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.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by mattjmcd
Bookmarks