Author Topic: shooting w/ bifocals (Read 1528 times)

mike65 · « **on:** June 17, 2008, 04:40:21 PM »

Just joined GBO and find the forums very good reading. Have a question I hope can get answered. I'm looking for a deer (slug) gun and really like the HR Ultra Slug Hunter and the Tracker 2. The USH comes w/ scope mount, the Tracker 2 w/ rifle sights. I've never been much of a scope hunter. Prefer open sights, so I like the Tracker. However, I have a concern with shooting open sights w/ bifocals. I'm not there yet, but at 43 I expect to have them in the next few years.

Anyone have trouble shooting open sights w/ bifocals? Should I go w/ a scope to prevent possible sighting problems down the road?

Cookiemann · « **Reply #1 on:** June 18, 2008, 12:21:46 PM »

I'm 54 and have bi-focals. I have never done any shooting with scopes, so I can't really help you there. I don't have too much problem. It does seem that all the variables(distance between f and r sights, distance from your eye to the r sight, LOP) seem to make a bigger difference now that I wear bi-focals One more thing...I have glasses that are narrow from top to bottom, this seems to give me problems, sometimes, as have a smaller field of view and sometimes end up looking OVER my glasses. These are some of the things I have to be mindful of when shooting.

cookiemann

12ptdroptine · « **Reply #2 on:** June 18, 2008, 03:41:07 PM »

I have my bifocals set lower than most..I cant see well enough to use a peep sight anymore since age has krept up on me...However I can use the peep on a bow since it is so close. This is going to be a trial and error for you... Try some defferent height's Good Luck Drop

bakabob · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2008, 04:44:09 PM »

I have been wearing bifocals for many many years and I have a very hard time shooting with open sights. If I can see the target clearly my sights are just a blur and if I lift my glasses up so I can see the sights clearly the target is a blur. I do also have some macular degeneration in my right eye which makes matters worse. In my opinion if one has almost any kind of eye problems a scope is a must. Low light conditions makes matters worse. A few years ago I sighted in my muzzle loader at the range the best I could with open sights because scopes were not allowed but when I got into the woods early in the morning and tried shouldering the gun I virtualy could not see the sights at all. That is the last time I have used open sights. Thankfully they allowed scopes on ML the next year and I was able to hunt again. Of course my age may have something to do with my vision (76).

mike65 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2008, 05:03:14 PM »

Thanks for your replys/ suggestions. I decided on the Tracker 2 w/ open sights. Cost was a big factor (can't justify to the wife spending as much or more on a good scope as on the gun itself.) And since I only gun hunt deer, I'll probably only get 3-4 days in the woods. Lastly, I don't plan on taking any shots beyond 50-60 yards, so open sights should suffice. Hopefully, the eyesight will hold out

db22 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2008, 05:28:03 AM »

Sprautdoors: I think you made the right decision. I wear bifocals (age 55), and most of my long guns still wear open or aperture iron sights. I don't like carrying a scoped rifle -- much prefer to carry a long gun at the balance point, with my hand comfortably wrapped around it. A scope adds weight, and as arthritis takes its toll on my bones, carry weight is a bigger factor every year.

With either an open rear blade or a rear aperture, I have found that the new light-gathering bead front sights go a long way to make the front sight defined against the rear sight. Williams, Marble's and Tru-Glo all make front beads of this type. I tried the glow-bead rear blade that Williams makes, and found it too fuzzy to be any improvement over a plain flat-black rear sight. The best bet of all is a large rear aperture and a light-gathering front bead, for hunting. Your rear sight shouldn't be in focus -- if it is, something is amiss. Just center the desired point of impact in the aperture, and touch it at six o'clock with the front bead. Some people like a center hold, with the bead covering the point of impact dead-center. That might be best for hunting, but I always use an imaginary bull's-eye, with the bead just touching it.

ro · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2008, 07:17:01 PM »

i also wear bifocals to work and read with, but i can not shoot or hunt with them, scopes or open sites, each time i move my head i loose the target, go to the dollar store buy you 4-5 pair of those cheap glasses, i gave 400.00 for my last pair of bifocals, i am setting here now typing to you wearing a pair of three dollar reading glasses, that is what i shoot with and hunt with, so you can try it it works for me.

Mike Britton · « **Reply #7 on:** June 22, 2008, 04:01:40 AM »

I'm 60, have worn glasses all my life. I'm a minus 450 in one eye and minus 500 in the other. In lay terms, I'm seriously nearsighted.
At 50, I had to give up Palma match because I couldn't see the target anymore. I think there comes a time when one has to admit they need help to see.
I wear progressive adjustment lenses, and my optometrist keeps trying to get me to have him make a pair of shooting glasses for me.
Part of the problem glasses wearers face is that up in the upper corner of the lens, where you sight down the barrel, there is major distortion . That's why my Dr. wants me to have a pair made for shooting. That's great if all you do is punch paper, as I do, but if you are in the woods you will soon find two pair of glasses a real problem.
I look at it this way, if Billy Dixon had had the luxury of a good scope sight, you can bet good money he would have used it!
If glass didn't work so well it wouldn't be so popular. Most of my rifles are iron sights, but I also limit my shooting with them to 50-75 yards, and I'm always amazed when I get out rifle with a scope and I can actually see!
If I think I'm going to need to see any farther, I get out the glass.

jlchucker · « **Reply #8 on:** June 22, 2008, 05:03:01 AM »

I've worn bifocals (the "progressive", no-line kind) for nearly 20 years now. So far, no problems with any type of iron sights. In fact, for the distances I shoot (mostly 100 yd or less) I prefer Iron sights to scopes. I never tried one of the new light-gathering bead front sights yet, but I do find that the standard ones with the dayglo orange beads don't work for me. I prefer an ivory or brass bead. For those who use those light-gathering front sights, has anyone had problems with breakage? The ones I've seen seem to look kind of fragile to me, but if they are rugged enough, I would think they would be good matched up with a receiver sight.

db22 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 22, 2008, 05:12:32 AM »

Mr. Britton: Agreed! I'm almost as myopic as you are, with elevated nystagmus and other vision defects thrown in just to make it more interesting. When I want to print a small group on paper at 200 yards, or hunt in Wyoming, I'll use a scoped .30-'06. But here in the Wisconsin woods, open or aperture sights are perfectly adequate for deer hunting, and I have started using an NEF Pardner shotgun for squirrels (though when I do take a .22 out, it is a scoped 10/22).

I was raised around National Match shooters, came up in the shooting sports taught by men who were riflemen first and equipment nuts second. The style of shooting that was imprinted in my mind early on calls for a M1903A1 rifle fitted with a M1907 sling. One of those wonderful shooters even took the time to teach me, a left-hander, to use a sling in reverse. I still keep a Savage MkII left-hand bolt action .22 fitted with an aperture sight and a sling. It is not the most accurate rifle I own, but the one that brings the most pleasure on the range. Breathe, relax, aim, sights, squeeze . . .

AtlLaw · « **Reply #10 on:** June 22, 2008, 04:03:40 PM »

Quote from: ro on June 21, 2008, 07:17:01 PM

a pair of three dollar reading glasses, that is what i shoot with and hunt with,

I stopped pistol shooting years ago because I couldn't see the sights. After picking up a couple of iron sighted lever guns and a 44 mag. pistol this year I was bound and determined to try to find a way to shoot them accurately. Got the fire sight and it helped some, then on a whim I picked up a pair of the lowest magnification reading glasses I could find; 1.25's. Low and behold I could see the pistol and rifle sights and the target as well! I'll give 'em a real tryout this deer season!

Mike Britton · « **Reply #11 on:** June 23, 2008, 03:56:06 AM »

DB22,
I shot Hi-Power and Palma until the vision in my left eye got so bad I found myself shooting my neighbor's target at 1000 yds!
Dave and I are friends and although at the time he was going for High Master, he was still pretty nice about it. I scored a ten and an eight for him before we figured out what was happening.
I never did figure out the left sided sling thing, but got it to work well enough to get a tight set.
Being a lefty, I developed a love for the M1A, but I built two nice Palma bolt guns, one left hand, (M 700 Rem. 308, )and one right hand, (M70 Win. .30-06), and really enjoyed long range until I finally got to the point I couldn't focus anymore.
Now, I go to the range and shoot at 50 yds., mostly for the noise and recoil. I don't have any op pertunity to hunt anymore so that is no longer an issue. I've entertained learning to shoot off the right side as my right eye is slightly better, but I'll probably just keep going to the range and making noise.
My wife is convinced that the only reason I shoot is so I can clean and "fondle" my weapons. She may be right.

db22 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 23, 2008, 04:12:58 PM »

Mike: I'm mighty sorry to hear that your vision has put a damper on riflery for you. I fear the same may happen to me before too long, so I am trying to enjoy it while I can still see well enough. Sounds like you had a good run, though, shooting in big matches. What ever happened to bullseye target shooting, anyway? No club in my neck of the woods holds matches any more. There was one about 30 miles from my place that held John C. Garand matches several times per year, but I haven't seen a schedule for this season. All the clubs here are into Cowboys and USPSA, rather than the old style I remember. Times change, for sure.

I hope the shooting you are able to do keeps you interested enough to stay in the sport. My wife has the same idea as yours -- she knows I get almost as much fun out of tinkering with my guns, as I do shooting them.

Mike Britton · « **Reply #13 on:** June 24, 2008, 04:12:41 AM »

Db22,
I think the reason there aren't more matches is that the guys that shoot those matches are getting older. Sure, there are guys and girls in the military that are great competition shooters, but a lot of them have families, and other commitments,and will put shooting on the back burner for a while.
I think that cowboy shooting is so popular has to do with the fun of dressing up, and playing a role. In formal target shooting, you are concentrating on being the VERY BEST shooter at the match. Sometimes that really takes the fun out of it.
I remember several High Masters who scored for me telling me if I would be more serious about my shooting, I would shoot better scores. That wasn't why I started shooting in competition, I started shooting for the fun and camaraderie.
But after awhile, once the best shooters realized I wasn't all that serious about being a champion, they were done with me.
In cowboy shooting, it's all about having a good time, and a shooting match just happens to go with it.
Db, you mention that you hope I can stay interested in the sport. For me, it's a lifestyle, I was born into a family of target/hunting shooters, many NRA life members, of which I, and my son both are. Guns will always be part of my life, and the family's.
My grandkids aren't at this time too much into guns and shooting, but they are around them so much they pretty much take them for granted, and are surprised sometimes at the reaction some of their "non-gun" peers have to guns.
One more reason why I believe that for a gun person there is nowhere better in the world to live than Texas. This is very much an "old school" society here, and we are quite comfortable with that.

Sourdough · « **Reply #14 on:** June 30, 2008, 07:05:43 PM »

I wear both lined and no line bi-focals. I can not see the iron sites and targets any more. I went to scopes on most of my rifles and slug guns. The rest I switched to peep sites. I can see through peep sites just fine. I can see the target and the front site just fine, there is no rear site to focus on so there is no problem.

Mike Britton · « **Reply #15 on:** July 01, 2008, 02:43:45 AM »

You are right, Sourdough, when it comes to irons I see through a peep (with a large aperture) than anything else.

FLNT4EVR · « **Reply #16 on:** July 01, 2008, 05:42:48 AM »

Sprautdoors, go to CDNN SPORTS www.cdnninvestments.com and click on the scopes in the menue. They have a Simmons shotgun/blackpowder scope for $ 19.99 . It,s a pretty good scope for the money, I use one on my 45/70 and it withstands the recoil of my heavy loads quite well . It was just what I needed to solve my bifocal shooting problems .

AtlLaw · « **Reply #17 on:** July 01, 2008, 05:57:49 AM »

Quote from: FLNT4EVR on July 01, 2008, 05:42:48 AM

CDNN SPORTS... www.cdnninvestments.com... They have a Simmons shotgun/blackpowder scope for $ 19.99

Tim (quicktodo) and Andy (MSP ret) both had good things to say about that scope and I was going to buy one or two. Trouble I found is that shipping added another $10 to the price!

FLNT4EVR · « **Reply #18 on:** July 01, 2008, 06:12:20 AM »

I bought mine based on Quick,s and MSP's recomendation, and I'm glad I did. In fact I may purchase another for a shotgun I recently acquired.

mike65 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 02, 2008, 03:19:08 PM »

FLNT4EVR: Thanks for the recommendation. I decided to go with the Tracker II w/ rifle sights. Got it last week and am planning to sight it in soon. Hoping the eyes hold out for at least a few more seasons.

gschwertley · « **Reply #20 on:** July 07, 2008, 03:35:11 PM »

I've worn glasses for about 48 years, and in the past 8 or so, have had to get bifocals. I've got the progressive type; my experience is that you must move your head more and your eyes less to line up with the "best spots" in the progressive lenses. Lots of distortion out around the edges. With open sights, typical front sight with rear sight ahead of the receiver, good luck -- the rear sight is just a blur. Aperture (peep) rear sight much better for old eyes, but not as good as glass sights (scope).

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet in this thread is the use of a diopter attachment to the eyeglasses. This is a little lens stop (just like a camera) that stops down the light into your eye and increases the focal length. With the diopter, both the front and rear sights are (kinda) in focus together. The diopter attaches to your glasses lens with a little suction cup; it installs and removes easily. Lyman makes one, and somebody else.

I used to joke with my friends at the range, "When your eyes get old you get your pick of what you can see: The front sight, the rear sight, or the target, but only one at a time!"