Posted by Mark P. on October 28, 2001 at 21:47:25:
Seems like there are a
lot of choices: Champion, Knoblauch, Varga, etc.
So which ones are best for
an AP/RF shooter and why? Anyone have any good/bad things to point out for
particular models? Anyone have any pricing info?
Posted by mako on October 29, 2001 at 02:20:39:
After using my Champion
glasses for a year ... I'm back to just using my (blended) bifocals with a
translucent cover over the non shooting eye. Much sharper then my Champion
glasses prescription lens ... which needs replacing.
Posted by Jim Holtman on October 29, 2001 at 09:10:14:
For my shooting
glasses, I got a prescription for the distance from my eye to the front sight.
My doctor was able to do this very easily with a graduated rod on the test
equipment. This prescription puts the front sight in focus and the rear iris
clears up everything else.
Jim
Posted by mako on October 29, 2001 at 10:54:41:
With the bi-focal I just
tilt my head back very slightly to focus on the front sight. For red dot type
shooting I can just look straight forward. When I'm not shooting I can see
perfectly clearly. With blended bi-focals there is no sharp line with a change
in focus. No expensive shooting glasses (although I already have some). For my
none shooting eye I bought a cheap pair of plastic flip up sun glasses, removed
the lenses, made a lens shaped translucent cover out of plastic milk bottle
material, used the little screws that came with the sunglasses and attached the
cover ... so that it attached over my none shooting eye (not bridging the two
lenses but just clipping on over the one lens). When I'm not shooting it just
flips up.
Posted by JP O'Connor on November 02, 2001 at 00:46:44:
Hi Mako,
Why
the bifocal? Are you also trying to keep the target sharp? You don't want to do
this. Really. However, regardless of your answers above, and regardless of
whether it applies to your situation, you have now prompted me to write another
mini-article. Thanks!
(From this point on, "you" refers to the anyone, not to
Mako specifically...and since I'm tired, it will be a little less formal and a
lot more irreverent! Enjoy!)
Vision and Pistol Iron Sights
First:Look *through* the rear sight *at*
the center of the front sight... not the top edge of it... I mean smack in the
middle of the square or rectangle shaped part of the front sight that is visible
to you through the rear sight. This is a subtle yet dramatic - and critical -
difference.Now before you say "that's obvious" to yourself, there are lots
of folks who *think* they do this... but *really* don't. Give yourself a chance
on this one! Lots of folks look at the top edge of the front and, in effect, are
looking over the sights at... uh, oh... the target! Their eyes move around.
Oops! More on this in a moment.
Second:The target *should* be somewhat
blurred. Yes... fuzzed up quite a bit.I know, now you *know* I've lost my
mind! ...instead of just suspecting it! :-) Erich finally managed to get the
first point into my head this week during training (It only took two months for
me to get it! I'm not stubborn! Ha!) and it made all the difference in the
world. Much like throwing away those tiny rifle front apertures and using
something the right size (as in "large"). Like 4.2mm for air rifle with a
standard length barrel. But that's another article.
Result: Less apparent
motion in the hold, more confidence, shorter hold, smoother trigger, more
"automagical" shots, and significantly smaller group sizes with fewer flyers.
Hmm... sounds pretty good!
I also went to the OTC Sports Med folks, found
out my prescription had changed a half diopter (in less than a year), and
borrowed some test lenses to make sure that my relaxed eye gave me a sharp front
sight. (They also showed me what to do with my nagging right shoulder problems!)
The rear sight was sharper than I had expected and the target... well... let's
just say at 10m it was plenty fuzzy and at 50m it was *real* fuzzy. Blurry. Ok,
scary. Dark black, but really blurry edges.
Is this target blurriness a
problem? Nope! The improvements noted above when discussing the new place to
look were with (and without) the new lens. It was just a *ton* easier with the
new lens.
Let the rear sight get a bit blurry if it wants... not too much
but a little. If it happens to be sharp, ok, but ignore it. If your lens is
correct for the front sight, the rear will be just fine. No, you don't need it
crisp to center the front sight. If you *need* it to be, that means you are
looking at the rear sight to check alignment. Bad mistake! ...or that you don't
trust your brain. Another bad mistake!
Look *through* the rear sight *at*
the front sight... you will see alignment errors and easily correct them... all
while... you guessed it... looking *at* the front sight. The eye should *never*
go anywhere else... especially out to the target. (Ask me how hard it is to
break that old bad habit... but wait at least a few weeks please!) So, alignment
is now well in hand... what about that pesky target? After all, it would be nice
if our area of aim was where it needed to be!
Well, if you are looking where
you are supposed to be looking (All together class: "...look *through* the rear
sight *at* the front sight."), you will "sense" where that target is and where
the center of your area of aim (hold) should be (even with a deep sub-6 hold -
which helps all this anyway - at least with air and free - and works for center
hold as in rapid or sport), and your natural movement will appear smaller and
more natural. Thus, your trigger management will be much smoother.
Say what?
Yes, it's true... even proved it to me this week.
Which brings us to another
closely related topic... the (in) famous iris. I thought I had to have an iris
to make things sharper, especially as my eyes aged. Erich nailed me on the iris
as well. Of course, I believed him right away! ;-) Not! That one only took a
couple of days to get through to me during the Masters Camp, though, so I've
been shooting without an iris for almost 2 months now. It works. Why? That’s
what this whole article is about.
For a picture and another discussion of
crisp front, slightly blurred rear, and fuzzy target, refer to "Successful
Pistol Shooting" by Paul and __? Leatherdale.
If you think we've been having
fun so far, hang on for the last part:
So, why do we insist on having
everything sharp? It's because we think they have to be sharp for the degree of
precision required. After all, the ten ring isn't exactly huge!
This all
goes back to how we approach the game - and which parts of our self we use for
shooting. Remember, the eye and conscious mind are too slow for the degree of
precision and performance that we need... only the body controlled by the
subconscious mind can do what we desire. ("Dang it, there he goes with that Zen
stuff again!" Hehe! But that's yet another article!) The conscious mind must be
calm and quiet and relinquish control. Not easy to do! (Wanda says I have a lot
of "noise" or activity in my head... she's quite right... it's a big challenge
for me.)
In fact, on a few shots I realized afterward that I hadn't actually
(consciously) seen the target at all... I had the "tunnel vision" often
encountered when "zoned out"... these were the best shots in terms of
performance and score. I had managed to relinquish control totally to the
subconscious. (Now, if I could just get 60 of those in a row on demand!)
Yesterday, John Bikar introduced me to rapid fire. He had intended to only have
me shoot 8 and 6 second strings. (I thought I heard him say something about not
shooting out the lights and such... Hehe!) We were both pleasantly surprised at
my ability to figure out a rhythm and deliver decent strings (for a first
timer), even at 4 seconds. Lots of tens (I was surprised), nines, and eights...
and well... way more than "enough" sevens, sixes, and a few fives. Only one shot
was a zero but at least it was on the paper so the lights were safe.
Some
strings were very smooth, or had good speed changes if needed. (I later saw John
make some of the same adjustments in a couple of his strings.) Other strings
were... uh... a "bit" rough! The difference? Only one: can you guess? Yup, the
difference was in where I was looking! Front sight: great string. Target: bad
string. Very eye opening. (Bad pun intended.) It was fun!
We have to set up
our equipment, our techniques, and our mindset to facilitate the "automagical"
shots. Then they will eventually come. We must be patient, even in the midst of
our rapid drive for improvement.
Trust the process - trust your self.
Way too many people don't.
"Feel Center!"
-JP
Posted by fwoodcox on November 06, 2001 at 22:13:58:
(They also showed me
what to do with my nagging right shoulder problems!):
please tell me what
they said about the shoulder
thanks.
Posted by Jim Holtman on October 30, 2001 at 17:31:09:
Mako. Does this
mean you may have a pair of Champions to sell? If so e-mail me the particulars,
I need a pair for my son.
Jim
Posted by Richard Ashmore on October 29, 2001 at 06:07:18:
I have a
Knobloch and an Olympic Champion set. Knobloch's are definitely easier to
adjust. Champion's have the advantage of being able to mount a supplementary
lens over the main lens, which is good for iron sights.
Don Nygord's site
has a good explanation in the Nygord's Notes section.
Posted by Richard on October 29, 2001 at 06:12:57:
As Mako indicated in
his post, if your prescription is wrong, shooting glasses just won't help at
all.
Posted by mako on October 30, 2001 at 10:41:59:
and I haven't bothered
getting a new lens made for my Championst since my bifocals work so well for
shooting.
Posted by Pete on October 29, 2001 at 19:16:07:
A Fellow shooter, and
freind of mine, and optometrist, Dr.Alan Toler has developed a system to help
insure you get the best prescription. He sends a set of lens to put over a
recent prescriptions. The advantage is that you test the correction for your
shooting glasses to the actual shooting conditions rather than in a doctor’s
office. Not many matches shot there.
Posted by pete on October 29, 2001 at 19:19:15:
In Reply to: correct
prescription posted by Pete on October 29, 2001 at 19:16:07:
www.customsightpicture.com
Posted by Mark P. on October 30, 2001 at 01:03:11:
which one and why?
Anyone have any bad experiences with any brand/model?
Posted by mako on October 30, 2001 at 10:39:38:
Seems that "everyone" on
the US Team uses Champions. They are very strong and have a lot of adjustments,
and accessories. The one thing they don't have is the Knoblauch sunshade ...
which can however be made to work with the Champion glasses. The hinge screws on
the Champions need to be replaced with the Knoblauch ones that have the little
ball joints on top. Then the Knoblauch Sunshade with its stalk raisers will pop
onto the ball joints.
Nygord has some good info on glasses on his site (and
sells the Champions) but Champion has more complete info on their web site.
Sponsored by Pilkington Competition Equipment