Rifle Scopes Eyeglasses and Scopes: Does it make a difference?

[AricaPuki]

I shoot great with glasses. Very clear. Got my eyes checked got the new glasses, titanium frames. very clear, very light. I make sure that the glasses fit me well. Then I put my ear pro of which holds the glasses snug in place. I make sure that when I bow my head down and look up, I don't see the frames. This helps me in the prone position. I then adjust the ocular lens to be clear with the reticle (T3) with the glasses and ear pro on in prone. when all is set I then adjust parallax, clear as day. During rainy days, I use a shamag / towel and cover my whole head and scope with just the barrel and objective lens showing, this protects my glasses, scope, action and 3/4 of the gun from getting wet and I am in full camo unless I use a white towel.

Good luck. If there is a will, there is a way to do it.

 

[Viktor J.]

I have been barreling this issue for years. In the past I have just used contacts. I have now switched to prescription safety glasses.

Contacts
Pros:
No figment issues with respect to rifle
No additional potential surface to clean

cons:
Poor optical clarity
Still need safety glasses (if you care)
Sensitive to dust and dry weather

glasses
Pros:
No need for additional poor optical clarity safety glasses
Superior optical clarity
Not subject to dry conditions

cons:
Subject to wet condition issues
Can interfere with rifle figment
High cost

for me the pros of glasses outweigh the cons. If you need corrective lenses, there is no good answer. You will have to decide for yourself. For me I choose to have eye-protection, so the choice is much easier.

In 1966 I lost my right eye due to a mechanical failure in my rifle action. My right eye was my strong one and my left had problems. Since I was right handed, I had to learn to shoot left handed. I find no problems with shooting with glasses and have won many matches with them on. Recently, hot brass from another shooter struck my eye protection. Without the glasses, I would have been on the market for a seeing eye dog. Please wear your glasses if you value your vision! Enough said. The rest is up to you...

 

[shanelessthanzero]

With my glasses on the reticle appears canted... only drawback I have with scopes. Contacts work great for me.

 

[Lazyfaire]

I have to wear glasses to read up close. Was having trouble shooting well at the range (100+ and up). I also had some glasses that I wore when I was driving, and one day had left my reading glasses(near) at home. I found that my driving (far) glasses gave me a better picture of the reticle and the targets downrange. And much better than before. In a perfect world I would not want to have to wear ANY glasses. Been a pain in my ass for 60 years. So I just found a way to deal with it.

 

[lash]

That’s usually the case. Using your far vision on a scope rifle, or iron sights, or pistol for that matter works better. That’s been my experience and apparently others’ too, from anecdotal experience.

And yes too, to not wanting to have to wear glasses. I would much rather wear some of the cool ESS shooting glasses with changeable lenses, but that is not to be.

 

[Lazyfaire]

My eyes really suck bad, so I either have to wear contacts or glasses to see. I’m thinking about wearing exclusively glasses because I feel like my eyes need a rest from contacts for a while, and I was wondering what effect putting an eyeglass lens between your eye and some high dollar scope glass would have on image clarity, CA, parallax, etc. Not to mention all eyeglasses also have tons of coatings on them for anti glare, non-scratch, and the like. Does anyone have experience with negative effects of wearing eyeglasses while shooting through scopes? I couldn’t find this topic anywhere, so if you have any good info, let me know.

I know I am very late to this thread. Question to @calanjn Do you see very well when you drive? I am also near sighted and need glasses for that, but I have a focusing issue also. My previous optometrist gave me an Rx for farther away. I tried them at the range and it was night and day. I realized that my focus wasn't for 4" away, it was for 100 yards away. Made all the difference for me.
BTW, I don't use them for driving, they are always in my range bag! Man, I feel for you and hope you found your own solution. Reach out if you want

 

[Baron23]

While I needed glasses my prescription was such that I could adjust the ocular to the correction diopter and shoot with plano glasses. For seeing the turrets, I have a pair of stick on magnifiers on the bottom of the Randolph Rangers I wear. If you can go this route, you will find the numbers on your parallax to be well off but who looks at that anyway, right?

Then I had cataract surgery a year ago and I'm back to 20/20 in my right eye. Oh, I'm closing in on 70 real soon.

And I couldn't agree more with this.....not just glasses but get some good damn shooting glasses. Its the least money we spend in this very expensive sport.

In 1966 I lost my right eye due to a mechanical failure in my rifle action. My right eye was my strong one and my left had problems. Since I was right handed, I had to learn to shoot left handed. I find no problems with shooting with glasses and have won many matches with them on. Recently, hot brass from another shooter struck my eye protection. Without the glasses, I would have been on the market for a seeing eye dog. Please wear your glasses if you value your vision! Enough said. The rest is up to you...

 

[Convex]

About 3 yrs.ago, I began to notice "black specks"/floaters showing up and since I had the Ins. I got a complete evaluation of my vision at the Stein Inst.

On top of my cataracts and astigmatism, I had Glaucoma, which was causing the floaters which prompted me to get a complete evaluation in the first place. The good thing was they were alerted to the Glaucoma early before there was any damage to my optic nerve.


2 yrs. of taking eyedrops were not relieving the pressure from glaucoma, the cataracts were getting worse, and combined w/my astigmatism, I decided to have implants (both eyes).


BTW, if you're an engineer or photographer, tell them, it will make a difference. When I told my surgeon what I was, he immediately sat up in his chair, told me he was glad I told him, and mentioned how technical folks have a completely different set of expectations about what the surgery could/would do as opposed to what other folks expect of the surgery. They were VERY CAREFUL how they talked to me after I told them what I was.

TRANSLATION -------------Less bullshit (Oh you'll be just fine, trust me !!!), more straight talk about what lens does which.

Toric lenses had been around for ten yrs., would address my astigmatism, but there were no promises on how much they'd improve my vision close up, which was a laugh because I no longer had any. Trouble was/is they're considered upgrades, and when I asked "how much?", the surgeon laughed and asked me to sit down, and then he told me


The surgery on the rt. eye went perfect. The surgery on the left resulted in the Toric lens being out of position and my surgeon couldn't explain it. I was seeing an aberration at night; when I looked at a streetlamp or the moon where I saw a shaft of light coming from the light source across my field of vision. All of the test gear at Stein takes pictures of everything so there was no dispute about the Toric lens being in the wrong position.

I told them I wanted the problem corrected, which meant a second surgery on my left eye. I got a call from the head surgeon trying to get me to just accept the results by saying they'd told me all along that the results after surgery may not be what I expected.


I'm no eye specialist but I knew enough to keep repeating to him that whatever results I expected were from the Toric lens being in the correct position after the surgery and it was 30 degrees off. I knew that from the before and after pics of my surgery and what my surgeon told me.


This gentleman kind of backed off of his position and authorized a second surgery on my left eye at Stein's expense, and they scheduled the surgery w/their 2 best people, because of the difficulty of getting the lens free of the connective tissue that grows around it to re-orient it.

I was LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY they were able to finesse the lens loose from the connective tissue that had grown around it to adjust the lens. After healing up, the shaft of light coming from light sources went away. The same shaft of light you see going across the screen from the lit headlights of a car at night when you're watching a movie.


Both eyes are 20/20, close up vision is to about 12 inches which was better than expected, but that was after 75K worth of surgeries (50K paid by my Ins. and 25K on the Stein Inst.) PLUS about 8 grand out of my own pocket for the Toric lenses, and that's after Stein gave me a discount. LOL

What was I going to do? "Nickel and Dime my own vision?"

I went into all this detail so folks who're considering going in the direction I went can get an idea of the risks involved. I would NOT get this done w/a rookie/new surgeon, because even though a second/corrective surgery is on the books, this is realisticly a "ONE SHOT" deal. After the surgery, connective tissue is going to grow around the implant and it's going to be tough for them to break it loose to move it, so from what I've learned about the surgery, you sure as hell want it done right the 1st time.

 

[Baron23]

About 3 yrs.ago, I began to notice "black specks"/floaters showing up and since I had the Ins. I got a complete evaluation of my vision at the Stein Inst.


The test results indicated I had cataracts bad; the specialists at the Stein Inst. said they were going to get a lot worse meaning a night restriction on my DL and then the loss of my DL altogether.



On top of my astigmatism, I had Glaucoma, which was causing the floaters which prompted me to get a complete evaluation in the first place. The good thing was they were alerted to the Glaucoma early before there was any damage to my optic nerve.


2 yrs. of taking eyedrops were not relieving the pressure from glaucoma, the cataracts were getting worse, and combined w/my astigmatism, I decided to have implants (both eyes).

My advice to anyone having this kind of surgery is to not do it until you complete understanding of the performance of the different kinds of lenses you'll have to decide from. What was unacceptable to me, being a photographer, was having the cataracts replaced, but still having blurred vision from my astigmatism. The prospect of risking surgery only to end up w/blurred vision from astigmatism was unacceptable to me. That was out, period.

BTW, if you're an engineer or photographer, tell them, it will make a difference. When I told my surgeon what I was, he immediately sat up in his chair, told me he was glad I told him, and mentioned how technical folks have a completely different set of expectations about what the surgery could/would do as opposed to what other folks expect of the surgery. They were VERY CAREFUL how they talked to me after I told them what I was.

TRANSLATION -------------Less bullshit (Oh you'll be just fine, trust me !!!), more straight talk about what lens does which.

Toric lenses had been around for ten yrs., would address my astigmatism, but there were no promises on how much they'd improve my vision close up, which was a laugh because I no longer had any. Trouble was/is they're considered upgrades, and when I asked "how much?", the surgeon laughed and asked me to sit down, and then he told me


WOW!!!! My left leg started twitching.


The surgery on the rt. eye went perfect. The surgery on the left resulted in the Toric lens being out of position and my surgeon couldn't explain it. I was seeing an aberration at night; when I looked at a streetlamp or the moon where I saw a shaft of light coming from the light source across my field of vision. All of the test gear at Stein takes pictures of everything so there was no dispute about the Toric lens being in the wrong position.

I told them I wanted the problem corrected, which meant a second surgery on my left eye. I got a call from the head surgeon trying to get me to just accept the results by saying they'd told me all along that the results after surgery may not be what I expected.


I'm no eye specialist but I knew enough to keep repeating to him that whatever results I expected were from the Toric lens being in the correct position after the surgery and it was 30 degrees off. I knew that from the before and after pics of my surgery and what my surgeon told me.


This gentleman kind of backed off of his position and authorized a second surgery on my left eye at Stein's expense, and they scheduled the surgery w/their 2 best people, because of the difficulty of getting the lens free of the connective tissue that grows around it to re-orient it.

I was LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY they were able to finesse the lens loose from the connective tissue that had grown around it to adjust the lens. After healing up, the shaft of light coming from light sources went away


Both eyes are 20/20, close up vision is to about 12 inches which was better than expected, but that was after 75K worth of surgeries (50K paid by my Ins. and 25K on the Stein Inst.) PLUS about 8 grand out of my own pocket for the Toric lenses, and that's after Stein gave me a discount. LOL

What was I going to do? "Nickel and Dime my own vision?"


I went into all this detail so folks who're considering going in the direction I went can get an idea of the risks involved. I would NOT get this done w/a rookie/new surgeon, because even though a second/corrective surgery is on the books, this is realisticly a "ONE SHOT" deal. After the surgery, connective tissue is going to grow around the implant and it's going to be tough for them to break it loose to move it, so from what I've learned about the surgery, you sure as hell want it done right the 1st time.

I'm glad Toric's worked for you and given your astigmatism perhaps they were the best choice.

However, I absolutely did NOT want Torics as they are much more susceptible to causing star bursts and glare at night from oncoming headlights and similar. That, and wearing a pair of reading glasses just really doesn't rise up to the level of objection that would justify the added risk of Torics.

They also mentioned correcting distance in one eye (right dominant eye) and close up in the left but again, I just wanted clear distance vision in both eyes.

The one "upgrade" I went for is the use of a laser to cut up the organic lens prior to opening the eye. This is a risk reducer, IMO, and makes the job of the Dr much easier and the time they are in your eye much less. Fucking Medicare won't pay for it (fucking Government at work, right there) so I ponied up the $1,500.

I do agree with your wholeheartedly that one should absolutely do your own research prior to making any decisions. There is a wealth of info out there on on the net about any medical condition or procedure. Avail yourself of it, is my approach.

One thing to mention....about 6 months after cataract surgery I noticed a glint of light in the far periphery of my right eye vision. It was 9 pm and I just went home to sleep....albeit a bit freaked out. In the morning, the glint was not visible but I had large and distinct floaters. Looked like a squashed pterodactyl and went into see the eye doc that day. Turns out my lens is still fine as is my retina. No tears or detachments. What I ended up with is Posterior Vitreous Detachment (PVD) which is extraordinarily common as people age but hardly anyone knows about it because their symptoms or they just write it off to "floaters"

Turns out that the vitreous jelly in the eye both shrinks and gets less viscous with age....for everybody. The sac of jelly is attached at three points in the back...the optic nerve and two points about 30 degrees off to either side. It is also anchored along most of the bottom front of the eye. As the jelly shrinks, it pulls away from the retina and the attachment points. When it gives way and detaches from all three points in the back, it is possible to have retina tears or detachment but more common is the glint (which went away quickly) and big floaters.

If you research cataract surgery on the net, there is no mention that I found to the surgery prompting PVD. But look up PVD and cataract surgery is listed as a definite risk for inducing PVD. Apparently our natural lenses are 3-4mm thick but the artificial one put in for cataract surgery is only about 1mm thick. That sudden reduction of 2-3mm is often enough to prompt detachment (that was kind of in progress anyway).

Its been 7 weeks and the floaters have gotten far less noticeable. Apparently the brain begins to edit them out of our vision and with time (6-8 months) they often move to the side and down and out of our field of view....but that's no guarantee.

The floaters don't seem to bother me at all in a rifle scope but are more noticeable when shooting skeet as they tend to come into view with eye movement.

Just my contribution to the discussion and yes...perhaps a bit of a hijack of the thread.

Cheers

 

[Convex]

Toric lenses aren't for everybody, I would be the first to agree w/that, and they have to be oriented in the correct position to work..

They're not something that would necessarily work for somebody else because they worked for me, but in terms of the performance graphs provided me by my surgeon on the different lenses available they were my CAREFULLY CONSIDERED choice. I mean CAREFULL as in taking about 6 wks to decide.

After the 2nd surgery on my left eye, no star bursts, or glare-glowing rings around light sources, in other words, no significant aberrations coming from intense light sources at night so my night driving and vision overall is according to the specialists at Stein Inst. back to where it was when I was 30.

so as to what you've said here.......

...."However, I absolutely did NOT want Torics as they are much more susceptible to causing star bursts and glare at night from oncoming headlights and similar. That, and wearing a pair of reading glasses just really doesn't rise up to the level of objection that would justify the added risk of Torics"........

I'm looking through these things right now, and of course I look through 'em at night, and w/the toric lens in my left eye oriented to it's correct position, it's very close to the vision of my rt eye, and so whatever suggestion there is about the risk or torics re star burst and glare, plain and simple, I DON'T see any of that at night.

If you didn't get torics, I DID, so I can tell you "straight from the horses mouth" what they're doing w/regard to my vision. YES, "my vision" would be the qualifier that counts, of course it may be different for somebody else.

I'm not saying the risk doesn't exist, and they may work for me but not for others, but I'm looking through these things now/day and night, and for the rest of my life, so I'm obviously in a pretty good position to tell you that they work.

A payoff for me was that I had better closeup vision that I expected w/the Torics. I'm no longer wearing glasses to use the computer I'm typing on now or to drive at night.

 

[Dough300]

I've worn trifocals for several years, usually shoot without my glasses and can adjust the scope more than enough to work for me, some cheap scopes no but all my better scopes no problem.

 

[Baron23]

Toric lenses aren't for everybody, I would be the first to agree w/that, and they have to be oriented in the correct position to work..

They're not something that would necessarily work for somebody else because they worked for me, but in terms of the performance graphs provided me by my surgeon on the different lenses available they were my CAREFULLY CONSIDERED choice. I mean CAREFULL as in taking about 6 wks to decide.

After the 2nd surgery on my left eye, no star bursts, or glare-glowing rings around light sources, in other words, no significant aberrations coming from intense light sources at night so my night driving and vision overall is according to the specialists at Stein Inst. back to where it was when I was 30.

so as to what you've said here.......

...."However, I absolutely did NOT want Torics as they are much more susceptible to causing star bursts and glare at night from oncoming headlights and similar. That, and wearing a pair of reading glasses just really doesn't rise up to the level of objection that would justify the added risk of Torics"........

I'm looking through these things right now, and of course I look through 'em at night, and w/the toric lens in my left eye oriented to it's correct position, it's very close to the vision of my rt eye, and so whatever suggestion there is about the risk or torics re star burst and glare, plain and simple, I DON'T see any of that at night.

If you didn't get torics, I DID, so I can tell you "straight from the horses mouth" what they're doing w/regard to my vision. YES, "my vision" would be the qualifier that counts, of course it may be different for somebody else.

I'm not saying the risk doesn't exist, and they may work for me but not for others, but I'm looking through these things now/day and night, and for the rest of my life, so I'm obviously in a pretty good position to tell you that they work.

A payoff for me was that I had better closeup vision that I expected w/the Torics. I'm no longer wearing glasses to use the computer I'm typing on now or to drive at night.

As I said, I’m glad they worked for you.

And, as I said…the Tori’s have a significantly greater chance of causing glare and star bursts and the is from my Dr, published data, and the direct experience of two friends who were screwed on night driving.

I’m pretty sure I never even implied that you were not being accurate or truthful about your good outcome so I’m a bit puzzled at the later part of your post that seemed to me upon reading as being somewhat defensive.

Good luck to you.

Cheers

 

[Convex]

You're giving yourself too much credit, 100% you're sensing/feeling something that's not there, absolutely.


I've never considered what you thought of my truthfullness and accuracy, not a lick, I'm focused on the implication of these ribs my wife just cooked up and I wrote what I wrote between plates, so don't be puzzled.

There's no argument and there's nothing I need to defend. What your doctor wrote/his published data has nothing to do w/what I can see through my own eyes.

I believe what my eyes are telling me, and not what your doctor wrote. I would be nuts if I didn't

If you were standing here my wife and I would offer U some bar-b-que ribs, which I'm now gonna get back 2.

And you'd get a beer w/your plate.

 

[Baron23]

100% you're sensing/feeling something that's not there, absolutely.

Then I offer my apologies.

 

[Convex]

Now U get 2 plates of ribs.

 

[carbonbased]

Thank you guys for this excellent discussion. Take a look at this post I made and maybe give me some advice on cataract lenses.

Light-adjustable cataract lenses

I have a question about the relatively new light-adjustable cataracts. But first let me give you a little background. I am 52 and due for cataract surgery soon. In fact I’m going in today for a second visit to have more accurate measurements done and what I think will be a long discussion about...

www.snipershide.com

 

[Lazyfaire]

Just a note on my experience. Have been wearing glasses since 3rd grade (am now 70). Have an astigmatism and was unable to wear soft contacts and hard ones were a pain for me. Fast forward to 2001 I had LASIK done to both eyes. At that time they could not correct the astigmatism but result was MUCH better than wearing glasses 24/7. Had eyes checked in Nov '22 and asked the doctor about redoing them again. She told me to wait as I had early cataracts. Cataracts repair is done using LASIK. Insurance will pay to fix cataracts but not typical myopia etc. Would be better to have it all done at once and under insurance.

I am sure some ins policies will cover standard LASIK but mine does not. Just my 2cents.

 

[acudaowner]

personally I just use the scope on rifles if I need glasses to shoot at a particular range then I have clear shooting glasses
these

and my regular glasses or a magnifier to see those darn tiny numbers on the scope
this one

best of luck .

 

[carbonbased]

Well I had my surgery done at the end of January. Each eye was one week apart. Everything went swimmingly, very easy.

I had monovision done as before surgery I tolerated that fine with some trial contacts simulating that. Monovision is when they have one eye (in my case, the right or “scope” eye) set for distance and the other for up close. 20% of people have brains that can meld the images together.

The upshot is one’s vision can be similar to how your eyes worked when you were young. You have close-up and far vision without glasses. Well, almost! Not quite as close up, but I don’t need glasses for day-to-day and office work tasks or reading my phone. And I might get a pair of contacts & glasses that correct the left eye for distance when shooting or driving all day.

When I really notice the monovision acting up is driving at night. That’s also when I would probably wear glasses to correct the left for distance. The effect then is a bit like have one dry contact. Something isn’t quite right with your vision and you keep wanting to rub the “sleep” or dryness out of the left eye. Of course you cannot.

This effect didn’t show up with the trial run of the monovision-like contacts before surgery. Doc said that given the contact’s position vs the replacement lens’ position in relation to the retina, there will be some discrepancy in the result.

But, my eyes are still healing. I’ll know how everything sorts out in a month or two.

Upshot is to weigh you options carefully. Ask yor optometrist their opinion. In my case, he had invaluable experience in seeing others’ mistakes and gave me great advice.

Edit: I chose toric lenses to correct for astigmatism.

 

[Convex]

It's been awhile since my implant surgery on both eyes. The stints that were put in along with implants have kept the pressure normal in both eyes so no damage from glaucoma.

The headaches are gone because my brain had gotten lazy, but has adjusted to the new workload/having to quickly focus w/everything clear and sharp, now that the astigmatism and cataracts have been addressed.

My surgeon/all the literature says that if you don't take care of yourself you'll eventually be right back where you started, so I eat right/take my vitamins/exercise, and I'll be using refresh tears for the rest of my life.

I'll enjoy sipping on some my favorite champagne every now and then which the surgeon says is "no sweat", but I'll be the first to say to anybody out there, if your guzzling HARD BOOZE, THROW IT OUT.


It's either your vision or the booze.


From tests, my vision has stabilized to that of a 30 yr. old, I can read read text from about 8" away, can see the pores/hairs from either hand from about the same distance so the toric implants turned out to be the best choice. They said that part of surgery turned out better than expected.

From what happened to me, my advice is research WHO is going to do your surgery more than the procedure because regardless of what's on the books, this is a one shot deal because connective tissue that grows around the surgery is going to be tough to dislodge to where a second surgery could cause more damage than it fixes.

This was the exact warning I was given SEVERAL TIMES FROM my surgeon before my 2nd surgery on my left eye. They did in fact have a tough time moving the implant without doing any damage and getting the correction done, but they said I was LUCKY.

I was in bad shape and getting worse, so I was forced into a corner and had the surgeries because I couldn't face being a photographer all my life and then going blind. My suggestion is that if you have stable vision, doing the surgery is a hell of a risk, which is that whatever vision you have, the surgery could make it worse, and again, they may not be able to fix it.

I'm 74; another part of the puzzle is they don't want to do the surgery if you're too old/sick from something else to do the surgery, so I had to pass a physical and when I did, I quickly took the shot. The glaucoma was in an early stage so they decided to address it w/stints as opposed to disqualifying me for the surgery.

I was getting some tests done and talking w/my surgeon, and I asked him if he was having the surgery I'm having, would he have it done by a new surgeon.

He said if I repeated what he said, he'd deny it, but his answer was "NO WAY.... technically.... a new guy can do the procedure, but he might also panic if something goes wrong/make a mistake I'm not going to make". That hit me like a punch to the stomach.


If U do the surgery, the experience/skill of who does it is even MORE important than the procedure itself.


I'm okay.

God "cut me some slack"

 

[Convex]

Carbonbased.....

Just saw your write up... I also got the torics which dealt w/astigmatism.

 

[carbonbased]

One other thing…I was never told toric lenses have a glare problem, but I was told to stay away from multifocal lenses due to glare and also that they don’t work great for people the demand very very good vision. I think they said that for high rx eyes, like mine, they also were not recommended…can’t remember the exact reason.

Perhaps @Baron23 is mixing up multifocal with toric lenses in regards to glare (sunburst) issues?

To be clear, I don’t have sunburst issues. The term “glare” can sorta mean lots of things.

 

[Baron23]

One other thing…I was never told toric lenses have a glare problem, but I was told to stay away from multifocal lenses due to glare and also that they don’t work great for people the demand very very good vision. I think they said that for high rx eyes, like mine, they also were not recommended…can’t remember the exact reason.

Perhaps @Baron23 is mixing up multifocal with toric lenses in regards to glare (sunburst) issues?

To be clear, I don’t have sunburst issues. The term “glare” can sorta mean lots of things.

Ah, you may well be right. I thought the Toric and multi focal were the same thing and apparently I’m wrong.

My best friend, who is sadly passed, insisted on lenses that would fix distance and reading and he couldn’t drive at night anymore.

I went for just distance and I’m very pleased w the results as I’m beck to 20/20 in both eyes.

Cheers and sorry for any misinfo.

 

[Convex]

If there are any eye surgeons on here, please correct me I say anything wrong.

This is my understanding of this. There's fuzzy because of the cataracts PLUS the fuzzy from astigmatism.

The double whammy.

I wasn't interested in taking the risk from surgery which might make my vision worse and then clearing up the fuzzies from cataracts AND STILL have fuzzy vision from astigmatism. That wasn't worth the risk at least to me.

Torics depend on a shape that compensates for the astigmatism caused by the eyeball not being round, but they have to be rotated into position for them to correct the astimatism.

My second surgery was because the toric was 30 degrees off, so I was seeing a "GREAT BIG SHAFT" of light in my left eye when I looked up at the moon at night. Same thing when you're looking at a movie where the headlights of a car point at the lens and a shaft/beam of light appears all the way across the screen.

Now this was intolerable and I'd gone up to the head of surgery who called me on the phone suggesting since they never promised perfection I ought to just be satisfied w/the result. I told him would've had to live w/the result, but the toric wasn't in the correct position, so I didn't get a "fair shot".

Now to his credit, he simply replied "yes, I guess you didn't" and he authorized the second surgery w/no extra charge to me as long as I understood that the chances of getting the toric loose from the connective tissue to get it into the correct position was now "50-50" and if there was a risk of rupture they were going to stop PULLING on the implant, and that was the end of it.

For the 2nd surgery they had my surgeon, and a guy who was supposed to be a legend at Stein who was retiring (they were trying to get him to stay on), looking over his shoulder so I felt like I was in "good hands".

The second surgery on my left eye, nursed the toric out of the connective tissue and rotated it to where it was supposed to be.

I don't have to use my old glasses except for print so FUCKING small only an ant can read it.

They were pleasantly surprised by how close I could resolve w/o glasses. My understanding is that if you don't have astigmatism, you don't need the torics.

Right after the surgery I told the nurses who were wheeling me out of post-op that I was coming back after I healed up to see which one of 'em" got ugly after my surgery.

They were good sports they laughed; they urprised me, the 3 of 'em came back to the surgeon's office and had my surgeon "busting up" after they told him why they were there, and then the 3 of them asked me ..... "WELL".

I told them "You all look great, and I'm not lying either."

Even though I had 3 surgeries, I feel VERY FORTUNATE.

 

[carbonbased]

As someone that has worn glasses since 2nd grade, I know they fix astigmatism via glasses as a matter of course. They can also fix it via contacts as well, provided you are in an rx and astig range that are supported by the manufactures.

I got the toric lenses to fix the astig at the source vs fixing it via glasses/contacts.

 

[sled_mack]

I'll enjoy sipping on some my favorite champagne every now and then which the surgeon says is "no sweat", but I'll be the first to say to anybody out there, if your guzzling HARD BOOZE, THROW IT OUT.


It's either your vision or the booze.

Just curious, define guzzling.

I like to sip on some bourbon on weekends, but I don’t think I’m anywhere near guzzling.

 

[Baron23]

Just curious, define guzzling.

More than he drinks...yeah?

 

[carbonbased]

Just curious, define guzzling.

I like to sip on some bourbon on weekends, but I don’t think I’m anywhere near guzzling.

Is this your idea of a “sipping glass?”

If not you’ll prob be fine.

 

[carbonbased]

Also, for some reason people with high rx in nearsightedness are prone to early cataracts.

More here:

Cataracts - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

 

[Convex]

LOL!!!!

Like U don't know. Ok.

The relatives and friends of mine that I lost/who drank themselves to death, were guzzling at least a couple of fifths a day/PLUS beer after beer til they couldn't stand up, and more, and like ending up w/a hangover for more than a week.

Drinking til they were stinking drunk, all day/everyday.


I have no idea what the minimum is, you'd have to work ur way back from these guzzlers I knew and lost.

Bottom line is only you know what's too much 4U, not me.


I'm no angel, I did my share of partying, but at some point in life U have to grow up, and if you have, then you police yourself.

It's really makes no difference how I define guzzling, it's when U step over your line.


BTW: God blessed me w/another shot/he decided to give me another chance w/my eyesight, because I was on my way to a seeing-eye dog and a red cane, so when I say "sip" I mean "sip", you have the answer to whatever that means 4 U.

 

[Convex]

I'll tell U what Carbonbased, years ago I used to go to Rio 4 Carnival and I'm here to tell you I ended up @ parties where they'd be OVERDRESSED.