Leupold Mk4 CQ/T- can anybody school me on this optic?

[mattjmcd]

I'm looking for the good, the bad, and the ugly on this optic.

I *think* I like the idea of an etched reticle, and I *think* I like the fact that the reticle doesn't feature a post- ala the Trij Accupoint.

What are your thoughts on this optic?

I intend to use it for the occasional class, HD, and fun plinking and stuff. It is not meant to go on a real working rifle, but it might- in theory- be on a gun that could do HD duty. Cost is a factor. (which is why I am not asking these questions about the S&B options)

Thanks for the input.

[Renegade]

I have one.

Good eye relief, good glass, NV reticle, as well as a day reticle if the battery is dead.

Kinda large, kinda pricey, No factory QD mount (but after market QD mounts available).

[mattjmcd]

Thanks.

Are you able to use it for both eyes open/BAC shooting?

[Renegade]

Thanks.

Are you able to use it for both eyes open/BAC shooting?

Not as easily as an Aimpoint or EOTECH, but yes (on 1x). I do not use it for close work though, I prefer it on the 3x setting and taking out varmints at 100 yards or so. I use it more in a SPR role.

[USMC03]

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)

http://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.



Originally posted by SMGLee:
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









Take care and stay safe,






Semper Fi,
Jeff

[Renegade]

Your answers seemed unusual, so I just checked my scope.





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

1x - 4-4.5 inches

3x - 3-3.25 inches

-the reticle is not visible during day light hours,

Both the illuminated and non-illumintaed reticle is visible during the day.

-mounting options suck (unless LaRue starts making a mount for them again),

Mount is fine unless you want QD.

, the amber lit reticle sucks

Rarely needed during normal daylight. Works fine (better than EOTECH) for NV applications. I only use the lit reticle in lowlight, when it is still to bright for NVG.

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

I agree.

[USMC03]

My replies are written in green text below yours:


Your answers seemed unusual, so I just checked my scope.





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

1x - 4-4.5 inches

3x - 3-3.25 inches

Are your measurements off a data sheet? With the CQT on 3x the eye relief is extreemly short, about the width of my index finger. I have tried this with several different CQT's mounted on several different guns.

You can move your head back on the stock and still see throught the optic, but when the field of view is at it's optimum on 3x, the eye relief is only approximatley the width of my index finger.

-the reticle is not visible during day light hours,

Both the illuminated and non-illumintaed reticle is visible during the day.


If you take the CQT outside in the middle of the day you can NOT see the illuminted reticle. The sunlight washes out the illumiation. The reticle is black or at best partilally lit. But it is no where near what it is like in a dark or dim lit setting.

The CQT's lit reticle also washes out when used with white light. Thus leaving you a black reticle. I pointed out why this could be a liability in my post above, but I will cover it here again:

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.





-mounting options suck (unless LaRue starts making a mount for them again),

Mount is fine unless you want QD.

I'm not fond of carrying a socket set to get my optic off the gun, kind of defeats the purpose of a back up iron sight.

, the amber lit reticle sucks

Rarely needed during normal daylight. Works fine (better than EOTECH) for NV applications. I only use the lit reticle in lowlight, when it is still to bright for NVG.


Anyway you cut it, a lit RED reticle is always easier to see / quicker to pick up than a black non-illuminated reticle.

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

I agree.








-Jeff

[Renegade]

Not looking for an argument, just trying to help the OP out. While your LEO/SWAT scenario info is nice, the OP did not mention using it for this task. I think we agree it IS NOT SUITABLE for LEO/SWAT use.

Apparently the one you have is different than the one I have. I do know it has undergone some revisions, I see they also offer an ARMS throw-lever mount too. It is also true 1x... also a red reticle now... just some differences from what you seem to have.

http://www.leupold.com/tactical/products/scopes/mark-4-cqt-riflescopes/mark-4-1-3x14mm-cqt/

[USMC03]

No matter what Leupold claims, the CQT is NOT a true 1x.

I don't have a CQT, but have used several during training, matches, and test and evaled one when they first came out and only had a 6 hour battery life.

As far as ARMS mount as an option. I'll pass. Do a search, I'm not the only person who has had problems with ARMS mounts. Problems with ARMS (ie. throw lever arms breaking, mounting too tightly or too loosely on certain upper receivers, the tightness of the throw lever mechanism loosening over time, etc, etc, etc) have been widely reported over the years.


Not looking for a pissing match. I've used SEVERAL over the years, what is posted in my posts above is my experience with the CQT.

I stand by my origional statements.







-Jeff

[Renegade]

Not looking for a pissing match. I've used SEVERAL over the years, what is posted in my posts above is my experience with the CQT.


I think it was useful for the OP. My experiences, your experiences, and the Leupold web page are not in sync, in some cases not even close. The OP is now better informed to research these areas in any specific unit he may buy...

[KevinB]

Crap...

The OP mentions HD -- this sight is a burden in that role.

My comments and experiences with the sight mirror USMC03's. I bought one - and after a week - it went in Kev's bag of crap pile (I have a pretty are of the garage filled with crap)


IMHO the poster needs/wants an Aimpoint.

[Robb Jensen]

I'm looking for the good, the bad, and the ugly on this optic.

I *think* I like the idea of an etched reticle, and I *think* I like the fact that the reticle doesn't feature a post- ala the Trij Accupoint.

What are your thoughts on this optic?

I intend to use it for the occasional class, HD, and fun plinking and stuff. It is not meant to go on a real working rifle, but it might- in theory- be on a gun that could do HD duty. Cost is a factor. (which is why I am not asking these questions about the S&B options)

Thanks for the input.

I agree with everyone else. There are much better options than the CQ/T.
The CQ/T is heavy, the mount sucks, the FOV is too small, reticle too big.

If you want a variable I'd look at MeOpta (1-4x), Leupold MR/T (1.5-5x) w/either a ADM or LaRue mount.

But I too think that you would be best served with an Aimpoint. I think you would be well served with a 2 MOA Aimpoint C3 and either a ADM mount or LaRue mount. Now or later you could get a 3x Aimpoint magnifier and LaRue mount for it. Also look at the Aimpoint H1/T1 and a tall LaRue mount.

[mattjmcd]

Thanks to all for the feedback.

I got a chance to fondle a CQ/T yesterday after work. What struck me most was just how much the ER varied with the increase in magnification. I reckon that's part of the cost of doing business with the variables...

Anyway, the whole thing looked and felt very fussy. The glass WAS very clear and bright, though. At this point, I think I feel comfortable scratching this optic off of my list.

[Renegade]

Thanks to all for the feedback.

I got a chance to fondle a CQ/T yesterday after work. What struck me most was just how much the ER varied with the increase in magnification. I reckon that's part of the cost of doing business with the variables...

Anyway, the whole thing looked and felt very fussy. The glass WAS very clear and bright, though. At this point, I think I feel comfortable scratching this optic off of my list.


What color was the reticle when it was turned on?

[USMC03]

Thanks to all for the feedback.

What struck me most was just how much the Eye Relief varied with the increase in magnification. I reckon that's part of the cost of doing business with the variables...




Matt,



With almost all variable powered optics the eye relief will decrease (to some extent) as the magnification goes up.

Some optics are worse than others, some optics you won't notice much of a difference in eye relieve between the lowest and highest magnification setting, and other optics you will notice a major difference in eye relief between the lowest and highest settings.

For a optic made by a quality company, the CQT is one of the worst when it comes to drastic eye relief change between power settings.




Semper Fi,
Jeff

[SHIVAN]

I really like my other Leupold optics, but I couldn't get wrapped around the CQ/T.

I found the glass on the ACOG's & S&B's superior.

I found the Leupold conventional variables to be lighter and less bulky, with similar glass.

I found the Aimpoint and EoTech reticles far better for 1x shooting.

In that same price point, I think the Leupold 1.5-5x20mm MR/T M2 Illuminated is a far better optic.

Up the ladder, I really think the S&B is better than the MR/T, but at 3x the price. :mad:

I might try the Meopta, but the damn thing is so long......

[mattjmcd]

What color was the reticle when it was turned on?


It was just a store display model- it had no power available, so I didn't get to check out the lit reticle.

[sgtlmj]

We had one in for T&E. It went back the same week.

Was like looking through a straw. 14mm objective is way too tiny for a combat optic. Wouldn't take much of a piece of dirt to completely obscure the thing. Poor mount. Overpriced.