Any tips for using iron sights with failing eyesight?

[Fastrig]

Do what I've done, now that I can't focus in the front of irons any longer, put on a good scope and call it a day.

 

[shootist~]

Long barrels, ghost ring rear, sight black, Rx for distance only.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Reviving an old thread. I mounted the front and back sights from a 1990s Winchester Safari Express on my 30-06 Springfield after changing barrels a few days before my second trip to South Africa in 2021. Got a good deal on eBay. Fortunately, the contour of my 30-06 barrel closely matched the screw on base for that rear sight (I later learned Winchester made this grade in smaller than DG calibers). I mounted the rear sight as far forward on the barrel as I could and still have a clear view of it over the rail for QD rings. The long front ramp Winchester used was the highest Williams makes. Initially I put a brass bead in the sight but it was not easy to see. I have a white bead on my dad's 760 pump and it is much more visible ... except when hunting in snow ... which is what I prefer. I recently swapped it out for Williams FireSight blade. It is much easier to see and adequately protected with a hood. With scope off I can mount the gun with my eyes closed, open them, and front sight is in the V. With scope on I do the same and have almost a perfect picture. On higher magnification I may have to adjust myself on the gun but only slightly. For me the key to using the iron sights is to look OVER my prescription glasses. Given my semi-Quasimodo posture, that's not hard to do. On the gun I'm typically looking almost through the top of wire rim anyway. Cataract surgery some years back pretty much corrected my distant vision in that eye. I absolutely cannot shoot a handgun wearing my glasses. But without them I am deadly with my S&W Hwy Patrolman.

I'm wondering if graduated bifocals would help? I've always had the line type.

 

[Ray B]

I never needed prescription lenses until about 10 years ago- and it's still somewhat optional- but the thing I've noticed about those who have "no-line" bi-focals is that their depth perception is off, particularly when on stairs or street curbs. A friend of mine will take his glasses off whenever he encounters steps. Appears they do take a great deal of getting used-to.

 

[Inline6]

I never needed prescription lenses until about 10 years ago- and it's still somewhat optional- but the thing I've noticed about those who have "no-line" bi-focals is that their depth perception is off, particularly when on stairs or street curbs. A friend of mine will take his glasses off whenever he encounters steps. Appears they do take a great deal of getting used-to.

I'm fighting it everyday, I was prescribed reading glasses ten years ago. I'm getting to the point I need them to read the fine print. I thought about Lasik, just hate to mess with my eyes. The odds are good just not risk free.

 

[yamoon]

I grew up using irons, but being born in 1943, eyesight faded to the point I had to use a scope. I decided to get cataract surgery with astigmatism correction. Expensive, but after 4 years I am still hunting with irons. Well worth the investment.
Mike

 

[shootist~]

I grew up using irons, but being born in 1943, eyesight faded to the point I had to use a scope. I decided to get cataract surgery with astigmatism correction. Expensive, but after 4 years I am still hunting with irons. Well worth the investment.
Mike

I'm due asap according to my optometrist. Eval with the eye doc / surgercial group is scheduled for this fall.

Any particulars on what you had done that would be different than standard distance vision lenses? I turn 74 next month.

 

[BeeMaa]

I know it's not an "iron sight", but the options for red dots have come a long way for those who are visually challenged. I'm currently using a Holosun 508T on my home defense shotgun with co-witnessed BUIS. Trying to keep my cool and not go get another 416RM and put a red dot on it.

If I could have a Blaser R8 barrel milled for the RMR footprint to keep the optic as low as possible, I'd do it in a second. FYI - Mossberg is making a shotgun with a receiver already milled for the Shield RMS/SMS footprint and it comes with a Holosun 407K mounted.

Be careful, the future is coming.

 

[gzr]

I'm in the Aimpoint camp, then a good aperture rear sight.
The Blaser barrels work OK as the rear sight is forward to facilitate scope objectives, which puts it closer to the plane of the front sight and more safely out of presbyopic range. Smart.

 

[Inline6]

I know it's not an "iron sight", but the options for red dots have come a long way for those who are visually challenged. I'm currently using a Holosun 508T on my home defense shotgun with co-witnessed BUIS. Trying to keep my cool and not go get another 416RM and put a red dot on it.
View attachment 535544

If I could have a Blaser R8 barrel milled for the RMR footprint to keep the optic as low as possible, I'd do it in a second. FYI - Mossberg is making a shotgun with a receiver already milled for the Shield RMS/SMS footprint and it comes with a Holosun 407K mounted.

Be careful, the future is coming.

You need another 416!

 

[Red Devil]

There is a reason the Military uses aperture sights.

When close to the eye, the aperture acts as an infinite focal-plane lens, that "looks" at the front sight, like an eyeball, while putting Both the front sight And Target in focus.

But it has to be a small hole, like the .060-.070" for the M1 Rifle, and close to the eye.

You know you have it when the front sight moves in the same direction in relation to the target as the motion of nodding your head while looking centered in the aperture.

It should follow (look) as the target moves in the aperture.

Then, as long as the front sight is near the center of the aperture?

It is in focus, along w/ the target, and indicating point of aim.

Just like a 1x scope.

Have removed (or ignored) all the partridge rear sights on so fitted rifles, and replaced them w/ either NECG clamp-on or Tech-Sights apertures.

Forget the "Ghost Ring" apertures. The are simply a round partridge. A little easier to use due to the natural centering alignment, but lacking in the optical wonders of a proper "peep" sight.

Red

 

[Ontario Hunter]

There is a reason the Military uses aperture sights.

When close to the eye, the aperture acts as an infinite focal-plane lens, that "looks" at the front sight, like an eyeball, while putting Both the front sight And Target in focus.

But it has to be a small hole, like the .060-.070" for the M1 Rifle, and close to the eye.

You know you have it when the front sight moves in the same direction in relation to the target as the motion of nodding your head while looking centered in the aperture.

It should follow (look) as the target moves in the aperture.

Then, as long as the front sight is near the center of the aperture?

It is in focus, along w/ the target, and indicating point of aim.

Just like a 1x scope.

Have removed (or ignored) all the partridge rear sights on so fitted rifles, and replaced them w/ either NECG clamp-on or Tech-Sights apertures.

Forget the "Ghost Ring" apertures. The are simply a round partridge. A little easier to use due to the natural centering alignment, but lacking in the optical wonders of a proper "peep" sight.

Red

M41A is now standard issue US infantry. It appears to be a scoped weapon.

101st Airborne returning fire in Afghanistan.

 

[gzr]

IIRC, small apertures increase depth of field and sharpness. This is why pinhole cameras work with no glass.

 

[Red Devil]

IIRC, small apertures increase depth of field and sharpness. This is why pinhole cameras work with no glass.

Correct.

The original infinite focal-plane camera.

Light transmission is the only constraint, so big enough, as well as small enough, is a consideration.

Why match apertures generally are not the best field choice.

Trade a little clarity for better less than optimal light conditions.




Red

 

[Red Devil]

M41A is now standard issue US infantry. It appears to be a scoped weapon.
View attachment 535717
View attachment 535716
101st Airborne returning fire in Afghanistan.

And aperture sights were the Military standard for well over a hundred years prior to that recent decision to add an optic.

And doesn't invalidate the physics.




Red

 

[grand veneur]

At some point when I was almost 50 years old, I also had to wear glasses. Then shooting over open sights became very difficult. With a scope it went without any problems, but there were some situations in the DG hunting where it was better to shoot over the open sights. I fixed the problem for the most part on one of my weapons using an Rigby-style diopter.

Front

Rear

 

[MS 9x56]

And aperture sights were the Military standard for well over a hundred years prior to that recent decision to add an optic.

And doesn't invalidate the physics.




Red

Just one old soldiers option but any sight that relies on batteries or electronics can and will fail in battle. Peep sights are easy to use and provide minute of target accuracy.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I am an excellent shot with a rifle shooting at animals on the fly ... with a scope ... turned to low power. I know without any doubt that I would never have taken half of them had I been shooting open sights. Here's a few examples that I can find pictures of right now.

2022 at 100 yards in thick stuff. Through the heart.

2021 on the run, shot through both lungs at sixty yards.

2020 running full tilt, crossing shot through the heart at fifty-five yards.

2019 running quartering slightly away at 80 yards, hit in front shoulder, dropped instantly

Also a 2019 gemsbuck shot twice through the heart at full gallop incoming less than 20 yards; big whitetail buck shot through the heart at 40 yards running broadside 1985, huge 6x6 bull elk shot in the head at seventy yards running straight away uphill 1980, and a bigger bull in 1971 also shot in the head going straight away. Oh, and a raghorn elk and bull moose shot coming for me at very close range wounded. The raghorn was a bit of a trick shot by flashlight. Didn't have time to wet myself.

The point of all this being many fellas think it's necessary to have iron sights to shoot moving game, especially dangerous game. Not really. However, three things are necessary 1) a low power scope, 2) a gun and scope that fit perfectly [length of pull, eye relief, scope height], 3) develop some skill shooting moving targets - i.e. wingshooting and/or clay targets.

The exception might be hunting elephants. I don't hunt them and never plan to. But elephants are usually shot at very close range in thick cover. Because they are so big, I imagine it would be difficult to find the correct vital spot looking through even a low power scope.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

The 1 moa Trijicon RMR on my double has done wonders for me, in my case it is definitely a big improvement over open sights. A few years ago, before I actually tried a red dot I thought open sights were perfectly adequate. Not any more.

 

[davsel]

The key is having an adjustable objective lens. Most red dot sites do not, and I have the same problem as many with multiple/blooming dots. Most low power scopes, dot or not, have an adjustable objective. Adjust it for our eyes and you're back in business.

Personally, I'm more concerned about hitting where I want than I am about how my gun looks. YMMV