- SurvivalBlog.com - https://survivalblog.com -

MBR Scope Selection: Trijicon TA-11E Versus Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T

[1] [2] [3] [4]

My 2006 Ten Cent Challenge [5] contribution is on the way, via snail-mail. Congratulations on “cutting the cord”.

I’ve decided against the Trijicon [6] TA-11E ACOG [7] purchase. I interviewed a local who owns one of the Trijicon fiber-optic scopes. It has cracks in the fiber optic element, but the scope still works. I spoke with a Trijicon customer service representative who said:
1. The fiber optic often breaks from stress or impact. The tritium will not power the scope during daylight so the scope is “down” until dim light or the fiber optic is replaced.
2. The company is aware of the problem and is addressing it. That may be why we’re seeing the Docter red dot [8] being mounted on some models. I did not verify that with the customer service rep.
One other drawback IMHO is an ACOG-series scope is protected by a cover that is relatively slow to remove.
I’ve settled on the Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T [9] for my Main Battle Rifle (MBR), [10] instead. It’s more robust than the fiber-optic ACOG and uses flip-up lens covers for inclement weather.
It also has two integrated MIL-STD-1913 rail mount cross-slots for accessories like lights.
Its field of view at 3X is three times that of the 4X ACOG.
Like the ACOG it needs no battery. Unlike the true “red dot” sights, the night-vision compatible circle dot reticle is always present but requires a AA battery only for illumination. The CQ/T can be used as a 9 MOA [11] dot sight with no magnification or [it can be] be turned up to 3X for a more precise 3 MOA dot.
And it costs several hundred dollars less! No bullet drop compensation (BDC [12]), though. (You have to go to the company’s MR/T line for that.)
I’m sure that the CQ/T has its limitations, too. Just thought I’d give you some food for thought.
I am eagerly awaiting delivery of my copy of your “Rawles Gets You Ready” preparedness course [13].
Regards, – “Redmist”