Prescription eye protection

[Boom Vang]

There is no universal solution.

1. Distance-Corrected Rx eye protection. I found these VERY useful for clay target shooting, where your focus is on the target. USELESS for pistol and rifle.

2. Intermediate-Corrected Rx eye protection. Sights are sharp, but the target is blurry mess. And you can see neither close-up nor at distance. No good.

3. Rx Tri-focals/progressive eye protection. Take all of the above and add confusion, headaches and the tendency to want to yank the trigger when finally everything looks right. No good.

4. Weak pair of reading glasses. For myself and many others, this is a winner. Take about 50-75% of your normal reading correction (I'm 1.75 so I use 1.0-1.25). I've found the sights and target gain definition in the proper ratio and I shoot better. Have tested this with students with aging eyes and results are very good. Not the best for either distance or reading, but works well enough, along with the intermediate distances of iron sights and red dots.

5. Magnifying firearms optics. Focus the optic and just shoot.

 

[benEzra]

I don’t like having different parts of my visual field at different focus, so I have not gone the bifocal route. I can see very well up close without my glasses/contacts, so I have a prescription for distance only, and another prescription for computer screen distance.

I’m 53 now, and can still shoot irons ok in good lighting with my distance prescription (they are a little fuzzy but I can line the fuzz up well enough to shoot bowling pins at 20yd), but I had a wakeup call recently when I shot a day/night IDPA-style match with my EDC (3913LS with Trijicon Novak sights). Did pretty well with all A-zone hits on the daylight portion, and mostly A’s on the night portion lit by my pocket flashlight in a Harries-style hold and flashing police strobes…but only on the closer silhouettes and the white bowling pins, all of which offered enough contrast to see the sights silhouetted against the target. On the darkest part of the stage, shooting a cardboard IDPA target at 15? yards with both me and the target in pitch dark where the strobes couldn’t reach, lit only by my little light, I found I couldn’t focus well enough on the indirectly-lit sights to see them against the dark target, and missed that target completely (hits were on paper but outside the scoring zones, aiming by feel and the silhouette of the side against the target illuminated by my flashlight). I could have shifted the light to illuminate my sights brightly for better contrast, but then seeing the target would have been harder due to the brightly lit stainless pistol in the way.

So, I think it’s time for me to join the cadre of pistol red dot users. I know picking up the dot fast is a learned skill, but so is picking up fuzzy irons, and I see now that irons get a lot less useful in the dark for us Gen-Xers with less-young eyes. I think I will be shopping for a new pistol with optic this year.

Edited to add: One thing to keep in mind about having a special prescription for shooting glasses different from your standard everyday prescription is that if you ever are forced to use a weapon defensively, you won’t be wearing your shooting glasses…so make sure you can still shoot passably well with your everyday prescription, and shoot your EDC occasionally without any correction at all (sometimes glasses get knocked off). I can still shoot decently well without glasses, as it turns out, but I have to shift to a compressed Weaver to see the sights clearly, as they are too out of focus at arm’s length.

 

[Elkins45]

I normally wear progressive bifocals. I bought a cheap pair of spare glasses to keep in my car for emergencies. What I discovered is that once I got used to the progressives I can barely stand to wear my single distance prescription. You don’t realize how often you use the close vision lenses until they aren’t available.

 

[Barmcd]

I have prescription safety glasses for shooting and I went with single prescription glasses even though I wear normally wear trifocals. I can't see up close with them, but luckily I can just take them off and see fine out to about 20 inches. I have no problem with sight picture because when I have the target in focus, the front sight is blurry anyway, regardless of which glasses I'm wearing. My regular glasses cost me about $200 after insurance and the safety glasses cost me $125 without insurance. The only thing I don't like is the optometrist shop says they can't tint polycarbonate.

 

[beag_nut]

Forgive me, but I searched Connecticut statute and rules, and can't find anything to that effect. Could you help me find the relevant statute or administrative rule?

I seriously doubt this is the case. Luxottica, the Italian mega-corp which controls the VAST majority of prescription eyeglass-related products in the US (frames, lenses, optometric shops, and even eye 'insurance' policies) doesn't make much at all in the way of ANSI-rated safety glasses in prescription lenses. You can get them, but they look like 1960s or 1970s 'combat' glasses.

I contacted Oakley about this a few years ago (Oakley is a Luxottica brand) because the local optometry chain claimed Oakley prescription sunglasses were still ANSI Z.87 rated, just like the non-prescription version of some of their sunglasses. Oakley themselves was very clear that their prescription sunglasses do NOT carry the Z.87 rating (nevermind meeting the MIL-PRF standard).

There are a few places around that offer Z.87 or MIL-PRF compliant prescription eyeglasses (or sunglasses), but the lenses are either significantly thicker than what you normally get from the optometrist, or they're a second set of prescription lenses fitted behind the front safety lens(es).

When most places say their glasses are "safety lenses," all they really mean is they're not crown glass any more. They're NOT ANSI nor MIL-PRF compliant, at least not normally.

 

[beag_nut]

Forgive me, but I searched Connecticut statute and rules, and can't find anything to that effect. Could you help me find the relevant statute or administrative rule?

I seriously doubt this is the case. Luxottica, the Italian mega-corp which controls the VAST majority of prescription eyeglass-related products in the US (frames, lenses, optometric shops, and even eye 'insurance' policies) doesn't make much at all in the way of ANSI-rated safety glasses in prescription lenses. You can get them, but they look like 1960s or 1970s 'combat' glasses.

I contacted Oakley about this a few years ago (Oakley is a Luxottica brand) because the local optometry chain claimed Oakley prescription sunglasses were still ANSI Z.87 rated, just like the non-prescription version of some of their sunglasses. Oakley themselves was very clear that their prescription sunglasses do NOT carry the Z.87 rating (nevermind meeting the MIL-PRF standard).

There are a few places around that offer Z.87 or MIL-PRF compliant prescription eyeglasses (or sunglasses), but the lenses are either significantly thicker than what you normally get from the optometrist, or they're a second set of prescription lenses fitted behind the front safety lens(es).

When most places say their glasses are "safety lenses," all they really mean is they're not crown glass any more. They're NOT ANSI nor MIL-PRF compliant, at least not normally.

I couldn't find a reference to that regulation online, either. So today I stopped by my optometrist's office and asked them about it. They said such a law is not for the general population, BUT it does exist for people under the age of 18. And the recommended lens material for shatterproof is polycarbonate (Lexan).

 

[MZ5]

Gotcha. I'm familiar with that one, too. It _may_ be a federal reg, since I've encountered it in every state I've lived in so far. Or, maybe the states have it.

Nevertheless, that eyewear will not and does not meet ANSI Z87 nor MIL-PRF-xxxxxx (I forget the number until I look it up) unless it's specifically the 'ugly' stuff we had to wear for sports as kids. Run-of-the-mill stuff is certainly polycarbonate and won't shatter into tiny, sharp shards, but it's not the same as ANSI safety glasses at all.

 

[RedSquiggle]

while it protects my eyes from a direct hit from a casing, sometimes in the arc they usually fall in, they fall between my glasses and my face.

I use side shields. $14 for 10 pairs and they attach to the bow of my daily glasses, regardless of prescription. If we want to train for self defense, it seems like we ought to practice with our normal glasses.

I've been using the first pair for several months now. It takes several minutes for me to fumble around and attach them to my glasses (one on each bow) prior to a shooting session. They slide off a lot faster. They won't stop a speeding bullet, but I believe they will stop an arcing 9mm from the bay next to me.

I suppose I could leave them attached to a dedicated pair of glasses, but that sounds too expensive for my budget.

I tried a pair of over-the-glasses goggles and they steamed up during my first shooting session. I don't have that problem with my side shields.

I don't post much because I am still learning from y'all and honestly don't have much to share. I look forward to learning why there are better solutions, and what they are.

PS - I've always shot with progressives and have always had blurry sites while focusing on the target. From some of y'all's responses, you're telling me some of you actually see the target and the sites simultaneously clear? That's a world I never imagined. This exists? I've had bifocals since 5th grade. I didn't start shooting until I was "older" (early 40s) and wore progressives since I started.

 

[chaim]

Now, after cataract removal, I need nothing except safety glasses for shooting.

My parents recently had cataract removal surgery. For both, it was huge, but my dad has always been legally blind without his glasses. Now, he only really needs them for reading and driving. I'm almost looking forward to my "turn" in 10-30 years.

i would just shoot with your progressives. i always have. it's not ideal and i always do what i call my "progressive flick" where i briefly tilt my head up( i don't even realize I'm doing it it just shows up on my videos) maintain the same grip and shoot with target in focus and front sight blurred. i still call myself a better than average shot, in my local range at least.

I do the same head "flick," and as I've gotten older, I sometimes take a break and look down the shooting line to see who is doing it and who isn't to see if I can guess who has progressives or bifocals. Even with the blurred front sight, I'm not unhappy with my accuracy, I just need more practice to maintain it than I used to need.

Edited to add: One thing to keep in mind about having a special prescription for shooting glasses different from your standard everyday prescription is that if you ever are forced to use a weapon defensively, you won’t be wearing your shooting glasses…so make sure you can still shoot passably well with your everyday prescription, and shoot your EDC occasionally without any correction at all (sometimes glasses get knocked off).

I do try to practice without glasses, though not at the range. I have two laser training pistols, as well as a laser insert for my 9mms, and I sometimes train with those, not just without glasses, but from different positions around the house (in bed, from my favorite chair, from the sofa, etc.) to practice possible home defense scenarios. Incidentally, the one that is most challenging to transition to compared to shooting at the range is lying down in bed.

I normally wear progressive bifocals. I bought a cheap pair of spare glasses to keep in my car for emergencies. What I discovered is that once I got used to the progressives I can barely stand to wear my single distance prescription. You don’t realize how often you use the close vision lenses until they aren’t available.

Haha, a few years ago, before I switched from lined bifocals to progressives, I let my vanity get the better of me and got regular glasses and figured I'd get readers for when I needed to read. If you are used to bifocals or progressives, you have no idea how often you switch between distance and near prescriptions until you can't. I switched back in only a month or two (that was an expensive experiment). At this point, the only pair I have that don't have the reading/near correction are a pair of sunglasses for the car (I have transitions lenses, but the UV protected glass in a car can interfere with their changing to tint, so I drive with regular sunglasses).

 

[thump_rrr]

After many years of shooting (military and law enforcement, including time in combat situations and on tactical teams), I'm gonna advocate for spending the extra bucks. Get the best eyewear possible and pony up for at least one, preferably two spares. For each set of everyday eyewear I have, I also have a set of Oakley Flaks progressive prescription lenses. Don't go cheap!
View attachment 1189790

This is exactly what I wear. They don’t need to be used exclusively for shooting.
I use mine for both driving and shooting.
I prefer the “prism golf” lenses which have a rose color tone to them.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I have heard of pistol shooters getting eyewear regulated to focus on the front sight.
Years ago I met an appliance repairman, he had bifocals with the near section in the top of the lens, he was often looking up at machinery.
Passed on bifocals myself, easier to wear my glasses on a neck cord, take them off for reading, close work, wear safety glasses when working on machinery, etc.