Good idea save money screwing with your eye sight. Go out and spend $1000-$2000 + on a pistol or rifle and then save 10's of dollars on glasses.derekm wrote:Just found this forum again; it was lost amongst my many favourites!
I have been using +1 drugstore reading glasses for reading for 13 years now; fine for reading, but front sight too blurred and target almost greyed out. No glasses means front sight unclear.
Solution - got a mail order optical lab to make me a +0.5 lens to the shape of a sample lens of a spare pair of readers. The left lens is now painted white as a blinder.£10 or $18 and my sight picture is perfect. With the pistol, I find I am looking straight and square through the lens, but if you have astigmatism and need a full corrective lens, it is easy to mark the pupil centre on the sample lens with a marking pen. Result, about £75 or $130 saved on "proper" shooting glasses.
The mail order lab is also a good source for different lenses for shooting glasses, at a fraction of the cost of the official items.
How many of you use shooting glasses? And do they help you?
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
Using the same optical labs as the overpriced (in UK at least) high street opticians is hardly "screwing with your eyesight".
Furthermore, not everyone can afford the $1k to $2k for the top flight pistols.
For those who cannot simply throw money at their sport, a lens of the correct diopter and maybe astig. prescription in a standard commercial frame is surely a safe and viable option.
Do you really think those $150+ "designer frames" at your local optician are worth the premium over un-branded "low-end" products. I'll wager they all come out of the same Chinese factory for a couple of $.
If you are in the fortunate position of trying to get your average up from 97/100 to 97.3 , maybe there is a stronger case for having the very best (most expensive?) equipment. For most of the rest of us, with more modest capabilities and aspirations, a somewhat pragmatic view is not out of order.
Furthermore, not everyone can afford the $1k to $2k for the top flight pistols.
For those who cannot simply throw money at their sport, a lens of the correct diopter and maybe astig. prescription in a standard commercial frame is surely a safe and viable option.
Do you really think those $150+ "designer frames" at your local optician are worth the premium over un-branded "low-end" products. I'll wager they all come out of the same Chinese factory for a couple of $.
If you are in the fortunate position of trying to get your average up from 97/100 to 97.3 , maybe there is a stronger case for having the very best (most expensive?) equipment. For most of the rest of us, with more modest capabilities and aspirations, a somewhat pragmatic view is not out of order.
Actually it is screwing with your eye sight. Your doctor does more than sell you over priced glasses, and if that's what you doctor does maybe you should find a new doctor. He should be checking for other issues with your eye sight. Personally I think its irresponsible to advocate diagnosing your own eye issues and fooling with them. Pay a few bucks and get an eye exam. My eye exam and lens cost me around a hundred dollars every two years (thats if I need a new lens) with a doctor that specializes in sports optics and teaches at the university.
There's one thing about doing something silly to ones self and it's another matter expousing that as good advice to others.
There's one thing about doing something silly to ones self and it's another matter expousing that as good advice to others.
-
Fred Mannis
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:37 pm
- Location: Delaware
I see two issues here:
1. Eye exam by optometrist or opthalmologist
2. Lens manufacture by optician
Some of us, especially as we get older, get our eyes examined and refracted every few years. Others get along just fine with reading glasses, or with a 0.5 D lens to clear up the front sight. I see my dentist three times/yr; I know people who go every three years. YMMV
A different issue is the quality of the lens made by the optician. If made to a prescription order, is it correct within +/-0.1D? Where is the optical center? Nature of the lens material? Is it coated? I have no way of knowing and therefore have to rely on my optometrist to select a quality lens manufacturer and to check the lens when it arrives.
1. Eye exam by optometrist or opthalmologist
2. Lens manufacture by optician
Some of us, especially as we get older, get our eyes examined and refracted every few years. Others get along just fine with reading glasses, or with a 0.5 D lens to clear up the front sight. I see my dentist three times/yr; I know people who go every three years. YMMV
A different issue is the quality of the lens made by the optician. If made to a prescription order, is it correct within +/-0.1D? Where is the optical center? Nature of the lens material? Is it coated? I have no way of knowing and therefore have to rely on my optometrist to select a quality lens manufacturer and to check the lens when it arrives.
Richard, you have got the wrong end of the stick. I am NOT suggesting self diagnosis for anyone.
I HAVE had an eye test; the optometrist DID check my eyes for all the other potential problems too. She also said I required +1 diopter for reading.
It was a post on this forum (by a high level coach or shooter if I recall) some months ago that suggested using a 1/2 diopter lens in order to focus the front sight and de-focus the target. I did it. It works. It simply alters the depth of field of focus.
The choice of off the peg reading glasses is hardly rocket science. They either work for you or they don't. Furthermore, the sale of these glasses would be banned in countries like yours and mine if they were indeed a hazard.
I HAVE had an eye test; the optometrist DID check my eyes for all the other potential problems too. She also said I required +1 diopter for reading.
It was a post on this forum (by a high level coach or shooter if I recall) some months ago that suggested using a 1/2 diopter lens in order to focus the front sight and de-focus the target. I did it. It works. It simply alters the depth of field of focus.
The choice of off the peg reading glasses is hardly rocket science. They either work for you or they don't. Furthermore, the sale of these glasses would be banned in countries like yours and mine if they were indeed a hazard.
Fred
In the UK at least, the optical labs that supply prescription glasses by mail order (to a prescription issued by the optometrist of your choice) also supply the High Street opticians, so we are talking about quality lenses, made with your choice of coatings and/or tints. All I requested was an uncorrected +0.5D lens to the pattern of my readers.
In the UK at least, the optical labs that supply prescription glasses by mail order (to a prescription issued by the optometrist of your choice) also supply the High Street opticians, so we are talking about quality lenses, made with your choice of coatings and/or tints. All I requested was an uncorrected +0.5D lens to the pattern of my readers.
Well see that's the problem, where in your original post did it say any of that? Please re-read it. Remember there are some who will do what you say, and all you said is that you used drug store reading glasses and they worked so you decided to get +.5 diopter ones ground.derekm wrote:Richard, you have got the wrong end of the stick. I am NOT suggesting self diagnosis for anyone.
I HAVE had an eye test; the optometrist DID check my eyes for all the other potential problems too. She also said I required +1 diopter for reading.
It was a post on this forum (by a high level coach or shooter if I recall) some months ago that suggested using a 1/2 diopter lens in order to focus the front sight and de-focus the target. I did it. It works. It simply alters the depth of field of focus.
The choice of off the peg reading glasses is hardly rocket science. They either work for you or they don't. Furthermore, the sale of these glasses would be banned in countries like yours and mine if they were indeed a hazard.
As for them not allowing things for sale that harm you, if you really think about that statement I'm sure you can come up with examples, ever hear of cigarettes.
As for the +.5 diopter that is just a starting point is not the same for everyone.
So I guess we agree to disagree. I still think that you should get your lenses done by a trained professional.
Whilst I agree with the principles, how many optometrists do you know that have been trained in making sporting glasses never mind shooting lenses ? All they are doing is making a lense that enables you to focus comfortably on the foresight. If you have no oddities about your eyes, like Derek, then doing as he suggests poses no problems.Richard H wrote:So I guess we agree to disagree. I still think that you should get your lenses done by a trained professional.
Rob.
Thanks for the support Rob!
It is difficult, if not impossible, to put over a point and cover all the possible eventualities. Richard is 120% correct, in that if there is a problem with one's eyesight, it needs an optometrist to analyse the problem and prescribe the treatment/correction. Your comment on how many optometrists are conversant with prescribing shooting lenses is very apt though.
In a previous post, I said that my optometrist had prescribed +1D as a reading addition for me. This was I'm afraid, a bit of a white lie, though for that post, the prescribed addition had no bearing.
The fact is, I had an eye test some 13 years ago (long before I started shooting). Result :"I was borderline for distance and astig. correction, but needed +1.5 for reading". Eye tests from a visual point of view are very subjective - better, better, worse, no go back one, etc. etc. in quick succession, but we trust the professional. Later, at leisure, trying off the hook readers (in a proper opticians shop I would add) I found that +1.5 was too strong and +1 was perfect.
Now, the crux of the matter. Two months ago, another eyetest, as astig., driving at night (iris wide open) is starting to be a nuisance. Optometrist calculates corrections for distance focus and astig. Reading addition? +1.5 again. I have my prescription glasses made and find I can only focus from approx 8" to 22" with the reading sectors and then from 40" to infinity with the distance sectors! 18" of blurred vision. No use at all, but prescribed by a professional. I had the glasses re-made at my request with only +1 addition and my vision is now perfect from 8" through to infinity.
After some thought, good analogies to my original suggestion could be:-
1) Binoculars. We pick them up, adjust the depth of field and left/right balance ourselves as a matter of course. No eye doctor required.
2) Watchmakers/jewellers. They choose their loupes to suit themselves, though if they have general vision problems, they go to the optician.
I guess the point is, the way I see it, is that for shooting, assuming our eyes are in good shape, or we have prescribed corrections, all we are trying to do is alter the depth of field (which in the days before point and shoot cameras, we did all the time). This is not meant to be self diagnosis and I re-iterate that for problems of vision, Richard is very, very correct. As shooters, we are not trying to solve problems, but to look at our concentrated little world in a different focus.
Of course we have to use common sense, but should surely not be afraid to experiment with different lenses to find what is right for us. Is it any different from using a magnifying glass to read small print or detail; only change of depth of field again. We don't wear our shooting glasses all day long, after all.
This is not meant to be an argument, but if my first post was open to mis-interpretation, hopefully, this will clarify matters and explain my reasoning.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to put over a point and cover all the possible eventualities. Richard is 120% correct, in that if there is a problem with one's eyesight, it needs an optometrist to analyse the problem and prescribe the treatment/correction. Your comment on how many optometrists are conversant with prescribing shooting lenses is very apt though.
In a previous post, I said that my optometrist had prescribed +1D as a reading addition for me. This was I'm afraid, a bit of a white lie, though for that post, the prescribed addition had no bearing.
The fact is, I had an eye test some 13 years ago (long before I started shooting). Result :"I was borderline for distance and astig. correction, but needed +1.5 for reading". Eye tests from a visual point of view are very subjective - better, better, worse, no go back one, etc. etc. in quick succession, but we trust the professional. Later, at leisure, trying off the hook readers (in a proper opticians shop I would add) I found that +1.5 was too strong and +1 was perfect.
Now, the crux of the matter. Two months ago, another eyetest, as astig., driving at night (iris wide open) is starting to be a nuisance. Optometrist calculates corrections for distance focus and astig. Reading addition? +1.5 again. I have my prescription glasses made and find I can only focus from approx 8" to 22" with the reading sectors and then from 40" to infinity with the distance sectors! 18" of blurred vision. No use at all, but prescribed by a professional. I had the glasses re-made at my request with only +1 addition and my vision is now perfect from 8" through to infinity.
After some thought, good analogies to my original suggestion could be:-
1) Binoculars. We pick them up, adjust the depth of field and left/right balance ourselves as a matter of course. No eye doctor required.
2) Watchmakers/jewellers. They choose their loupes to suit themselves, though if they have general vision problems, they go to the optician.
I guess the point is, the way I see it, is that for shooting, assuming our eyes are in good shape, or we have prescribed corrections, all we are trying to do is alter the depth of field (which in the days before point and shoot cameras, we did all the time). This is not meant to be self diagnosis and I re-iterate that for problems of vision, Richard is very, very correct. As shooters, we are not trying to solve problems, but to look at our concentrated little world in a different focus.
Of course we have to use common sense, but should surely not be afraid to experiment with different lenses to find what is right for us. Is it any different from using a magnifying glass to read small print or detail; only change of depth of field again. We don't wear our shooting glasses all day long, after all.
This is not meant to be an argument, but if my first post was open to mis-interpretation, hopefully, this will clarify matters and explain my reasoning.
Did you read the actual post including the one about the fact that he never said he went to an eye doctor to begin with to see if he had any problems?RobStubbs wrote:Whilst I agree with the principles, how many optometrists do you know that have been trained in making sporting glasses never mind shooting lenses ? All they are doing is making a lense that enables you to focus comfortably on the foresight. If you have no oddities about your eyes, like Derek, then doing as he suggests poses no problems.Richard H wrote:So I guess we agree to disagree. I still think that you should get your lenses done by a trained professional.
Rob.
Actually there are a few in our area that are very good in sports optics. If none of you actually go and request the service there is no reason any of your doctors will go get the additional training. So if there aren't any around and you guys go buy your glasses at the drug store, you're part of the problem.
True, I didn't say I HAD been to an eye doctor (optometrist?) but on the other hand, I didn't say I HADN'T either. At that stage, I don't think eye doctors had been mentioned as a neccessary pre-requisite to obtaining shooting lenses.
As for optometrists going for the extra training if enough of us ask for the service, we have 55 members in our club out of a population of 60,000 in the town. In the UK at least, shooters are a very tiny minority, without the weight that may bring about change. We of course go to the optician for prescription glasses, but not neccessarily for magnifying glasses and other auxiliary lenses.
I think, with respect, that this discussion is getting rather pedantic, with the "who said this and that and when" and so maybe it is time to draw a line under it. Continuation is unlikely to assist the gentleman who started the thread in forming his opinions.
As for optometrists going for the extra training if enough of us ask for the service, we have 55 members in our club out of a population of 60,000 in the town. In the UK at least, shooters are a very tiny minority, without the weight that may bring about change. We of course go to the optician for prescription glasses, but not neccessarily for magnifying glasses and other auxiliary lenses.
I think, with respect, that this discussion is getting rather pedantic, with the "who said this and that and when" and so maybe it is time to draw a line under it. Continuation is unlikely to assist the gentleman who started the thread in forming his opinions.
-
Mark Briggs
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:35 am
- Location: The Frigid North - Ottawa, Canada
If I may, I'll throw a word in edge-wise here... I shoot with Knobloch's (actually a pair sold to me by Richard H - thanks, they work just great!) and use a lense which I purchased from the Knobloch rep at a World Cup. The lense contains astigmatism correction as well as a +1.25 diopter correction. It works very well for me.
However...
I also use the 3-way Knobloch colour filters which attach to the lensholder. Another poster here mentioned the effect of internal reflections between lenses. This effect is readily appearant when using the colour filters, and is indeed a frustration.
Also, the colour of the blinder can be changed easily to accommodate different lighting conditions. This is a significant advantage to those with 'real' shooting glasses. And yes, even hanging side blinders on your glasses is easier with the purpose-designed shooting glasses.
For air pistol I originally started out wit a couple of pairs of Varga glasses. I find the Varga adjustable iris to be superior to both the Knobloch and Champion and have modified my air pistol glasses (another pair of Knobloch's) to accept the Varga lense holder and iris.
So, to address the original question, shooting glasses can be a huge benefit. The more extreme the lighting conditions in which you shoot the greater the probability that shooting-specific glasses will be of benefit to you. Once you own a pair, be they Varga's, Knobloch's, Yaggi's or Champions, you'll not likely want to go back to shooting with anything else. Investing in a good set of shooting glasses, a good checkup by a reputable eye specialist, and a lense of the proper prescription can be a very wise thing indeed.
However...
I also use the 3-way Knobloch colour filters which attach to the lensholder. Another poster here mentioned the effect of internal reflections between lenses. This effect is readily appearant when using the colour filters, and is indeed a frustration.
Also, the colour of the blinder can be changed easily to accommodate different lighting conditions. This is a significant advantage to those with 'real' shooting glasses. And yes, even hanging side blinders on your glasses is easier with the purpose-designed shooting glasses.
For air pistol I originally started out wit a couple of pairs of Varga glasses. I find the Varga adjustable iris to be superior to both the Knobloch and Champion and have modified my air pistol glasses (another pair of Knobloch's) to accept the Varga lense holder and iris.
So, to address the original question, shooting glasses can be a huge benefit. The more extreme the lighting conditions in which you shoot the greater the probability that shooting-specific glasses will be of benefit to you. Once you own a pair, be they Varga's, Knobloch's, Yaggi's or Champions, you'll not likely want to go back to shooting with anything else. Investing in a good set of shooting glasses, a good checkup by a reputable eye specialist, and a lense of the proper prescription can be a very wise thing indeed.
I never said I didn't go to an opticians, if fact I did get my shooting lens from a specialist in making them for shooters. I also went to my local 'ordinary' opticians just last month and now have reading glasses as well.Richard H wrote:If none of you actually go and request the service there is no reason any of your doctors will go get the additional training. So if there aren't any around and you guys go buy your glasses at the drug store, you're part of the problem.
I'd also love to know what extra training your opticians get, the only training I'm aware of comes from shooters telling them exactly what they want and them trying different lenses to achieve the best focus on the foresight.
Anyway as Derek said we're going round in circles of pedantry so I'll call it a day.
Rob.
Just some random thoughts re product that may help others.
Champion do the new super Olympic (the black case) that has offset nose bridge stalk. This enables inline stance and still have lens in centre of eye when in shooting position (I shoot right hand/left eye and this exacerbates situation).
Would always go for quality glass colour filters –v- plastic. Champion do very high quality colour filters with good coating to minimise optical acuity loss and they also do them in the Knobloch pistol lens sizes as well.
Very popular colour for outdoor pistol are the 10%, 20% and 40% amethyst, they now produce a “gold” colour filter for poor, misty or some indoor low light conditions, these greatly improve contrast. The gold is a great improvement over the yellow.
Champion now do a clip-on iris that attaches to the filter or the shooting lens so you can comfortably and remove on range both.
We have found an excellent opticians in Zurich, they are geared for shooters with a dedicated shooters dispensing room. www.gerweroptik.ch This prescriptions and lens quality is outstanding and good English (and far better than in many British shops these days!!). Given the low cost flights, a day trip for European shooters is not out of the question. If you have a very strong prescription let them know first so that can order in the correct blanks. They accept credit cards (not very common in SUI). Finally, they understand the shooting position well and correctly set-up the lens position and centre the lens alignment.
Quality optics have to be a great investment for pistol shooters.
Champion do the new super Olympic (the black case) that has offset nose bridge stalk. This enables inline stance and still have lens in centre of eye when in shooting position (I shoot right hand/left eye and this exacerbates situation).
Would always go for quality glass colour filters –v- plastic. Champion do very high quality colour filters with good coating to minimise optical acuity loss and they also do them in the Knobloch pistol lens sizes as well.
Very popular colour for outdoor pistol are the 10%, 20% and 40% amethyst, they now produce a “gold” colour filter for poor, misty or some indoor low light conditions, these greatly improve contrast. The gold is a great improvement over the yellow.
Champion now do a clip-on iris that attaches to the filter or the shooting lens so you can comfortably and remove on range both.
We have found an excellent opticians in Zurich, they are geared for shooters with a dedicated shooters dispensing room. www.gerweroptik.ch This prescriptions and lens quality is outstanding and good English (and far better than in many British shops these days!!). Given the low cost flights, a day trip for European shooters is not out of the question. If you have a very strong prescription let them know first so that can order in the correct blanks. They accept credit cards (not very common in SUI). Finally, they understand the shooting position well and correctly set-up the lens position and centre the lens alignment.
Quality optics have to be a great investment for pistol shooters.
Ok, lets stop bickering and get back to my original question:
I'm nearsighted. How do I get lenese for my shooting glasses that will work for me.
i have some knobloch frames.
What do I tell the eyedoctor when I go to get the lenses made?
Do I need different lenses for my airpistol and free pistol due to different front sight distances.
I'm nearsighted. How do I get lenese for my shooting glasses that will work for me.
i have some knobloch frames.
What do I tell the eyedoctor when I go to get the lenses made?
Do I need different lenses for my airpistol and free pistol due to different front sight distances.
First thing I would call some optomitrists and see if any have any experience and are interested in helping you.
Personally if you have to tell him what to do I would most likely steer clear of him as hes not really providing anything to you.
Mine schedules an hour long apointment instead of half hour, lets me bring my AP to his office, has a target set up. Does a full eye exam looking for the signs of any desease or changes in my eyes. Then goes to work figuring out the correction I need. For shooters he goes in smaller steps than regular patience.
If you don't have one locally that has experience, I'm sure one that is interested in the project would be able to tap the resources of his professional organisation to aquaint himself what is required.
Where do you live? Someone here might actually know someone close to you.
Personally if you have to tell him what to do I would most likely steer clear of him as hes not really providing anything to you.
Mine schedules an hour long apointment instead of half hour, lets me bring my AP to his office, has a target set up. Does a full eye exam looking for the signs of any desease or changes in my eyes. Then goes to work figuring out the correction I need. For shooters he goes in smaller steps than regular patience.
If you don't have one locally that has experience, I'm sure one that is interested in the project would be able to tap the resources of his professional organisation to aquaint himself what is required.
Where do you live? Someone here might actually know someone close to you.
-
Fred Mannis
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:37 pm
- Location: Delaware
James,James wrote:Ok, lets stop bickering and get back to my original question:
I'm nearsighted. How do I get lenese for my shooting glasses that will work for me.
i have some knobloch frames.
What do I tell the eyedoctor when I go to get the lenses made?
Do I need different lenses for my airpistol and free pistol due to different front sight distances.
Dr. Norman Wong, an experienced pistol shooter and optometrist, has written extensively on glasses for shooters and related issues. See http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/nwongarts.html for a collection of his writings. The first article http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/nwo ... l#eyeguide is in the form of a primer on eye needs of shooters that the shooter/patient can give to and discuss with his eye doctor. A number of shooters have used this article with their eye doctor and found it very useful in understanding what the eye doctor is measuring and in getting the doctor to understand the shooter's needs.
Dr Wong lives in California and I have heard of people who have traveled accross the U.S. to use him.
Hope this helps.
Fred
I went to the eye doctor today.
I got a perscription for my far vision, but when I told them about lenses for my shooting glasses I was told:
My near and intermediate vision was perfect. So I dont need any corrective lenses for shooting other then my everyday glasses.
I dont think the eye doctor understood the purpose of shooting glasses. Or maybe I dont.
They are used to restrict focus on the front sight right?
So shooting lenses for me would have the distance correction, and an additional diopter?
Like +0.25 and -4.00?
I got a perscription for my far vision, but when I told them about lenses for my shooting glasses I was told:
My near and intermediate vision was perfect. So I dont need any corrective lenses for shooting other then my everyday glasses.
I dont think the eye doctor understood the purpose of shooting glasses. Or maybe I dont.
They are used to restrict focus on the front sight right?
So shooting lenses for me would have the distance correction, and an additional diopter?
Like +0.25 and -4.00?