Shooting Glasses Question

[gargoil66]

Wanted it here for revolver guys.  Not that the shooting glasses know the difference between blasters.

 

So I will be getting the Hunters Gold shooting glasses.   Have selected a frame that fits and will be seeing my OD on Monday.  She agreed to do a correction for both reading and for distance -- about 23 inches.

 

I informed her that I would need her advice because if the difference between the two is insignificant, I will go for the reading correction.  If significant, I will go for the distance correction.

 

I am tending towards progressive lenses because I do not do well with one side a different correction than the other.   

 

So, here are my questions for you guys who have walked this path.

 

1.  Your opinion about progressive lenses for shooting.

 

2.  What would you consider to be a significant difference in correction that would warrant me buying two pair of these glasses?

 

3.  Do you think a distance correction is not necessary if I have a correction based on reading distances?

 

I have been down the path of using readers, monocles on frames, blinders, etc.  So far the best I have found have been Oakley HD without a correction but the correction is becoming more necessary as time goes by.  

 

Much obliged!

 

GG

[ysrracer]

I've got a +1 in my right side, 0 in my left side.

 

Works great for me.

[pskys2]

My HD gold's are corrected normally on the weak eye and focused at 24" on my right eye.  I tried progressive lens years ago for my regular glasses and never liked them.  Many times with contacts they will do as for my shooting glasses.

My correction is really strong.  Pretty much blind as a bat.  And with my HD i can shoot well with both irons and optics, like steel challenge when shooting isr and osr in same squad.  But if I really want an accurate look with optics I go with my normal prescription, ie bianchi cup.

Might be better if you went with contacts, then shooting glasses don't need any prescription, I've been told that's the best combo.  I just never wanted contacts due to my job.

[mchapman]

I had two pairs made, one was with a front sight focus that I would use when shooting irons, then the other pair was my normal correction for distance when I was shooting my dot guns. I have a pretty cool Dr. he had me bring both guns in the office exam room and used them  to do the corrections. But I am in the process to do another Hunters HD with the progressive. I hope that then just the one pair will work for both. Going to try the Rubys this time instead of Gold.

[gargoil66]

9 hours ago, pskys2 said:

My HD gold's are corrected normally on the weak eye and focused at 24" on my right eye.  I tried progressive lens years ago for my regular glasses and never liked them.  Many times with contacts they will do as for my shooting glasses.

My correction is really strong.  Pretty much blind as a bat.  And with my HD i can shoot well with both irons and optics, like steel challenge when shooting isr and osr in same squad.  But if I really want an accurate look with optics I go with my normal prescription, ie bianchi cup.

Might be better if you went with contacts, then shooting glasses don't need any prescription, I've been told that's the best combo.  I just never wanted contacts due to my job.

PK:

 

So, you are 'BAAB', eh?  My eyes are still in decent condition but I have noticed this year that they are not getting any better so my decision for the glasses.

 

Tried contacts many years ago over a period of two or three years.  Soft, hard, in between.   Aside from it taking me close to an hour to get them into my eyes, no mater how hard or soft, they hurt every second they were in and fell out when shooting prone and while skiing during biathlon races.  Found out that contacts are not ideal for sports.  Kind of nasty when skiing in cold weather too.  Felt like my eyes were freezing, until the contacts finally fell out.

 

So, why did you not like the progressive lenses?  Important to me because that is what I am considering.

 

GG

 

 

[gargoil66]

8 hours ago, mchapman said:

I had two pairs made, one was with a front sight focus that I would use when shooting irons, then the other pair was my normal correction for distance when I was shooting my dot guns. I have a pretty cool Dr. he had me bring both guns in the office exam room and used them  to do the corrections. But I am in the process to do another Hunters HD with the progressive. I hope that then just the one pair will work for both. Going to try the Rubys this time instead of Gold.

MCC:

 

Hoping the same thing too with the progressives.  However, I will buy two pair if necessary.  Not what I want to do but am sick of dealing with sight picture issues due to vision.

 

Best do some research on the ruby tinted lenses.  Not so sure they are the best for anything but shotgun.  Have tried them too in High Power using some Decot's.  Too dark, contrast was not as sharp as an amber.  

 

GG

[pskys2]

1 hour ago, gargoil66 said:

PK:

 

So, you are 'BAAB', eh?  My eyes are still in decent condition but I have noticed this year that they are not getting any better so my decision for the glasses.

 

Tried contacts many years ago over a period of two or three years.  Soft, hard, in between.   Aside from it taking me close to an hour to get them into my eyes, no mater how hard or soft, they hurt every second they were in and fell out when shooting prone and while skiing during biathlon races.  Found out that contacts are not ideal for sports.  Kind of nasty when skiing in cold weather too.  Felt like my eyes were freezing, until the contacts finally fell out.

 

So, why did you not like the progressive lenses?  Important to me because that is what I am considering.

 

GG

 

 

Tried both types of bifocals and didn't like the wave created at the transition.  The wife swore by them.  I can still read without glasses so I never went traditional bifocals either.  The wife liked contacts, but being a mechanic i figured the chemicals would ruin them quickly.  Plus even today my dry hands are more like a spiny cactus.

[pskys2]

Without glasses im something like 300, very myopic.  But corrected and the doc says I've got great vision.

[DukeSoprano]

Call Hunters Gold and ask for Chris, he is amazing to deal with.

I got a prescription locally for either multi focal or progressive ( I do not remember which) they worked great for shooting but sucked for working at a computer. I got a pair of regular glasses locally for work and the same script but opposite (either progressive or multi focal ) for shooting. 

The glasses I got from Hunters Gold do little or nothing at distance, which I do not need and works great for seeing targets and also works with red dot optics. Tilting my head back just a tad and the front sight of pistols comes into view perfectly.

[Alleycatdad]

I jumped through all of these hoops and more, being terribly nearsighted and shooting irons.  I tried upper corrections to my front sight distance, front sight correction strong eye, distance weak eye, all of it.

 

My conclusion?  After a lot of tests trying different things I found that my accuracy for USPSA shooting is just fine with standard progressives and blurry sight blobs--in fact, my points are consistently higher with the standard progressive lenses when I shoot identical stage setups with the various options I've had made for me over the last few years.  

 

Which was annoying, and expensive.  

 

The exception to this rule is long targets, which at my local ranges don't happen much.  Beyond 25 yds I need to take a little more time to visualize the sight blurs into some sort of alignment to score As.  But it's so much better for the rest of what we shoot that I'll take that extra bit of time for those rare shots.

 

Do talk to Chris at Hunter's Gold-- he's a great guy and may have suggestions for you based on what has worked for others.

 

SA

[CtYankee]

It depends on what you are shooting. Red Dot at large targets, transition bifocals work just fine: iron sights, not so much. You can always tell an old person shooting through bifocals: gun out straight, head held back to engage the lower portion of the bifocals. That position makes it hard to deal with recoil. I find that I like to have my dominant eye with a lense focused on my sights and transitional bifocal on my other eye. But of course, this is highly personal.

[Taroman]

Mine are 0 left, +1.5 right.

[pskys2]

41 minutes ago, CtYankee said:

It depends on what you are shooting. Red Dot at large targets, transition bifocals work just fine: iron sights, not so much. You can always tell an old person shooting through bifocals: gun out straight, head held back to engage the lower portion of the bifocals. That position makes it hard to deal with recoil. I find that I like to have my dominant eye with a lense focused on my sights and transitional bifocal on my other eye. But of course, this is highly personal.

Dr recommended upper bifocals at one time, as mechanics work overhead.

Chris at HD is very helpful.

[gargoil66]

Guys:

 

Spent some time talking with Chris several weeks ago so have his input for now.

 

Will see my doc on Monday and then go over it with Chris before making a decision.

 

Please though, feel free to comment.  I know what doesn't work for me and am at a loss about what will work.

 

GG

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Toolguy]

I wear contacts for distance vision.  That works great for a dot sight, the dot and target are both pretty in focus. Sometimes I get a small amount of starburst on the dot, but not enough to be a big problem. Then wear non prescription shooting glasses.

For iron sights, I have front and rear fiber optics with orange front and green rear. I have found the red fiber is very dim and not much help (for me). Green and orange are bright and readily visible, even in very low ambient light. Then I wear corrected shooting glasses that are focused somewhat beyond the front sight, so that the sights are in fairly good focus, and can still see the target well enough. I don't know the numbers, but it would be different for everyone, anyway.

[GOF]

15 hours ago, mchapman said:

I had two pairs made, one was with a front sight focus that I would use when shooting irons, then the other pair was my normal correction for distance when I was shooting my dot guns. I have a pretty cool Dr. he had me bring both guns in the office exam room and used them  to do the corrections. But I am in the process to do another Hunters HD with the progressive. I hope that then just the one pair will work for both. Going to try the Rubys this time instead of Gold.

That is exactly what I did. I had my same prescription made up into two different sets of eye glasses. My 'iron sight' glasses (25-inch focus distance) are used for pistol and rimfire rifle (and on the computer). My standard 'distance' glasses are used for red dots and normal activities.

The 25-inch iron sight glasses allow me to read an automobile license plate at 13-yards, and see lead hit marks on a 35-yard Steel Challenge plate. The normal distance glasses work perfectly with red dots. Made MA IDPA SSP & BUG, and Expert in CCP, SSR, ESP and CDP with the 'iron sight' glasses and A Class in Steel Challenge RFPI and RFRI. The distance glasses (red dot) got me to A Class Steel Challenge in RFRO/RFPO/PCCO.

That system works for me. No one eye different than the other in the prescription. Same prescription, just a different focus distance. 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by GOF
Got divisions wrong.

[varminter22]

8 hours ago, gargoil66 said:

...

 

Tried contacts many years ago over a period of two or three years.  Soft, hard, in between.   Aside from it taking me close to an hour to get them into my eyes, no mater how hard or soft, they hurt every second they were in and fell out when shooting prone and while skiing during biathlon races.  Found out that contacts are not ideal for sports.  Kind of nasty when skiing in cold weather too.  Felt like my eyes were freezing, until the contacts finally fell out.

 

...

 

GG

My experience was just the opposite.  I wore contacts for nearly a half century with virtually no problems.   First, hard lenses for MANY years, then semi hard gas perm lenses, and finally soft lenses.  I got along fine with all (even in dusty/dirty hayfields, hunting, water skiing, etc) but the soft lenses were the most comfortable.  

 

The last few years, I needed reading glasses and carried around the cheap ones; and I used the "stick on" reading glass lenses on shooting glasses, placing them toward the top of the sunglass lenses.  That actually worked quite well for me.  

 

Then came cataracts a few years ago.  For an additional (and hefty) fee, the doc said he could insert permanent corrective lenses.  I went with that, and lo and behold, vision corrected and I don't need reading glasses nor corrective lenses anymore!  Well worth the $$$$.  

 

Oh, and after cataract surgery, I found that most walls are painted white (not a dingy brown)!  

[zombywoof]

+.75 in your shooting eye prescription will give you a 20 foot focus.

 

The target will be somewhat in focus and the sights will be somewhat in focus.

 

Worked for me.

[Carmoney]

I have terrible eyes, unfortunately.  I'm very nearsighted and have enough astigmatism that I haven't been able to wear contacts for years.  By the time I was 50, I had a cararact in one eye, and now at 57 I have them on both sides.  Then just to add the icing on the cake, last year I experienced a vitreous detachment in my right eye that left me with dozens of large greasy floaters that are squarely in my focal area.  These never go away.  According to the ophthalmologist, the same thing had already happened in my left eye at some point in the past, but the floaters aren't as noticeable on that side.  

 

I simply use my regular everyday progressive bifocals for shooting.  I do best with clear lenses that allow the most possible light to get through all that mess.  If you see me at a match, I'll probably be wearing sunglasses.  But when it's my turn to shoot, I always switch to clear.  

 

[Rugbyrat]

3 hours ago, Carmoney said:

I have terrible eyes, unfortunately.  I'm very nearsighted and have enough astigmatism that I haven't been able to wear contacts for years.  By the time I was 50, I had a cararact in one eye, and now at 57 I have them on both sides.  Then just to add the icing on the cake, last year I experienced a vitreous detachment in my right eye that left me with dozens of large greasy floaters that are squarely in my focal area.  These never go away.  According to the ophthalmologist, the same thing had already happened in my left eye at some point in the past, but the floaters aren't as noticeable on that side.  

 

I simply use my regular everyday progressive bifocals for shooting.  I do best with clear lenses that allow the most possible light to get through all that mess.  If you see me at a match, I'll probably be wearing sunglasses.  But when it's my turn to shoot, I always switch to clear.  

 

I have similar issued but I'm younger. Two detached retinas by 30 (both repaired with buckles) and cataracts in both eyes  by 45 (removed). The cataract surgery did wonders for my vision. I don't need glasses all of the time. I do wear magnifiers when shooting so I can focus on the iron sights (I'm a revolver shooter). I recommend cataract surgery if possible. It's made a world of difference to me.

[Carmoney]

My eye doctor tells me I am going to really like how well I see with my new lenses after I have cataract surgery.  But he wants me to wait until I am closer to 60.  Actually, I am OK with waiting a little longer because the technology keeps improving.  There are some pretty amazing options that have just come on the market in the last couple years, including several lens types that can actually treat the presbyopia that we all experience with aging--that could mean no glasses for distance, no readers for up close, 20/20 vision at all distances, no corrective lenses ever again.  

 

 

[gargoil66]

8 hours ago, Carmoney said:

My eye doctor tells me I am going to really like how well I see with my new lenses after I have cataract surgery.  But he wants me to wait until I am closer to 60.  Actually, I am OK with waiting a little longer because the technology keeps improving.  There are some pretty amazing options that have just come on the market in the last couple years, including several lens types that can actually treat the presbyopia that we all experience with aging--that could mean no glasses for distance, no readers for up close, 20/20 vision at all distances, no corrective lenses ever again.  

 

 

Mike:

 

Am 67 and no such luck.  Doc still won't order cataracts removed.  Not that a white object looks tan but things just aren't as bright.  My eyes are actually in good shape for my 'age'.  And there lies the problem.  Being forced into a regulatory issue based on the norm of guys my age.  I am in better physical condition than probably 95% of my age group and being able to see extremely well is vital to me.  Would have to pay for lenses and cataracts out of pocket unless my doc orders cataract removal or lens replacement.   May get to that point though.

 

I have friends whose floaters got so bad they had the fluid drained out of their eyes and replaced with fluid that had no floaters.  Also got lens replacement etc at the same time.  Paid out of pocket.  Cost a bundle but they are happy and can shoot as well as when they were in their prime.  Not willing to go that far due to risk but guys will go that far.

 

I doubt I can wait out technology though so am still looking at options.

 

I have some faith that the money I will spend on the Hunters Gold shooting glasses will result in more consistency and an improvement in speed and score.  Not near 100% confidence though.  Too many tries with shooting glasses in the past.  None of them worked.  Not one.  Not even a little bit.  All were plagued by problems in design and poor fit for the shooting sport I was doing.  So, I will try Hunters Gold.  May even send my prescription to Oakley too.  Of all the good idea shooting glasses I have tried, the ones that have actually improved my vision have been non prescription Oakley HD's.  

 

GG

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeyScuba]

I just went and paid for the new Trifocal IOC lenses 2 years ago.  No real reason other than I was starting to get presbyopia and instead of waiting 5, 10 or 15 years I went ahead with the surgery.  My wife did have it done 2yrs earlier.  Besides everything was lockdowned in early 2021 so no missed anything.

 

Yes the tech is always improving, but why give up those years that you could be seeing better???

 

The trifocal lenses have 13 rings.  My distance is perfect, reading is set at arms length.  What you give up is very close sight (which was going anyway) and night vision/low light gets nuked.  This one is the most notable.  As is the halo's at night, especially with the new LED lights.

 

The only thing is with red dot I found the Sliderides halo the least.

 

Hunters gold are awesome, been wearing them for years.

 

https://www.nvisioncenters.com/cataracts/panoptics-trifocal-lenses/