prescription lens attached to gun: legal?

Questions about, disagreements with or ideas for new rules post here.
User avatar United States of America
high standard 40
Class A
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:08 am
IHMSA Member#: 11568

Re: prescription lens attached to gun: legal?

Post by high standard 40 »

If the rules are strictly interpreted, then I agree with Dell's determination. That being said, there is no practical difference between having a corrective lens on your face compared to having it mounted on the gun. Perhaps the rules should be changed to address this in regards to non magnifying corrective lenses. But then again, how could these lenses be differentiated from magnifying lenses...by an untrained observer?
IHMSA Member since 1980
Former Match Director Baton Rouge Silhouette Club
Current Match Director Ascension Silhouette
Current Match Director Saline Creek Silhouette
Current Match Director Top Shot Silhouette
NRA Life Member
NRA Range Safety Officer
User avatar United States of America
contender1121
Class C
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:43 am
IHMSA Member#: 57830
Location: Central Oklahoma

Re: prescription lens attached to gun: legal?

Post by contender1121 »

260 Striker wrote:I thought the whole intent of peep sights, especially the ones with an adjustable iris, was for "focus correction". Now I'm more confused. And now that red dots are on a trial basis and I'm guessing the "non-magnifying" type red dots then they have several lenses that correct focus for the red dots so what is the difference. By the way I'm probably one of the oldest farts around so chose to shoot UAS instead of Production with a red dot but to each his own and I'm for the change if that keeps people shooting. My recent cataract surgery allows me to see iron sights again for my Production guns. Not as good as 30 years ago but still usable on a good day.
You make a valid point Lynn. I certainly don't want to stir any thoughts of sour grapes but I would respectfully request a clarification of the term Mr. Taylor used, "focus correction". Closing down the iris on an adjustable sight is exactly the same as closing down the iris diaphragm on a camera. It increases the depth of field and brings the front sight into focus along with the target. If that is not "focus correction" then someone please explain what it is. Without clarification, are we being told that all adjustable irises are taboo because "focus correction is a big part of the problem"?
So, I'm to believe that if I'm on the firing line in the flop position and I take the same lens that used to be in the holder in front of the iris and pinch down on it like a monocle or jeweler's loupe, a half inch to the rear of where it would have been (had it been in the holder, attached to the sight), that this scenario is perfectly legal???
Please, Mr. Taylor, would you clarify your position on this subject and especially the term "focus correction" and its correlation with adjustable iris peep sights? I'm sorry, but no matter how much I go over this in my beady brain can I come up with a situation where an unfair advantage is obtained by the usage of a non-magnifying prescription lens attached to the gun versus one's head.
My sole intent in doing this stems from using the flop shooting position. Placing a round corrective lens in front of the iris makes one's head position basically immaterial. Where standard corrective lenses/frames are just fine for the creedmore position they don't work for the flop. I aim with my right eye, with my head cocked over, putting the line of sight thru the inside upper corner of the lens in a pair of glasses. My eye doctor tells me that my correction cannot be ground into a small corner of the lens. That's it, folks. No secretive plans for a huge leg up on everyone else in Unlimited.

I too am passing on the red-dots for peeps. I've tried red-dots in the past with poor results.

Thanks for chiming in high standard 40. I should think that an untrained observer could easily determine if there is any magnification by simply looking thru the sight. I agree that a rule exception is in order. I note in the rules that an exception to hooded rear sights was made for the Browning Buckmark. I think something of a similar nature could be made for non-magnifying corrective lenses. I strongly feel that others could also benefit from such a change.
United States of America
260 Striker
Class AA
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:41 pm
IHMSA Member#: 0
Location: DeGraff, OH

Re: prescription lens attached to gun: legal?

Post by 260 Striker »

Since red dot sights "may" have been temporarily approved for Production use (I don't believe that has been posted yet) then a rule change with the term "Non-magnifying" sights may be more correct. That would allow red dots that have lenses and even the lens you are wanting to use on your new gun. A straight 1X type sight would be an advantage by not having to align a front and rear sight so that in fact would be a slight sighting advantage over conventional iron sights. I would not be opposed to those sights in Production if this will keep some of us elder shooters competing in our sport. Sometimes our rules are written so simple (?) that they are confusing. That was a pun. I have tried red dot sights in PAS and really didn't think they worked that well at least for me. Sight alignment was easier but the red dots I used "ballooned" as the intensity was dialed up and the dot also covered a lot of the far targets. Back to Steve's comment. Bring your new gun to a local match and I bet the local MD will let you shoot in Unlimited.
Lynn Shultz
IHMSA #15692 since 1980
Past Match Director Logan Handgun Association
Current VP Logan Handgun Association
NRA Member
United States Air Force Veteran
Retired USAF Civil Servant (47 years)
937-407-4885
United States of America
i26963
Class A
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:22 am
IHMSA Member#: 26963

Re: prescription lens attached to gun: legal?

Post by i26963 »

I personally would have no problems with that setup. However, comparing it to peeps is somewhat incorrect in my opinion. With the acrylic lens peep fronts, you are not looking through the lens itself, rather through a HOLE in the lens. You couldn’t see through these lens if you wanted to.
The issue of the adjustable iris rear sights is a valid point.
I would personally like for Dell to come on here, read through this thread, and make a ruling.
But please don’t put anymore work(decisions) on us poor match directors! :p
Melvin Calliham
Co-Match Director LRGC, Lincolnton, GA
User avatar United States of America
contender1121
Class C
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:43 am
IHMSA Member#: 57830
Location: Central Oklahoma

Re: prescription lens attached to gun: legal?

Post by contender1121 »

This can all be put to rest now. Dell called me tonight and we had a very cordial conversation. The rules, as they are currently written, do not allow for a corrective lens attached to the gun and they are going to stay that way at least for now. This is the clincher, no ifs ands or buts: from Section X, what is allowed, (E) Auxiliary lenses and/or loupes, provided they are attached to the competitor’s eyeglass lens or frame. Perhaps at some point in the future, this will change.
Not to worry, adjustable irises are not under a cloud. His decision was just not worded right.
For me, I'm going to learn to shoot using my left eye for aiming since it now has 20-15 vision. Won't be easy as I am very right eye dominant. Beats tearing up a good pair of Knobloch glasses trying to get the lens where it needs to be for the flop position.
This was a good discussion with an amicable outcome and I thank all that chimed in and voiced an opinion.
United States of America
jmoore
Class B
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 3:09 am
IHMSA Member#: 57653

Re: prescription lens attached to gun: legal?

Post by jmoore »

I was going along the same path with a Gehmann rear diopter that corrects for astigmatism attached to an Anschutz rear sight on an Exemplar. Fantastic sight! Being able to wear full non-correcting safety glasses surely better for protective purposes. Looks like time to go back to messing with the Knoblochs.

ETA: Ran a peep on peep sight set-up a little last year on a "mixmaster" manually operated AR pistol. This would also benefit by having the corrective portion on the sight, as it quickly scratched up the expensive lens mounted on my face. Being able to wear cheap, disposable non-corrective eyewear with more facial coverage would be an improvement. Oh, well....Glad I hadn't gotten around to messing with it, yet!
United States of America
i26963
Class A
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:22 am
IHMSA Member#: 26963

Re: prescription lens attached to gun: legal?

Post by i26963 »

Contender1121
Glad you got it settled.
Due to a recently diagnosed muscle weakness and nerve damage in my right eye, I ,too, may try to shoot “cockeyed “, as my shooting partner calls it. I have a special “prism” prescription in my right eye lens. Without it, I have double vision. Not able to put that prescription in a Knoblach lens.
Good luck, and welcome back to IHMSA
Melvin Calliham
Co-Match Director LRGC, Lincolnton, GA
User avatar United States of America
high standard 40
Class A
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:08 am
IHMSA Member#: 11568

Re: prescription lens attached to gun: legal?

Post by high standard 40 »

Growing old is not for the meek. I have recently had to make some concessions to my shooting....but not related to vision.
IHMSA Member since 1980
Former Match Director Baton Rouge Silhouette Club
Current Match Director Ascension Silhouette
Current Match Director Saline Creek Silhouette
Current Match Director Top Shot Silhouette
NRA Life Member
NRA Range Safety Officer
United States of America
aggshooter
IHMSA VP
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:53 pm
IHMSA Member#: 29087
Location: Terre Haute, Indiana

Re: prescription lens attached to gun: legal?

Post by aggshooter »

Glad Dell weighed in and it was resolved before any competition.

On a similar note, I did the .22 records portion of the IHMSA News for several years. The rule(s) regarding optics were pretty simple and Melvin hit it square on the head. If you are seeing the sights thru holes in the sights, it was open sights. Any solid lens makes it an optic. Magnification is not a factor. You cannot put a 1x scope on a gun and shoot it in production. Ditto for red dots such as Tasco Pro points. The logic behind this was to easily allow match directors to distinguish open vs. optic sights without trying to research if a 1x scope is 1.0 magnification or actually 1.3x, and eliminate the possibility of someone "forgetting" they had a 3x adapter on their ProPoint. Match directors already have enough to do without that nightmare.

The reflex sight trial is an exception (and another thread). Shooters should make their voices known to their state & regional directors.

Quick reminder, the ending date for rule proposals is approaching. I would suggest that if you offer a rule proposal, you should send copies of it to all the regional directors so they can consider it in a timely manner. Follow up with some emails or phone calls to make sure it is being discussed and info about your proposal is being properly disseminated to match directors for their input to their state reps. Then we can avoid threads in August about why something was or wasn't put up for vote.

Just my 2 cents....

Rich
Rich Hawkins
#29087
IHMSA VP

"Go ahead and shoot. The bullet has to go somewhere."
George Hawkins 1917-2000
Post Reply