I don't care for them.


For more info read my responses on page 3 (screen name USMC03)

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=290997&page=3


_________________________________________________________________


**From another post**


      My responses are listed in BOLD Red text below your quote.

Quoted: Jeff, Always agree with everything you said except on this CQT issue. Nothing wrong with having a differening opinion, based on first hand experience.  If we all agreed all the time, this internet thing would get boring rather quickly :beer: the eye relief is short but not any shorter then the ACOG 4x. I was running our Department Quals on the rifle range 2 weeks ago. We have over 200 sworn officers on our Dept. and only 1 of them carries a CQ/T. While this Officer was at the range I used his CQ/T to get familiar with it again, as it's been 18 - 24 months since I last had any trigger time on one. On 3x, I measured the distance from my eyebrow to the scope. It was the width of my index finger. I have owned several ACOGs (TA01, TA01NSN, TA31s, and TA11s). The eye relief on the TA01, TA01NSN, and TA31 is listed as 1.5". Measuring with my fingers the eye relief is the width of my index AND middle finger. For me the eye relief is noticeably more with the ACOGs. The eye relief on the TA11 is 3" - 3.5".  I'm sure you were probably refering to the 4x ACOGs. FOV is actually better on the CQT then it is on the short Dot.  at least at 1X. I was refering to the FOV on 3x, it reminds me of looking through a straw.  On 1x the CQ/T has a wide field of view, I can remember seeing the handguards on the Officer's rifle. it is true about the poor illuminating reticel and low battery life. but Short dot has about the same low life on the batteries but at least you can see the illumination during the day. Opinions, applications, and mission statements differ.  As I stated above: "The glass is not bad, just doesn't have a lot of features that lends it's self to being a good optic for *most* military / police / tactical applications." For the square range there is nothing wrong with a non-illuminated reticle, or a reticle that can't be seen during bright day light, with use of white light, etc. For people who are operating outside the controlled enviornment of a square range, an illuminated reticle that can be seen under all conditions can be more of a "need" than a "want". A couple examples of this is: -Consider going up a stair well with your CQ/T a bad guy has on dark colored clothing. You and a couple other members all have your 9 volt surefire lights aimed in on him. He won't listen to commands. You can't find your reticle because the lights are bright enough to wash out the illuminated reticle and the black reticle is blending in with his clothing. This happened to an Officer I know who use to use the CQ/T. -Often times, when it's bright outside bad guys, like cockroaches, like to hide in dark areas (barricaded gunman inside a dark house, suspect hiding in a salvage lot under a pile of wrecked cars, under a sheets of plywood leaned up against a fence, in a dark secluded breezeway, etc).  If you under the bright sun light in the middle of the day and the suspect is in a dark area, you may not be able to see the reticle as the sun light will wash out the illumination and it's extreemly difficult / sometimes impossible to see / find a black reticle against a dark background. mount does suck. At least we found some common ground ;) but as long and heavy, it is no longer and heavier then a Short dot that cost a lot more. I should have been more articulate.  For what it does, the CQ/T is long and heavy. If a piece of gear has outstanding performance and desireable features I will tolerate a little extra weight or bulkyness.  Other optics are on the market that are close to the same features as the CQ/T that are light, smaller, have more magnification, have more features, and have more eye relief. To compare the a $700 CQ/T to a $2,000+ Short Dot is much like comparing a $20,000 Saturn to a $50,000 Mercedes Benz.  They are not really in the same class.  With the Benz, you are paying more for attention to detail and performance.  The same applies to optics. I wasn't trying to compare the two.  If you read the www.ar15.com thread above, a guy on that site stated that the they were basically the same, but the CQ/T just cost less.  There was a long discussion about the CQ/T in that thread, and that is why I posted a link to it.  Sorry for any mis-comm on my part.   the Long tube is require to reach a true 1x unlike the Short dot which is about as long and it is actually a 1.1x. The CQ/T is extreemly close to 1x, but it is not a true 1x like an EO Tech or Aimpoint.  Look at the front sight post next time you look though a CQ/T and you will see some slight distortion cause by slightly more than 1x magnification. then again.. no one really makes a ture to life 1X  there is always some varations.  but CQT is the closest to a true 1X. Disreguard my last.....I concur It is indeed ugly....and the damn rail on the tube.

_________________________________________________________________


More info on the CQ/T:

Gear selection is based on mission statement and personal preference. If you gear doesn't work when you need it to, it hinders you ability to proficiently complete your mission and come home safely.

I'm not saying that the CQ/T is a bad optic.  Leupold marketed it toward the military / tactical community and in my opinion the CQ/T doesn't have a lot of features that lends it's self to being a good optic for *most* military / police / tactical applications.

I think a lot of the complaints you hear about the CQ/T comes from military guys and cops.  Many 3 gun, IPSC, competition shooters love the CQ/T.  If Leupold had marketed the scope to a different crowd or given it a different name, I don't think you would hear as much chatter about it.  Just my 2 pesos

Which ACOG?  Read the responses in this thread (don't pay attention to the poll):

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=315115