Eye Glasses and Shooting

Probably not, unless you find the fountain of youth.

If you are pistol shooting (you didn't specify) the solution is fairly straightforward. Tell your optometrist that you want to see the front sight very, very clearly and if the bull/target is necessarily fuzzy with that diopter, so be it.

As an LEO I used a "jeweler's spot" of about 3/4" diameter in the upper right corner of the RH lens (I am right handed and dominant-eyed) placed where I wanted it for the Weaver stance. The exact location where someone else would want it might vary, but the principle remains. The rest of the lens was for normal distance vision which I needed also.

This was simple, economical, and it has worked well for me for twenty years now. I use a variant of it for military rifle aperture sights but that is much harder to arrive at the compromise needed. A target at 200 yards and out is harder to reconcile with a sharp front sight than one at pistol distances is.

Just make sure that you deal with an optometrist who will listen to you and give you what *you* want. Repeat "razor sharp front sight" as many times as you have to until he gets it.

which target?

Mr. Schmecky:

You describe as either seeing one or the other.

Let's focus. When viewing the front sight, in focus, the target does not actually disappear does it? Or does it just become blurry; indistinct.
But, it is still in your vision isn't it? Take a look the next time you are at the range.
This is a phenomenon of vision that all shooters work with.
Having the front sight in good view permits it's precise alignment to the rear one, and any small error is detectable. The front sight is the actual "target" for your vision.The rear sight too will be out of your focus while doing this.

While a small error in placing the front sight in alignment with the blurry -distant target, is just that; a small error of impact for the bullet.
A slight misalignment of the front sight in the rear one will result in a greater error of bullet placement.

Having explained this however, may I also tell you of my trifocals?
I'm nearsighted. The opposite of you. I have had an "intermediate" prescription ground into the center of my glasses between the larger far distance prescription, and the smaller near vision prescription used for close work like reading. It is a oblong or retangular area that is just below the horizontal center of my lenses, so that I can get a "clear" image of front sights, or any object at "arm's length" from my eyes.

I hope this clears things up a little.

Jim

Hello everyone

You might trying calling some like Post 4 Optics. They do prescription shooting glasses, at the very least they may have some helpful advice. I have never used them, but if my eyesight gets any worse I probably will.

Have a wonderful day

DITTO - I have the same issue.

I am going to Wal-Mart and get some shooting classes made. I am having them made from a low end saftey glasses w/ perscription lenses. It is going to be about $89.00 - $115.00, depending on type of lenses and any shading, (Yellow lenses.)

schmeky, your reading glasses are probably a bit strong. Just a suggestion, but you might try a cheap pair of weak 1 or 1.5 diopter reading glasses from the dollar store. They worked for me. They helped sharpen up the front sight and didn't blur the target too badly. For info, I'm 20-20, but, from age, I've lost the elasticity needed to focus closely.

I wear bifocals with the VariLux II lens that does a decent job of allowing
me too obtain a perfect sight picture; most of the time~!

I've been wearing tri focals for many years.
The top lens is for distance.
The bottom lens is for reading.

The center lens is focused at about arm's length. I original got the lens to see the aircraft instruments clearly. It makes the front seat passenger nervous when you keep asking him, "What is the reading on that instrument now".
That lens allows for a normal sight picture, clear front sight, slightly fuzzy back sight and very fuzzy target.

In the past I've told people that can't focus on the front sight, to get a pair of cheap "reading" glasses that are focused on the thumb nail of their outstretched arm, to wear when shooting.

Eventually most of us end up with glasses with distance and reading lenses but that 3-5 foot distance is still fuzzy, thus the need for the center lens.

It comes with age . Just wear your glasses and enjoy shooting

If you figure it out w/o selling your soul, PM me!

Eye Glasses

I picked up a pair of plastic glasses at Sears that are used for running weed wackers and other things like that. They are no magnification and fit over my regular glasses just fine and don't change my vision focus.

+1 on the Varilux

If your main purpose is target shooting I don't have any help,
if your main purpose is defensive shooting a laser is great!

I wear trifocals which causes problems an order of magnitude worse than bifocals. I shoot for defensive puposes only and the laser has more than solved my sighting problems!

It SUCKS, but that was the hand I was dealt... I'm considering contact lenses or Lasik since my vision correction is not extreme.

PLUS 1 on it SUCKS.

BUT, what can you do.

About 3 years ago I started wearing VARILUX progressive lenses.

Some days it just takes a few rounds to find the "sweet spot" in the lens for the proper focusing distance.

I tried contacts, the reuslt was semi good distance vision ( I have a LOT of Astigmatism) and NO near vision.

I am not a candidate for LASIX.

If I go the range in the morning I get a much better sight picture than if I go in the afternoon.

I am thinking of geting a pair of DISTANCE only shooting glasses to work with.

If you are getting into your 40s and have problems seeing the sights, LASIK is not going to help.

This article might help explain things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyopia

Do yourself a favor and get one of these: http://www.meritcorporation.com/products.html
It sticks on your glasses with a suction cup. I couldn't see anything with iron sights until I got this. Have been using it for over two years now and winning money once in a while too!
Tom

Contacts Did It

Hi all,

Dienekes and I use the same approach. I spoke clearly and concisely with my optometrist on the distance that I wanted crystal clear resolution. It took a few times of him repeating back to me until we got it.

He provided a pair of test contact lenses that are bifocals and EUREKA! The shooting has been fine ever since. Rifle and pistol iron sights are super clear and I get what I get (which is ok) on the target. Clay pigeons are big enough not to matter.

Zombies are in focus too.....

John

"Schmecky:"

Just a postscript for "clarification."

As you describe it "the target is blurry to the point of being very vague" is how it is how it is supposed to be. At least from my understanding of normal vision; "depth of field" of the human eye.
I'm not an optomotrist nor opthamologist either; but discuss this with your specialist, and they can explain it better than I have attempted to do.

If you are unable to concentrate with that type of image, the small aperatures that fix to your lens as "Gunny45" mentioned are a considerable improvement.

The accomplishment is to deal with that vague target image, all the while maintaining the good sight image. The good sight image more than compensates for the blurry target appearance.

There is an opposite example of this in the martial arts; wherein you may see an old picture of some of the oriental "masters" staring off into space, like they are in a trance. The teaching was not to focus on your antagonist directly in contact with you, but to maintain your vision in the wide angle mode so that you are aware of all going on in your surroundings.
Sounds risky, but those who are able to do this can testify that any offensive movements made by the antagonist, even though he is not "focused on," will be immediately and reflexively recognized.
And the reaction will be reflexive too, not thought out.

-So goes the focus on the front sight blade with the downrange target being out of focus in this instance.

Hope I've been helpful rather than too detailed.