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.
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.