Like so many of you, I have long been in search of the perfect “Do all” AR optic, and like many of you I’ve owned most of them at one time or another. Aimpoint 4 & 2moa, Eotech, ACOG 31 and 11, Trij ReflexII, IOR M2, Leup CQT, Leup MRT, etc….
In the last year I’ve been working with the Leup. CQT. I’ve read so much information on these boards and others. Some of it good, a lot of it pure BS. With that in mind I thought I’d share some of my findings and opinions.
The accessory rails on the CQT. What were they thinking? I don’t think anybody likes them and I’m sure they add unnecessary weight but……let’s talk about weight. The CQT in Larue mount is less than 1oz. Heavier than the Leup. MR/T in Larue mount. That’s NOT heavy. As with many things about the CQT it’s all about perception. It feels more dense but really isn’t heavier.
The CQT gets a bad rap for being too high off the rail when mounted. I happen to agree that it sits too high but as you can see from the following pictures it sit only about 1/8 inch higher overall when compared to a low mounted Leup. MR/T. The height difference is more perceived than real. What I mean is there is more air space under the front and rear of the CQT when mounted but if you look at the highest point or knob scope to scope they’re close as evidenced best by the picture showing the CQT behind the MR/T. Centerline to centerline there is less than a ¼ inch difference.
The Dot is too big is another complaint. 9 inches at 100yds @ 1x is IMO a great size. It’s very fast and about 2moa narrower than a front sight post. If it stayed 9moa I’d agree it was kind of large but it doesn’t. It decreases to 3 inches at 100yds @ 3x. Would it have been more useful if the scope were a 5x like the MR/T? Sure, and that would have made the dot under 2 inches at 100yds @ 5x, but the CQT Dot Is VERY fast up close and will cover only 9 inches at 300yds @ max mag of 3x. I’d call that precise enough for a MIM combat sight.
Also in regard to the ret. I’ve seen the post here on ARFCOM about the guy whose friend of a friend’s brother the SWAT cop had a dark stairwell, dark clothing, white light ret. washout. It was suggested that in such a circumstance the illumination washed out and the black ret. could not be seen against the dark clothing. I call BS. This is a bright ret. I’ve run the test and here are the photos to support. Dark basement stairwell, black fleece clothing, surefire 6p with fresh batteries. The first picture shows how dark it was before I lit the surefire. Second shows that you are not going to lose that sight picture. I included another pic to show just how unlikely one is to lose the ret. even with white light against a white wall at close range. Even in this situation you can still see the illumination. If that were to fade you’d then have the black ret. still clearly visible.
From all this you might think I’m a huge CQT fan. I’m not. I have some problems with the perceived issues even if they make little difference in practical use. I just think the CQT is much closer to a “do all” combat optic than it’s given credit for. It’s 1x power is great. It’s ret. is great for the distances and weapons it was intended for. I’m scoping a 6.8 that has somewhat farther range capability than the avg. M4 so for my use I like the Leup. MR/T 1.5x5 Ill. I need it’s BDC capability, but my time with the CQT has led me to wish for some of it’s features on the MR/T. I wish the MR/T was 1x instead of 1.5x (Oh well not much I can do about that) I wish the MR/T had the CQT ret. instead of the SPR ret. and Leup. will do that for me as well as making a custom BDC cam for 6.8 so after spending another couple hundred dollars on my MR/T I may have the next GREATEST “do all” optic again. I’ll report when it gets back from modification.