Older eyes and pistols

[padwan]

Over the years, my eyes have gone from bad to worse. My prescription is current but progressive lenses do not make it easy to acquire a sight picture rapidly. Some folks have recommended LASIK as an option but I'm not sure if that's a step I'm prepared to take right now.

In the past year, I've noticed that I seem to do better with handguns that have a shorter sight radius. While it is difficult for me to quickly acquire the front sight on a Gov't Model or even a Glock 17, I've discovered that the Ruger SP101, a snubbie, is manageable. I did have to paint the front sight orange though.

Has anyone here had to trade sight radius for sight visibility as well?

I'll be trying a friend's M&P Compact this weekend. I find the Compact's grip more agreeable than the Glock 26's. I'm hoping it works out for me, as the weight of 2 Rugers gets noticeable at the end of a 10 hour day. If not, I'll revisit the Glock 19.

[Bulldog7972]

Over the years, my eyes have gone from bad to worse. My prescription is current but progressive lenses do not make it easy to acquire a sight picture rapidly. Some folks have recommended LASIK as an option but I'm not sure if that's a step I'm prepared to take right now.

In the past year, I've noticed that I seem to do better with handguns that have a shorter sight radius. While it is difficult for me to quickly acquire the front sight on a Gov't Model or even a Glock 17, I've discovered that the Ruger SP101, a snubbie, is manageable. I did have to paint the front sight orange though.

Has anyone here had to trade sight radius for sight visibility as well?

I'll be trying a friend's M&P Compact this weekend. I find the Compact's grip more agreeable than the Glock 26's. I'm hoping it works out for me, as the weight of 2 Rugers gets noticeable at the end of a 10 hour day. If not, I'll revisit the Glock 19.


I had LASIK about fifteen years ago. At the time hey told me I might eventually need reading glasses as I aged. I too am finding it harder and harder to aquire the front sight as I grow older unless I wear reading glasses. I am thinking about trying the Big Dot sights.

[Doru]

I'm a big fan of Big Dots, for several reasons. Guys I work with with failing eyes are slowly moving to them.

I run them on my Glocks, and even have a standard dot with a 10-8 rear on a 1911.

When I first got them, I would bring my gun up on target and while I was looking for that notch and post to line up, I realized that the Dot and line were already lined up. In essence, the sights were faster than I was. Training with them caught me up.

The dot is easier, IMO, to pick up sooner as I go out to full extension.

Also, low light shooting becomes easier as I only really have one thing to look for, instead of 3 dots in the dark.

Finally, at this point, if I were to buy more I will likely just go with the non-Tritium version. Reason being is that in any low light situation, those sights pick up ambient light, and I'm not really finding the Tritium sights help much more.

Drew

[Beat Trash]

I find thinner front sights paired with rear sights with a wide notch helps, as does a dab of bright orange fingernail polish on the front sight.

[padwan]

I find thinner front sights paired with rear sights with a wide notch helps, as does a dab of bright orange fingernail polish on the front sight.

Tried that route with my full-size pistols. I still had difficulty picking up the front sight. The rear sight tended to be clearer than the front, despite focusing on the front sight. :(

It was only when the front sight was closer to the rear that I could pick it up.

The other option may be to try wearing a distance prescription instead of progressive lenses.

The ones who have gone before us were right all along. You spend thirty years working on trigger control, and just when you think you got it right, your eyes crap out on you.

[Doru]

10-8 and Warren rear sights are great for this reason.

Worth giving a try. I know guys who loved their Big Dots switch them out for a set of Warren sights.

Drew

[Sam]

Crimson Trace is your friend.

[JHC]

Getting "monovision" dialed in to my contact lens turned the clock back on my ability to focus on the front sight - at least 10 years and stays there will annual tweaks. When I got this figured out, I replaced my Big Dots with Warren/Sevigny notch sights.

[Hmac]

As my eyes have aged, I went with a relatively lower power stick-on lens for my shooting glasses for use only with my dominant eye. Normal shooting glasses with bifocal inserts are designed for reading so the lens is at the bottom on both eyes. I put this one up toward the top so my head position isn't too cockeyed.

I normally use +2.5 diopter lenses for reading, the stick on lens at 1.5 diopter allows me to focus well on the front sight of all my handguns.

http://mccollister.info/glasses.jpg

[Mark/MO]

I find thinner front sights paired with rear sights with a wide notch helps, as does a dab of bright orange fingernail polish on the front sight.

+1. This summer I installed a Sevegny rear sight and a FO front on my G19. It has made a really big difference for my 50 year old eyes. The FO makes it jump out at me. I like it so well I'm planning to install a set on another Glock.

[DocH]

One of the misfortunes of aging. Mine is not pronounced but I can certainly tell a difference from 20 years ago,even with corrected vision(glasses).
Shorter sight radius does seem to help the problem for most people. There are a few eye doctors around the country that will make glasses with something similar to what Hmac suggested.

[Hmac]

There are a few eye doctors around the country that will make glasses with something similar to what Hmac suggested.

Yes, but ouch! The prices they want. Those stick on lenses are secured with just a little water, can be trimmed to size with scissors, and are of surprisingly good optical quality...all for $8 - $10 for a pair. It's been a good solution for me, without the expense of custom glasses in different lens colors, and without having to have the discomfort and risk of any kind of contact lenses.

[Beat Trash]

Where are you getting those stick on lenses?

[Tomahawk_Ghost]

Check out some of the options at ameriglo.net I like this.http://www.ameriglo.net/sites/default/files/GL212ORC%20copy.jpg

[D. Christopher]

I'm with Sam on this, Crimson Trace is your friend. They're not for everyone and it's a completely different approach but they eliminate the problems of trying to focus on the sights altogether and make accurate shots possible without even acquiring a normal sight picture. They won't solve your problems in bright light conditions but in low light or if you mostly shoot indoors they might be a good option. I carry a G19 with CT619 laser grips and it is an incredibly effective tool. Not for everyone, and not for all conditions, but I hope they can help you with your sighting issues. Good luck.

[DocH]

Yes, but ouch! The prices they want. Those stick on lenses are secured with just a little water, can be trimmed to size with scissors, and are of surprisingly good optical quality...all for $8 - $10 for a pair. It's been a good solution for me, without the expense of custom glasses in different lens colors, and without having to have the discomfort and risk of any kind of contact lenses. It's true,the prices hurt. Your solution is probably the best for most people.

[bmg]

A good solution seems to be dot sights like the RMR, which is what I'm going to try.

[Hmac]

Where are you getting those stick on lenses?

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Stick+on+leses&x=0&y=0

[Beat Trash]

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Stick+on+leses&x=0&y=0

Thanks...

[Hmac]

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Stick+on+leses&x=0&y=0

I have found that seeing the front sight well requires a substantially lower-power lens than what I use for reading. I use 2.5 diopter reading glasses to read, but by using 1.5 diopter for shooting I can focus well on the front sight without the target being excessively fuzzy.

[Pappabear]

I find thinner front sights paired with rear sights with a wide notch helps, as does a dab of bright orange fingernail polish on the front sight.

I too find the rear wide notch is great. And preferable a wide notch with no dots to blur.

[DBR]

I have the same problem as you folks. I use 2.25 for reading and 1.5 for shooting. I like these from Duluth Trading:

http://www.duluthtrading.com/store/departments/tools-shop/work-safety-gear/82387.aspx?feature=product_10

As for sights: I like the XS Big Dot plain sights or on my Glocks, the Glock steel dot front and outlined rear. The Glock sights are actually Trijicon bases with bright white inserts (not paint). I find that if I can ID a target in low light I can see the outline of the sights against the target.

[Dienekes]

Hmac is on to something here. Years ago when I started needing reading glasses I found an old American Rifleman article on the subject. Their solution was a "jewelers' spot", a small ground lens. Since I mostly shot right handed from the Weaver stance, right eye dominant, I put the lens in the upper LH corner of the right lens. the add-on lens gave me a crisp front sight. As an LEO it allowed me to wear distance glasses while still being able to use a handgun effectively on short notice. I have been using that same basic system for 22 years now, with one minor correction for eyesight change.

It works for me.

The stick ons may work equally well.

[uwe1]

I have found that seeing the front sight well requires a substantially lower-power lens than what I use for reading. I use 2.5 diopter reading glasses to read, but by using 1.5 diopter for shooting I can focus well on the front sight without the target being excessively fuzzy.

This would be correct. Reading is usually done holding the materials closer to the body, while shooting is done with the arms mostly extended.

The focal length of a diopter is defined as: Focal Length (in meters)= 1/diopter power.

Therefore assuming your vision is corrected perfectly for distance (theorectically):

A +1.00 D lens (placed very near to the eye) should yield the best focus at 1 meter or 100 centimeters (from the eye).
A +1.50 D lens should yield the best focus at 66.7 centimeters or roughly 26.25 inches.
A +2.00 D lens should yield the best focus at 50 centimeters or roughly 20 inches (rounding up from 19.69").
A +2.50 D lens should yield the best focus at 40 centimeters or about 15.75 inches.
A +3.00 D lens should yield the best focus at 33 centimeters or about 13 inches.

Now, in reality, this varies because very few people have their Rx glasses done perfectly as there is some subjectivity in the way that refractions are done by both the patient and doctor. Also, depending on the age of the patient, the remaining ability of the lens to accommodate and a patient's pupil size (along with other factors) will determine range of clear focus for each power.

Now for some generalities....for most shooters in their mid-late 40's, I have found that a +0.75 D correction (or Add power) helps to focus the front sight of a handgun. You might notice that the correct focal plane for +0.75 D is beyond 1 meter, but at 40-ish years old, the eye still has sufficient accommodative ability to focus the additional amount. Generally, go with the least amount needed for someone in their 40s so you don't screw up their distance vision.

For many shooters in their 50-70s, a +1.00 to +1.50 D correction (or add power) helps. This also depends on where they position the gun...long arms vs short arms, weaver vs iso, etc...

You have to play around with it to see what works best. I'm not even 40 yet so I can't relay any personal experiences, but this is just what I've found during my time in practice.

[Hmac]

I had radial keratotomy years ago and ended up slightly overcorrected. That was great - I still have 20/15 distance vision - but it did result in a little premature presbyopia.

The stick-on lenses were a cost-effective experiment for me. They are held on by surface-tension...wet 'em, slide 'em into position an let them dry. They can be removed easily and repositioned, still hold up for me even sweating (gun ranges are always hot), and in at least one training course in a major downpour. I do a lot of pistol/rifle training and courses and appreciate that only a slight shift of the head and I can go from focus on front pistol sight to zero correction for focus on a HWS reticle.

[padwan]

Just reporting back.

I tried my friend's M&P Compact and the sight radius was better for my eyes. Was able to put a little under 500 rounds through it over two range trips. The first trip was with the stock sights and I had better luck blacking out the rear dots with a Sharpie. Still, the front dot was a little vague.

For the second trip, my friend had installed a new set of sights - an Ameriglo plain black rear coupled with a fiber optic front. It was much easier to pick up but then again, we were shooting in good light. He also installed a pair of Laser Grips. While I preferred the feel of the stock insert, the laser was easy for me to pick up all the way to 10 yards. This was the limit of the range we were using at the time.

I'll try to run that gun at 20-25 yards and see if there are any other vision issues. But so far, the combination looks promising.

The innards were stock but the pistol was easy enough to shoot. Am starting to wonder how the gun would run with Apex parts in it.

Carried AIWB, this pistol would probably conceal as well if not better than the SP101s I've been carrying.

Also, I found an eye doctor in my area who also shoots. He was recommended by one of the guys who frequent the range we visited. I'll be visiting him next week and am hoping he can fix me up.