Jake Di Vita Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 For 3 gun (in general) and without worrying about cost, would you choose the Leupold CQT or 1.5x5 and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny hill Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Jake, better scopes are out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Middle Man Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I've sold and used lots of the King of Belgium's optics, but must agree with Mr. Hill there are much better choices. No matter what their marketing says, there are cheaper scopes with higher light transmission test results out there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 Thanks for the comments but I really only want an answer to the question... I realize there are other scopes out there but I asked about these 2 for a reason. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Jake, I've used the Leupold for a few years now, since they first came out. I like the scope and have had no problems with them. For all the IPSC matches that I've shot the reticle has not been a problem and it is easy to get hits out to 350 yds. Haven't had much experience and no need to shoot past this. I have the CQ/T's on both my match rifles and on my duty rifle. I like the scope. The 3x has not been any hindrance at all. The 1.5x probably would be on the other scope. The CQ/T is almost as fast as a red dot up close. The low, but magnified scopes that I have tried don't seem as quick to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scout454 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Jake, I have two of the older 1" 1.5-5's. I have used the new 30MM 1.5-5 MR/T with the SPR and really like it. I have also used the CQT and only had one complaint. The eye relief is extremely short and it is not very forgiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinistralRifleman Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 the 1.5-5X is a much more precision oriented optic...I think the reticle is too fine to use fast for in close stuff. It is awesome for shooting 25-600 yards though. The CQT is my favorite optic for 0-300 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Religious Shooter Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I haven't used either of these scopes. But I'll comment anyway. You weren't specific as to which 1.5x20 you are referring to (VXIII or MKIV? Illuminated or non-illuminted?). But of the 1.5x20's I would chose the Mark 4 PR with the SPR recticle. And of the 1.5x20 vs. CQT I would choose the 1.5x20 Mark 4 PR. As you know it's all a matter of taste. I would choose the 1.5x20 because it's: - Lighter in weight. It's surprising what ~7.8 oz (difference between the two Leupolds) can do to the handling of a gun. I have a TR21 (11.4 oz) and an IOR CRT (15 oz) and the difference in handling is just stunning. With the IOR (on the same upper) the gun is a fat pig. - "Better" recticle. Even though the has marks are inappropriate in the SPR I would still get the SPR over the reticle that the CQT has. I prefer a reticle to have holdovers. - Non-illuminated. The illumination capability justs add weight and cost. If it was daytime capable it would be a different story. But none of illuminated recticle scopes from Leupold are visible in the daytime and it's highly unlikely that you are gonna be shooting in the dark. - Better range in magnification. Sure the ideal would be a 1-5X. But if I had to choose I think a 1.5-4.5X is better than 1-2.9X. Using the TR21 at 1.25X I've found it to be fast enough and very usable on close targets. To paraphrase KellyN... any monkey can shoot the close targets fast. What separates the great from the good rifle shooters are the far targets. 2.9X is just too light for me. I've shot stages were I wanted more than the 4X offered by my TR21/IOR. Forced to choose, I would prefer a higher bias on magnification to because of this. - Longer eye relief. I like longer eye relief scopes. Comparing the eye relief of the TR21(very long) vs. the IOR (short)... the TR21's long eye relief allows you to "see around" the scope better. The IOR is closer to the eye and the scope's body blocks the view of the surrounding area (outside of the scope's field of view... the peripheral areas) when compared to the TR21. You are more aware of the IOR's bulk where the TR21 is almost like it isn't there. I think I get slightly faster transitions with the TR21 because of this. I'm guessing you are gonna get sponsored... you lucky bastaed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kellyn Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 (edited) - Longer eye relief. I like longer eye relief scopes. Comparing the eye relief of the TR21(very long) vs. the IOR (short)... the TR21's long eye relief allows you to "see around" the scope better. The IOR is closer to the eye and the scope's body blocks the view of the surrounding area (outside of the scope's field of view... the peripheral areas) when compared to the TR21. You are more aware of the IOR's bulk where the TR21 is almost like it isn't there. I think I get slightly faster transitions with the TR21 because of this. That's a good observation. Shorter eye relief sucks you into the scope moreso. I'd take the 1.5-5X myself. I for one don't mind the standard duplex reticle. I've not shot the SPR enough to decide. Edited December 22, 2005 by kellyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n2ipsc Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 the 1.5-5X is a much more precision oriented optic...I think the reticle is too fine to use fast for in close stuff. It is awesome for shooting 25-600 yards though.The CQT is my favorite optic for 0-300 yards. Agree that, in "stock" format, the standard 1.5-5 reticle is not ideally suited, but... Have shot a couple of 1.5-5's that have been retrofitted by Premier Reticles with a (I think) 4E (?) reticle (FAT bottom and side posts, fine upper post, and fine crosshairs), that were surprisingly quick on the short stuff, and accurate enough for 300yd shots. YMMV... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 1.5-5X - I think it gives you more options, especially at distance. 1.5X up close takes some getting used to, but it isn't anything practice can't overcome (especially for you, paisano). TonyH should chime in here. He convinced me that 1.5-5X (although mine is a Pentax) was a good way to go. I still love my Aimpoint at the home range (<40 yds), but at any distance the 1.5-5X is killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinistralRifleman Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 (edited) - "Better" recticle. Even though the has marks are inappropriate in the SPR I would still get the SPR over the reticle that the CQT has. I prefer a reticle to have holdovers. available in 2006... It will be a Leupold custom shop option for the CQT. The outer ring will remain the same thickness as it is in the standard CQT reticle. The image posted is of the prototype Leupold sent me to beat on. Edited December 22, 2005 by SinistralRifleman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chp5 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Jake, Some people can shoot a 1.5x scope on the close, fast and furious stages with no problems. For many people, including myself, any magnification slows them down on those stages. The CQT is a true 1x and I really like it. However, it mounts very high for my check weld and that doesn't work for me. Be sure to look through one while mounted before you buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Actually, Jake, if cost isn't an option, get both and get a SPR mount from LaRue for the 1.5-5X and an ARMS (b/c LaRue doesn't make one that I can see) throw lever mount for the CQ/T. Have both with mounts that return to zero so you can switch depending on the match. At least that is what I do with my Aimpoint M2 and 1.5-5X Pentax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinistralRifleman Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Actually, Jake, if cost isn't an option, get both and get a SPR mount from LaRue for the 1.5-5X and an ARMS (b/c LaRue doesn't make one that I can see) throw lever mount for the CQ/T. Have both with mounts that return to zero so you can switch depending on the match. At least that is what I do with my Aimpoint M2 and 1.5-5X Pentax. LaRue used to make a mount for the CQT, I have two of them. They discontinued it for some reason...though I am sure if there was sufficient demand they'd bring it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 Thanks for all the suggestions guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Religious Shooter Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 I've sold and used lots of the King of Belgium's optics, but must agree with Mr. Hill there are much better choices. No matter what their marketing says, there are cheaper scopes with higher light transmission test results out there... Which scopes are cheaper than the Leupolds and have "higher light transmission"? Do they also have clearer/same glass? As or more repeatable? As or more durable? etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Just for clarification, Rhino recommended the same thing to me (go with the 1.5-5X). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottmilk9 Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 I would reccomend the CQT for 3 gunning. As for what mr. hill says " better scopes are out there". I have tried many other ones and found myself going back to the CQT. You should try and shoot both and see which one feels better for you, thats the most important thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyH Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Jake, I've tried a lot of different combinations over the years, but I always seem to come back to the Leupold 1.5-5x. I just started using the new MK4 1.5-5x with the iluminated reticle & I really like how it is set up. 5x is all you'll ever need for 3 gun, & with a little practice 1.5x can be shot up close as fast as a dot with no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Middle Man Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 I've sold and used lots of the King of Belgium's optics, but must agree with Mr. Hill there are much better choices. No matter what their marketing says, there are cheaper scopes with higher light transmission test results out there... Which scopes are cheaper than the Leupolds and have "higher light transmission"? Do they also have clearer/same glass? As or more repeatable? As or more durable? etc. What I know from first hand use and seeing actual test results is the Bushnell Elite series has higher light transmission at a lower price. As for durable, I have seen examples of every brand fail on heavy recoil rifles, some occur more often than others and Elite's have demonstrated a very low incidence. As to the queston of repeatability, that's a matter of the internal mechanisms design and engineering and all the named brands should have that nailed down these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmshtr Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 Hey Jake, I've got the exact set up that Big Dave was suggesting. I'm in agreement. I'll probably use the CQT in 70% of the 3-gun matches I try next year, but it's nice to have that MRT with the LaRue mount just in case I'm messing around with any longer range matches. The one thing I REALLY don't like about the Mark 4 series is that the illuminated reticles can't be seen in daylight...unless it's later in the day, and all of your targets are black. If the CQT were to change to a red circle/dot that could be seen in all lighting conditions, they'd have a total winner, IMHO. But, then again, I'm not a 3-gunner...yet. Good Luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 I've been testing the Red LED setup that Phil's talking about. It works just as he says. The problem with the Amber illumination of the CQ/T is that it ghosts the reticle out in the day. With the red, even though you can't tell that it's on for the most part during the day, if you pass it over a black target you can really see the red. Best of both worlds. And there are sometimes needs for an illuminated reticle on the scope. SMM3G has had some dark house shooting with the rifle. I was really glad that I had my illumination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now