Corrective eye glass lenses for bulleye shooting

I just read an earlier topic on this subject and am trying to figure out what would be best for me.  my vision is about 20/100 or maybe worse, I need a 2.75 correction.  Without glasses my focus point is about 12 inches from the front of my face and I need corrective lenses to both look at a computer screen or newspaper and for distance. With my progressive lenses I see 20/20 and they work wonderfully for everyday life but if I am shooting iron sights it is hard to focus on the front sight instead of the bulleye.  One person in the earlier post suggested traditional bifocal lens, not sure if that would be best for me or not.  Any suggestions would be helpful.

What has helped for me was to get a cheap pair of reading glasses to see the sights then added an adjustable iris to the shooting eye lens. My eye doctor suggested this as he said I can't have clear focus at both near and far without bifocals. YMMV

Thank you Beecherkid, I might give that one a try.  I know I can't have both near and far focus without bifocals and was thinking maybe traditional bifocals would work better than my progressives.  The cheep readers seems like an idea worth trying though.

Do you have astigmatism?  Here's a simple test if you're not sure.

http://www.essilor.com/en/EyeHealth/LensesForYourVision/TestyourEyes/Pages/EyetestforAstigmatism.aspx

You just need to see the target well enough to aim at it. You need to see the front sight in clear focus. Google Norman Wong and bullseye. Read those articles. 

I am currently using a +1 diopter addition to my distance glasses for my front sight. This works ok indoors for 60 shots and outdoors for 90+. I may try a slightly stronger add for indoors to see if that helps.With the red dot and my normal bifocals I am fine for either indoors or out.

But before you do anything read the articles referenced above by Dr. Wong. Some of them are at the bullseye encyclopedia website and others off the Star reloaded website.

[url=http://www.customsightpicture.com/sight picture-articles.html]http://www.customsightpicture.com/sight%20picture-articles.html[/url] 
During my years of shooting PPC, Dr. Toler lengthened my shooting career considerably, by keeping my glasses and eyesight at a younger age..
Located in Richmond , VA.  He is a 2600 + shooter, and has taken his share of the awards at Perry as a military shooter.. He knows what it takes to see the sights...

I'm using a pair of ranger glasses with a corrected left lens for the front sight, and a normal lense in the right. I'm left eye dominant and left handed.

jmdavis wrote:You just need to see the target well enough to aim at it. You need to see the front sight in clear focus. Google Norman Wong and bullseye. Read those articles. 

I am currently using a +1 diopter addition to my distance glasses for my front sight. This works ok indoors for 60 shots and outdoors for 90+. I may try a slightly stronger add for indoors to see if that helps.With the red dot and my normal bifocals I am fine for either indoors or out.

But before you do anything read the articles referenced above by Dr. Wong. Some of them are at the bullseye encyclopedia website and others off the Star reloaded website.

Dr. Norman Wong Articles as posted to the Bullseye List (plus*)

For dot sights you want your distance prescription. You might want a little more or less correction, but even if it's out of focus you can always put the red blob on the black blob. 

Open sights are a little harder. The general advice is the front sight should be in perfect focus, but in my experience, and backed up by comments from people who should know, most people prefer a focus a little further out. In general you want about +3/8 to +5/8 on your distance prescription. 

You don't want progressive bifocals because changing your head position will change the focus. Single focus or traditional line bi-focals always have the same lens in front of your eye, within reason.

I second the Ed's pointing you to Norman Wong's articles.

Thank you for all the info, I have heard of Norman Wong, will read up.