Guns & Outdoors Forum

Bigslug wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 2:17 pm Running Holosun 509T and EPS Carry.

I had started with the 507 series but found the open-backed sights to be lint and dirt traps with the potential to present you with a really crappy sight picture at inopportune times and are a real PITA to keep clean.

Enclosed emitter sights: just drag a corner of your T-shirt across the back of them from time to time.

Bigslug wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 7:40 pm A little more response to the "old eyes" issues of your OP.

Progressive lenses weren't really getting it done for me. The upper, distance prescription was OK, but the narrowing taper of the lower progressive field and its lack of peripheral range was a puzzle I couldn't decently crack - or at least didn't want to continue spending time and money to crack. As such, I'm in traditional bifocals with the lower section being set for where the front iron sight of a pistol ends up. Fortunately, this same prescription works well enough for reading and working on guns, but the "bifocal head tilt" to get a clear front sight ain't exactly realistic, tactically speaking. I use the bifocals for deliberate, slow-fire checking of pistol sights, but for running irons quickly, or with rifles, there's no choice but to use the distance prescription and align the blurs as best I can.

The success of that depends a great deal on available lighting. In real, actual daylight, I can run irons almost as well as I ever could. In the less-than-optimal lighting of most indoor ranges, I can fudge it well enough for combat purposes; with a weapon-mounted or other flashlight illuminating my target and backlighting my iron sights, about the same; on a night shoot with tritium sights and no flashlight, it's a complete train wreck.

With carbines, a peephole rear sight helps focus the front sight, but mounting the front sight farther out either on a longer barrel or almost-to-muzzle-tubular AR handguard is a real improvement.

I mainly bring these things up as possible yardsticks by which to measure how messed up and fossilized our old eyes are, and how to judge the advantage for you of dots over irons. The simple reality is that having the thing you aim with exist in the same focal plane as your target solves a lot of visual problems even for young people whose eyes still work; for those of us over 45 who are being kicked daily in the balls by presbyopia, dots are the crutch that let us continue to exist on a level playing field with the 20-somethings - - which, when you stop to think about it, is most of the predators you might have to deploy against.

Japhy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 9:17 pm

Bigslug wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 7:40 pm A little more response to the "old eyes" issues of your OP.

Progressive lenses weren't really getting it done for me. The upper, distance prescription was OK, but the narrowing taper of the lower progressive field and its lack of peripheral range was a puzzle I couldn't decently crack - or at least didn't want to continue spending time and money to crack. As such, I'm in traditional bifocals with the lower section being set for where the front iron sight of a pistol ends up. Fortunately, this same prescription works well enough for reading and working on guns, but the "bifocal head tilt" to get a clear front sight ain't exactly realistic, tactically speaking. I use the bifocals for deliberate, slow-fire checking of pistol sights, but for running irons quickly, or with rifles, there's no choice but to use the distance prescription and align the blurs as best I can.

The success of that depends a great deal on available lighting. In real, actual daylight, I can run irons almost as well as I ever could. In the less-than-optimal lighting of most indoor ranges, I can fudge it well enough for combat purposes; with a weapon-mounted or other flashlight illuminating my target and backlighting my iron sights, about the same; on a night shoot with tritium sights and no flashlight, it's a complete train wreck.

With carbines, a peephole rear sight helps focus the front sight, but mounting the front sight farther out either on a longer barrel or almost-to-muzzle-tubular AR handguard is a real improvement.

I mainly bring these things up as possible yardsticks by which to measure how messed up and fossilized our old eyes are, and how to judge the advantage for you of dots over irons. The simple reality is that having the thing you aim with exist in the same focal plane as your target solves a lot of visual problems even for young people whose eyes still work; for those of us over 45 who are being kicked daily in the balls by presbyopia, dots are the crutch that let us continue to exist on a level playing field with the 20-somethings - - which, when you stop to think about it, is most of the predators you might have to deploy against.

Glasses these days! Can’t see with ‘em, can’t see without ‘em!
I bought new glasses recently prescription was nearly identical but the frames were in bad shape.

as an experiment with progressive lens I removed my shooting side lens from the frame then inverted it on the rear of the 1911. This brought the front sight into tack sharp focus though the target was blurred. The rear sight was shaper than it was but not perfect. I’m really tempted to order a pair of discount glasses with the right lens inverted. I’m left eye dominant so I should be able to see well and shoot better?

GrapeApe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 7:05 pm Slug, when you do, if they're "legal" in commiefornia, I STRONGLY recommend the PSA Dagger.
It's a Gen 3 Glock with a decent grip.

Japhy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:23 pm I am considering getting a shooting prescription that changes the progressive taper in my glasses.

I did an experiment over the past several days dryfiring the 1911 with the laser bullet. The 1911 has irons, adjustable rear sight and fiber front.
First session about 11am outside full sun. Front sight was reasonably sharp target at 10yds.
Next distance prescription polarized sunglasses front sight is well lit but far less sharp than without the sunglasses
Next at dusk in low light out of direct sun same setup. Front sight was definitely fuzzy.
Next after dark with target lighted terrible!
My conclusion is that in low light or darkness even with the fiber front sight the depth of field due to pupils being dilated is a problem. A dot might cover each of those cases well?