contact lens vs shooting glasses

cmj · Post by **cmj** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:27 am

What is the current thinking on shooting with a contact lens vs a prescription shooting lens in a shooting frame like Champion. Is there any difference? With an astigmatism I'm thinking might not be seeing the same through the contact lens consistently. Any thoughts on this?

efoleyjr · Post by **efoleyjr** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:01 am

You are correct about not seeing the bull as it really is with an astigmatism. I started shooting about 3 years ago after a 30 yr. break and could not shoot irons for crap.Two eye surgeries later and champion shooting glasses with the right perscription len, still couldn't shoot irons well. The latest change is to try contacts, RGP contacts, and I now I can shoot irons very well. The RGP contact fixed my astigmatism, for the most part, which has made a MAJOR improvement in my sight picture but not perfect. After the contact I had to put a corrective lens in my shooting glasses to eliminate the odd flyer that was caused by the astigmatism not being perfectly corrected for with the contact. Contacts are not perfect but it is the only way I can shoot competitive iron sight scores so I will have to deal with them. If you are serious about your shooting give them a try.
Ed

mbradley · Post by **mbradley** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:22 pm

There is a new contact lens technology available called a multi focal lense. It has been a great change for me. PM me if you wish to discuss further.

Mike

HWN1011 · Post by **HWN1011** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:26 am

cmj wrote:What is the current thinking on shooting with a contact lens vs a prescription shooting lens in a shooting frame like Champion. Is there any difference? With an astigmatism I'm thinking might not be seeing the same through the contact lens consistently. Any thoughts on this?

I have been wondering about this for a while myself. I have never seen anyone I shoot with wearing contact lenses. I was wondering if there was a reason for it. I am also wondering if contact lenses are ISSF legal I will have to dig out the ISSF rules.

BigAl · Post by **BigAl** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:02 am

Rule 7.4.1.5 Para 2 states that: Corrective lenses OR eyeglasses, and/or filters or tinted lenses, may be worn by the athlete.

The emphasis is mine, but the or would seem to suggest that you may wear either contact lenses or corrective glasses but not both in ISSF competition. That would also be consistent with all the other rules that limit you to a single corrective lens. Not being a wearer of contacts I don't know if you could manage to get any degree of magnification by using a contact lens in conjunction with a lens in a set of frames?

Alan

mtncwru · Post by **mtncwru** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:59 pm

Re. contacts and shooting glasses: I shot with contacts and a corrective lens in my shooting glasses for the past couple years until getting Lasik in January. I was quite nearsighted (over 6 diopters of correction in both eyes), and any shooting glasses would have needed two lenses. I got no magnifying effect from the second lens, but rather got the opposite due to my prescription. The shrinking effect was part of why I went with contacts as well; putting my full prescription in a lens off my eye would greatly increase the shrinkage, while contacts did not do so nearly as much. I did make sure I had my optometrist's prescription and note with me, just in case there was any question, but it was never an issue. If you hung two lenses in line with each other off your shooting frames, or had two pairs of glasses on, then you would probably have a harder time arguing that you weren't in violation of the "No magnification" clause.

As for the glasses vs. contacts question, I would strongly lean toward glasses, especially for astigmatism correction. Astigmatic correction is axis dependent, which means that as the contact rotates your perception of the target will change. I had issues with my contacts drying out during a match, too, especially when wind came up. If you do go glasses, a proper set of shooting frames is a must, since you need to be able to position the lens directly in line with your eye and the sight. It is certainly possible to get multiple lenses in multiple holders and position one for your sights, and one for your spotting scope. When and if you are a candidate for surgical correction, I highly recommend it. It's been six weeks for me, and it's been phenomenal, both for shooting and for life in general.

Abi · Post by **Abi** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:35 pm

The eye center told me that astigmatism contacts would rotate every time I blinked, and would rest on my lower eye lid due to the weighted effect. I recently got a lens to try out in some frames, the biggest issue I am having is that everything is black and crisp, but oblong and angled (I cannot seem to get the lens at the correct rotation and angle). I can imagine it will be frustrating when shooting 3P to change the lens position each time. Also I look out of the nose piece.

Currently I shoot without glasses, as I don't wear them everyday (squint at everything instead). I seem to be consistent at lining up the grey fuzzy blobs and finding the 10-ring. ;-)

Abi

efoleyjr · Post by **efoleyjr** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:36 pm

Just to clarify my previous post. The RGP contact is not for correcting my astigmatism per my Rx. Only a sperical correction. But the contact corrects most of my astigmatism by smoothing the corena so the axis is not of any importance. As I said, the corrective lens I use in my glasses has the final correction needed after testing eyes with the contact in. This lens also has an astigmatism correction in it but it is around 0.5d and not the 2.5d I have with no contact. The 0.5d astigmatism is much less critical with the axis orientation which makes setting the lens in the glasses much easier. Good Luck, hope this info helps.
Ed

RobStubbs · Post by **RobStubbs** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:19 am

Glasses every time. Contacts whatever they say cannot be made to the same tolerances or quality as glasses, and of course a shooting lens has a different prescription to a normal set of glasses (reading or for long distance). So unless you get a special shooting contact made then you're already starting off the wrong way. Remember too that in shooting we don't look in the same way as we normally do, even in standing rifle. With shooting specific glasses you can get the lens orientation perfect for that 'abnormal' head position.

Rob.

stuann · Post by **stuann** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:22 am

I have learned a lot about contact lenses in the past two months, which may be of interest to some. I have had dry eyes for a while. My tear film "breaks up" in about 5-6 seconds, and the bull turns from round to oblong. (This is with mild astigmatism corrected.) It is worse outdoors, but also happens indoors. A local optometrist suggested contacts might cover the cornea and keep things in focus longer. She gave me the new soft, hydrophilic lenses. They didn't work. I went to an ophthalmologist who specializes in corneas, and he thought the soft (hydrophilic) lens might be absorbing water from the tears. He suggested a rigid gas permeable (RGP) lens made by a local specialty place (Acculens, http://www.acculens.com/). It is considered to be a "scleral" contact and I am not sure if it differs from other types of RGPs. It is comfortable, and not at all like the old hard lenses that I had heard about.
Not only did it fix my problem, it gives great vision, without being susceptible to dirt, etc. My understanding is that it doesn't float around over the cornea, but gets in position and just sits there. It even corrects mild astigmatism of certain types. I am wearing them even when not on the range because vision is clearer. I was ready to give up iron sights, and this has been a big advance for me. (I previously had cataracts removed, even though the eye doctor didn't think they were "advanced" enough, and found my sight picture improved.) I am under the impression that some contact professionals aren't as up on these type of lenses. I have been working with the owner of Acculens - I am the first shooter with dry eye he has worked with, so don't expect your local person to know about this application.

efoleyjr · Post by **efoleyjr** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:45 pm

stuann wrote:I have learned a lot about contact lenses in the past two months, which may be of interest to some. I have had dry eyes for a while. My tear film "breaks up" in about 5-6 seconds, and the bull turns from round to oblong. (This is with mild astigmatism corrected.) It is worse outdoors, but also happens indoors. A local optometrist suggested contacts might cover the cornea and keep things in focus longer. She gave me the new soft, hydrophilic lenses. They didn't work. I went to an ophthalmologist who specializes in corneas, and he thought the soft (hydrophilic) lens might be absorbing water from the tears. He suggested a rigid gas permeable (RGP) lens made by a local specialty place (Acculens, http://www.acculens.com/). It is considered to be a "scleral" contact and I am not sure if it differs from other types of RGPs. It is comfortable, and not at all like the old hard lenses that I had heard about.
Not only did it fix my problem, it gives great vision, without being susceptible to dirt, etc. My understanding is that it doesn't float around over the cornea, but gets in position and just sits there. It even corrects mild astigmatism of certain types. I am wearing them even when not on the range because vision is clearer. I was ready to give up iron sights, and this has been a big advance for me. (I previously had cataracts removed, even though the eye doctor didn't think they were "advanced" enough, and found my sight picture improved.) I am under the impression that some contact professionals aren't as up on these type of lenses. I have been working with the owner of Acculens - I am the first shooter with dry eye he has worked with, so don't expect your local person to know about this application.

It sounds like you are on to something. I wear an RGP contact that is small and it improves my astigmatism a lot but is uncomfortable and fuzzes out after 5-7 sec. My astigmatism is bad, around 2.75d, so the contact that touches the cornea is important. If the one your using does the same it would be great. The real question is how bad is your astigmatism and how well does it, the contact, fix it? Thanks
Ed Foley
edf@fohcinc.com

stuann · Post by **stuann** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:08 pm

My astigmatism is minor (around -.25, I think).
The person to talk to is Bill Masler at Acculens (website in previous post)

efoleyjr · Post by **efoleyjr** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:04 pm

stuann wrote:My astigmatism is minor (around -.25, I think).
The person to talk to is Bill Masler at Acculens (website in previous post)

Thanks, I will contact him.
Ed

gwsb · Post by **gwsb** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 11:09 am

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth I shot with contacts, and it worked very well. I am sure the technology has changed since then but I used hard lenses.

The advantage of hard lenses is that they correct astigmatism by actually changing the shape of the eye . They got my sight form about 20-600 to well under 20-20.

The down side is that hard lenses are not as comfortable as others and wind, dust ect can be very painfull. However, the ability to see a perfectly round front sight and bull is a wonderful thing if you are used to using glasses which are inconsistent at best. In addition the closer to your eyeball the lens is the bigger the image so contacts give a larger image than glasses.

ShootingSight · Post by **ShootingSight** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:07 pm

I'm thinking lenses for most cases.

THe key to accurate shooting is consistency of focus. As a contact will reposition itself slightly everytime you blink, I just can't imagine that being as stable as a fixed lens.

The only exception I can think of is if you are extremely nearsighted. Negative power lenses have a negative magnification (shrinking) effect, that gets bigger the further they are from your eye, so you want strong negatives as close to your eye as possible. So in this case, contacts might be better than lenses.

Though even here, if you were going to experiment, I'd suggest trying a pure sphere contact to manage most of the correction while minimizing the effect of floating, and then get all the cylinder correction in the lens. I've never tried this approach - only just thought of it as I was typing this response, but I don't know why it would not work.

gwsb · Post by **gwsb** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:32 pm

You are absolutely right. The aparent size of the bull and front sight is about a big as a basketball for me compared to glasses.

Another reason I found is that there are too many adjustments on high quality shooting glasses, anyone of which can get moved by accident and your sight picture is changed.

stuann · Post by **stuann** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:26 pm

If I understand what the Acculens guy told me, his lens is not just a rigid gas permeable lens, but is (also) considered a scleral lens. It does not float over your cornea, but extends on to the white part of the eye (the sclera) and stays in one place. The standard way of taking it out is to use a little rubber plunger to grab it and then pull it off. It is so firmly on the eye that it takes some practice to learn to break the "seal" and get it off. He also says that because it stays in one place, dirt that blows in your eye is no big deal, I presume because it doesn't get under the lens. If someone is going to look into this further, they should not only ask about the rigid gas permeable lens, but also be sure that it is of the larger design.

gwsb · Post by **gwsb** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:26 pm

Thats interesting Stuann. The problem with contacts according to my eye doctor is that the more gas they let through the lower the visual accuity they give. That added to the asigmatizm correction is the reason old style hard lenses were so good.

The problem with dust,dirt ect on the range is that it gets between the lens and eye lid not the lens and eye ball. The eye lid has nerves that can feel pain not the eye ball.

jhmartin · Post by **jhmartin** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:30 pm

stuann wrote:If I understand what the Acculens guy told me, his lens is not just a rigid gas permeable lens, but is (also) considered a scleral lens. It does not float over your cornea, but extends on to the white part of the eye (the sclera) and stays in one place. The standard way of taking it out is to use a little rubber plunger to grab it and then pull it off. It is so firmly on the eye that it takes some practice to learn to break the "seal" and get it off. He also says that because it stays in one place, dirt that blows in your eye is no big deal, I presume because it doesn't get under the lens. If someone is going to look into this further, they should not only ask about the rigid gas permeable lens, but also be sure that it is of the larger design.

I currently have RGP lenses that have multiple curves ... bi-toric and a scleral lens is one option for me. I've worn rigid contacts for about 45 years now ... I need a rigid lens due to my keratoconus. I tried the scleral lens about a year ago and it was just too tough to use ... I could get them out, but it was just darn near impossible for me to put them in myself. They are big mothers!

chuckjordan · Post by **chuckjordan** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:47 am

I switched from Contacts to Glasses last year. My club shoots outdoors and in the Winter and heat of Summer my eyes tear up (I'm 53). With contacts and my eyes tearing up they (the contacts) would float and focusing on the front sight was lost.

I went to an optometrist and told him about my sport (shooting). He was cool and let me bring in my AP/SP/FP (demonstrated empty of course) and he provided a prescription that let me focus on the front sight.

Also did a second prescription for my AR, again let me focus on the front sight.

With glasses so cheap (on-line) I bought one pair per sport.

YMMV

Chuck

TargetTalk