another option for the optically challenged

My wife ordered these readers but found they wouldn't sit on her nose so she was told they didn't need to be sent back but she'll just be charged for shipping and handling so she asked me to try them. It makes the front sight stand out from pistol length and looks less cumbersome to use than the merit disc attached to my glasses which because of it's fussiness I hardly ever use except when zeroing a gun and even then not as often (although you do get good depth of field with that ). Brand is thin optics. Don't know if this was the best diopter for my dominant eye but I'm happy enough to experiment with free. Problem is everything else becomes blurred.

It also doesn't sit well on my nose but I could sandwich it with a cheap pair of shooting glasses I got for walmart or as pictured consider mounting them on the glasses. If they work I'll try gluing them in place.

I'm used to shooting with blurred front sights as I use my regular progressives and shoot thorough the distance part of the lenses. I wonder if my zero will change.

 

I whet through all this years ago and have just given up and moved to red dot optics a few years ago. Didn't like the expense, but I enjoy my shooting a lot more now.

But while I was fighting the inevitable aging, EABCO used to sell "stick on" diopters you could put on your normal shooting glasses. These were about the best I could do until I finally threw in the towel.

 

For pistol shooting, I use a cheap pair of readers (or some top-bifocal safety glasses) with a slightly lesser magnification than what I use for reading, and that's been my solution for the past few years. Works for me out to 25 yards.

In natural light (outdoors), I'm still fine with aperture sights on long guns, though I too have gone to red dots -- and am currently looking to go to something like the Trijicon RMR or Leupold DeltaPoint on a couple of my full-size and duty pistols.

 

You won't regret it. I've the Trijicon RMR dual illuminated sight (no batteries!) on my three range favorites and my carry gun. The price hurts initially, but its much better than "wait mister bad guy while I put on my reading glasses"


I show this photo in a lot of threads:

 

I have gone the red dot way myself. Sorry for the blurry cell pone pic.
Pete

 

Member of the old eyes and glasses club. I recently got to shoot a pistol with ghost ring sights similar to these;

http://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/sights/sight-sets/tritium-sights-1-for-glock--sku066012002-25986-1272.aspx

Even though they were still a little blurry, I was able to aim them better than I have aimed iron sights on a pistol in years. The ghost ring is much larger than the slot in blade sights, and I was able to center the post in it. Planning on putting them on one of my Glocks to try out before I buy them for the other two.

 

For the range and for plinking, these work pretty well.

https://www.meritcorporation.com/products.html

 

optically challenged as well, I wanted to try the Ghost Ring however I believe they aren't allowed in my IDPA matches. Just ordered a set of XS Big Dots, I'll see how they work.............

 

For my ccw renewal classes, we shoot 3, 5 & 7 yards. I bought a pair of full lens readers, 1.5x power. These work perfect on the front site post. BTW you can buy over the counter safety glasses with bifocals too.

 

I found that I could use my regular prescription glasses with Advantage Tactical Sights on two of my pistols. They advertise the sights help with us older shooters and they were a great help for me, seeing, not shooting.
The sights were not available for every weapon but they also made sights for rifles. An added feature was glow in the dark beads which I found easier to aim with in low light conditions. (indoor ranges).

 

there are a lot of options out there just wanted to share this as it's light and small enough and for me, free.

I do have the merit optical aid but can't shoot well offhand with it as I have a tendency to lean forward and I often have to readjust it. I still shoot ok with my glasses except I've never been able to shoot seeing the front sight post in good focus.

I don't know if I'll do better with it as the target is going to be blurry with this.

 

Not only are my eyes getting worse as I get older, I am cross eye dominant. I shoot right handed but have a left dominant eye. My left eye is stronger than my right and when I shoot long guns or my bow I need to close my left eye (when I'm not using a red dot.) I have fiber optic sights on my turkey gun.

The day before the season opened this past spring, I pulled my turkey gun out of the safe. I ran a bore snake down the barrel and shouldered the gun and to my surprise, I could barely make out the front sight. I didn't know how I was going to manage hunting. I grabbed my readers and voila! there was my front sight perfectly in focus.

I didn't want to wear the readers hunting and have everything beyond the barrel fuzzy. I ran to the dollar store, got some half height readers that I could look over when I wasn't aiming. I popped out the left lens. Now I could see everything and only had to look thru the lens when I was getting ready to shoot.

As it turned out, I was able to see the sights well enough in the morning so the glasses stayed in my pocket, but they have come in handy on the archery range a time or two.

 

wally, can that Trijicon reflex sight work with concealed carry on a S&W k-frame? If so, what are your thoughts on dot size and color?

 

"Cheaters" (I'm convinced this is a contraction of 'cheap readers') are not of consistent enough quality to trust my shooting with. I have neutralized many of these over the years, and found that the PD's (pupillary distance) on many of them are nowhere near even the average NVO (near vision only) measurements. Better made ones will have a NVO PD range stamped on them along with the add power.
As an example, I neutralized about 20 pairs someone dropped off for the Lions donation box last Sunday. The PD's ranged from 52 (On the narrow side of normal) to 73. (WAY wide). The FPD (Frame PD) on that one was only 67. FPD is almost always more than PPD (Patient PD, or in this case, the distance between OC's (optical centers) Wearing that pair would (for most people) feel like someone was pulling your eyes out sideways. You'd end up looking like Marty Feldman.
Added to these inconsistencies, the OC is on the middle (heightwise) of the lens and you want it to be up closer to where you are looking. (for most shooters this is up at the top of the lens; we usually tip the head forward & down when we shoot) Now you are looking through quite a bit of unwanted prism. Toss in the fact that readers (if correctly made to one's RX) only focus clearly at 40 cm., and if 'cheaters', who knows where they focus at, it's a wonder anyone can hit with 'em on at all.

 

You'd probably be on your own for a mount for a revolver, but it'd not too hard to get the Trijicon "universal gunsmith mount" and mill it down for the top strap, and drill & tap the top strap. But this won't be cheap unless you have a milling machine.

For carry as long as you can cut away enough material for the width and length of the RMR on the holster it should be fine. The RMR is likely thinner than the cylinder. Its wider than my Shield slide, but its not caused me any issues and make it much easier to rack the slide.

 

Interesting idea.

I've been using the Thin Optics readers for my carry "cheater" glasses. They have a cell phone case that also carries the lenses.

They won't stay on my nose for long but great for reading a menu etc.

I'll have to try them wedged into a pair of shooting or safety glasses.