I am nearsighted. I cannot read with my glasses on, my drivers license requires me to wear glasses while driving, but I feel safe driving on the freeway without my glasses but not in cities. I can read license plates from 100 feet without squinting and from 200 feet if I squint. If this describes you, I ask your opinion.
AR-15 iron sights, the hole in the rear sight and the post up front, make me feel like a dithering fool who can't make up my mind whether they are too exasperating or too good. With glasses, the sights are so blurry and out of focus that the target is hidden: I can only aim by waving the sights back and forth across the (clear) target and guessing when to shoot. Without glasses, targets past 100 feet or so are blurred enough that I am not quite sure where the center is. As an example, from my front door shooting at the hillside 100 feet away and using a benchrest, I got six inch groups with irons sights (no glasses) and a one inch group using an Aimpoint. (I am not the best shot, but I am practicing!) For all I know, the Aimpoint 3x or a scope might be even better.
Within 100 feet, I love the AR-15 sights. They seem so natural and easy to use, and so easy to bring up on a target, that I feel guilty for not appreciating them past that distance.
When I started shooting, it was with these evil OLL that you scoundrels got me hooked on, and I have just assumed it was part of being nearsighted. But then I got a Springfield 1861 black powder rifle and discovered I could shoot more accurately at 100 yards with it than with the AR-15. Part of it is probably the sheer weight making it less susceptible to the slightest body movement, but I am beginning to wonder how much difference the sights make. One day when friends and I were switching back and forth between AR-15s, black powder rifles and pistols, a varied collection of friends' modern rifles and handguns, I got the idea that the simple 1861 sights were better at distances over 100 feet because there is less sight substance to get blurry and obscure the target.
I tried the AR-15 iron sights (small and large holes) and the Aimpoint with and without the 3x magnification, looking at my license plate from about 100 feet. (It would be interesting to try this again with the 3x at 3x the distance. However, it did look a little blurry, not the clarity I get from a 3x scope, so I think it would be the same.)
There seemed to be no difference in the license plate clarity with any of them, but the red dot was easier to read simply because there was more to see within the sight boundary, more context around the target.
I am interested in general comments from other near sighted shooters, but mainly those who are not so near sighted that they need glasses all the time, the ones who can see the target with or without glasses but cannot read with glasses on. You farsighted people, and you with the perfect vision -- you! I see you smirking! Go away! -- you don't have much to offer :-)
Or maybe -- if anyone used to be nearsighted as I describe and has had LASIK or any similar sight correction -- maybe you could report on the differences.
As a specific question, I would also like to ask if you can get different sights for the AR-15. A friend brought over a .22LR rifle with a bead up front and a notch in the rear, and that was very easy to use; I felt more consistent at 100 yards than with the AR-15.
I thought of butchering a standard set of sights and carving wooden sights to attach as experiments, but that's expensive and maybe you folks could save me (and other nearsighted victims of BRD) some money.
See post #7 for minor corrections and more detail.
AR-15 iron sights, the hole in the rear sight and the post up front, make me feel like a dithering fool who can't make up my mind whether they are too exasperating or too good. With glasses, the sights are so blurry and out of focus that the target is hidden: I can only aim by waving the sights back and forth across the (clear) target and guessing when to shoot. Without glasses, targets past 100 feet or so are blurred enough that I am not quite sure where the center is. As an example, from my front door shooting at the hillside 100 feet away and using a benchrest, I got six inch groups with irons sights (no glasses) and a one inch group using an Aimpoint. (I am not the best shot, but I am practicing!) For all I know, the Aimpoint 3x or a scope might be even better.
Within 100 feet, I love the AR-15 sights. They seem so natural and easy to use, and so easy to bring up on a target, that I feel guilty for not appreciating them past that distance.
When I started shooting, it was with these evil OLL that you scoundrels got me hooked on, and I have just assumed it was part of being nearsighted. But then I got a Springfield 1861 black powder rifle and discovered I could shoot more accurately at 100 yards with it than with the AR-15. Part of it is probably the sheer weight making it less susceptible to the slightest body movement, but I am beginning to wonder how much difference the sights make. One day when friends and I were switching back and forth between AR-15s, black powder rifles and pistols, a varied collection of friends' modern rifles and handguns, I got the idea that the simple 1861 sights were better at distances over 100 feet because there is less sight substance to get blurry and obscure the target.
I tried the AR-15 iron sights (small and large holes) and the Aimpoint with and without the 3x magnification, looking at my license plate from about 100 feet. (It would be interesting to try this again with the 3x at 3x the distance. However, it did look a little blurry, not the clarity I get from a 3x scope, so I think it would be the same.)
There seemed to be no difference in the license plate clarity with any of them, but the red dot was easier to read simply because there was more to see within the sight boundary, more context around the target.
I am interested in general comments from other near sighted shooters, but mainly those who are not so near sighted that they need glasses all the time, the ones who can see the target with or without glasses but cannot read with glasses on. You farsighted people, and you with the perfect vision -- you! I see you smirking! Go away! -- you don't have much to offer :-)
Or maybe -- if anyone used to be nearsighted as I describe and has had LASIK or any similar sight correction -- maybe you could report on the differences.
As a specific question, I would also like to ask if you can get different sights for the AR-15. A friend brought over a .22LR rifle with a bead up front and a notch in the rear, and that was very easy to use; I felt more consistent at 100 yards than with the AR-15.
I thought of butchering a standard set of sights and carving wooden sights to attach as experiments, but that's expensive and maybe you folks could save me (and other nearsighted victims of BRD) some money.
See post #7 for minor corrections and more detail.


I shoot with 'em on, too. Rear sight is always going to be blurry no matter what anyway. I haven't tried shooting glasses off, but a front sight is never going to be in crisp focus if I do, so it's kinda pointless, IMO. Besides, then I'd have to wear some safety glasses instead.
Might as well wear my prescription and be done with it.
Comment