doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Prescription Shooting Glasses

There are no such indications on mine. I have both perscription and plain lenses for different purposes. I think you malign a very good company that makes a very good product.

I would have thought if they were prescription glasses there would have been some indication of that on, or in, the case, or on the glasses themselves. But, having never needed or owned prescription glasses of any kind, I was just making an assumption.[/quote]


A "found" pair of Randolph Rangers & you make the "ASSumption" that they are plano (non corrective) lenses & then bash Randolph Ranger in this & several other posts for having distortion in their lenses. Very poor form Stan! I think you owe Randolph an apology. Hopefully you won't get sued.

I agree Brittany Man, and I have already attempted to do just that when I said "I suppose , in retrospect, they could have been prescription (with a very "mild" correction). I had just always assumed they weren't, as they did not seem to be at the time. However, from here on out I will adjust my evaluation of them to accommodate that possibility."

Exactly how, and why, should I do a better job of apologizing to Randolph? Show me a better way and I will consider it. There is no way for me to go back and look at the glasses again. I still maintain they were not prescriptions as I have put on many pairs of others' prescription glasses and seen the terrible distortion they give. The Randolphs I tried were not any where near that bad, but were definitely worse than any Pillas, or even a cheap pair of Remingtons, I ever wore. But, even with that in mind, I have accepted and agreed that I could have been wrong and they could have been prescription. Are you and Brent on the board of directors of Randolph, or do you have interest in the company? To defend any company like you are seemingly doing would suggest that you believe they cannot possibly sell a set of glasses that are not perfect. Do you (plural) really believe that?

I'm concerned that I will lose much sleep going forward over the possibility of getting sued.

Priceless, we are chastised for not ass-uming that they were in fact, prescription lenses.

Just for my own entertainment, I tried on my Decots earlier today. Head down some, slight right tip down and back, and sure enough there's a sharper area where the birds might be. When I ordered them, the helpful person on the phone explained what they did, but I didn't take it all in. Certainly, in-person would be ideal if the right tech were present, but over the phone and through the mail was very satisfactory, in terms of results.

Stan,

My post was meant to be "tongue in cheek" based on the old saying of what happens when we assume things (not that I've never made that mistake myself & got called out on it).

For the record I have no interest in Randolph Engineering other than my wife & I owning 3 pairs of their Shooting Glasses between us (original XL & 2 pairs of xlw) & using them for years with complete satisfaction for both hunting & target shooting + knowing quite a few people who feel the same. We formerly used Decot glasses but for us the Ranger frames are more durable (never had a frame break & can't say that for Decot as we both had frames fail after a lot of usage).

If you had purchased glasses from Randolph & had issues re. distortion or anything else you are free to bash them but w/ distortion in "found" glasses my first thought would be that they probably are corrective lenses for someone & even if they actually are plano lenses (non Rx) how would you know they are Randolph lenses as other people make & sell lenses to fit the Randolph frames.

No problem, Brittany Man. I did not read between the lines well enough to determine you meant that as tongue in cheek. My bad.

These will be my last thoughts on the incident ........ the glasses were not obviously distorting my view when I first put them on, as I believe they would have been had they been prescription glasses. I only noticed the distortion in the "sides" of the field of view, beginning as my view left the center of the lenses. When we look at a show pair, or someone else' targets, we are looking through the dead center area of the lens(es). However, when we mount a shotgun and get a cheek weld we are not, we are looking through the upper part of the lens(es) and to either the right or left a bit, according to which one is our master eye. That is why it wasn't noticeable to me immediately after putting them on. It was only after 4 or 5 stations that I became aware of something that wasn't right. When I purposely looked through outer part of the lens(es) I could see the distortion. A subject object would "move around" as I moved my head slightly.

Lastly, I wasn't "bashing" Randolph glasses. I had made two previous comments addressing the OP's topic and was just trying to be helpful to the OP and others. I only mentioned the Randolphs after the previous poster brought that brand to my, and other's, attention. If the lenses had not distorted my field of view I'd still have them. I've got no bone to pick with Randolph Engineering. I was just passing on a personal experience, however poorly I obviously must have done so.

I had an idea just now, while considering this thread. If ordering a set of prescription shooting glasses, and wanting the lenses ground to your Rx in the right spot, why not mount your shotgun and have a helper snap a pic of you from the muzzle(s)? Forwarding that pic to the company would show them exactly where you are looking through the lens, and should be very helpful to them in tailoring the glasses to you. Should it not?

Stan: That is a GREAT idea. I'm still mulling this over but if/when I make the giant leap, I will definitely do that.

I wonder if you even begin to realize how condescending you can be. I don't own any Randolf stock but I invested in them and they not only made it possible to win quite a few rifle matches, they also saved my eyes from an explosion.

Maybe, when you dont really know what you are talking about, you should just let it ride.