Leupold CQT

[Highdraglowspeed]

I was wondering if anyone out there in FalFiles land has any experience with one of these, I've heard some good things about them but I would like somthing from the sources.
I used to use a Leupold M1 scope on my 21" barrrel STG.

I have been wanting to try a variable power optic on my short FAL for a while, as it only has an Eotech 552 on it right now.

So how does the CQT stack up to the EOtech or an Aimpoint CompML2, and does it have any really nice pros or crippling cons?

[Mad Dog 7.62]

I have used one. Pros: reticule is visible in daylight without the sight being "turned on". Batteries are only needed at night. Operates at 1x like an Aimpoint, or can be switched to 3x for longer range work. Leupold quality, well made. Cons: Heavier and more cumbersome than an Aimpoint or EOTech. Sits a bit higher than I like. Its only a 20mm lens, so it does not have as wide a FOV as a Aimpoint or EOTech. I actually sold mine and bought an EOTech for the FAL I had it on. If the CQT were more compact and sat a bit lower on its mount, I would have like it better.
MD

[Highdraglowspeed]

Are there any really low mounts for it? I've used an Aimpoint with the really low factory mount that isn't to bad.

And can the CQT even remotely cowitness?

[bigant]

Originally posted by Highdraglowspeed
Are there any really low mounts for it? I've used an Aimpoint with the really low factory mount that isn't to bad.

And can the CQT even remotely cowitness?

The ARMS Mount looks to be a lower Profile......

Ant

[55bird]

I can report what I've seen at dozens of 3-gun and rifle matches.EOTech excellent out to 100 M,Smaller(6")plates are smaller than the reticle at 200M.At 3 hundred you're lost.The CQT excells at 200M but it seems 300M is the limit for 6"plates at these distances for it too.The jury is still out on the Ultimate tactical sighting device.I lean towards a custom made US Optics,but thats just me dreaming for a $2000+ that I will never spend for.

[caporider]

The CQ/T is a nice optic with excellent glass and very good reticle illumination. However, it mounts way too high on a FAL because the scope is designed with the battery compartment below the optical tube, so there is not way to low mount it.

As you can see, the optic requires a chin weld to use (sorry, not the best pic):

http://www.visuality.com/personal/fal/fal_cqt.jpg

If you want a variable 1-3x or 1-4x optic on a FAL, you ought to get a Meopta or IOR + the lowest rings you can find.

[1811GNR]

Is the CQT set up to mount on an AR carry handle, without the rail adapter? If so could one use the DSA mount that is machined for the ACOG?

[caporider]

Originally posted by 1811GNR
Is the CQT set up to mount on an AR carry handle, without the rail adapter? If so could one use the DSA mount that is machined for the ACOG?

The attachment screw configuration of the CQ/T is different from that of the ACOG. I suppose you could modify the DSA ACOG rail mount, but there is still the matter of the battery compartment below the optical tube, which will push the CQ/T quite high no matter the mount.

The CQ/T is designed to attach to the upper receiver rail of a flattop AR. There, it works like a champ:

http://www.visuality.com/personal/dissy/dissy_act.jpg

Any other application will result in less than ideal cheek weld. This scope is certainly not well suited for a FAL.

Again, for the price, you're better off with a Meopta or IOR 1-4x variable and low rings.