Question to Zak Smith

[YK]

Hello,

My question stems from the search on low magnification variable AR optics. I see that Short Dot is considered to be the better option available. Leupold CQ/T is criticized for poor FOV and ARMS mounts.

Looking at the Larue site, they have a mount for CQ/T.

From manufacturer's sites, at 100 m the FOV for Short Dot is 10-32 m; CQ/T has 13.9-37.5 m. I understand that S&B is 4x, while Leupold is 3x; nonetheless, at lower end of magnification CQ/T has wider FOV.

CQ/T appears to have more favorable eye relief, as Short Dot's is criticized for being too long.

So, the obvious question is: excluding ranging capabilities and 4x vs. 3x issue, is CQ/T really an inferior optic to Short Dot?

Thank you.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'm not Zak; but one area I would look at it in comparing the two is the exit pupil. This will not only help with the brightness of the scope in low light; but a larger exit pupil means it is easier to keep the image in the scope visible as you move, shoot, etc.

The CQT is 1-3x14 if I remember correctly. That means at 3x, it has a 4.6mm exit pupil. Not only is this going to cut the available light to your eye - it means you will need very consistent head placement to even see through the scope at 3x.

The Short Dot has a 6mm exit pupil at 4x. A little better since only those with the best eyesight will lose light with this exit pupil and it will make a noticeable difference on seeing through the scope to begin with as well.

Still not as nice as the 10mm exit pupil of a TA11 though

You also left out other traits as well (like comparing the repeatability and sturdiness of Leupold to Schmidt & Bender). Frankly, I don't think there is any question that the CQT is an inferior optic to the Short Dot. The question would seem to be whether the advantages the Short Dot does have over the CQT justify the major price difference between the two scopes.

 

[YK]

Thanks for pitching in.
Frankly, I do think too that S&B is superior unit. When I searched the topic on this forum, the FOV and mounts were mentioned as CQ/T's shortcomings. However, on paper, the FOV and mounts appear to be the same between two optics. Looks like other things are in play.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So, the obvious question is: excluding ranging capabilities and 4x vs. 3x issue, is CQ/T really an inferior optic to Short Dot?

I will chime in here too.

I have a CQ/T and I enjoy using it but Bart is correct in that if you are not VERY consistent with your head position you'll see nothing but darkness.

As for the CQ/T eye relief it is almost on the other end, TOO short. You have to really get up on the thing.

I like many of the features but it has many drawbacks.

I would not likely buy another one.