Do I need shooting glasses? (help...)
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Do I need shooting glasses? (help...)
Folks, at 48 I know need "reading glasses" -- I have a 1913 with a 10cm hammer head extension AND a 0.5 eagle eye. To be honest the the adjustable front aperature seems clear (far enough out of my "reading range" but I'm finding the bulls to be slightly fuzzy/irregular. I've played with the rear apperture and today opened it wide up and opened the front all the way to 4.1... scored less Xs bu kept the 10s. I'm strugling with the lower aperatures since I misjudge the "white spacing" (hence the hide open approach)... sounds complicated - any thoughts? (would champion or some other brand of glasses help?)... btw - with my scope 6.5*20 I cleaned the sheet (X's) - but with metallics it's 90-94... guidance would be appreciated...
Welcome to "old age". Your eyes no longer "accommodate", or change focus, as fast as they used to, and it only gets worse with aging. You need to use the wider opening on the front sight, really focus on the front aperture, and let the target be blurred (slightly for now, but more so as your eyes continue to lose the ability to accommodate).
Shooting glasses are really needed when you can no longer focus clearly on the front sight, and they can correct your vision to allow you to do so. You will still have a blurred target.
It sounds like you have been shooting without focusing on the front sight, but instead seeing the "sight picture" by unconsciously quickly refocusing between front sight and target. Sorry, but those days are gone.
Shooting glasses are really needed when you can no longer focus clearly on the front sight, and they can correct your vision to allow you to do so. You will still have a blurred target.
It sounds like you have been shooting without focusing on the front sight, but instead seeing the "sight picture" by unconsciously quickly refocusing between front sight and target. Sorry, but those days are gone.
Shooting glasses will make it much easier to maintain focus where it should be, on the foresight. Even young eyes will get strained focussing off their natural point of aim, so I'd suggest shooting glasses will deffinately make things easier for you.
Don't worry about a fuzzy bull, that's what it should look like (slightly anyway). Also experimenting with the foresight size will take time to find out what works best for you. Have a 'fiddle' to see what feels best and then shoot with that setting for a few weeks. Scores may well drop initially, but they will improve again once you're used to the new sight picture. I'd personally leave the rear iris alone, at about 1.1 or 1.2 mm.
Rob.
Don't worry about a fuzzy bull, that's what it should look like (slightly anyway). Also experimenting with the foresight size will take time to find out what works best for you. Have a 'fiddle' to see what feels best and then shoot with that setting for a few weeks. Scores may well drop initially, but they will improve again once you're used to the new sight picture. I'd personally leave the rear iris alone, at about 1.1 or 1.2 mm.
Rob.
Thanks for the info - rats... (but thanks for keeping me honest - I "was" trying to focus back/front/back)... I wish I would have started when I was younger. :)
So it's time to use some "points" and purchase a set of glasses - and start working out the kinks... I'll do a search on "what" glasses to purchase... anyone have experience with the Champion Super Olympic? (my thought would be to get on set of optics and adjust by position) or, a little more -- get the "Olympic" and purchase 2 sets of frames... opinions?
Have a good day.
So it's time to use some "points" and purchase a set of glasses - and start working out the kinks... I'll do a search on "what" glasses to purchase... anyone have experience with the Champion Super Olympic? (my thought would be to get on set of optics and adjust by position) or, a little more -- get the "Olympic" and purchase 2 sets of frames... opinions?
Have a good day.
My experience has been that one's head position is pretty similar between prone and kneeling but more different for offhand. This varies from shooter to shooter, but it's not an uncommon situation. So if you wanted to make life simple you could have two frames, one for standing and the other for the sling positions.
The SuperOlympic frames differ in that they offer more axes of adjustment to the lens... Essentially every axis that exists is adjustable by the shooter, in position, without tools. And with one hand. In the standard Champion frames you lose a couple of adjustments, but the ones that are there, are still adjustable while in position.
I have used three brands personally and sell three brands at 10.9, though not the exact same three. Pretty much all frames will get you to where you want to be, in other words, get the lens to your eye and in line with your
line of vision. The difference is the amount of twiddling you want to do to get there, and how much time you want to spend. Jaggi Novas, MEC's, etc, just require you to take them off first, or at least it's easier that way. Champions let you leave them on and reach up and turn a screw. You normally won't have to do that much, but minor changes in your position, cheekpiece or the shape of your face due to your body weight changing, can all require a small change to the lens position.
And it is roughly a double-the-cost thing. SuperOlympic frames are about twice the price.
Long answer, sorry. But it is a nuanced issue.
Larry Sawyer
10.9
The SuperOlympic frames differ in that they offer more axes of adjustment to the lens... Essentially every axis that exists is adjustable by the shooter, in position, without tools. And with one hand. In the standard Champion frames you lose a couple of adjustments, but the ones that are there, are still adjustable while in position.
I have used three brands personally and sell three brands at 10.9, though not the exact same three. Pretty much all frames will get you to where you want to be, in other words, get the lens to your eye and in line with your
line of vision. The difference is the amount of twiddling you want to do to get there, and how much time you want to spend. Jaggi Novas, MEC's, etc, just require you to take them off first, or at least it's easier that way. Champions let you leave them on and reach up and turn a screw. You normally won't have to do that much, but minor changes in your position, cheekpiece or the shape of your face due to your body weight changing, can all require a small change to the lens position.
And it is roughly a double-the-cost thing. SuperOlympic frames are about twice the price.
Long answer, sorry. But it is a nuanced issue.
Larry Sawyer
10.9
-
SA.shoot
Leo, as a shooter and in the vision health industry, I say why carry around multiple frames and have to bother switching back and forth between focal lengths?
Have you ever looked into the idea of adjustable glasses? Now there are glasses that can mimic the eye's youthful lens. You can choose the exact correction that you want for whatever situation you are in.
I would love to hear of any of you have tried them yet? And how they have worked out for your shot.
Have you ever looked into the idea of adjustable glasses? Now there are glasses that can mimic the eye's youthful lens. You can choose the exact correction that you want for whatever situation you are in.
I would love to hear of any of you have tried them yet? And how they have worked out for your shot.
Leo,
I'm north of 45 now. I've got a 23" barrel and a 12" tube on my gun and use a 4.0 front aperture. 4.1 seems to be right in the sweet spot, if a bit big for my taste. I use the Centra front apertures with the 1.3mm thick ring. I used to use 1.0 thick rings and had a harder time keeping them in focus. When I'm aiming, I move my focus back and forth between the target and the front sight. Good, bad, or indifferent, that is what I do.
Eric U
I'm north of 45 now. I've got a 23" barrel and a 12" tube on my gun and use a 4.0 front aperture. 4.1 seems to be right in the sweet spot, if a bit big for my taste. I use the Centra front apertures with the 1.3mm thick ring. I used to use 1.0 thick rings and had a harder time keeping them in focus. When I'm aiming, I move my focus back and forth between the target and the front sight. Good, bad, or indifferent, that is what I do.
Eric U
....and another option. Junker frames avaiable from Neal Stepp in U.S. More like regular glasses, but with the right lens frame offset higher and inward so that the lens becomes aligned with the rear sight and your eye position. This also allows you to get close to the rear sight if that is your preference which is not possible with Champions or Knoblochs. These frames also allow the vertex distance to be much less (the distance of the lens to the eye) which is an advantage for some. I tried the rest and wish I had found these first.
Dennis L
Dennis L
I'm with Dennis...I use Junkers glasses. I believe they work best with slight prescriptions as it is a bit more difficult (or impossible) to get the lens perfectly in front of the eye, and they can't be adjusted between positions. They might be more appropriate for prone-only (or maybe air-only) shooters. The plus side is that they are dirt simple. There really isn't anything that can go wrong with them. Even at my advanced age, I believe my frames are older than I am.
Eric U
Eric U
I struggled with frames, I tried two different makes and was never comfortable with them, then rediscovered Junkers, they are excelent, I have a slight prescription which fits with what Eric said and I use them unchanged for prone and air. Mine are an old pair from Malcolm Cooper 30 years ago so I'm hoping they are well trained, but they are still available now new.
Good shooting
Robin
Good shooting
Robin
Not to interrupt the "Junkers love" here ;), but I have really awful eyes (-9.75R, -10.5L + astigmatism) so shooting without special glasses is hopeless.
FWIW, I've always used Champion frames. I started with a World Champion 2 back in the late 90s and have just switched to an Olympic frame. The ability to center the lens perpendicularly in front of my eye and the iris is crucial to a good sight picture.
Here's a picture I took last summer when I was working on my head position:
The lens isn't centred yet on the rear iris but you can see how close it is to my eye. This likely isn't a make or break for the majority of shooters, but it is for me.
That said, I don't train nearly as often as I should, so any failures to find the centre consistently are mine alone. :)
Jason
FWIW, I've always used Champion frames. I started with a World Champion 2 back in the late 90s and have just switched to an Olympic frame. The ability to center the lens perpendicularly in front of my eye and the iris is crucial to a good sight picture.
Here's a picture I took last summer when I was working on my head position:
The lens isn't centred yet on the rear iris but you can see how close it is to my eye. This likely isn't a make or break for the majority of shooters, but it is for me.
That said, I don't train nearly as often as I should, so any failures to find the centre consistently are mine alone. :)
Jason
for stuff like this i like to use a zoom lens camera and shoot further away rather than a wide angle that's positioned closer...this is because a zoom lens (200-300mm) has a lot less perspective on it than a wide (10-70mm), so it lets you see things lining up better.
Not easy to do on your own, granted, but a video set up right can do it if you have a cheap one you can leave in one place.
no doubt that eye piece isn't central to the sight axis. But a bit of adjustment would make it so. But because the shot is taken from below the sight axis, it's tricky to see if the eye is good as well.
not looking down the sights until you are certain you are aligned is a good way of stopping the eye cheating the brain and thus the body.
Not easy to do on your own, granted, but a video set up right can do it if you have a cheap one you can leave in one place.
no doubt that eye piece isn't central to the sight axis. But a bit of adjustment would make it so. But because the shot is taken from below the sight axis, it's tricky to see if the eye is good as well.
not looking down the sights until you are certain you are aligned is a good way of stopping the eye cheating the brain and thus the body.
-
Old Artilleryman
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:53 am
- Location: SW Michigan
I'm resuming my competitive shooting "career" following a few decades off. My Knobloch frames with updated prescription and one multi-adjustable lense and blinder (on the L), have proven as useful as ever. I am able to easily move the lense to accomodate the slight differences between P, K, and O positions. I'm still trying to sort out the transition from a 24X Unertl to iron sights at my age including most of the same problems expressed by others who are 40-50 years and older. This thread and similar ones have been very helpful to me. So, thanks to all!
(Craig)
http://knobloch-shootingglasses.com/allframes.html
(Craig)
http://knobloch-shootingglasses.com/allframes.html