Leupold CQT

[matt t]

Any opinions on a Leupold CQT for a 3 gun scope for my AR? Thanks for any info.

[Religious Shooter]

3X max is a negative. No hold overs is a negative. Reticle not lit in the day is a negative.

1X is a positive. Leupold quality is a positive.

IMHO there are better scopes for 3 Gun in the same price range of the CQ/T --- Meopta, TR24 and Burris XTR. But if it was for real deal tactical stuff I'd go with the CQ/T.

[Sterling White]

Drop Dave Neth a pm about it and ask him about his new scope. He's using the reticle inside a 30mm tube 1x5 leupold. Pretty trick stuff. I like the cqt for the most part. It's weight keeps me from ranking it high.

[smokshwn]

Drop Dave Neth a pm about it and ask him about his new scope. He's using the reticle inside a 30mm tube 1x5 leupold. Pretty trick stuff. I like the cqt for the most part. It's weight keeps me from ranking it high.

I thought you mainly shot irons....or did you just shoot irons at the 06 Ironman?

As for the CQT it is not necessarily a bad optic, there are just much better and more versatile optics to be had in that price range.

Almost universally you will hear Meopta as the first choice.

Do a quick search in the rifle technical forum and there is a metric shit ton of "which" optic threads to read.

[SinistralRifleman]

From 0-300 I think its the most versatile optic I've used. I use a 50 yard zero and the size of the dot to judge hold overs. My CQTs have taken some good hits and stayed zeroed...eating dirt face first on top of the rifle at the bottom of the slide at Ironman last year being one of them.

Edited May 6, 2009 by SinistralRifleman

[ShooterSteve]

I shot a CQT for a while, but went to the Burris 1x4 for a couple reasons. I wanted a little more magnification, and a better hold over on long range shots. I like my Burris better, BUT..if I only shot closer range stuff, mostly 200yds or less, with an occasional shot out to 300, I would put that scope back on in a heart beat. If Leupold put a vertical line down from the center dot, with a couple hashmarks for different ranges, I think it would help. I like my CQT a lot. I have it in a Larue mount, so I can put it back on any time I want. I stick with the Burris for consistancy. It all comes down to your primary use for the scope.

[kellyn]

The CQ/T is a decent scope. It's tough and it holds its zero. I like the true 1X but which it had more than 3X.

Note that everyone on the Leupold shooting team actually uses the 1.5-5X MR/T. I copy Bennie Cooley by driving a MR/T with a CQ/T reticle instead of the standard SPR reticle.

[kurtm]

I "which" it had more than 3X also Kelly, and as for Bennie Cooley, he still owes me money! KurtM

[jobob]

From 0-300 I think its the most versatile optic I've used. I use a 50 yard zero and the size of the dot to judge hold overs. My CQTs have taken some good hits and stayed zeroed...eating dirt face first on top of the rifle at the bottom of the slide at Ironman last year being one of them.

Ha! Maybe Travis will put in foam pads at the bottom of the slide this year!

BTW, you're suppose to go down the slide feet first!

[davidwiz]

I found that the reticle was too big when smaller targets (such as small steel plates) had to be shot, as the reticle covered up the entire plate.

Try to find someone who has one and ask to try it, see if it works for you.

[VegasOPM]

I love mine. I have it zeroed at 250 yds and use Kentucky elevation on small, close targets. I don't like high magnification anyway, so the 3X doesn't bother me. It is seriously tough. I use my AR for more than just 3 Gun, so I like the lighted reticle for dusk and indoor use. +1 on wishing they would add some cross hairs below the dot and donut.

[caspian guy]

They are good scopes. If you already had one or found a great deal on one it would serve you well.

If you are buying a new scope it isn't the first choice I'd make.

Peter Adams

FY-39604

[Mickster]

Excellent scope. Mine resides on my go to M-4 and still used occasionally for 3-gun matches when we do Zombie shooting. It started out as my main 3-gun optic and remained for a couple of years. The illuminated reticule saved me at one of Kyle Lambs matches where I was running a stage in the NC woods at 8:30 pm, it was too dark to even see a black reticule.

Very fast up close on 1x and good out to 300 on 3x. Somewhat of a downside is because the dot is 3moa it will cover a 10" flash target at 300. But that's not really that big a problem with a 50 yard zero (similar to a 200 yard zero) because you just hold bottom of dot on top of flash target. Once you get past 300 it becomes a bit more difficult.

It seems now-a-days the bigger 3-gun matches are trying real hard to get 400 yard plus flash targets out there. As good as the CQT is, a higher magnification with a finer aiming point would be better.

[Big Bore]

Drop Dave Neth a pm about it and ask him about his new scope. He's using the reticle inside a 30mm tube 1x5 leupold. Pretty trick stuff. I like the cqt for the most part. It's weight keeps me from ranking it high.

I thought you mainly shot irons....or did you just shoot irons at the 06 Ironman?

As for the CQT it is not necessarily a bad optic, there are just much better and more versatile optics to be had in that price range.

Almost universally you will hear Meopta as the first choice.

Do a quick search in the rifle technical forum and there is a metric shit ton of "which" optic threads to read.

+1

[kellyn]

I "which" it had more than 3X also Kelly, and as for Bennie Cooley, he still owes me money! KurtM

Damn, I've started spelling like you! I'm infected!

If you cannot catch Bennie Cooley then I cannot help you.

[Sterling White]

Older I get the more important a scope becomes! Have been thinking about the surgery on the ol eyes but.....big decision.