Glasses for bullseye

First topic message reminder :

What shooting glasses are the most comfortable and has the best options for adjustability and accessories!

[quote="james r chapman"]All I want to know,
What did the 2670+ iron sight club use?[/quote]

The simple answer to that question is - they do not know!

If you are naturally talented to grip the gun well (any gun) and have exceptional ability to hold, and have exceptional eyesight to see the microscopic difference in iron sights to get the perfect sight picture, and have exquisite trigger control, you just shoot!

Easy.

chiz1180 wrote:........As far as vision is concerned, I have "front sight glasses" and I found them problematic as I would either need to switch glasses and up getting the lenses dirty or live with the vision difference with them when scoring. I shoot with my typical prescription with comfortable frames with shatterproof lenses.

It's a good thing that good glasses don't have to be expensive, if you get them at a shop that does good work, you get an accurate prescription from your ophthalmologist, and you buy the right lenses for shooting.

I don't think "problematic" is the right term; "convenience" is closer, as I see it.  I've got my normal "all-in-one" progressive lenses for general use.  I have another set of glasses for the front sight, and a third set of glasses that focus at "distance" for use with seeing the target or the red dot.  Since I'm right-eyed, this only for my right lens - my left lens is set for "close", so I can see what I'm doing when adjusting gun sights.

I re-use my old frames, so I rarely need to buy new ones - the type of glasses I bought long ago were huge, and I prefer that for shooting.  As I see it, the soft plastic side covers are essential to prevent "stuff" from getting to my eyeball.  And the lenses have to be "safety" lenses, that won't shatter.  Then there is anti-scratch coatings, and tinting, which can be added (at a small charge).

Some of this is due to my cataract surgery, meaning my eyes don't "focus" other than for the prescription of the lenses.  I've also got 'diplopia' but that makes it easy to shoot with my other eye "open".


I usually want "the dot" to be sharp and in focus, but if the target is sharp, so is the dot, and vive versa.  I'm starting to prefer "focusing" on the target, with the dot guiding me.  I don't know if one way is better than the other.

Over the years, with open sights, I've learned the best way to get lousy targets was to do the obvious, look at the target.  Eventually the books, YouTube videos, and this forum convinced me otherwise.  That left a black front sight in front of a black bull - and the obvious solution from this forum was to shoot "sub-6-o'clock" hold.  That was much better than "center hold" for me.


As to problematic/convenience, I haven't found a good answer.  When I get to the range, I put on the distance or front-sight glasses, both with side protectors, and don't remove them until I'm done for the day.  My left eye/lens, with a prescription for seeing my workbench, along with my not-so-sharp right eye, seems to work fine for scoring.  Or, I could put on my normal progressive lens glasses.  This question should be answered by some of the better bullseye shooters, not me.  For me, if it's a choice between seeing better or convenience, I go with seeing better.

(I came close to buying professionally made shooting glasses, but then I would need two of them, and it started to sound very expensive, for not much benefit.)

Thanks everyone this has been quite a lot of helpful information!

I did not, and have not, ever suggested that the target should be clear.  However there is a degree of blurriness that is so severe you cannot judge the center.  This is why you cannot shoot a +1.25 diopter correction.  So the trick is to get the target to the maximum tolerable blurriness without going too far.  The Zins video above shows this - there is a shot where the camera is focused ON the front sight - the target is much too blurry.

Jim Lenardson broke 2670 four times with irons. He started shooting Perry as a teenager

Most of the military shooters who broke 2670 were on active duty when they broke 2670, so they were most likely under 40 years old. My eyes didn't start causing me issues until I was 40+.

If you look at the 2670 Club list majority of newer members were shooting optics and most under the age of 40. Steve Reiter was early 60's. I believe Zurek was late 40's. 

When I could see irons well I shot some pretty good scores, but I mostly shot optics. My favorite iron sight match was International Centerfire precision series. I have shot many 295+ scores for 30 shots. Was shooting longslide 38 special with Bomars with barely any light visible on sides of the front sight. I say this as example of Icould see and I could shoot competitive scores.

Present day; I use +0.50 or +0.75 diopter for the 25 yard line. I cannot use diopters for 50 yards because the target blur is horrible, I cannot get a repeatable aiming point on the target. So I use adjustable iris for 50 yards. Some days are better than others, but 50 is a struggle for me. I have to focus on area aiming and just break the shots.

I can usually see red dots perfectly round, but it's been getting distorted in last month or so. So it's time for a new prescription.

Jon

mikemyers wrote:

Thank you!

https://starreloaders.com/edhall/nwongarts.html

Some good information here. 

Shootingsight has helped me previously. Recommend his test kit to try out different + lenses. 

Best, 
Arthur

This discussion of eyeglasses is very interesting and useful, thanks.  I'm new to bullseye shooting.  I am almost 60, very nearsighted (-8.75 sphere OD and -7.50 sphere OS), with astigmatism.  I usually shoot with a red dot, and thus wear my "distance" glasses, which work "okay".  I've talked with my optician about target shooting (she is a casual shooter) and on my next visit I will ask for glasses optimized for shooting.  Still figuring out exactly what I'll ask for, but a red dot that is actually round will be a nice start.

Question: are you all able to see where shots land, let's say 22LR at 50 ft indoors on a B2 target bull, without scoping?  I cannot - not even close.  I can make out larger caliber holes on white targets, but small holes on black targets are invisible to me.

jyl,
To answer your question, in good light, yes I can see 22 caliber holes at 50ft, however very few indoor ranges have sufficient light for this to be practical. I would argue that this is also not typical for most shooters. In good light I can see the X on a 50 yard target. I do require corrective lenses.

jyl wrote:...........Question: are you all able to see where shots land, let's say 22LR at 50 ft indoors on a B2 target bull, without scoping?  I cannot - not even close.  I can make out larger caliber holes on white targets, but small holes on black targets are invisible to me.

From what I've learned in this forum, that is not the proper question.  I'm still not very good at this, but we are supposed to be able to know where the shot went simply from having watched the sights as the shot broke.  It's called "Calling Your Shots".  Rather than say much more, and mess the explanation up, just do a search for that term. 

It took me forever to learn how to do this.  Now I usually know where on the target my shots landed (roughly).  And no, I can barely see the target, let alone where the holes are.

You could start here if you want:
     https://www.ssusa.org/content/the-right-way-to-call-your-shots-in-precision-pistol/

You can read my old posts on this, where everyone who knows how to do this were so frustrated with me and my inability to do it for the longest time.

If you're not properly focusing on your front sight, forget it.  This will never work.  
Only if you focus properly on your front sight as you shoot, will you realize the change in position of the sights as you fired the shots.
Without that, it ain't a gonna work.....     
Same thing with a red dot sight, but I found that MUCH easier to learn.

The better you are at holding your gun still, the better you'll be at judging how the sights moved as you fired.
My own opinion - lots of dry-firing makes this MUCH, MUCH easier.

IMHO.

shootingsight wrote:I did not, and have not, ever suggested that the target should be clear.  However there is a degree of blurriness that is so severe you cannot judge the center.  This is why you cannot shoot a +1.25 diopter correction.  So the trick is to get the target to the maximum tolerable blurriness without going too far.  The Zins video above shows this - there is a shot where the camera is focused ON the front sight - the target is much too blurry.

Two suggestions - before I say this doesn't matter.
First, try shooting at a target that is mounted backwards, as suggested earlier, so there is NO bull to shoot at, and then look at the target later from the back.  You may find you shoot a better group that way than the normal way.

Next, let's say you've got perfect sight alignment, and the gun wanders back and forth by 1/4".  If your sights remain properly aligned, you will still shoot a good group.



As to not being able to aim at the very center of the target, that is irrelevant.  The ONLY thing that matters with open sights is to keep the sights in perfect alignment.  ....and of course, to not jerk the gun or flinch or do any other things that will make aiming irrelevant.  I forget who posted this link long ago, but it is worth watching, and understanding, and remembering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0rGtXh23I


I don't doubt that you know and understand eyes, and diopters, and all the rest 100 times more than I do.  I'm still at kindergarten level.  But if we're talking about Bullseye Shooting, all of that stuff is irrelevant.  Even in the photo you just posted, shooting at that blurry target will let you shoot better than if it were perfectly sharp.  All the sharpness does is distract the shooter from the most important thing - proper sight alignment - and that's also irrelevant if you can't hold the gun steady.

(.....and when I first came to this forum, I too thought that I needed to see the target clearly, and all the rest, and I thought the so-called experts who were telling me I was wrong, were nuts.  It was so obvious to me, how can you shoot the center of the target if you can't see it clearly enough????    As a waste of time, I started to shoot at the backs of my targets, and then picked up on what all the experts here were saying.  Try shooting at the back of a target, holding your gun steadily, and post a photo of your target here.  I suspect you will be as surprised as I was.)

What would be really helpful, in this thread, would be if you could explain how to get an optician to come up with the proper prescription for the front sight on any given gun, held one or two handed.  I went to the range, and had someone measure this, as I held the gun out in front of me.  As I recall I came up with 24" for a 1911 held two-handed, and 30" for one of my revolvers held out in front of me.  Then I made a device that would hold a business card at that distance in front of my eye, went to the optical shop, and had them select the proper prescription for that distance.  Worked fine, and I got perfect glasses, even though they had no idea as to what was going on, or why.


I should add this link - it fits right into this discussion:
     https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t8516-area-aiming-by-dave-salyer

mikemyers wrote:

jyl wrote:...........Question: are you all able to see where shots land, let's say 22LR at 50 ft indoors on a B2 target bull, without scoping?  I cannot - not even close.  I can make out larger caliber holes on white targets, but small holes on black targets are invisible to me.

From what I've learned in this forum, that is not the proper question.  I'm still not very good at this, but we are supposed to be able to know where the shot went simply from having watched the sights as the shot broke.  It's called "Calling Your Shots".  Rather than say much more, and mess the explanation up, just do a search for that term. 

I am starting to be able to call my shots - can call about half of them (not exactly but in the "somewhere high and left" way).  I don't know how I'm doing it, seems to be more a "feeling" than anything else.  Much to learn, much to learn.

That sounds familiar.  If you keep at it, you'll know where all your shots went, because you saw what the dot or front sight did when you fired.

I was a VERY slow learner.  It took forever to see what I was supposed to see.  But once a person "gets it", it seems to get easier and easier.

james r chapman wrote:All I want to know,
What did the 2670+ iron sight club use?

Mostly 30 year old eyes I think.

mikemyers wrote:
What would be really helpful, in this thread, would be if you could explain how to get an optician to come up with the proper prescription for the front sight on any given gun, held one or two handed. 

Mike,

I thought I had explained this as part of my other posts, but to simplify, here it is as a single post.  It is quite easy:

Your relaxed focus is at infinity if you have 20/20.  If you have distance vision glasses, those lenses will take whatever your actual focus is, and shift it to put it back at infinity.

From your distance vision prescription (or assuming your prescription is zero if you truly have 20/20), you can add lens power to bring your relaxed focus point closer.  Your distance vision prescription will have 3 numbers per eye: sphere, cylinder, and axis.  Sphere is the number to adjust - leave cylinder and axis unchanged.  These values are measured in diopters.  How much diopter you add to the sphere value determines where your focal point will fall.  Diopters are the inverse of focal distance, in meters.  Your prescription might already have a line labeled ADD, which is how much the doctor suggests to add for bifocals.  Usually this number will be around +2.00.  So if you add 2 diopters, it will make your eye focus at 1/2 meter.  Divide meters by 0.0254, so .5/0.0254 = 19.68 inches in front of you.  If you add 3 diopters, you focus at 1/3 meter, about 12 inches.  If you add 0.75 diopters, that is 3/4 diopters, you will focus at 4/3 meters, 1.333 meters/0.0254 = 52.5 inches from you.

So go to your optician and get a distance prescription.  Then measure the distance from your eye to your front sight, say 31 inches.  31 x 0.0254 = 0.79 meters.  Invert that number 1/0.79 = 1.27 diopters.  So adding 1.25 to the sphere value of your distance prescription will put your focus on your front sight.  You can repeat this for any sight distance you want.

Two caviots, your eye can exert the eye muscle to add extra power, but once it is relaxed, there is no opposing muscle to subtract power.  So whatever 'add' you calculate, lenses come in steps of 0.25 diopters, so you always want to round down, not up.  Thus my belief is that ideal for iron sights is around a 0.85 add, which I round down to 0.75. 

Second caviot is that depending on if you are near sighted or far sighted, your sphere number could be a positive or a negative number, so you need to respect signs.  If you are far sighed and your sphere is +1.00 and you want to add 1.25, you would make the sphere 2.25.  If you are near sighted, and your sphere is -1.50 and you want to add 1.25, your resultant lens would be -0.25.

In tables:

0 diopter - focus at infinity.
0.06 diopter - focus at 15 meters, 50 ft, but the smallest shift in lens power the eye can see is 0.125 diopters, so 15m has the same effective focus as infinity
0.1 diopter - focus at 10 meters, still same as infinity.
0.25 diopters, focus at 4 meters
0.50 diopters, focus at 2 meters
0.75 diopters, focus at 1.33 meters - 52.5 inches
1.00 diopter, focus at 1 meter - 39.4 inches
1.25 diopter, focus at 0.8 meters - 31.5 inches
1.5 diopters, focus at 0.66 meters - 26 inches
1.75 diopters, focus at 0.57 meters - 22.5 inches

Lens powers add, so if you stack a 2 diopter on top of a 1 diopter, the effective lens power is 3.  So as a cheap experiment, if you want to focus ON your front sight, measure it and calculate it, and you will end up with an add of 1.25, which is also a common power for reading glasses.  So if you want to try for cheap, go buy a set of 1.25 reading glasses and wear them on top of your distance glasses and try to aim at a target.  Some people can do this, but very few.

The point of my posts is not about seeing the target clearly, but is more nuanced that to see your front sight clearly, you do not need to focus ON your front sight.  Above, I mentioned that the smallest shift the human eye can see is considered to be about 1/8 diopters, that's in a doctor's with eye drops to paralyze your eye muscle and bright light.  In realistic conditions on a range, the smallest step is likely 1/4 diopter, or more.  So if you calculate that 1.25 diopters will focus you ON your front sight, 1.00 diopters will focus you slightly in front of your front sight, but the blur on the front sight will be so small, that it does not look to be anything but perfectly sharp.  Again, to the shooter, this is a silly distinction, because in both cases the correct and desired result is to see a sharp front sight, but to an optician this is an important distinction that will render the target too blurry to see.  With hundreds of indoor pistol shooters I have tested, I do not know ANY who want a 1.25 indoors (the theoretical solution to focus ON the front sight), I know only a few who like 1.00 diopters, I know a bunch who like 0.75, and some who like 0.5.

So off the shelf 1.25 glasses are a great experiment.  If you look, you can occasionally find 1.00 reading glasses too, try that and convince yourself.

I did it the other way and just bought a few pair of readers until I found one that cleared up the sight. 

I proved your chart correct, as I ended up with a +2.25 lens. My distance vision is 1.25 and my front sight is just about 40" from my eye!

as a follow up, I purchased a pair of RX-500 safety glasses in a +.75 that seem to work just a bit better than the RX-500 I have in +1.00

less than $20 shipped. available online.