I tried a version of your DIY version and found decreasing the hole to 1.5mm (~1/16") worked great for me on the indoor range with my contacts (optimized for distance for fishing and hunting).
Thanks for confirming that at least ONE person out there tried my trick...
The original thread got precious little feedback of that sort.
And yeah, if the target area your range is lit up well then going smaller works LOTS better. But once the image through the aperture becomes noticeably dim we quickly see a case of diminishing returns. For my club's range I found that the next bigger 3/32 size worked best. When I've used this trick for outdoor bullseye shooting the 1/16 worked best thanks to the brighter conditions.
The target doesn't mean anything. Only the front sight counts. If your vision has been corrected so that the front sight is perfectly clear you are just where you need to be.
Stu, I fully agree up to a point. And thankfully my own eyes aren't that far gone.... YET! And neither are yours. Be thankful for that.
But for those that need the more serious close in power glasses to see that front sight clearly the downside is that the target REALLY goes to hell as the power goes up.
Those that enjoy serious photography understand about depth of field and an acceptable degree of sharpness. And yes, we aren't doing wall portraits when we shoot. But to hit the target we still need to see it sharply ENOUGH that it actually resembles a target. As in we're talking that the shooter can't even make out the black center of a target. Instead the black center and buff outer just wash out to a light grey blur that mixes into the backstop. For folks like my buddy mentioned above and likely for nerfsrule this is likely the case if they use readers that allow for a sharp and distinct front blade.
In photography parlance their depth of field is greatly reduced by using the reading glasses to see the front blade with crystal clarity. So some degree of compromise is needed to where the front blade is still sharp enough and the target isn't washed out too badly. In photographic terms this means adjusting the focus so the focus point at some point in front of or behind the primary subject so that the near or far details could be sharpened up or sent more out of focus to blur them out and avoid taking the eye away from the main subject. For us shooters that is what selecting a mid power set of reading lenses does. It sets the focal point of our eyes a little in front of the front sight so that the target will still be a target, although fuzzy, and the rear blade will be sharp enough with just slightly soft edges to use clearly. It's a compromise. But it's a useable compromise that can be used well enough to avoid having to go with a scope or red dot for some time until the vision sinks further.
Nerfsrule, does that more or less describe what you have experienced? It's how my buddy described his view when we were working on finding the right power glasses for him.
Take heart though. Once you get to where you give up on trying to make plain irons work there's always red dots waiting. The nature of the red dot is that the dot is virtually viewed at infinity. So you can use glasses that make the target sharp and the dot will also be crystal clear.
Like you I cringe at having to resort to a red dot. But if it's that or give up shooting due to not being able to use the sights I know which way I'll swing. Good luck with your search for your own answer. I hope what I learned from working on my buddy's problem helped out.
Now for my own story. I have some astigmatism in both eyes. More in my right than my left. So I use glasses for distance for driving at night and for flying my model airplanes. But the glasses also ruin my near vision really badly. So I can't use them for shooting. The last time around I worked with my glasses guy to try to come up with a near to far solution. Bifocals don't work since they can't see the front sight and distant target together. At least not unless I were to put the dividing line right at the middle of the target so the sights are just up barely to the line and the upper is the view of the target. Which sounds pretty hard to do cleanly. Anyway.... we worked on trying that "monovision" thing but in glasses. We set up the right eye with plus values so I had a nice clear and sharp front view of a nail on a stick that simulated the front sight on a handgun. The left eye was left set for the target. I went out to the range and had a WONDERFUL view of both. And I eagerly shot one of the tightest ever groups I've shot.... 3 1/2 inches to the left of center Doing it again was a repeat. And yet again... but this time my group was even tighter which made the offset that much more obvious. Why the 3 1/2 inches? that's my ocular spacing measurement. Apparently I don't have a noticeably dominant eye so I was aiming with one eye and seeing the target with the other.
So much for THAT wonderful idea.....
