# Lens Magnification vs. Eye Dominance



## TexasBassBoy (Dec 27, 2011)

I have been shooting field archery for the last 4 years or so and struggling with the finding the correct lens magnification vs. shooting with one or both eyes open. I find it to be less strain on my eyes if I shoot with both eyes although I'm only capable of doing so with a 4x lens. The minute that I try to increase the magnification to 6X or 8X, I lose focus through the lens (or my left eye takes over). I can get the focus back by slightly closing my left eye although lose focus when I convert back to both eyes fully open. Currently I'm not using a clarifier for any of the lenses that I have as the target is still clear (not as clear with the 8X vs. 4X) with the 8X. I have a 1 3/8" dia. CBE sight w/ 6" extension fully extended. Looking for suggestions / thoughts as how I can train myself to use the 8X lens while shooting with both eyes. Then again maybe I should not be going more than the 4x magnification. What are others shooting?

Thanks!


----------



## pat13b (Nov 7, 2010)

I struggle with this as well. When I was a teen my right eye was more dominant. I put archery down for many years and picked it back up about 5 years ago.
I noticed unless I closed my left eye, I could not see the target through my scope because my left eye was in charge.
I went through many lenses from 1x up to 8x various sizes various peeps sizes thinking this was my problem. 
The solution that worked best for me was. 4x with a circle and a site blocker so that I can keep both eyes open and keep my left eye from seeing the target.
Anything higher than a 4x would cause me trouble. 

Once I got to this stage (4x & site blocker) I played around with the diameter of the peep in order to get a clear picture of my scope and target at the same time.
FYI, the site blocker is a piece of plastic that straps to the scope on the left side (right handed shooter) and block your left eye from seeing the target 
but you are still relaxed with both eyes open. I find it much better than wearing a hat with a blocker.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

I did most of my Field shooting with a 4X lens, no clarifier, and a .029" fiber optic pin. My Sure Loc mounting place is mounted through the front holes, so 1" back. I than have the sight bar set in the 8" notch, so 7".

Unless someone has really bad eyes no one was more hampered with seeing. I am left handed, left eye dominant and shoot right handed. I was not a "center the bull's eye" shooter. I stacked my pin under the bull's eye. It worked for me. In two years I won 3 Spring Openers (14 Field), won a club Field event (28 Field) and in State Two Day Championships I took Champion in Senior Adult Free Style and 2nd the next year. This was 10 years ago. Things have changed so maybe if shot Field again I'd do things different, but not lens power. You have to be rock solid to use more than 4X.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

no mag what so ever...it's not needed at these short ranges. Just get an FITA ring- your shooting eye will naturally center the rings. And I have crap vision...everything is blurry- just center the fuzz.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

I have a small peice of shoebox cut out and clipped to the side of my riser cage (Hoyt) I only need it shooting indoors at 20 yds. I don't use it outdoors. It is bent out to the side, and blocks the view of the target from my left eye. It is mostly an issue with the spots on the right side of the target face.


----------



## TexasBassBoy (Dec 27, 2011)

All, thanks for sharing... I'm going to try the what has been recomended..


----------



## kballer1 (Aug 31, 2010)

Try putting a piece of clear tape on the left lens of your glasses, that way you can use both eyes & the tape will block your left. Good Luck.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

I'm right handed and right eye dominant shooting lefty with both eyes open... and you think you have issues


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

The sight blocker sparked my interest so I made this one up this evening... I shot it in my basement a few shots at close range and my shots were hitting about 1 1/2" to the right... interesting. I'll try it out tomorrow at 20 yards.


----------



## ILOVE3D (Feb 4, 2009)

check out the Double Vision Blocker. Tim was selling them here on AT a while back. His id is Topbowarchery I believe

http://www.topbowarchery.com/


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

Of note, products like the Double Vision Blocker have been banned at all sanctioned WA events citing an inability to see the full shooting field.

http://www.archery.org/UserFiles/Doc..._Art.7.3-e.pdf


----------



## cbmac (May 24, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> I have a small peice of shoebox cut out and clipped to the side of my riser cage (Hoyt) I only need it shooting indoors at 20 yds. I don't use it outdoors. It is bent out to the side, and blocks the view of the target from my left eye. It is mostly an issue with the spots on the right side of the target face.


Great idea. I'll try this with the Contender Elite. I bought the Double Vision Blocker - works very well for me but the Velcro and O-ring attaching system is awkward clumsy. I am also maxed out at 4X mag shooting 5 spots. Beyond that, I struggle to pick out the correct spot to aim at - very disruptive and distracting.


----------



## pat13b (Nov 7, 2010)

Wondering if this is specific to your region? I looked at world archery, USA Archery and NFAA last year when putting this on my bow and there were not any restrictions to this. From a vision perspective its really no different than wearing a hat with a side blocker attatched. In fact wearing the hat with a blocker attached lets less light in and potentially restricts your veiw of field more than the site blocker mounted on your site.



montigre said:


> Of note, products like the Double Vision Blocker have been banned at all sanctioned WA events citing an inability to see the full shooting field.
> 
> http://www.archery.org/UserFiles/Doc..._Art.7.3-e.pdf


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

montigre said:


> Of note, products like the Double Vision Blocker have been banned at all sanctioned WA events citing an inability to see the full shooting field.
> 
> http://www.archery.org/UserFiles/Doc..._Art.7.3-e.pdf


Well the alarmists really thought that one through... I suppose you can't close one eye either... or tape a playing card to your hat, etc., etc., etc. If true, this has got to be one of the dumbest rules ever. When I shoot I block out everything but the spot, or at least try to. Isn't that the objective? I spent some time in WA and belonged to a club that had a rule preventing the use of paper targets on their archery ranges because they were concerned about paper crumbs. The first meeting I went to we discussed and changed that one.

Now that I'm off my high horse... My homemade sight blocker worked out quite well this morning. I had to move my sight about 20 clicks to the right. Once sighted in the sight picture was very comfortable and soothing. I have been having some right flyers ever since I switched to lefty that were unexplained although I had suspicions it may be a eye dominance issue.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

Just noticed my prior link was broken. This is true for all sanctioned FITA (World Archery) competitions. 

View attachment 2088857


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

pat13b said:


> Wondering if this is specific to your region? I looked at world archery, USA Archery and NFAA last year when putting this on my bow and there were not any restrictions to this. From a vision perspective its really no different than wearing a hat with a side blocker attatched. In fact wearing the hat with a blocker attached lets less light in and potentially restricts your veiw of field more than the site blocker mounted on your site.


No, it is not just a regional thing. NFAA does allow these appliances if it is used in such a manner that it would not permit more than 5 sight references in the bowhunter classes (2010 ruling) while WA prohibits it entirely (2009 ruling).


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

Going by that, the double vision thing would likely be illegal, but the attachment EPLC posted could be argued that it doesn't block a large field of view.
Judges call.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Organizations abound as do rules for them. ASA, no bare bow. For Bow Hunter Free Style the NFAA did way with fixed sight length and added back bars. IBO once had binoculars maxed at 8X and possibly vane restriction for some classes remain. FITA, 60 pounds max and 9.3 mm max diameter arrows (2315 or .366"). Easton's 2317 does not comply as it is slightly larger.

Thankfully, many clubs, regardless of organization affiliation, do not enforce rules or have their own which is normally wide open as to no restrictions to speed or arrow diameter.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

That is very true, but for those of us who venture beyond the boundaries of our local shooting areas or compete under more than one governing body, knowledge of the myriad of rulings is a tedious necessity.


----------



## ILOVE3D (Feb 4, 2009)

montigre said:


> Just noticed my prior link was broken. This is true for all sanctioned FITA (World Archery) competitions.
> 
> View attachment 2088857


Not arguing whether it is legal or not, just amazed that they would rule out the actual Double Vision blocker. It's nowhere near as large as the home made blue one in the picture and like pointed out here, the tape over an eyeglass or the flip down blocker on the side of the hat blocks out far more than the DVB does and I have both types. And yes, I have seen them (DVB) on bows at the WA Vegas shoot. I guess as long as you don't win using one nobody will file a protest disqualifying you. No problem here, winning Vegas that is. LOL


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

I agree. It is one of those crazy rules that does not make sense because of other methods of blocking the vision of one eye still being allowed. I would not doubt; however, that a protest could technically be raised for the ball cap blocker or tape on the glasses if the situation came up because this rule is in place. Only time will tell....

In any case, you're safe in Vegas cuz that shoot is run under the NFAA umbrella. :wink:


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

So if you have a hearing issue are you required to have hearing aids?
if you have a vision problem what happens? Both my eyes can't focus on one object at the same time (Zero bino vision)_ and if I pay great attention to the target with my shooting eye- My non shooting eye is not acknowledged by my brain (birth defect- wondering eye, each eye). So by their definition, I'm legally NOT allowed to compete...their logic is seriously flawed.


----------



## pat13b (Nov 7, 2010)

Would you mind posting that link. I'm looking at Book 2 and its labeled "Events" and there is no 7.3.
Book 3 is labled "Target Archery" and has equipment regulations but I do not find anything that references the blocker.
I plan on shooting more FITA this winter and want to be confident I won't be DQ.

Thanks 



montigre said:


> No, it is not just a regional thing. NFAA does allow these appliances if it is used in such a manner that it would not permit more than 5 sight references in the bowhunter classes (2010 ruling) while WA prohibits it entirely (2009 ruling).


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

pat13b said:


> Would you mind posting that link. I'm looking at Book 2 and its labeled "Events" and there is no 7.3.
> Book 3 is labled "Target Archery" and has equipment regulations but I do not find anything that references the blocker.
> I plan on shooting more FITA this winter and want to be confident I won't be DQ.Thanks


The main WA link is: http://www.worldarchery.org/NEWS/ArtMID/10591/ArticleID/4872 Just scroll down to sight shroud. I do not know where it is listed in the books in following years, but there has been no announcements rescinding the ruling.


----------



## pat13b (Nov 7, 2010)

montigre said:


> The main WA link is: http://www.worldarchery.org/NEWS/ArtMID/10591/ArticleID/4872 Just scroll down to sight shroud. I do not know where it is listed in the books in following years, but there has been no announcements rescinding the ruling.


Thank you very much. I guess I better start getting used to the hat blinder again just in case. 
I have shot a couple of FITA tournaments and nothing has been said yet, although it apparently came up in question this past weekend but they let it go. 
The judges were discussing off to the side and never approached me directly.

Thanks again for this info.

-pat13b


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

montigre said:


> The main WA link is: http://www.worldarchery.org/NEWS/ArtMID/10591/ArticleID/4872 Just scroll down to sight shroud. I do not know where it is listed in the books in following years, but there has been no announcements rescinding the ruling.


Once again I am overwhelmed by the logic documented in this interpretation of a rule that does not even exist. Who put these knuckleheads in a position to make decisions? The simple act of closing one eye produces the same effect... amongst many other methods. 

_"Although nothing in the rules currently precludes the use of this type of attachment, it is
the majority opinion of the Technical Committee that such an addition to the athlete’s
equipment is illegal. Any device that eliminates a large portion of the athlete’s field of
view or more importantly presents a significant visual blockage to the athlete’s line of
sight creates an unnecessary safety concern.
For example, we do not allow athletes to wear ear plugs or similar noise reduction
equipment for reasons of safety. This device category was also not indicated in the rules,
but due to the danger posed by limiting the athlete’s ability to hear emergency signals or
DOS/Judges instructions, these devices were deemed illegal."_

Sounds like they are making it up along the way... Also, I have a hearing problem... Does that mean I can't shoot FITA?


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

EPLC, the same type knuckleheads that make decisions in other organizations. One person doesn't like it and the next person falls in line and pretty soon no one wants to upset another and a agreement/ruling comes. In ASA I can't shoot any class my equipment allows me to. I have to shoot my class. If I "bounce" out the once I'm allowed I have to shoot that class for the remaining of the year. Okay, I'm legal for Super Senior (all unknown/40 yards) and Open C (all known/40 yards), but can't shoot both unless I stay in the "bounced" to class. I guess even if I changed equipment, say I went Traditional, I have to stay in that class. Having shot NFAA and could shoot any class I wanted to as long as I adhered to the rules makes the ASA seem the knucklehead.
That which ticks me off....God, I love to use the profanity running through my head right now. ASA States can make their own rules, override "cut in stone" national rules. Win out exists, national rules in place for money won. Not to get lost here; This normally takes in just the novice classes, like Bow Novice and Open C. Now, if you make $300 in some class, the "novice" has to move out, up usually and I don't have a problem with this. Some states have if a "novice" places so high in class where several shooters are in class and do so 2 or more times, the "novice" has to move out. If a "novice" wins 2 or more Qualifiers the "novice" has to move out. If the "novice" wins a State Championship the "novice" has to move out. Now, all that I mentioned the "novice" may not have won a half of the ruled $300.00. I was on board when a Bow Novice won State Champion. His first time placing, first time winning, and a whole whopping $23 and odd cents. That the State Director at the time said he had to move out I blew my stack. I didn't stop with him. I am not overly shy. I went to the ASA Federation President. I was maybe polite, but well let known I was big time ticked off. I explained everything. He went back in the records and found where the individual never even came close to placing at the state and national level ever before and the $23 win far below the $300 ruling. The individual even won by default, first place being disqualified. I guess you have to yell and scream to get anywhere and I can get "loud." The man was allowed to stay in Bow Novice. And there was more the State Director imposed and did and without notifying state ASA clubs.... Think I didn't yell? 

I've seen the blocker pictured within and the looked over the Double Blocker. Yes, a few were missing a brick short of a full load when they gave the ruling. I'm not involved with the WA, but those who are must create a "disturbance" to legalize the such devices noted.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

The main problem is that they are not basing their decisions on the rules, they are subjectively making it up as they go. When the written rule can be overruled by opinion, you might as well throw the rule book out the window. Just go to the "power's-that-be" for their opinion... which they apparently now document. It is obvious that the system is broken.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

No, the problem is people don't stand up to organizations. Proper steps taken and enough people behind it a non-written rule can be hammered. Look how long the old age bracket was in place in the NFAA. I turned 55 and became a Senior. Today, 50 is the new senior and whatever ages applied to the older competitors. And I was against the new age brackets...


----------



## N7709K (Dec 17, 2008)

Closing one eye, not focusing with both eyes, etc doesn't block the FOV... Your FOV is limited by only engaging one eye but it is still a full FOV for that eye; when you add a blinder at the sight housing you opaque the FOV for both eyes(if engaged) or the one that you are using. I can see where they are coming from with their ruling- they have some rules that seem very petty and randomly figured...


----------



## miko0616 (Aug 25, 2014)

I shoot 1 eye closed. I feel its more accurate. I also think it can make you tense until you adjust. I have limited visibility past the bridge of my nose. In high glare or low light situations, i look through a halo created on my nose. I started shooting 1 eye closed for this reason. My groups have improved.


----------



## Joe Schnur (Mar 22, 2012)

Actually reviewing the specific picture I can see where they are coming from here this I'd not the double vision blocker we all know this is a sheet with a hole in it for the sight to go through. Requesting a specific ruling on a specific product is always best . The product in the photo would make it difficult to even see your own target with more than 4 x. I think a request for a specific ruling on the product from us governing body is in order. Remember bring the ruling with you when attending events where it may come into question. They must honor the specific ruling. Happens all the time with advances in thchnologybthat flirt with the edges of the rules


----------



## pat13b (Nov 7, 2010)

I guess where I'm having a problem is this whole "Interpretation" section. To me, an Interpretation should reference a rule that is in the current rule book.
There is no mention of these devices in the actual rule book. Maybe I’m applying too much logic here but either a rule is a rule or it isn’t. There shouldn’t be a whole section called “interpretations”…


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

pat13b said:


> I guess where I'm having a problem is this whole "Interpretation" section. To me, an Interpretation should reference a rule that is in the current rule book.
> There is no mention of these devices in the actual rule book. Maybe I’m applying too much logic here but either a rule is a rule or it isn’t. There shouldn’t be a whole section called “interpretations”…


Exactly... here is the root of the problem. Oh, there's no rule to cover that, we'll just make it up as we go and call it "interpretation". Very, very bad policy.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

If you're not shooting a FITA event you don't have to worry about. Just the other day I noticed a friend having a blocker on his scope housing, but he shoots ASA. 

Bad situation, the picture presented in montigre's post. That blocker is quite huge and "carried" weight for the safety that swung the decision. Really stupid of the safety concern. If a safety concern did come of this then it's mostly all back to the shooting range. Indoor target, no one is to be on the floor when people are shooting. Outdoor target, no one is be on the range when people are shooting. Field, lanes should be properly marked and the use of safety tape strung wherever a possibility of someone missing a turn or cross a shooting lane.


----------

