What should be in focus?

P

Prof Young

New member
With my regular glasses, the target is in focus and the open handgun sights are not. (I wear nonprescription saftey glasses over my regular.)

With my prescription safety glasses, designed to have things in focus at arms length, the gun sights are in focus and the target is not.

I'm guessing there is no right or wrong here. I prefer to have my sights in focus and let the target be fuzzy. I think I shoot just a little better that way. But only a little.

Thoughts and comments?

Live well, be safe
Prof Young
 
Focus

I went to focusing on the front sight with my handguns, and it's remarkably more consistent in finding the target with tighter groups.

It may be the old eyes, or just more focusing, but it worked for me, too.
 
There is a right answer, if you're looking to make photogenic little groups, the front sight HAS to be in focus. HARD focus. Any nick, scratch, ding, gouge, missing finish or otherwise imperfect spot on the front sight blade should annoy you. Then you're focusing on the front sight properly.

At close range hitting big targets at high speed, there's some leeway for less than perfect front sight focus. But you still need to see the front sight (or the silhouette of the gun) to reference where you're going to hit.
 
For target and competition shooting, you might want to have the sights in focus.

For defensive self-protection shooting you might want to practice with the
glasses you wear most or all of the time.

With my reading glasses, I see the sights perfectly and the targets are a bit of a blur.

Without my reading glasses, the targets are sharp.

Since I'm not likely in a defensive situation to have on my reading glasses, I practice a lot without them and just wear safety glasses.

I think it's important for identification sake to have a sharp picture of the target.

Of course, with the sights in sharp focus my groups are much tighter but for me that's hardly the point in defensive shooting. And with practice I've gotten better and better seeing the target sharply.
 
There is a right answer, if you're looking to make photogenic little groups, the front sight HAS to be in focus. HARD focus. Any nick, scratch, ding, gouge, missing finish or otherwise imperfect spot on the front sight blade should annoy you. Then you're focusing on the front sight properly.

At close range hitting big targets at high speed, there's some leeway for less than perfect front sight focus. But you still need to see the front sight (or the silhouette of the gun) to reference where you're going to hit
Click to expand...
Very well said...and I'd add that the "close range" element when shooting center mass is approx. 7 yds. Defeating body armor, (i.e. shooting for the cranial/ocular vault) still requires focus on the front sight, front sight, front sight! As stressed by Col. Cooper and many, many others.

Rod
 
I have found that as I approach 62 years of age in just a matter of weeks that guns with shorter sight radius have become more relaxing to my eyes. Eye strain and watering while using my prescription variable focal lens glasses is much less. I can shoot shorter barrels as well as some of the longer barreled guns I have of equal caliber. I shoot the FF III by Burris on some handguns but still prefer to stay with open sights. Although I like the EoTech XPS2 on long guns (rifles) over open sights.
 
rep,

I've always favored short barreled guns. Rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

And yep, as I get older I still see those sights.

Deaf
 
Me, too.
I've never noticed enough difference in the sight radius of handguns to matter.
Short barrel, long barrel, not enough to matter.
And rifles are plenty long enough from rear to front sight, that it doesn't matter there, either.
Sorry to report, at age 62 serious deterioration ain't even begun, yet. :(
But then the plus 80 year olds tell me the same thing.
 
"...designed to have things in focus at arms length..." This one. All prescription lenses are impact resistant. You don't need anything else as long as said lenses are big enough to cover your whole eye.
Sight radius doesn't matter with a hand gun. Accuracy has nothing to do with barrel length either.
"...serious deterioration ain't even begun..." Yep. Except for the knees, hips, teeth, heel, hair colour changing(Trendy grey and for free. snicker.) and back(hearts been rebuilt), I'm fine, at 62. HAHAHAHAHA. However, everything goes downhill after 40.
 
In target shooting I like the front sight in focus. In a self defense scenario I doubt I will take the time to concern myself with what is in focus, nor do I think the distance involved will likely make thart a big issue.
 
T. O'Heir said:
"HAHAHAHAHA. However, everything goes downhill after 40.
Click to expand...

Sure as hell did for me. I felt as hail and Hardy at 40 as I did at 20. As I rapidly approach 50, I feel old. Delicate motor skills are shot, balance is wonky, bifocals, but need trifocals. [emoji88]
 
Old age is for sissys ! You'll find out .
I thought you could figure out 'front sight ' mathematically ??
In any case that's the way. How do you hunt deer in cover ? You first aim with focus on the target .That gets things roughly lined up, then you bring the focus back to the front sight for the final precision .
I get my deer , out to 60 yds , quick , accurate !.
 
focus

Front sight. Yep.
Even out of focus it doesn't mean you can't see the front sight; it's just not sharp.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can "see" it. The idea, though, is to align the front sight as precisely as possible with the rear sight (which would be out of focus when the front sight is sharp). The more out of focus things are, the harder it is to be precise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top