The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Bartholomew Roberts · July 15, 2002, 05:58 PM

I noticed this article by Steve Malloy in your magazine and was anxious to read it as I had a chance to evaluate the CQT myself and found it not to my tastes.

I was somewhat surprised to see almost no negatives at all mentioned in the article though. I think a desire for non-battery illumination was all the author found troubling with it.

I can certainly understand that people with more experience than me might have a vastly different opinion on any particular piece of gear; but I was curious that none of the complaints I had read about or experienced first hand turned up in this article.

A few things that bothered me about the CQT were:

1) Small objective is like looking through a straw
2) Eye relief rather short to use as an Aimpoint style unmagnified sight. its possible; but not as easy.
3) Illuminated reticle difficult to acquire against a brightly lit tan/brown background (which is basically anywhere outdoors in parts of Texas)
5) Weight compared to other options in the same niche
6) Price relative to other options in the same niche
7) Limited battery life

Obviously, I don't expect reviewers to mirror my likes and dislikes 100% but I had come to expect a tough but fair review of products from SWAT and it surprises me that with such a laundry list of things I personally found unsatisfactory with the CQT that the SWAT review was such a contrast with my own experience. It was even more surprising given lukewarm comments on the CQT made by several other SWAT authors in forums in the past.

On the other hand, great article by Jeff Gonzales. I enjoyed his last one as well and while I haven't made it past the Leupold in the magazine yet, I look forward to the other articles with my usual anticipation of SWATs excellent coverage.

July 15, 2002, 05:58 PM	#1
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Leupold CQT I noticed this article by Steve Malloy in your magazine and was anxious to read it as I had a chance to evaluate the CQT myself and found it not to my tastes. I was somewhat surprised to see almost no negatives at all mentioned in the article though. I think a desire for non-battery illumination was all the author found troubling with it. I can certainly understand that people with more experience than me might have a vastly different opinion on any particular piece of gear; but I was curious that none of the complaints I had read about or experienced first hand turned up in this article. A few things that bothered me about the CQT were: 1) Small objective is like looking through a straw 2) Eye relief rather short to use as an Aimpoint style unmagnified sight. its possible; but not as easy. 3) Illuminated reticle difficult to acquire against a brightly lit tan/brown background (which is basically anywhere outdoors in parts of Texas) 5) Weight compared to other options in the same niche 6) Price relative to other options in the same niche 7) Limited battery life Obviously, I don't expect reviewers to mirror my likes and dislikes 100% but I had come to expect a tough but fair review of products from SWAT and it surprises me that with such a laundry list of things I personally found unsatisfactory with the CQT that the SWAT review was such a contrast with my own experience. It was even more surprising given lukewarm comments on the CQT made by several other SWAT authors in forums in the past. On the other hand, great article by Jeff Gonzales. I enjoyed his last one as well and while I haven't made it past the Leupold in the magazine yet, I look forward to the other articles with my usual anticipation of SWATs excellent coverage.