Leupold CQ/T vs. ACOG

[FFMedic]

Looking for input of an optic for a Bushmaster Predator in .223. Use would be informal target shooting, friendly 3-gun style matches and double duty as a defensive rifle (although my CAR-15 is primary). I don't hunt and I don't shoot bullseye type target matches.

Option 1 is the Leupold CQ/T. 1-3x power, illuminated with a battery, circle dot reticle, A4 mount.

Option 2 is a Trijicon ACOG (TA33-8). 3x power, fiber optic/tritium illuminated, chevron/BDC reticle, A4 mount.

So what do you think would be a better match for the gun and why? I have herd the CQ/T has a field of view that puts the ACOG to shame, but the ACOG reticle seems superior. Price is pretty much the same for me so that is not an issue.

Please and thank you,
FFMedic

 

[MAX100]

Burris just came out with the AR-332 Prism sight 3x32 It's worth taking a look at. It will run about $300.

GC

 

[Lloyd Smale]

if its for just plinking and competition it doesnt really matter but if its going to be a self defense/survival gun too id go with the trijicon. Ive heard the leupold illumination isnt the greatest in bright daylight and battery life is short. the trijicon is allways on and never needs batterys. Theres a reason there the most demand sight for guys that are serving in combat areas.

 

[lipadj46]

Check the eye relief on the ACOG and the Leupold (ACOG only 1.9" and CQ/T is 2.8 - 2.0") not a lot in either case. This may or may not be an issue, on an AR probably not. That ACOG weighs 14 oz while the Leupold weighs 17.5. People really seem to b!tch about the extra 3.5 ounces on the Leupold and praise the ACOG for it's light weight. People tend to like the ACOG better but I like the variable zoom on the CQ/T. Also check out the Leupold prismatic scope with illuminated reticle if you like a standard type ground glass reticle that works if you run out of batteries. Also the prismatic has way more eye relief and is cheaper than either.

 

[FFMedic]

Can anyone confirm the field of view of the CQ/T?

I am reading on Leupolds page that it is FOV @ 100 yds (ft) 4.10 (112.0),
FOV @ 100 m (m) 13.9 (37.5).

On several other legit pages it reads FOV @ 100 yds (ft): 116.6 - 84.3
FOV @ 100 m (m): 38.9 - 28.1 .

Who has it right? I don't want a scope that has a 4.1 foot field of view when set at 3x at 100 yards

I'm sad to say that the ACOG only seems to have 19.3 foot field of view at 100 yards as well...

FFMedic

 

[C5Cruiser]

Seems like it down to a personal choice. Both outstanding optics.

 

[lipadj46]

I see:

Field of View @ 100 yards (ft): 116.6 - 84.3

from SWFA. Leupold's numbers don't make sense I think the decimal point is in the wrong place and should be:

Field of View @ 100 yards (ft): 112.0 - 41.0

I am not sure who is correct though or why the disconnect.

 

[Dienekes]

I have a TA45 1.5X Compact on one rifle and a TA33 3X on another. I think the 1.5 is much better for close and fast.

No experience with the Leupold.

 

[ds92]

+1 for the trijicon
no batteries necessary, what can i say?

 

[FFMedic]

I like the ACOG a lot too but I am really hung up on the <20" FOV and non-adjustable focus.

FFMedic

 

[Lucky]

Around $300;
http://www.grsc.com/combatriflescope.php

 

[FFMedic]

Well after much deliberation and using some current optics to compare relative specs I have choosen the Leupold CQ/T. Primary reason was the field of view and that I don't like using BAC with optics over 1x.

If I find it inadaquate for a medium range AR I guess I will just have to buy another carbine for it

FFMedic

 

[TexasRifleman]

I have a CQ/T and I like it a lot. Recently moved it over to my PTR-91.

Not sure if it will stay on that since the CQ/T sits up so high, but it's doing very well on the .308 for now.

 

[pgeleven]

http://www.grsc.com/combatriflescope.php

not to discredit that optic, but holy god are the photos on that site creepy

for example...

 

[Lucky]

Lol it's not the modeling work he'd planned on.