Sutemi

Steve Ra, I currently wear specially prescribed contacts to shoot. My dominant left eye is optimized for closer focus, the right eye is optimized for farther focus. If I end up doing the same thing with clear, well-focused, if corrected vision, I'll call it an improvement!

*Update* I just went to my optometrist and he referred me to an eye surgeon. Here is the situation as it stands: I am 49 years old. That's young for cataract surgery, but it's definitely affecting my vision and my shooting. Both my eyes are extremely myopic. The right eye (non-dominant) is the one with the bad cataract, but I'll *certainly* need to have both done due to the extreme myopia in the left eye. Due to the myopia and the structure of the myopic eye, the risk for detached retinas is greater during and after surgery. The degree of risk is something that the surgeon will clarify. I was intrigued by Steve RA's account of going for less than 20/20 vision to preserve his near vision and his ease of seeing his front sight. I currently shoot Production and this is my principal concern with catarct surgery. My ability to focus on sights and target has deteriorated noticably in the past few years. I find myself inclined to not wait any longer for the surgery. Am I wrong? Is there any reason to limp along with my steadily failing eyes? My fear is that I'll get my eyes fixed just in time for my knees to wear out. Nothing against Steel Challenge, but I want to run and gun as well as I can for as long as I can.

I'm nearing 50 and have been doing action shooting for about nine years. I'm significantly near-sighted; I wear contacts to shoot and corrective lenses all the rest of the time. My eye doc has been tracking cataracts for the past seven or so year in both eyes, but mainly in my right (non-dominant) eye. It's finally gotten to the point where the right eye can't be corrected anymore, the catract has occluded the lens and while I can still see fairly well in my right eye, I can't fully focus any more. The decision on getting cataract surgery has been pretty much left up to me. The cataract in my non-dominant eye has affected my shooting negatively. I can focus on my sights but my sight alignment fuzzes way out compared to a few years ago. If I have the cataract surgery, my occluded lens will be replaced with a non-focusing lens. I'm curious as to what effect this will have on my ability to see my sights AND the target, especially when I have to get my dominant eye done. From what I've been told, the lenses are replaced with lenses that will correct my myopia, giving me 20/20 vision (for the first time since I was seven years old!) but will I need some form of correction to see my front sight? Basically, will cataract surgery hurt my shooting more than just limping along with my failing vision? Other than shooting, the cataract isn't damaging my quality of life. Should I hold off or go for it? Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you all very much for your responses, they were all the kind of insight that I was hoping to get. I found the suggestion to get a new 9mm or a lightly used .45 particularly helpful. I hadn't considered the fact that there are probably fifty times the number of .45's on the market than 9mm's and the chances of finding a used 9 are probably much slimmer than finding a used .45. I'd like a 5" model. I currently shoot and load 9mm for my S&W M&P 9L that I use in USPSA Production and IDPA SSP/ESP, but I woldn't be averse to adding .45ACP. At this time, I'm really not considering .40. If the 1911 really grabs me though, I'd get a .40 Limited gun. I think the 1911 may give me an edge in accuracy, but I'm not really looking to jump ship just yet, only to shoot them side by side and see if I "fall in love" with the 1911. STI seems to floating to the top as the manufacturer of choice for a new pistol. I have particular tastes in sight picture so I'd almost certainly change out the front sight. I find the price point of the Spartan attractive, but the features of the Trojan are also attractive. I'd really like to keep my intitial investment down because this is just an experiment, though not one I contemplate lightly. Consequently, I'd probably shoot IDPA ESP/CDP to begin with, depending one whether I get a 9 or a 45. I'm very ambivalent on the caliber and it will probably come down to price, especially since the consensus is that there's no practical difference in accuracy. Thank you all again.

Greetings all. I'm considering acquiring a 1911 style pistol for carry and competition because I believe the platform has more potential for accuracy than the plastic framed pistols I've been carrying and competing with (currently the S&W M&P). I'm only considering single stack pistols at this time. I have two related questions: 1) Which 1911 pistol is a good value for carry and competition out of the box today? When I last shopped, perhaps 10 years ago, Kimber had pulled ahead of Springfield Armory in market esteem. I'm sure a lot has changed since then. 2) I've heard anecdotal evidence that the .45 ACP is inherently more accurate, or has more accuracy potential than the 9mm. Is this based in truth? Thank you all for your consideration.

I too read that article yesterday. I found his "martial artists are motivated by fear" statement odd. It was my impression that he was addressing martial artists who shoot, which isn't really an apt generalization. I believe shooting is as much a martial art as anything being taught at the corner dojos/dojang/kwoons of Anytown, Anywhere. Some martial artists shoot with little passion or gusto, while others apply the same love and zeal for shooting that they do to martial art practice. But a martial artist is definitively a person who applies themselves to the practice of any martial (or combative) skill, including shooting, with more than just the desire to be merely competent. I've seen "Gamesmen" who were pretty lackadaisical about developing their skills. I think it boils down to these two approaches to any martial skillset. For example, certain shooting forum posters write about "combat accuracy", as in "who cares what (this or that) pistol groups at fifty yards, it's got adequate "combat accuracy", which to me usually denotes an inability to hit an 8" plate at more than the seven yards that "most armed encounters take place at." As Filishooter said, certain people (who I personally don't feel should be properly labeled as "martial artists" or anything else) establish systems and methodologies that can limit their standards and expectations. Pure sport shooters don't impose such limitations on themselves, pursuing only clearly definable improvement. Duane presented an interesting perspective and I agree that the best way to maximize one's potential is by freeing oneself from any arbitrary set of rules or limitations in the pursuit of your goals, and to never say "good enough." P.S. I in no way intend to denigrate the multitude of very worthy shooters who don't pursue shooting with the nearly obsessive joy that I and others do. Anyone who achieves competence in shooting is a boon to society.

I was involved in a pistol training class where students were encouraged but not required to go downrange and hold a target stand about three feet to one side while another student shot at it from about seven yards. The (dubious) reason given was to "become familiar with what if feels like to be downrange from the muzzle flash/blast." I trusted the other students not to miss and hit me but I didn't do it for three reasons: 1)I got a picture in my head of some freak accident occuring and getting shot and my wife saying, "he was doing WHAT?!" 2) there was an element of peer pressure to the whole thing, and my automatic response to peer pressure is to resist it, and 3) with apologies to all the fine members of Polish extraction, it sounded too much like the punchline to a Polish joke. What it comes down to is that however miniscule the risk, if something untoward were to happen, I'd be the laughing stock of this and every shooting forum in the world.