Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T as my Xmas Gift to Me?

[Mr_Toad]

Hi, THR Folks,

Do any of y'all have opinions of the "Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T Tactical Scope 1-3x 14mm Circle Dot Reticle Matte"? (Maybe I'm misusing the Search utility, but I've not found much on THR...although it gets positive reviews on MidwayUSA.com.)

OK....so I confess: I don't NEED this scope. I just WANT it.

I like the CQ/T features for under 300 yard target plinking, specifically being able to toggle between 1x and 3x. I see a lot of positive discussion about the lower-priced EOTech Holosites and Aimpoint Red Dots, but aren't they fixed at 1x or 2x?

The scope will go on a DPMS .308 AR with a 16 inch barrel, for afternoons at the outdoor range.

Any thoughts are appreciated,

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, the first important distinction is that the Eotech and Aimpoint are reflex-sights. They have unlimited eye relief and such low parallax as to be almost zero parallax.

The Leupold CQT is just a variable magnification scope. The two sights use totally different technologies and have different limitations as a result.

In practical terms, this means that the reflex sights can be used without a good cheek weld (or any cheek weld) and from different positions. Whatever the dot is on is where your bullet is headed. On the Leupold though, if your cheek is in a different place on the stock, your point of impact will change.

In favor of the CQT, if you have electronic or battery trouble, you'll still have a usable reticle. The Aimpoint and the Eotech lose their reticles in those cases.

I know lots of people who love the CQT and find it very useful for the same reasons I dislike it, so take my comments with a grain of salt. My main problem with the CQT is that I like ACOGs better for longer ranges and I like reflex-style sights better for short ranges.

Some specific issues I have with the CQT are:
1. I dislike the amber illumination they use. It blends in with too many backgrounds to make it useful during the day. The illumination on the CQT is really only practical at night with no additional sources of illumination.

2. At 3x, the exit pupil is very small and your head must be in a precise spot or you won't be able to see.

3. Big and heavy for a low magnification scope with small objective.

4. These days, there are just too many good variables to choose from for the CQT to be competitive. Even the other Leupold line options like the 1.5-5x offer better features for general purpose sights.

 

[TexasRifleman]

One thing I like most about the CQT is the ruggedness. Mine has proven to be almost indestructible, and that's why I bought it. It's a huge honkin' heavy piece of metal protecting that glass so big and heavy is precisely why I like it.

On a LaRue QD mount I've bashed the thing into all kinds of stuff and all I've done is scratch the paint. I doubt most other optics would have survived the abuse I've given the thing.

But do understand that BR is quite right, this is no CQB style of optic. Also it's not 1x, more like 1.1 or 1.2x so using it with both eyes open does not work the same as an Aimpoint or Eotech. It's usable that way you just have to get used to having some slight magnification.

I had it on an AR for several years and it's now on a PTR91.

 

[Mr_Toad]

Thank you both for your advice!

Mr. Roberts...to follow-up, would a good example of a Leupold 1.5-5x that you describe be the "Leupold Mark 4 Precision Rifle Scope 1.5-5x 20mm Special Purpose Reticle Matte"?

You make good points about the CQ/T's amber reticles and greater suitability for nightwork. Compared with the the EOTech and Aimpoints, I guess I'm still favoring some variable magnification feature over a "heads up" view, since I don't expect much shooting "on the move". ('..though maybe I'm misinformed.)

These items are rather pricey, so thanks again for helping me with some research.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Mr. Toad, the Mk4 is the one. It too has illumination that is too faint for daylight use; but it uses red instead of amber. It also has a finer reticle.

But like I said, this is really about personal preference and the type of shooting you plan on doing. The best thing I can recommend is to get as much time playing with the actual optics as you can. Formal instruction can be great for this type of learning as well. The other thing is to realize that all optics have tradeoffs and just decide which ones you can live with best. For me, the CQT isn't my first choice; but I feel like I could do all right with one if that is what I had to use.

If you are looking at variables, you might also consider the Leupold 1-4x shotgun scope (good budget solution to 300yds at $199), the Leupold Mk4, the Nightforce 1-4x (pricey), and the Schmidt and Bender Short Dot (top of the line; but very pricey). There are some other decent variable scopes out there as well and I'm sure some of the members here can chime in with suggestions.

I'd characterize the CQT as a variable scope that is designed primarily as a 0-100yd optic with a secondary capability to magnify and reach out a little bit as necessary. If that is what you are looking for, then the CQT is definitely in the ballpark.

 

[HorseSoldier]

For the price of the CQ/T you could just about afford a Horus Talon x1-4 variable if you you can find it. Still not an ideal CQB optic, but for an all around 0-600 optic I think the S&B Short Dot may be the only better option out there.

 

[Mr_Toad]

Thanks, Guys...you've helped me!

I have been looking into first-timer rifle training & safety classes around Dallas, but it didn't occur to me that such classes would help me learn about optics.

I will pursue that.

Thanks,

 

[blackhawk2000]

+1 on what Bart said. I shot a 2 day match with one this summer, and it was OK. I started a CQB stage with the magnification all the way up on accident, and was still able to shoot both eyes open, with no real drawbacks, but that might just be me. I think I might like an ACOG better, but haven't got to play with one yet at a match, just off the bench. For 0-100 yds, even my crappy eyes do fine with an EO/Aimpoint. Also an Eotech magnifier on a flip mount, with either an Eotech or Aimpoint is a good alternative, and good for up close, and distance. Aimpoint makes a magnifier, but the EO version is better.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Mr. Toad, if you are in the Dallas area, take a look at Tac Pro Shooting Center. They have some good basic rifle classes and the shop usually has a nice selection of optics they will let you check out. It is also a good opportunity to talk with other students, see what they use and maybe get a little hands on. In the last rifle class I took there, we had an Aimpoint, Eotech, TA31DOC, TA11, Leupold 1-4x, and a few other optics. They are also Nightforce and Schmidt & Bender dealers so if you want to play with optics that cost more than the rifle, it is a good opportunity.

 

[Just_a_dude_with_a_gun]

I like the CQ/T, but to me, it's a compromise for the sake of being in one tube.

I would be more apt to look into a regular, decently made, 4 power scope (Trijicon accupoint 4x or 3-9x ?) with a mini-Holodot (Burris fastfire?) angle-mounted to it.

Probably about the same price too.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I forgot the Accupoint; but that is a great option too. Because of the fiber-optic, it is bright enough to use in daylight. At the same time it has the sliding cover to let you control brightness. I am not a fan of the triangle reticle because it obscures targets at longer distances; but for 300yds it should be great.

Like pretty much every scope but the Nightforce and S&B, it isn't a true 1x and is more like a 1.25x; but it is a nice versatile rig.

 

[Mr_Toad]

Cool!

I'll give Tac Pro a call. It looks like the Primary Defensive Carbine course would be good. I'm all set with the handgun prerequisites, but I'll ask them about rifle prereqs, just to make sure.

Also...thanks y'all for the info on lower priced sites. For a coupla hundred, I could maybe pick something and experiment.

...starting out in this long gun stuff is looking to be more complicated (and more interesting) than just lining up them three little white dots!



Toad

 

[marktx]

Any further opinions on this thing? A shop local to me has a used (cosmetically it looks new) Mark 4 CQ/T for just under $600 which seems like a pretty good deal.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I have had one for several years. It was on an M4 style rifle for a long time, now I have moved it over to a PTR91 with a Magpul stock.

I like the optic very much and I would buy another one. It does what it claims in my opinion. The dot is pretty big though so just keep in mind this is not a sub-MOA scope my any stretch of the imagination.

It is quick on target and the magnification is nice if you need it.

It's a compromise but works out pretty well I think.

The main feature of the CQ/T is its size. That's good and bad. It's practically indestructible but it's bigger than it needs to be for what it does.

You have to decide if that tradeoff is worth it. I have no worries about banging this scope around and it losing zero or breaking.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Any further opinions on this thing? A shop local to me has a used (cosmetically it looks new) Mark 4 CQ/T for just under $600 which seems like a pretty good deal.

For the price of a new one, I'd favor one of the ACOG models or a Horus Talon, neither of which is much more money.

But that's a pretty good price, if it's used but in good condition.