Went shooting today, man my eyesight is getting bad!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Riomouse911

Riomouse911

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
11,882
Location
Ca.
I went to my local indoor range to put a couple hundred rounds through the Ruger Mk III govt target.

I brought along a box of Winchester 222-count .22 LR hp’s, and bought an overpriced box of Armscor at the range just to try them out.

One fail to load with the Win out of about 150 fired. One fail to eject with Armscor out of the 50 shot.

Winchester’s shot point-of-aim, Armscor were a tad quieter and hit regularly just bit lower on the targets.

I was shooting at a multi-target rim fire “bullseye “ sheet with 20 5” squares arranged 4 to a row. The individual targets on the sheet had what look like 1” black bullseye centers that looked like pinpricks when I sent it out to 20 yards, so I pulled it in and fired them at 10. I booted a few flyers due to anticipation, but a few other targets kept all 10 in the black.

Man, I had a tough time keeping focus on the undercut front sight (black). Everything quickly started
Blurring up and going fuzzy, causing me to have to take my eyes away from the sights and then refocus. I wear glasses for distance, and this was the first time I had such a hard time keeping the front in focus.

I seriously pray this is not a sign that my peepers are deteriorating rapidly :eek:! It’s been a month since I last shot and my vision was worse than the last trip.

I will be making an appt with the eye doctor soon to see where my Rx is now. Does anyone have any suggestions about sight alteration (coloring orange, etc) and whether it helps on these guns?

Thanks!
 
I use Testor fluorescent paint, orange or red. I also have a set of glasses that were prescribed for front-sight distance. Your optometrist will surely do that for you.
 
Your problem could just be allergies! Lot of "stuff" floating around in early summer.
 
Color helps, but arms length distance and closer is usually the length that middle age eyes start having trouble focusing. That started for me when I turned 40. You might need reading glasses, but that really doesn't work for shooting though.
 
At 60 and with trifocals I have to just wear regular safety glasses. I’m right handed but last several years I have had to use my left eye when shooting handguns with iron sights. Front sight is sharp but target not so but can’t do this with my right eye.

Bought a cheap Firefield reflex for my 686 and it lets me shoot like I’m 20 again and the good thing is I can use my trifocals.
Only thing is some of my revolvers are not drilled to mount any optics and I really don’t want to on some of them.
Shot a friends 629 with a Burris Fast Fire 3 and haven’t shot that good in years.
 
An inch at 10 ain't bad, My best on any given day is 1" at 7 and I will throw a few out of the group. I know what you mean though, at 60 I'm ramping up the reading glasses, at 1.5's right now. On indoor ranges my limit is about 10 yards too, at 15 the target is just way too blurry. With the afore mentioned readers my front blade is pretty sharp.
Outdoors is a very different story, I still need the same readers but my distant vision is still fairly sharp, I suppose there's no substitute for daylight. Last year I scoped another rifle because I'm hopeless with iron sights and long guns. Reeferman, I'm seriously toying with the idea of a Burris Fastfire on my Ruger MK1.

Riomouse I realize I wandered off of your question about sight color. One thing that saves my hide on indoor ranges is that I use 2" stick on dots, the orange that shows around the front sight gives me pretty good reference. I've even toyed with the idea of trying entirely white sights to give good contrast on targets with a lot of black ink.

Last Thursday's effort, first effort in a few months as well. CZ85 on a 2" orange dot at 7 yards.

czthurs.jpg
 
Last edited:
Red dot is the single most valuable acquisition you can make for deteriorating eyesight. If you get bifocals or progressives, be sure to have the “+” prescription start fairly high on the lens so you don’t have to raise up your head at a stupid angle to focus on the front sight or dot.
 
I had to get glasses (progressives) for the first time in my life last year. I'm 62. Hadn't yet been shooting, but noticed it while driving, and so made the appt. Don't know if I would have had trouble shooting, as I hadn't shot anything in years, before. No issues with sight in my 3 range trips over the last couple weeks, though.
 
Riomouse911 said:
Man, I had a tough time keeping focus on the undercut front sight (black). Everything quickly started
Blurring up and going fuzzy, causing me to have to take my eyes away from the sights and then refocus. I wear glasses for distance, and this was the first time I had such a hard time keeping the front in focus.

I seriously pray this is not a sign that my peepers are deteriorating rapidly :eek:! It’s been a month since I last shot and my vision was worse than the last trip.
Click to expand...

I struggle with this also Riomouse. Sometimes I walk away, dab my eyes with a soft towel, and try again. I can see the target OK, but sights are a little blurry. I've made it work so far, as I'm not ready to go red dot....but that day is coming. :( Also, I shoot outdoors, so lighting is better, and that helps.
 
sparkyv said:
I struggle with this also Riomouse. Sometimes I walk away, dab my eyes with a soft towel, and try again. I can see the target OK, but sights are a little blurry. I've made it work so far, as I'm not ready to go red dot....but that day is coming. :(
Click to expand...
When you do make the switch, you’ll wonder why you waited so long. I would be surprised if you didn’t see an immediate 20+% group size reduction with the red dot.
 
rpenmanparker said:
When you do make the switch, you’ll wonder why you waited so long. I would be surprised if you didn’t see an immediate 20+% group size reduction with the red dot.
Click to expand...

I believe you, rpenmanparker, but I have a "prepper" mentality that makes me a bit stubborn w.r.t. electronics...that's also why I use a beam scale and dial calipers for handloading. Plus, I like the challenge!
 
I have a couple or three handguns with red dots and that seems to be the simplest and best solution to aging eyes. BUT--- I like to shoot with iron sights. I can do it with my progressives but it requires me me to keep my head higher than I prefer and this quickly becomes a problem for me. Raising the correction height would make them pretty much worthless for everyday use as I would have to go around with my head ducked down for them to work correctly. My solution was to go to Walmart and start trying on reading glasses that gave me sharp focus on the end of my finger held at arms length with my head held in my normal shooting position. I thought if I brought a pistol into the store to use it might cause a little concern. o_O It works for me and, yes, the target is a little fuzzy. If I remember right from the long ago day when I needed no glasses the target was a little fuzzy then also. The eye just can't handle the different distances all at one time.

The eye glass solution isn't going to last. I'm on my third pair of readers, each a little stronger than the last. At least they are cheap. The red dot doesn't differ as your eyes change, at least in my experience
 
Last edited:
rpenmanparker said:
Red dot is the single most valuable acquisition you can make for deteriorating eyesight. If you get trifocals or progressives, be sure to have the “+” prescription start fairly high on the lens so you don’t have to raise up your head at a stupid angle to focus on the front sight or dot.
Click to expand...
That works great for your 'shooting only' glasses, but a bad idea if they will be your everyday wear pair. This causes overcorrection for distance viewing and results in more rapid deterioration of your vision. I also corrected your statement- setting lined bifocals up higher will have no benefit, as they correct for near vision, which is too short for handgun use.
 
entropy said:
That works great for your 'shooting only' glasses, but a bad idea if they will be your everyday wear pair. This causes overcorrection for distance viewing and results in more rapid deterioration of your vision. I also corrected your statement- setting lined bifocals up higher will have no benefit, as they correct for near vision, which is too short for handgun use.
Click to expand...

Yup my eye doc said to afford using reading glasses especially the cheap Chinese ones for as long as I can as well. I do have a strong pair for doing close up work or for reading but try to only for a short time.
 
entropy said:
That works great for your 'shooting only' glasses, but a bad idea if they will be your everyday wear pair. This causes overcorrection for distance viewing and results in more rapid deterioration of your vision. I also corrected your statement- setting lined bifocals up higher will have no benefit, as they correct for near vision, which is too short for handgun use.
Click to expand...

That is not quite right. You can make the close vision part of the lens any "add" level that you want. It would be easy for the optometrist to determine your perfect add level for a front sight, which is about 24 inches or so from the eyes. Just tell him how close or far you want the close vision to be set for. For example I have my add level set for 16" since I don't like to read as close as the standard 12-14".
 
You are confusing add power, segment height, and focal distance. (Also segment type) In order to be able to use a lens for clearly seeing the front sight on a pistol, the focal distance needs to be set for that distance. The part of the lens you look through to see that front sight is the intermediate vision part-on a progressive lens, this is about halfway down towards the full power. on a lined trifocal, it is the intermediate segement. On a lined bifocal, it is non-existent, because the add power for lined bifocals is set for the reading distance. (in your case, 16", the standard is 40cm.)
Yes, you can have your optician (OD's and MD's set the add power and focal distance, opticians set the segment height) set the segment height, in conjunction with you OD or MD setting the add power, and focal distance of a lined bifocal for the distance of your front sight, but those glasses will be useful only for that.
 
Last edited:
entropy said:
You are confusing add power, segment height, and focal distance. (Also segment type) In order to be able to use a lens for clearly seeing the front sight on a pistol, the focal distance needs to be set for that distance. The part of the lens you look through to see that front sight is the intermediate vision part-on a progressive lens, this is about halfway down towards the full power. on a lined trifocal, it is the intermediate segement. On a lined bifocal, it is non-existent, because the add power for lined bifocals is set for the reading distance. (in your case, 16", the standard is 40cm.)
Yes, you can have your optician (OD's and MD's set the add power and focal distance, opticians set the segment height) set the segment height, in conjunction with you OD or MD setting the add power, and focal distance of a lined bifocal for the distance of your front sight, but those glasses will be useful only for that.
Click to expand...


My eye doc mentioned doing an intermediate pair of glasses but the cost of them and only being able to use them for handgun only just didn’t make sense to me. I know a couple guys that did this and one thinks it’s great but the other doesn’t.
I tried using the intermediate lens in my trifocals and just didn’t like it.
 
entropy said:
You are confusing add power, segment height, and focal distance. (Also segment type) In order to be able to use a lens for clearly seeing the front sight on a pistol, the focal distance needs to be set for that distance. The part of the lens you look through to see that front sight is the intermediate vision part-on a progressive lens, this is about halfway down towards the full power. on a lined trifocal, it is the intermediate segement. On a lined bifocal, it is non-existent, because the add power for lined bifocals is set for the reading distance. (in your case, 16", the standard is 40cm.)
Yes, you can have your optician (OD's and MD's set the add power and focal distance, opticians set the segment height) set the segment height, in conjunction with you OD or MD setting the add power, and focal distance of a lined bifocal for the distance of your front sight, but those glasses will be useful only for that.
Click to expand...
I imagine we are saying the same thing, but this is how I understand it and how it works in practice for me. Optical prescriptions don’t have any soecifstion of focal length per se. Just like trying out readers at the drugstore, add power moves your sharp vision closer to your eyes. If you are near-sighted and want to read books at 12 inches distance from your eyes, you need your reading glasses, bifocals or progressives to be based on more diopters add power than if you want to read at 18 inches away.
 
rpenmanparker said:
Optical prescriptions don’t have any specification of focal length per se.
Click to expand...

Actually they do, but they are not written out unless they are different from the definitions below.


Near vision is generally defined by the ABO as ≤ 40 cm., intermediate vision as > 40cm-@ 6m., and distance vision is beyond that. (Defined as ocular infinity) RX's will either be written as single vision distance, single vision intermediate (computer glasses), or single vision near. (Also written as NVO) , that is reading glasses, or will be written with a distance correction and a near vision add power. Those wanting intermediate vision only glasses must specify that to the Dr., as an optician cannot legally infer that from a standard Rx with a reading add.

rpenmanparker said:
If you are near-sighted and want to read books at 12 inches distance from your eyes, you need your reading glasses, bifocals or progressives to be based on more diopters add power than if you want to read at 18 inches away.
Click to expand...

Unless you have low vision to begin with, (Low vision is defined as 20/70 with best correction) ), there will be negligeble difference in dioptric add power between 12 and 18 in. The slight changes in a progressive lens will more than accomodate this. The change in focal length is just not great enough to increase the NV add power to increase effective reading distance until you get up in to ±10 Diopters.

Trust me, I do know what I am talking about. I have over 10 years of optical lab and optician experience including teaching both positions.
 
entropy said:
until you get up in to ±10 Diopters
Click to expand...
Mid 8's and climbing here. =(

I recently put a Fastfire 3 on one of my 9's,,, It's different, not bad. I reckon more practice is needed as neither the Wife or I currently 'draw' to the point where we can see the dot in the viewer,,, (We both need to point 'down' to find it )

Of course, if one shakes with a laser, you'll shake with a red dot just the same,,,

(I laugh it off and tell the wife I just pretend like I'm shooting clays!,,, PULL!!!,,,, :D)
 
As we get older, our eyes lose their ability to focus at different distances. The solution is bi- or tri-focals. I've always been near sighted which means close objects, like the front sight on a handgun, are naturally in focus. To shoot, I take off my bifocals and put on a pair of uncorrected safety glasses from Home Depot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Target Focus with Two-Eyed Shooting
Replies
13
Views
862
Vern Humphrey
V
F
  • Locked
Sight alignment question from a newbie...
Replies
14
Views
790
Ankeny
A
P
  • Locked
Improving my pistol shooting...help
Replies
18
Views
1K
Sean Smith
S
Mike OTDP
  • Locked
Pistol Marksmanship 101
Replies
1
Views
779
Mike OTDP
Mike OTDP
1KPerDay
  • Locked
"clear front sight"/ Front sight, press?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
1KPerDay
1KPerDay
Back
Top