Is The Leupold Mark 4 Cq/t Good In Tactical Divisi

[bobbyblaze]

New to the Game and I have a AR-15 set up and I will be shooting in Tactical division. I have a Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T is this a awesome optic for Tactical division or should I get something better?

[BPiatt]

There is nothing wrong with the CQT, in fact I don't think it gets it's fair share of praise. Unlike any other variable power scope, when you set it at 1x... it's truely a 1x. Other will still give you some amount of magnification while the CQT is just like a dot scope. No other dot scope on the market has the ability to crank up to 3x and get some distance, more importantly, help in locating / I.D. targets.

I've mounted mine using a LaRue quick disconnect mount.

Bruce

[bobbyblaze]

There is nothing wrong with the CQT, in fact I don't think it gets it's fair share of praise.  Unlike any other variable power scope, when you set it at 1x...  it's truely a 1x.  Other will still give you some amount of magnification while the CQT is just like a dot scope.  No other dot scope on the market has the ability to crank up to 3x and get some distance, more importantly, help in locating / I.D. targets.

I've mounted mine using a LaRue quick disconnect mount. 

Bruce

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

how does it do for close targets and transitioning? while you are running and gunning do you have to change the power on close targets, for instance you have a few far targets say about 250 yards and you have to run and engage 12-15 yard targets.

[codyb]

I love mine! It seems to work well even on the close stuff being a little low but definitely useable. After watching Burketts new video I am thinking of trying it as an OEG on the close stuff. I love to use it as a dot on 1X with tight scenerios. Cody

[Mickster]

You cannot go wrong with the CQT, expecially on any targets from point blank to out past 200.

The power ring is easy to get to and has a relatively short throw to go from 1x to 3x. I've changed power in the middle of stages while moving with one twist and done a mag change to boot. Not so with my IOR 1.1x4.

Only thing with the CQT to watch is to not cant the gun on those long 300 yard shots. Crosshairs tell you instantly if the gun is canted but a circle-dot won't and canting will throw your shots off.

Welcome to the wacky world of 3-gun.

[kellyn]

New to the Game and I have a AR-15 set up and I will be shooting in Tactical division. I have a Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T is this a awesome optic for Tactical division or should I get something better?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'll be just fine. Get a good zero and go shoot!

[George]

BBlaze, I've got a cheap Chinese made low powered variable hunting scope with plenty of parallax and very limited eye relief. It's the shjt for 3 gun and I am willing to trade it straight up for your CQT if you are interested in getting a leg up on the game ;-)

Seriously, it has already been said but I will say it again, that is one good 3 gun optic you have there. Go shoot!

--

Regards,

[SinistralRifleman]

I have one that I use when I shoot in Tactical Scope, it's a good versatile optic.

I usually place well at local matches using mine.

[Trader]

There is nothing wrong with the CQT, in fact I don't think it gets it's fair share of praise.  Unlike any other variable power scope, when you set it at 1x...  it's truely a 1x.  Other will still give you some amount of magnification while the CQT is just like a dot scope.  No other dot scope on the market has the ability to crank up to 3x and get some distance, more importantly, help in locating / I.D. targets.

I've mounted mine using a LaRue quick disconnect mount. 

Bruce

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bruce. Where can we get a look at the LaRue quick disconnect mount? Also where can they be purchased? Thanks

[BPiatt]

www.laruetactical.com

[MattBurkett]

I personally don't care for the way the optic is set up. Primarily it is the lack of a cross hair set in a standard scope type. I also think the dot in the middle is too small to be useful at high speed. If the ret was modded so that holdovers were available I would probably try it out again. I still think the TA11 is faster.

FYI - LAURE TACTICAL mounts rock!

[mpthole]

Can the CQT be used in-line with back up iron sights, like an Aimpoint?

[Mickster]

If you mean co-witnessing the CQT with irons, probably not.

The CQT sits higher than a standard AR front sight tower so you would have to have a very tall set of iron sights. Also, on 1x I can see part of the front sight (standard shorty CAR) but it is quite blurry. On higher powers it can't be seen at all.

The CQT was meant to be a stand alone do-it-all optic. It's not perfect for all, but it sure comes close, IMHO.

[Cactustactical]

The CQT is a decent optic, but as Matt alluded to, it could use reticle improvement.

Having a simple dot / circle combination does not allow for any type of holdover.

It needs a vertical line with mil lines or some other type of measuring unit to allow for holdover. If your game is short range only, it works. If you need to make longer shots that require holdover, the reticle is lacking that dimension.

[MattBurkett]

Bob,

Exactly! I do like the clarity and it does look "cool".

[Cactustactical]

Matt, the coolness factor probably helps sell it. But, how many people have you seen hang flashlights off the integral rails?

From my point of view, the rails just add weight.

[SinistralRifleman]

I also think the dot in the middle is too small to be useful at high speed.

What dot size do you find to be optimal?

On 1 X the dot is 9MOA, on 3X the dot is 3 MOA.

FYI - LAURE TACTICAL mounts rock!

I definitely agree with that, the LaRue CQT mount is much nicer than the factory mount.

If you need to make longer shots that require holdover, the reticle is lacking that dimension.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With a 50 yard zero the CQT can be used effectively to 300 yards without much trouble....beyond that I prefer my ACOG.

[MattBurkett]

I am just curious, are you saying you like your ACOG better over 300 but not under vs. the Leo?

The switching of power and not having the ret maintain (2nd optical plane vs 1st) similar size doesn't help for me. Having to know what = what at different powers is too much crap for my brain to handle under stress. So you really can't shoot at a 10" plate at 300 with a 27" circle on 1x but you can on 3x since it is only 9" and you need to hold over 8 if you have a 4.5 radius and 100 yard zero for most 223 ammo. A 50/200 yard zero (btw make sure you check your secondary pass through point on your zero) will still reflect 6-7.5 of drop at 300.

(Will stick to my Trij ta11 which is tougher, brighter and works from 2 yards to 600.)

Darn do I hope some of that made sense.

[SinistralRifleman]

I am just curious, are you saying you like your ACOG better over 300 but not under vs. the Leo?

I prefer the ACOG if most of the rifle shooting is going to be 100 yards +...the way my eyes work, I just can't be fast close in with an ACOG shooting with both eyes open.

I have found the CQT to be adaquate out to 300 yards, past that it becomes difficult for me to easily hit the average sized steel targets we shoot at. If most of the shooting is going to be CQB oriented with some being at 100-300 yards, the CQT works well.

The switching of power and not having the ret maintain (2nd optical plane vs 1st) similar size doesn't help for me. Having to know what = what at different powers is too much crap for my brain to handle under stress. So you really can't shoot at a 10" plate at 300 with a 27" circle on 1x but you can on 3x since it is only 9" and you need to hold over 8 if you have a 4.5 radius and 100 yard zero for most 223 ammo. A 50/200 yard zero (btw make sure you check your secondary pass through point on your zero) will still reflect 6-7.5 of drop at 300.

(Will stick to my Trij ta11 which is tougher, brighter and works from 2 yards to 600.)

Darn do I hope some of that made sense. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did have to read that a few times to understand your meaning...for shots at 300 I find that holding one dot width higher on the target is usually adaquate. I can see what you mean about the changing dot size potentially screwing someone up.

One thing I do like about the Leupold is it has adjustable focus so I can use it without my prescribtion lenses, should I damage or lose them. The ACOG is usuable for me without presrcibtion lenses, but the reticle is fuzzy.

Different tools for different applications...I think they both work well depending on your purpose.

[PacMan]

Can the CQT be used in-line with back up iron sights, like an Aimpoint?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? It is an unlit scope with black dot/circle during daylight (the illuminated reticle is not for daylight use). BUIS is overrated and unnecessary in this game, unless you just want to add some "coolness" factor to the rifle.

Before the Trijicon TR21, the Leupold CQ/T was my favorite scope. It still is for anything less than 300 yds since I can use it at true 1x for the hosing stages. I have used it between 300-425 yds and it was a little tougher to be right on the MGM flashers when compared to the TR21. My zero is 250 yds so between 50 yds and 250, I'd just hold dead on, and a little high from 250 to 350.

[mpthole]

Can the CQT be used in-line with back up iron sights, like an Aimpoint?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? [snip] BUIS is overrated and unnecessary in this game, unless you just want to add some "coolness" factor to the rifle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? Because things break and batteries die - even when you plan for those kind of contingencies, stuff happens. I was at a 3-gun match last fall where two guys that were using red-dot type scopes had malfunctions. Neither had iron sights and so both were out of the match just like that.

I tend to live by the "one is none, two is one" philosophy I guess. YMMV.

Mostly, I was just asking because I don't currently use any optics on my ARs... though I'm thinking of something like the CQ/T, Aimpoint or Acog in the near future.

[scottmilk9]

I like my CQT and think its the best (Close Quarter Tactical scope) out there. Unlike Matt and Bob, I like the dot, I think its fast and do not prefer crosshairs for close quarter shooting. I like the TA11 but its too magnified for under 20yds, pretty much, try scopes from different manufacturers and find what works best for you.

[Cactustactical]

Scott,

you did not understand my earlier post. The dot / circle combination works ok for close-in hoser targets or targets that do not require hold over. I do not need or advocate cross hairs for that type of shooting.

IMO, the CQ/T reticle is lacking when the need to shoot at targets that require holdover. With the CQ/T, you are simply guessing at your holdover unless you manage to get lucky and be at the distance where you can use the 6 o'clock position of the circle.

Any scope reticle that gives some sort of vertical line with holdover marks is more multi purpose when your mission or game is CQB / mid range / long distance. The reticles in the TA-11 and IOR 1.1-4 to mention a few give additional flexibility for multi purpose use over the simple dot / circle.

[PacMan]

Why?  Because things break and batteries die - even when you plan for those kind of contingencies, stuff happens.  I was at a 3-gun match last fall where two guys that were using red-dot type scopes had malfunctions.  Neither had iron sights and so both were out of the match just like that.

I tend to live by the "one is none, two is one" philosophy I guess.  YMMV.

Mostly, I was just asking because I don't currently use any optics on my ARs... though I'm thinking of something like the CQ/T, Aimpoint or Acog in the near future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like I stated before, the CQ/T does not need batteries to work. If you use an Aimpoint or EOTech, then BUIS might come in handy.

[MattBurkett]

Okay, must be out of the loop - BUIS? Maybe it is morning and not awake yet, but, wtf is that?

Sinistral, I agree that the Trij works better for some people than others based on their vision. It really doesn't work well for short fast stuff if you are cross dominant and use the OEG technique for 15 yards and in. The adjustability of the focus on the CQT might be quite beneficial for some people. Will get another one for my students to try and get some feed back from them.

FYI the best way I have found to test a short range scope is to mount it on a 10-22 and put a hell of a lot of rounds downrange between 5 and 90 yards on paper for the close stuff and MGM minipoppers for the far stuff. Don't burn out your barrel that way and it is cheap great practice!

:-)