Prescription eye protection

[chaim]

So, I've considered buying prescription eye protection off and on for a few years now. When I first started shooting regularly, I used non-prescription and bought the oversized eye protection that fits over glasses. I never liked them, they are bulky, they take a lot of space in my range bag, and when I realized that most (all?) ranges are fine with regular eye glasses as eye protection, I just used my daily glasses. That has the advantage of your training and range practice being as close to what you'd have on the street as possible. However, 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. This happened in my last range trip (Sat). Dedicated eye protection glasses that provide protection around the lenses may be worthwhile.

So, why I'm posting here/my question...

Initially, I was thinking I'd get a single prescription lens. I used to wear bifocals and switched over to progressives ("no line bifocals") some years ago. To get glasses with the built in reading prescription is much more expensive, and I'm only going to wear these glasses for a specialized purpose (shooting). When I used to ride, my motorcycle goggles were single prescription as well for the same reason, I wasn't going to wear them day to day and didn't need the near/reading prescription built into them so I went with the cost savings. Further, I shoot best out of the distance side of my glasses, but I've had to adjust my natural shooting posture and head position because that sets the sights right at the line between my distance and near vision prescriptions. So, I may shoot better (and at a more comfortable posture) using single vision lenses. However, having everything as close to "real life" when practicing, and especially when training, is important. So, I'm considering spending the money and buying the (otherwise unnecessary) progressives for my shooting glasses so I don't need to adjust from my practice and training if I'm ever in a self defense shooting.

The question:
Should I buy the cheaper (but less effective for training purposes) single vision glasses, or get the (otherwise unnecessary and more expensive) progressive lenses so my shooting glasses and training is as close to my real life glasses as possible?

I'm leaning towards ponying up the extra money, having the less comfortable posture in training and practice, but have training and practice that more easily transfers should I find myself in a defensive shooting.

 

[gifbohane]

I bought a pair of expensive reading prescription shooting glasses and saw the two pistol sights perfectly and down range was a blur. Then bought another pair with just distance prescription (which I should have kept) and the sights were very blurred.

Got a third pair with distance on the top and reading on the bottom and found that I was only able to look at one or the other. Wish I had the cash back for all three. Really interested to see if anyone solved this problem.

 

[chaim]

I bought a pair of expensive reading prescription shooting glasses and saw the two pistol sights perfectly and down range was a blur. Then bought another pair with just distance prescription (which I should have kept) and the sights were very blurred.

Got a third pair with distance on the top and reading on the bottom and found that I was only able to look at one or the other. Wish I had the cash back for all three. Really interested to see if anyone solved this problem.

Yeah, neither the distance or reading prescription is perfect for shooting. Even out of the distance vision prescription my front sight is blurry. I've seen different solutions for that, from cheaper magnifying stickers or inserts for your glasses, to getting a third prescription from the eye doctor specifically for shooting. If you are mainly a competition shooter, that makes sense. My shooting is a combination of recreation and fun shooting at the range, and self defense oriented practice and some training classes. So, being closer to what I'd have in real life makes sense. I've found that with practice, I still shoot pretty well using the distance prescription. I can't fully focus on the front sight, it is a bit blurry, but if I concentrate on the front sight, I shoot a lot better than I do than when I aim out of the reading/close prescription. That also lets me quickly shift my concentration and focus to the target after shooting in order to quickly assess the situation.

Thus, my question... save the money on a pair of single vision glasses with only my distance prescription, or spend extra and deal with the less comfortable posture to get the progressives, but have them as close to my daily glasses as possible.

 

[gifbohane]

BTW- all three sets of glasses were obtained and paid for to an Eye Doctor.

 

[W.E.G.]

Remember that in a SELF-DEFENSE shooting, you won't have time to stop and adjust your glasses.

Usually whoever shoots first wins. Not much time for aiming. So your "training" time for self-defense training is best spent managing your carry-method to ensure that you get to shoot first. You'll be faster if you learn to point-shoot, and don't even attempt to get a sight picture. It most likely will be poor lighting condition, and the target will probably also be in motion. Nothing whatsoever like target shooting.

Get glasses for target shooting that best meet your needs for target shooting, and don't confuse target shooting with self-defense training.

When I'm using sights on a handgun, I need a 0.5 diopter magnification for best sight picture.
Which is a very weak correction.
Usually if you look at glasses at the drug store, the weakest diopter you will see in the glasses-display will be a 1.0 diopter.
You can order glasses ONLINE with any diopter you like. Just don't expect to find any 0.5's at the drug store.

Below you can see the bandana when I'm target shooting. I tie the glasses to the bandana, such that I hang the CENTER of the lens to ensure that I'm looking through the center of the lens instead of the greasy corner of the lens. The nose-piece of the glasses only barely indexes off my nose. The nose-piece definitely does not SUPPORT the glasses. The bandana serves as the main support.
The glasses hang from the bandana as the main form of suport. FOR TARGET SHOOTING.

There is zero chance I will be wearing this if I have to be in a self-defense shooting.
The glasses have no correction. Just plain $10 safety-lens aviators from Amazon or eBay.
These are my RIFLE-shooting glasses.
I do not have any significant astigmatism, but I am near-sighted.
Iron sights on a Garand or M1-A give a somewhat fuzzy front sight.
Iron sights on a carbine AR are pretty bad. Very fuzzy.

But I mainly shoot OPTICS when I shoot rifle. If you run an expensive scope, it is adjustable two ways. One for sharpness of the reticle, and a different adjustment for sharpness of the target.

I have NO NEED FOR CORRECTIVE GLASSES when shooting scope. I let the scope do the correction.



I figure any self-defense shooting will be at close range.

So I just practice presenting the firearm and pointing.

QUICKLY.

95% of the time I carry a BODYGUARD 380.
The website says it has sights. I don't think I've ever looked at them.
Seems to shoot OK by just ignoring them.

Firing distance is 10 feet.
This target from an ammo-vetting test.
That little orange thing at 10 o'clock next to the hole on the target is the remnant of a round sticker I used as an "aiming-point" reference for point-and-shoot.

Similar point-and-shoot concept for rifle at very close range.
Always run a WHITE LIGHT. Even in daylight.
Shine the white light on the close-range target and blast. No "aiming" through the optic.

 

[unspellable]

For dedicated single vision glasses I have the regular prescription on the left and add one diopter to the prescription on the right. (I shoot right handed.) This is a trick sometimes done for regular glasses. Not for everybody, but if it works you have sharp vision on iron sights and sharp distance vision.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I have some good and bad experiences with this over the past 8-10 yers or so. Wasted a lot of money in the process. Short answer is by only what you need to shoot and those are your shooting glasses.

Regarding progressive lenses. No. no. and...no. I let my eye doc talk me into the triple lens, no line progressive glasses for every day wear. $400 and I wore them only a week or two. They gave me serious, migraine-like headaches, but they didn't really do much more than what my long distance vision glasses were doing. I had to be very deliberate about which part of the lens I looked through all the time. At this point, I don't even know where they are in my house.

What has worked well for me is single prescription glasses for long distance viewing. Target edges are crisp and clear. Front sight focus is good. I picked out a set of full frame frames (lenses are completely surrounded by the glasses frame) and paid $60 extra for Z.71 rated safety glass lenses. (If you don't get the right frames, but still get the safety glass, the glasses won't be Z.71 rated.)

My eye doc suggested that she could also have bifocals made where the close-in lens is actually at the top of the glasses so as to increase front sight focus with a handgun while still keeping focus at 100 yards. Or she could make one lens for near sighted and the other for far sighted and your brain will merge the two into one image. She does that for some law enforcement officers. But...given the disastrous results of the trifocals, I think I'm going to stick with what I have.

 

[hso]

My vision doctor knew exactly what I needed, a prescription that put the sites in focus and out to 50 feet. That also puts screens and displays in focus. We added a reading lower portion.

Ranger can make them for you in the prescription. https://www.reranger.com/pages/prescriptions

 

[beag_nut]

Here in CT ALL glasses, prescrip or otherwise, MUST have safety lenses. Saves a lot of trouble (and probably some eyes). Mine are bifocal, with the lines. Guess I'm just old-fashioned.

 

[JTHunter]

chaim - having worn glasses since the 1st Grade, I've learned to adapt. About 2000, I got bifocals but the cmployer-sponsored plan would only pay for the flat "D" types at the bottom of the lens. I needed it at the top as the columns and burets I was using for titrations (lab work) were higher than eye-level or I was leaning in towards them rendering the reading portion of the bifocal useless.
Next exam, I went back to single vision and stayed that way. This is also why I won't use "progressives".
I'm using a pair of reading glasses with the temples removed and hanging them on an older, weaker pair of glasses to read my computer screen. If I want to read the fine print on a product label in a store, I remove my glasses and read it directly. That only works at less than 6-8" as beyond that, it blurs too much. Newsprint at ~6" is my close limit (w/o glasses) nor can I focus closer than 12-14" with my glasses. That's part of the reason I dislike iron sights. Scopes with a diopter adjustment makes it much easier.
As these are polycarbonate lenses, I don't need "protection".

 

[MZ5]

Here in CT ALL glasses, prescrip or otherwise, MUST have safety lenses. Saves a lot of trouble (and probably some eyes). Mine are bifocal, with the lines. Guess I'm just old-fashioned.

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.

 

[chaim]

A lot of people have given suggestions based on the idea of trying to make the front sight more in focus. That isn't what I'm looking for. Since, I"m not a competitor, and I do use my handguns for defensive purposes (well, hopefully I never actually have to use them) I don't want anything too different from my day to day wear glasses. I have learned to adapt and shoot pretty well with an unfocused front sight. Hence, my question about saving money on just the single vision (my usual prescription) vs. spending more but going with my regular progressive (no line bifocals) prescription so I will practice with my head at the same angle when practicing, playing, and if I ever need it for real. The furthest from my everyday prescription I'm considering is my regular distance prescription.

A little more than a year ago I was considering getting a micro red dot, but in the end, I have adapted well enough I don't feel it is needed (but I do need more range practice than I used to so as to maintain my accuracy), and I don't want to retrain for a totally different sight system.

Someone else mentioned point shooting. I do aimed shooting from 10 yards and greater. When shooting from 5-7 yards, I practice something a lot closer than point shooting. I'm not sure if it really is point shooting, I go for speed, and don't really think about what it is that I'm doing, so I can't say for sure it is technically "point shooting". I am usually happy with my accuracy at 10-20 yards, it is pretty good at 20 yards, combat accurate at 25 yards (I can't practice beyond that at the handgun ranges I go to). Since it isn't really aimed, my accuracy at 7 or 8 yards is similar to my 20 yard accuracy.

 

[Riomouse911]

I had a set of progressive “triple lens” glasses i used for shooting that were fantastic. Just a slight upward tilt of my head moved from infocus sights to smoothly bring the target into focus. Then tilt down a bit and back to sights again.

I just got new ones, as my distance prescription changed, and I realized they’re only double lenses. Now its more of a tilt movement, with a distinct focus switch from sight to target.

Honestly, I don’t like them very much, I will be going back to triple focus lenses ASAP.

Good luck finding a solution that fits your needs!

Stay safe.

 

[luv2safari]

I had a set of progressive “triple lens” glasses i used for shooting that were fantastic. Just a slight upward tilt of my head moved from infocus sights to smoothly bring the target into focus. Then tilt down a bit and back to sights again.

I just got new ones, as my distance prescription changed, and I realized they’re only double lenses. Now its more of a tilt movement, with a distinct focus switch from sight to target.

Honestly, I don’t like them very much, I will be going back to triple focus lenses ASAP.

Good luck finding a solution that fits your needs!

Stay safe.

That's a BIG help. Thanks...

I'll be Looking into my first pair of glasses other than dollar store readers soon.

(pardon the pun)

 

[Old Dog]

The question:
Should I buy the cheaper (but less effective for training purposes) single vision glasses, or get the (otherwise unnecessary and more expensive) progressive lenses so my shooting glasses and training is as close to my real life glasses as possible?

I'm leaning towards ponying up the extra money, having the less comfortable posture in training and practice, but have training and practice that more easily transfers should I find myself in a defensive shooting.

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!

 

[herrwalther]

I have been using ballistic eye pro in my prescription from sportrx ever since my Army days. About 14 years now. A lot of really popular brand names like Wiley and Oakley, with ANSI Rx lenses slapped in them.

Prescription Shooting Glasses | SportRx

Shop for shooting glasses in styles ranging from tactical to everyday wear. Customize your lenses for your shooting sport, activity, and conditions!

www.sportrx.com

 

[JDeere]

My prescription double lens progressives take care of the issue with a tilt of the head. The transition poly-carbonate lenses work well outdoors as well. I might add that the same lenses take care of the starburst effect with dots...

 

[ms6852]

You need to decide what you want to shoot the most with. My safety glasses are prescription from the eye doc. He used my Wiley X frames and told him that I like to shoot long distance and want to be able to see my target at 200 yards because I shoot 22lr at that distance. Coincidently these glasses are the same prescription that I have on my driving glasses with the exception of the glass being made of a different tint. @W.E.G. brought up some interesting points too, about practice, and target shooting and self defense which I agree with. You need to decide how you want to use your glasses.

 

[jmorris]

I bought a pair of expensive reading prescription shooting glasses and saw the two pistol sights perfectly and down range was a blur. Then bought another pair with just distance prescription (which I should have kept) and the sights were very blurred.

Got a third pair with distance on the top and reading on the bottom and found that I was only able to look at one or the other. Wish I had the cash back for all three. Really interested to see if anyone solved this problem.

Presbyopia - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

Try a red dot sight and see what you think.

Presbyopia & Solutions for the Firing Range

What do you do when you are unable to achieve “equal height, equal light” because you can’t focus the front sight? Corrective lenses aren't the only answer.

www.officer.com

If you shoot with both eyes open this isn’t a bad idea.

I know that you can have prescription shooting glasses made that will focus your dominant eye on the front gun sight and your other eye on the target. This requires that You learn to shoot with both eyes open, but it seems most people can adjust after a few hours of training. This approach is probably most useful for people that do a lot of competitive shooting.

Iron Sights, Presbyopia, Shooting Glasses and Scopes for Muzzleloaders

When shooting the muzzleloader, the front sight is about 34 inches from my eye and the back sight is about 14 inches from my eye. A muzzleloader scope will

www.backcountrychronicles.com

If the targets are close enough and large enough, you don‘t need a crisp front sight picture to make hits quickly, if you practice enough.

Grand Master Taran Butler Hip Shooting 6 plates 1.98sec. Broke his personal record.

Taran Butler Broke his personal record. Wicked Hip Shooting!

www.youtube.com

 

[doubleh]

I made it into my '50's before my arms became too short to read the newspaper, a book, or use iron sights. The company I worked for required us to wear safety glasses and paid for them. It was lined bifocals back then and they were fiddly but OK for using Iron sights and no bother with scopes. Then came lined trifocals and they were impossible. I went to drugstore readers and over the glasses safety glasses. It was doable but a PITA. Then came progressive lens and I was back to where I started. My company paid for all these until I retired. After I retired I had vision insurance which took care of almost all of it with a very low premium.

Now, after cataract removal, I need nothing except safety glasses for shooting. Sure is nice compared to the last 30 or so years.

 

[Thomasss]

It depends on what you are shooting and how much you care to spend. I've shot trap most of my adult life. I'm am now 71 years old. For the last 15 years, I've had progressive lenses and did all right. I have a 93.4 average shooting trap. But in the last few years though I have been shooting pistol more and more.
I just got a new pair or glasses and I went back to a bi-focal with a line and like them a lot better for pistol shooting. I haven't tried them yet for trap or skeet. It was nice that my eye guy is a pistol shooter too. I told him to set the reading portion up for pistol shooting and he measured me and said my regular lenses should work just fine as is and it does. I now can see both front and rear sites with the new specs. The eye guy said both styles have advantages and disadvantages. Lined glasses see sharper image out on edge of the lenses. Progressive is easier for you to acquire an image, but may not be as sharp as a lined eyeglass. I'm going to keep my old pair for a while longer too.

 

[.308 Norma]

Now, after cataract removal, I need nothing except safety glasses for shooting. Sure is nice compared to the last 30 or so years.

Yeppers, it sure is nice!
My story before laser cataract surgery was about the same as yours - started needing bifocals in my 40s (I'm 75 now), the company I worked for provided me with two pair of bifocal (or trifocal) safety glasses per year, and they could be lineless (if that's what I wanted) after lineless bifocals were invented. It didn't make any difference though - I couldn't see big game animals in the distance without my glasses, and I couldn't see through my rifle scope with them. \
So, I came up with a system - I put a pair of those "gators" or "crocodiles" on my glasses earpieces. That way I could wear my glasses while hunting, and quickly drop them down on my chest if I needed to look through my scope.
That worked well for me for 20 years or so, I guess. However, 4 or 5 years back, I had laser cataract surgery, and I elected to have my distance vision corrected. That worked great! Now, I don't need glasses at all for spotting distant big game animals, all I need is +2 correction in the lower, inside corners of my bifocals for reading, and I can see through my scopes just fine. I still wear bifocal safety glasses all of the time though because they provide me with some eye protection while shooting, running power tools or lawn and garden equipment, and I don't have to reach for a pair of reading glasses when I want to read something or do close-up work.

 

[hso]

You can also use a pin hole adapter for a lot less.

 

[roval]

going back to your original question single vison vs progressives. 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. for gong shooting it matters even less with the blurred front sight. i tried getting a super crisp front sight as i had different diopter lenses available i could attach to shooting non prescription glasses. this made the target completely blurry and i shot worse.
here's a video on my cz97b where i tried the super crisp front sight. the first 2 strings were with my progressives.

CZ97B 45 ACP

short range trip with the 97B. I brought my reading glasses to shoot with to see if a crisp front sight picture will help with my shooting. i shoot with my ...

youtu.be

 

[hemiram]

I have some good and bad experiences with this over the past 8-10 yers or so. Wasted a lot of money in the process. Short answer is by only what you need to shoot and those are your shooting glasses.

Regarding progressive lenses. No. no. and...no. I let my eye doc talk me into the triple lens, no line progressive glasses for every day wear. $400 and I wore them only a week or two. They gave me serious, migraine-like headaches, but they didn't really do much more than what my long distance vision glasses were doing. I had to be very deliberate about which part of the lens I looked through all the time. At this point, I don't even know where they are in my house.

What has worked well for me is single prescription glasses for long distance viewing. Target edges are crisp and clear. Front sight focus is good. I picked out a set of full frame frames (lenses are completely surrounded by the glasses frame) and paid $60 extra for Z.71 rated safety glass lenses. (If you don't get the right frames, but still get the safety glass, the glasses won't be Z.71 rated.)

My eye doc suggested that she could also have bifocals made where the close-in lens is actually at the top of the glasses so as to increase front sight focus with a handgun while still keeping focus at 100 yards. Or she could make one lens for near sighted and the other for far sighted and your brain will merge the two into one image. She does that for some law enforcement officers. But...given the disastrous results of the trifocals, I think I'm going to stick with what I have.

I tried bifocals and they drove me crazy! I didn't get headaches, they made my eyes hurt. I do fine with distance mono lenses with regards to shooting. They are sitting in a drawer, and when I remember to do it, I'm going to make them into a mono vision pair of really dark sunglasses for winter morning driving.