A few members from another thread asked me to give some thoughts and opinions on the relatively new 3-18 Match Pro ED I recently obtained. So I figured I would take a bit more time, get to the range with it a couple of times and then report back. And now for the usual caveat that I am not an expert, optical engineer, or in the industry, I'm just a slightly above average trigger puller that is a part time scope snob.
Why the 3-18 MPED?
I was looking for a medium powered optic that would round out a SOLGW Broadsword SPR type rifle. The scope I was looking for had to have a tree style reticle and a weight that would not cause the rifle to feel top heavy. There were a few options that I had on my radar such as the Kahles K318i, Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18, and a couple 3-15 options. While researching these optics, I was surprised how good the MPED looked on paper. The length, weight, and especially the FOV got my attention. The FOV specs made the MPED a bit more appealing at 41ft @3x and 6.8ft @ 18x. The Kahles by comparison is 27.8ft @3.5x and 5.5ft @18x with the Mark 5 is 28.3ft @3.6x and 5.8ft @18x. Now I know what you're thinking, the Kahles and Mark 5 have about 0.5x more magnificaton at the low end which is true, but that 0.5x is only going to make up a couple of feet to the overall FOV leaving the MPED with a distinct advantage. I like my Kahles scopes so the K318i would have been my preference but I just didn't want to spend that kind of money right now. The Mark 5 would have been a good choice being the lightest and shortest but I had looked through one a while back and seemed to recall them to have some tunneling. That, and to be honest, I'm just not a fan of any Leupold reticles though I could have maybe found one with an H59. For me, having owned a couple of Bushnell Ellite Tacticals, made the MPED somewhat of a known quanty. While not the best scope on the market, it seemed to be a well rounded optic and a very reasonalble price.
The MPED.
The opic overall is exactly what you would expect from Bushnell. The overall finish and build quality is very good and for the most part, seems identical to the Elite Tactical DMR3 I have. The two optics seem to use the same power ring, diopeter ring, and elevattion turret which would make sense from a mass production standpoint. At a glance the MPED would just appear to be a lower magnification version of the DMR3 but it would seem to me the DMR3 is built more robustly because it weighs about 7 ounces more. The turrets feel much like those on the DMR3 which is to say good, but not great. While it is easy to feel each click of the turret, there is very little audible feedback. I wouldn't call them mushy, just not "clicky." To me, some of the lack of clickiness is made up for with the large markings on the turrets, something I really appreciate and wish more mfg's would start doing (looking at you Tangent). The elevation knob does lock just like previous iterations of ET scopes with a simply pull up/push down. Also, now would be a good time to point out the capped windage knob. A feature I'm sure most will apprciate since with modern scopes and reticles holding for wind has become the norm.
The illumination is bright, but I am not sure if it's quite daylight bright. The illumination knob is pretty standard, a bit stiff maybe, but It is nice that Bushnell gave us off settings between each brightness setting. One really nice feature I didn't anticipate was the scope coming with shake awake illumination. It is a nice touch and works really well, just a very light touch lit the reticle no problem. The shake awake is supposed to turn the reticle off after 10 minutes, I didn't test mine but I have no reason to doubt it. The parallax knob rotates nice and smooth but is a bit stiff right now but it may get easier with time. One thing for sure, I don't know why Bushnell sets their parallax knob backwards to I think all other scopes. I'm used to rolling forward to focus further down range but it is just the opposite with Bushnell scopes for some reason.
The Reticle.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the reticle primarily because it is so subjective. The Deploy Mil 2 reticle in the MPED is very much akin to the Horus H59. If you like that type of reticle, this one should suit your needs well. I personally do like the H59 and Tremor style reticles so the DM2 reticle works perfectly for me. Overall the reticle in my opinion is well executed with numbers down each side and across both sides of the stadia. Reticle thickness looks about average and seems to work well though I imagine a few people may think it's too thick, hence the subjectivity. One thing I will point out is how the large stadia at the 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions work very well for centering on targets at low magnification.
The glass.
Yet another very subjective aspect of optics is the usual question of just how good is the glass? This part is going to be somewhat of an apples to oranges comparision becuase I don't have any other 3-18 scopes to compare the MPED directly to. Instead, I did compare it to a couple of the spare scopes I have laying around at the same magnification. It was compared to the aforementioned DMR3 and to a Schmidt and Bender 5-25 PMII. In an effort to keep things somewhat even, I set up a resolution chart at 100 yards. Between the subjective aspect of comparing optical performance and the fact that my eyes aren't what they used to be, I'm going to try to let the pictures do the talking. Keeping in mind that any digital photo taken through a scope and then uploaded will not give a fair representation of optical clarity. With that said, here's the spoiler alert... the MPED came in third place among these three scopes, but it held it's own for sure. The MPED seemed plenty bright with a good wide open feel. The color and and contrast was good, just not as good as scopes that cost two or five times as much. Overall clarity on the resolution chart fell a bit short as well but really only by one or two lines depending on the mirage. At the low end it again had a really nice wide open FOV and seemed very clear. The depth of field was not as broad as the DMR3 or the PMII but that was something i didn't notice but instead had to go looking for. The eye box was very forgiving at lower magnifications which is typical for the most part while at 18X, it was very useable. I did not feel like I was searching for a clear picture at all, it was just kinda there when I got behind the rifle.
I'll through in an anecdote here. While at the range and taking pictures through all three scopes, another range member stopped by who is a former LEO and a regular shooter. I asked him for his opinion on the clarity and image of each one. The short version is that he liked the MPED but said it definitly was not as clear as the DMR3. And interestingly enough, he said he could not tell the difference between the DMR3 and the PMII.
MPED 3X
DMR3 @ 3.5x (sorry about the cant)
PMII @ 5X Notice the usual PMII tunneling at low power.
MPED @ 18X
DMR3 @ 18X
PMII @ 18X
This is the MPED @ 18X with the illumination on the highest setting on a clear sunny day. Though it is very bright, it's only barely visible off of the white target.
Summary
Overall, I like the MPED and beiieve it's a really nice scope at a really good price point. I do think it hits above it's price point but without direct comparison to another 3-18 I can't say definitively. The MPED certainly has a lot going for it regarding the weight, FOV, and features like the shake awake. The turrets are big and feel solid much like the Elite Tactical scope line. It definiately has it's place and would be a good choice for an SPR/DMR rifle, hunting rifle, are just a good scope for a new shooter who's not sure about spending a ton of money at first. As for my application, I like the way it looks and feels on the Broadsword and I think it would serve the purpose well. However, not realizing just how similar the MPED is to the DMR3 before getting it in my hands, I'm not sure the MPED is going to stay where it is. In reality, the only real physical difference between the two is the weight, surprisingly the DMR3 is actually a touch shorter. With that said, I will have to decide if I will stick with the MPED or go with the DMR3 with the better glass and just deal with the extra half pound or so...
CM
Why the 3-18 MPED?
I was looking for a medium powered optic that would round out a SOLGW Broadsword SPR type rifle. The scope I was looking for had to have a tree style reticle and a weight that would not cause the rifle to feel top heavy. There were a few options that I had on my radar such as the Kahles K318i, Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18, and a couple 3-15 options. While researching these optics, I was surprised how good the MPED looked on paper. The length, weight, and especially the FOV got my attention. The FOV specs made the MPED a bit more appealing at 41ft @3x and 6.8ft @ 18x. The Kahles by comparison is 27.8ft @3.5x and 5.5ft @18x with the Mark 5 is 28.3ft @3.6x and 5.8ft @18x. Now I know what you're thinking, the Kahles and Mark 5 have about 0.5x more magnificaton at the low end which is true, but that 0.5x is only going to make up a couple of feet to the overall FOV leaving the MPED with a distinct advantage. I like my Kahles scopes so the K318i would have been my preference but I just didn't want to spend that kind of money right now. The Mark 5 would have been a good choice being the lightest and shortest but I had looked through one a while back and seemed to recall them to have some tunneling. That, and to be honest, I'm just not a fan of any Leupold reticles though I could have maybe found one with an H59. For me, having owned a couple of Bushnell Ellite Tacticals, made the MPED somewhat of a known quanty. While not the best scope on the market, it seemed to be a well rounded optic and a very reasonalble price.
The MPED.
The opic overall is exactly what you would expect from Bushnell. The overall finish and build quality is very good and for the most part, seems identical to the Elite Tactical DMR3 I have. The two optics seem to use the same power ring, diopeter ring, and elevattion turret which would make sense from a mass production standpoint. At a glance the MPED would just appear to be a lower magnification version of the DMR3 but it would seem to me the DMR3 is built more robustly because it weighs about 7 ounces more. The turrets feel much like those on the DMR3 which is to say good, but not great. While it is easy to feel each click of the turret, there is very little audible feedback. I wouldn't call them mushy, just not "clicky." To me, some of the lack of clickiness is made up for with the large markings on the turrets, something I really appreciate and wish more mfg's would start doing (looking at you Tangent). The elevation knob does lock just like previous iterations of ET scopes with a simply pull up/push down. Also, now would be a good time to point out the capped windage knob. A feature I'm sure most will apprciate since with modern scopes and reticles holding for wind has become the norm.
The illumination is bright, but I am not sure if it's quite daylight bright. The illumination knob is pretty standard, a bit stiff maybe, but It is nice that Bushnell gave us off settings between each brightness setting. One really nice feature I didn't anticipate was the scope coming with shake awake illumination. It is a nice touch and works really well, just a very light touch lit the reticle no problem. The shake awake is supposed to turn the reticle off after 10 minutes, I didn't test mine but I have no reason to doubt it. The parallax knob rotates nice and smooth but is a bit stiff right now but it may get easier with time. One thing for sure, I don't know why Bushnell sets their parallax knob backwards to I think all other scopes. I'm used to rolling forward to focus further down range but it is just the opposite with Bushnell scopes for some reason.
The Reticle.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the reticle primarily because it is so subjective. The Deploy Mil 2 reticle in the MPED is very much akin to the Horus H59. If you like that type of reticle, this one should suit your needs well. I personally do like the H59 and Tremor style reticles so the DM2 reticle works perfectly for me. Overall the reticle in my opinion is well executed with numbers down each side and across both sides of the stadia. Reticle thickness looks about average and seems to work well though I imagine a few people may think it's too thick, hence the subjectivity. One thing I will point out is how the large stadia at the 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions work very well for centering on targets at low magnification.
The glass.
Yet another very subjective aspect of optics is the usual question of just how good is the glass? This part is going to be somewhat of an apples to oranges comparision becuase I don't have any other 3-18 scopes to compare the MPED directly to. Instead, I did compare it to a couple of the spare scopes I have laying around at the same magnification. It was compared to the aforementioned DMR3 and to a Schmidt and Bender 5-25 PMII. In an effort to keep things somewhat even, I set up a resolution chart at 100 yards. Between the subjective aspect of comparing optical performance and the fact that my eyes aren't what they used to be, I'm going to try to let the pictures do the talking. Keeping in mind that any digital photo taken through a scope and then uploaded will not give a fair representation of optical clarity. With that said, here's the spoiler alert... the MPED came in third place among these three scopes, but it held it's own for sure. The MPED seemed plenty bright with a good wide open feel. The color and and contrast was good, just not as good as scopes that cost two or five times as much. Overall clarity on the resolution chart fell a bit short as well but really only by one or two lines depending on the mirage. At the low end it again had a really nice wide open FOV and seemed very clear. The depth of field was not as broad as the DMR3 or the PMII but that was something i didn't notice but instead had to go looking for. The eye box was very forgiving at lower magnifications which is typical for the most part while at 18X, it was very useable. I did not feel like I was searching for a clear picture at all, it was just kinda there when I got behind the rifle.
I'll through in an anecdote here. While at the range and taking pictures through all three scopes, another range member stopped by who is a former LEO and a regular shooter. I asked him for his opinion on the clarity and image of each one. The short version is that he liked the MPED but said it definitly was not as clear as the DMR3. And interestingly enough, he said he could not tell the difference between the DMR3 and the PMII.
MPED 3X
DMR3 @ 3.5x (sorry about the cant)
PMII @ 5X Notice the usual PMII tunneling at low power.
MPED @ 18X
DMR3 @ 18X
PMII @ 18X
This is the MPED @ 18X with the illumination on the highest setting on a clear sunny day. Though it is very bright, it's only barely visible off of the white target.
Summary
Overall, I like the MPED and beiieve it's a really nice scope at a really good price point. I do think it hits above it's price point but without direct comparison to another 3-18 I can't say definitively. The MPED certainly has a lot going for it regarding the weight, FOV, and features like the shake awake. The turrets are big and feel solid much like the Elite Tactical scope line. It definiately has it's place and would be a good choice for an SPR/DMR rifle, hunting rifle, are just a good scope for a new shooter who's not sure about spending a ton of money at first. As for my application, I like the way it looks and feels on the Broadsword and I think it would serve the purpose well. However, not realizing just how similar the MPED is to the DMR3 before getting it in my hands, I'm not sure the MPED is going to stay where it is. In reality, the only real physical difference between the two is the weight, surprisingly the DMR3 is actually a touch shorter. With that said, I will have to decide if I will stick with the MPED or go with the DMR3 with the better glass and just deal with the extra half pound or so...
CM
Last edited:
