Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Red Dot Sights and aging eyes

So I've been wearing bifocals for a few years now and they don't always play well with handgun iron sights.

Question, do the reflex style red dot sights (Burris Fastfire, Vortex Venom, etc) work well with aging eyes? Does the dot focus well?

I'm thinking about having one of my Glock slides milled for such a sight, but don't want to go down that road if it is a waste of time/money.


Thanks, Shane

Absent an astigmatism that causes other dots to be wonky I think it'll be fine. They appear the same as an Aimpoint to me.

I think this is where dots on pistols really shine. They give you an easy to see aiming point and one plane to focus on.

When I found myself needing bifocals, my ability to focus on sights at arms length had already been suffering to the point I'd pretty much given up on shooting handguns. Now that I wear trifocals, that middle lense helps considerably to focus on the sights, and reading glasses with a similar correction work even better. Regardless, I have to have that intermediate correction to shoot any handgun with open sights.

To answer your question about red dot sights, the Fastfire I put on a Buckmark is awesome for my aging eyes. I have no problem focusing the dot and target with my primary lense (distance correction) and don't have to rely in the other lenses for a closer in focus. I only have that type of sight on the one pistol, but it is much easier for me to shoot than any iron sight. I don't think you'd be disappointed...

to carry while hunting or hiking is one thing, I could not see the red dot on for instance the G43 I carry. I would look at other sights for a carry weapon. However I have wanted to do one of the G40's set up that way as a trail gun.

I have a J-point on a Buckmark and it works pretty well for my 52 YO eyes but it takes some practice to find the dot as quickly as I find the front sight. Still a S&W CORE with a Trijicon RMR is on my list of things to have.

For now I use Trijicon HD sights with the luminescent dot around the tritium dot. It works better for me than regular sights. The other thing I've been considering is a set of Dawson Precision fiber optic sights. They're very easy to see and require no special holster that a red dot would.

FYI There are business selling slides that are red dot ready with the higher sights ready to go. See https://suarezinternational.com/for-gen-4-glock-19/

In a word or four, yes, they work excellently. If your far vision is still okay you can use them without your prescription glasses although I find the dot is a bit sharper when I wear my progressive glasses and that's looking through the far vision part so the target is still in sharp focus. I'd prefer to use open sights for a few reasons but the red dot or small reflex sights - I use a Burris Fastfire - are a godsend for aging eyes.

Never one to waste old posts, here is my first impression of a Fastfire II from a few years ago. The latest Fastfire III has corrected the problems with sight adjustment, brightness and battery placement of the II model.

Fastfire II review


One thing to note is that I post from the perspective of liking to hit small targets far away where the red dot will sometimes cover most of the target. But for deliberate or fast shooting close in or on larger targets those red dots are super slick. Even then, match the target to the dot and you won't find better unless you go to a bulky scope. I was out this past Friday morning with a Fastfire on a 10/22 ringing a 4" gong at 100 yards with most every shot from the kneeling position, the little 3 MOA dot centered itself on the 4" round plate like a target sight.

Thanks for the info guys.

I did look at Suarez and a couple other slide/upper options. For the price of one of those with internals and iron sights and a barrel, I'd be ahead to just buy a new Glock MOS pistol.

Looks like I could have one of my Gen 2's milled and refinished with cerakote for about $150 by Battlewerx, or a few other places on the 'net.

http://www.battlewerx.com/vortex-venom-cut-for-glock/


Thanks for the help, Shane

With irons, focus is on the front sight, with target and rear sight out of focus.

Where is focal point with the red dot? Is it on the sight unit, or downrange at the target? Does the sight bring the target image to the sight's focal distance? Or are both eyes open and focused downrange?

Maybe I need to just get one of the sights, and play with it on a 10/22 or something to get smarter on how it works.

MontanaMarine, Simply put, Yes! At least for me. I was trying to get back into handgun hunting, and found I couldn't hit "squat" at hunting ranges. While certainly not match winning accuracy, I can keep most of my shots on a 4" square target at 100 yards, shooting off of sticks. Before the Burris Fastfire, I couldn't keep all shots on an 11x17" paper. memtb

Not sure of the mechanics of it, i.e. whether it actually brings the target and sight onto one focal plane. Be that as it may, that's how I use it, by focusing on the target and pasting the bead on it like you would the crosshairs of a scope.

Can't speak to other sights but the Fastfire does not have a sharply defined round dot reticle - almost but not quite - although it gives that impression on the lower brightness settings. It's not the greatest for precise holdover or under like one might do with a scope or more defined reticle, but is at its best when used within the point blank range of your load. Focus on the target, put the dot on the target and fire.

Regardless of your visual acuity, single aiming point systems like red-dots and scopes are easier to use than iron sights - that's not really open to much debate.

The question to ask and answer is what is your intended application. While you may be able to shoot with better precision with a single point aiming system, it may not be enough to matter at close range. For example, I'm mildly amused when folks brag about their 5 and 7 yards groups with their red-dot sighted pistols. You don't need a RDS to shoot at those distances - period.

But, as distances increase, the targets get smaller or the ambient light is diminished, the single point system is the cat's meow and all the shooting disciplines have proven that to be the case for about 30 years now.

With a red-dot sight, your focus is on the target and you must shoot with both eyes open to maximize the benefit of such a sighting system.

Both eyes open, focused on the target, dot superimposed on it.

Thanks for all the feedback.

I'm going to get one. I'll mount it on the 22/45 first, and get some trigger-time on it before sending a Glock slide to get milled.

Shane

What size dot do you all like for general purpose. I'm thinking something around 4-6 moa?

I like a 2 MOA dot for all around use. One thing about a red-dot sighted pistol is that your effective range is extended; unless you only intend to shoot fast and up close, there's no need to forego the greater precision a 2 MOA dot allows.

That makes sense.

I was looking at the Vortex Venom with 3 moa, and 6 moa 'coming soon'.

Maybe the 3 moa will work for me. It's probably a safe bet that I can't shoot a Glock better than 3 moa anyways.....grin.

I'm thinking I'll likely get the Glock 22 milled out, and whenever I get an extended 357 Sig barrel, it should be pretty flat shooting to 100 yards.

On a pistol? I shot with a 3.25 and wouldn't have wanted it any smaller. But I never tried a smaller one either so can't say for sure.

Yes, on a handgun. I was skeptical of the smaller dot as well, but after shooting it for awhile I find it easier to hit with past 50 yards compared to a 4 MOA dot, which is the only other size I've tried on a handgun. If I were concerned about speed, though, I'd go with the 4 MOA dot. It is noticeably faster to acquire, particularly if the sight window isn't exactly aligned with my line-of-sight when the gun comes up.

For a tactical type situation, probably a larger dot. For hunting, particularly for longer ranges and especially a smallish target, the smaller dot. I went with the smallest FastFire on my Smith X-Frame. You'd cover a lot of coyote at 100 yrds..... But with me shooting,he's probably relatively safe anyway! memtb