jkmccoy

OK, OK, The "Coney Island" thing touched a nerve. As long as you all don't try to ban our cute toys, we won't set up a calliope at the range. We've shot the stars a number of times with a shotgun. We usually set them up pretty close (~9m) and they work fine. It is possible (but very rare) to just hit a plate with a couple of pellets and make it wobble, or hang on one pin, but not fall off. If it was a static 8" plate on a stand the same thing would be possible. Anything like a solid hit reliably knocks the plate off of the star. The two or three times (out of literally hundreds of shooters) it has happened that the plate came partway off and hung on one pin the shooter immediately shot it again. Just like you would do if you edged a static plate and it only moved partway off of the stand. I really think we are discussing a non-issue. I do make a pretty mean BBQ brisket, but I can't figure out how to haul my smoker all the way to the World Shoot. I hate decaf! Cheers, Kelly McCoy A42081

"Coney Island"?!?! You have some problem with designing innovative, challenging and fun target arrays. I guess if we left it up to you we would just shoot wide open IPSC targets at between 7 and 10 yards. Don't dare cover part of one target with another or with a no-shoot since you might run into scoring problems with bullets that cut the perf on the top target. The Texas Star is just one of a number of new target arrays to come out of this part of the world (windmill, bear traps). They add new challenges to the shooting and give stage designers additional tools to vary the stages presented to shooters. The amount of traffic on this board regarding the Texas Star should give you some idea of the popularity of the target. If you think the (very rare) possibility of shooting a plate on the star so that it hangs on one pin without coming off is sufficient reason to ban the array from USPSA competition then I strongly suggest you never come to West Texas for a match. The upcoming Texas State 3-Gun Championship features five Texas Stars, 6 bear traps, two hammers (like a star but with just two plates), 17 swingers, 4 suspension bridges, one windmill, moving targets at 100yds., and four poppers that throw clay pigeons into the air. I'm sure you couldn't get past the "Coney Island" air to appreciate the shooting challenges presented. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

For a 3-Gun match the competitor must declare a division for the match (aggregate). Results for individual firearms will be based on the division declared for the match. This will keep anyone from having an unfair advantage in multi-gun stages (e.g. using a Limited pistol and an Open rifle in a combo stage scored as a pistol stage). Some of us will still run a Limited pistol and shoot Open division in 3-Gun matches (because I like iron sights on a pistol but I like optics on my rifle) and I won't complain a bit. Since my aggregate is going to be in Open division my scores for individual weapons should also be in Open division. BTW, George is exactly right. WinEZScore is woefully inadequate for scoring 3-Gun matches. No ability to score multi-gun stages, currently doesn't recognize tactical division, won't print labels for all three guns at the same time. I've become fairly adept at tricking it into doing what I want, but it would be nice to have a program that really scored the stages we want to shoot. Cheers, Kelly McCoy A42081

Troy, So, can you make it this year? We still have some slots available (we'd probably even make special allowances for USPSA higher-ups). We would certainly make special allowances for people who would help write intelligent rules for USPSA 3-Gun competition. Besides, it will be a really fun match. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

All stage descriptions should read "engage all targets as they beome visible." (Partly my opinion, partly adherence the the admonition that IPSC/USPSA shooting is freestyle.) If a shooter fails to comply with the stage description then they may (should) incur penalties. In the examples I was discussing there was no direction in the stage description regarding which weapon should be used. It is possible to score stages where the choice of weapons to engage some targets is up to the shooter. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Benelli2, Yes, San Angelo Texas is a long trip from a lot of the world. But it will be worth it! The Texas State 3-Gun match is a trophy-only match. Last year we had some really nice wooden trophies, this year we have some custom made medallions (and chocolate Easter bunnies) for winners. We have (both years) received really good support from a lot of sponsors and had a lot of nice stuff on a prize table. The prizes however, are awarded through random drawing. For us, the prizes are just a bonus. If you win your class/division/special category you will be recognized with a worthy trophy/medallion. The prize table is just for fun. Down here in the wilds of West Texas we purely love shooting. For us it's all about the shooting. If you want to shoot a fun/challenging/interesting match and spend the weekend with a bunch of like-minded shooters the Texas State 3-Gun is for you. If you are more interested in the amount of loot you take home for winning - there are other matches that will be of more interest. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

USPSA needs substantial work in developing some workable and useful 3-gun rules. In addition to the requirements regarding grounding a weapon (covered in another thread) and the prohibition against posession of more than one loaded weapon (covered by Rhino and Troy). There are some serious problems in scoring multi-gun stages. A major problem is that every stage must be designated as either a rifle, pistol, or shotgun stage. That means results for that stage are figured into the overall score for one weapon. Doesn't really impact the calculation of the aggregate scores, but it does mean that the final results for pistol (for example) may include a multi-gun stage. The real problem comes in trying to score targets in a multi-gun stage that may have been engaged with different firearms by different shooters and thus may represent hits with different power factors. As an example - on a rifle/pistol stage there is a paper target that a shooter could engage with either the rifle or the pistol. Because most shooters are using a minor power factor rifle and a major power factor pistol B,C,D hits on this target will receive different scores depending on which weapon was used. Another example - a paper target on a shotgun/pistol stage might be engaged with either firearm. Shooters using a pistol with minor power factor ammo will get fewer points for B,C,D hits on that target than shooters using their shotgun or a major power factor pistol. Neither of these is a serious problem for a clever stats guy. Both situations occurred last year at the Texas State 3-Gun match (and will doubtless occur again this year). In the first example we used scorecards that indicated which hits were with the rifle and which were with the pistol and I used the "additional penalty points" function to subtract points for non-A hits with a minor power factor firearm. In the second example I changed hits to increase the points for non-A hits made with the major power factor firearm. More serious problems arise from the addition of divisions that are not recognized by current scoring programs. We now have a "Tactical" division. That doesn't appear in the current version of EZScore. My plan for upcoming 3-gun matches (until development of a really functional program for scoring 3-gun matches) is to score rifle, pistol, and shotgun as completely separate matches and to calculate the aggregates for various divisions using an Excel spreadsheet. The advantage of this approach is that it allows equal weighting of each weapon even if the round count is different. I think that this is a more fair means of evening the importance of the various firearms than artificially inflating the point value of some targets. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

I doubt (just imho) that slinging a loaded long gun will turn out to be much safer than emptying one before it is abandoned on a table. Few shooters practice rapidly unloading their firearms and I doubt many more practice slinging them. I have heard from some (non-USPSA) 3-gun match directors who have prohibited slinging weapons because there were so many violations of the 180 and/or covering yourself with the muzzle. I don't see any serious problem with abandoning a loaded firearm as long as there is a safe place to put the firearm and the shooter doesn't advance downrange of the muzzle. At the Texas State 3-Gun last year we ran several multi-gun stages that involved placing a firearm in a safe condition (empty or safety on) onto a sturdy table before engaging additional targets with a different firearm. We had no major problems, but we did identify a need for better weapon retention systems on the tables (e.g. a raised lip around the top of the table so nothing could slip off). All such stages were designed so that the shooter never advanced downrange of a loaded weapon and whenever possible during the running of the stage an RO remained with the loaded firearm. An idea I hope to implement this year is the use of the large diameter (~12 inch) cardboard tubes made for foundation construction attached to walls/props for places to ground long guns when switching to another firearm. Attached to a solid prop at a 45 degree angle these would allow leaving a loaded firearm pointed towards the ground and should provide a very safe and easy means of making firearms transitions. I firmly believe that multi-gun stages are an important part of 3-gun competition. I find them very fun and especially challenging. I hope that in the effort to write comprehensive rules to ensure the safety of all competitors USPSA does not develope a set of rules so restrictive that multi-gun stages become impossible. Perhaps it might be easier to define what is a "safe condition" for an abandoned weapon than it would be to describe all possible constructions that might result in a "safe condition". I.e. instead of trying to provide construction details for cradles/racks to hold loaded firearms require that abandoned weapons be pointed downrange, or into the ground in a structure that holds the firearm in that position. This sort of rule allows flexibility in the construction of the stage while demonstrating the intent of maintaining safety in stage design. If a shooter feels that the construction of a particular stage does not adequately ensure the shooters' safety there is still the option of arbitration (and of course there is still review of stage design for sanctioned and tournament level matches). On edit: Mactiger - Hear, Hear! You posted while I was typing a reply, but I agree wholeheartedly (mostly). I like multi-gun stages and I believe the rules should allow them (3-gun match = 3-gun stages). I do not like the idea of designing stages to leave shooters with an empty gun at a particular point. There is too much variation in magazine capacity and such a requirement places too stringent limitations on stage design. I do agree wholeheartedly that there are various methods to allow safe grounding of a loaded firearm and that safe condition under 10.3.5.2 should apply. There are currently some real problems with the scoring of multi-gun stages. Some of them you can work around if you have a pretty savvy stats guy. I'm going to post some comments about that in Erik Warren's thread on "multi-gun considerations". I don't believe that you should let scoring dictate stage design. If it is a good stage and you want to shoot it then you should shoot it. Let the stats guy figure out how to score it. Respectfully, Kelly McCoy A42081

From the "Stats Guy" for the Texas State 3-Gun... I was very slow getting out email confirmations for people who sent in their entries early and I apologize. Unfortunately, my computer didn't just die...it went out in a long series of gradually worsening problems. I just can't stand to be without it long enough to take it to the shop. Even if it wouldn't run long enough to answer my email it would run long enough to read emails. It has now been to the shop and although it still isn't right (crashed 5 times last night when I tried to respond to this thread) it does seem to be better and I have every confidence that the registration and scorekeeping will go fine (actually I have other computers for those functions). I hope that my technologically inspired tardiness does not color anyone's opinions of the match. We've put together 10 really challenging, innovative, and fun stages. Come out and shoot, I promise you'll have a good time. Cheers, Kelly McCoy San Angelo Gun Club

OK, I'm impressed. I did independently work out MM's shooting order, but the best I can do is a 2.088 (Limited Division mouse). Probably not too bad for an old guy who had carpal tunnel surgery a couple of years ago. OTOH I did beat all the college kids in my Human Physiology class on the reaction time tester today. (I rubbed it in pretty good that they shouldn't be getting beat by an old man.) Cheers,

No! No! No! You all can't suck me into any hate rants today! Yes, getting older sucks (it really sucks if you lived much of your youth as if you were indestructable. The damage accumulated back when you healed easily and quickly takes a real toll. I'll match scars with anyone.). Yes, living with pain/old injury/illness really sucks. It especially sucks when you are working so d*mn hard and so d*mn long that you don't have time to go to the range (especially when it's only 10 minutes from work or home). H*ll the whole d*mn world sucks and face it foks, it ain't gettin' any better. But I'm not going to whine! I'm not going to complain! Sure, a little Friday Flame War might be cathartic. OTOH you might just suck it up and decide to go on anyway. I COULD complain about working over twice my normal workload (but I won't). I COULD complain about my deadlines being moved up three weeks in addition to the increase in my workload (but I won't). The world ain't going to change a whole lot to suit your needs and wishes. All you can ever do is change your reaction to it. Guess what folks...Unless you are willing to change the way you think "YOU WILL NEVER BE HAPPIER THAN YOU ARE RIGHT NOW!" Cheers, p.s. Wakal, have you tried glucosamine? I don't generally recommend homeopathic cures, but this one has a really solid record for cartilage related joint pain. Works for me.

Amen! The shooting is great, but ErikW and Carlos summed that up pretty well so there isn't much point in repeating it. But, for me it is the people that make the sport. I have been involved in various competitive shooting sports for 30 years. Although I've enjoyed all of the sports (indoor smallbore rifle, metallic silhouettes, USPSA, etc.) I like USPSA shooting the best. (I remember in the mid-70's desperately wanting a S&W M66 Combat so that I could compete in Combat shooting with Col. Cooper. Hard to earn that much money working minimum wage, or less, jobs during the summer.) In every competitive shooting sport I have tried I have found a group of people generally more friendly, more helpful, and all-around more pleasant than average. The people I've met shooting USPSA competitions are hands down THE BEST. How can you miss with a sport where people will lend you their guns, ammunition, spare parts? How many times have you been at a match when someone finds they don't have some essential piece of equipment (or breaks an essential part) and the other competitors are fighting each other to lend the hapless competitor the necessary component? I hope that everyone's experience with USPSA is as positive as mine has been. If it isn't/wasn't come to west Texas. We'll show you what USPSA ought to be and we put on some pretty darned interesting matches too! BTW - Although I know most of the members of the BE forum only from online conversations it appears that this group represents the creme de la creme. Of course that places upon you the responsibility of carrying forward the tradition and helping attract new shooters to the sport we all love. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Hey, I can't answer for any trouble other people might have had with Springco or their products. I would be willing to offer my experience - I put a Springco in my P14-45 about 3 years ago. No expert advice, not the newer improved versions. Played with the spring rates for a little while (I can run a slightly lighter spring with the Springco) and ran with it. I put over 100,000 rounds through that pistol with absolutely no problems (except some reloading difficulties when I changed bullets). In fact, that pistol is now the "night-stand" pistol because it is so reliable. Besides all of that, I LIKE the feel of the Springco. Smoother and softer than without. Sorry you all had problems with it. I don't think it's because of basic problems with the products. J. Kelly McCoy A42081 p.s. I'm still pissed about losing my custom designation! Despite the "Looks for Target" designation I am still "THE PROFESSOR"!

Yep, TG is still the stuff. Fairly clean, consistent, cheap, and easy to find. J. Kelly McCoy A42081

As Robert points out you can buy the star and/or pieces from the inventor/manufacturer. Robert has provided contact info. Since Terry invented one of the hottest and most innovative IPSC target arrays recently it seems most appropriate (and ethical) to contact him for information on the design. He is a very nice guy. I'm sure he will be glad to work with you. I know that he has shipped parts for stars overseas. Cheers,

I've recently decided that I need to try Production. So my opinion is based only on my years of experience with various firearms (more years than I really care to admit) and not on any experience shooting IPSC/USPSA matches in Production (several years now in Limited and Lim10, Open for 3-gun matches). I have acquired a very cute TZ75. I've always liked that design. (Started IPSC with an EAA Witness in .45, would have stayed with it if I could get high-cap mags and if the .45's would hold-up better). I think I'll go with a Dillon "Master" holster (or maybe a Yaqui slide holster) and some kydex double mag holders. I will put the holster and mag pouches on a CR belt. The TZ shoots really well when I remember that it isn't a 1911 trigger. I can't imagine that any DA only design will be better than a DA/SA design (I have fired a Para LDA and that is really close). No matter what you might say about Glocks (they do have some good points) I won't allow anything that ugly into my safe. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Despite Wakal's experiences (living in the same town we both receive UPS deliveries from the same depot) I have had numerous UPS packages arrive early. Frequently a UPS package shows up on their tracking website as "shipped" and the provided delivery date is 5 days away. Then the package gets into town early and they go ahead and deliver it. I will NOT say that all my experiences with UPS have been good. They let a rifle stock sit at the local depot all weekend because it arrived at 10:00am on Friday (I really wanted to work on it over the weekend, and I was PISSED). But sometimes they do deliver things early. Cheers,

I apologize to Wakal and the other forum members for my participation in this thread drift. I responded to a value judgement that I perceived as a personal attack and allowed myself to be drawn into a long sociological argument. Wakal started a discussion on the role of special categories (especially the "Ladies" category) in USPSA competition. I hope that the other readers will recognize that this is a valid topic for discussion in this forum and continue to contribute their thoughts on that topic. Whether or not I am personally sexist is a different topic and if it deserves further discussion should probably be split off into a thread of its own. Humbly,

So if I point out that basic anatomical differences (you won't deny that there are anatomical differences will you?) result in a substantially different set of criteria regarding what is an appropriate and comfortable place to urinate...then I will be sexist? I really hope that most people will judge whether I am sexist or not on the basis of actual encounters with women rather than general statements regarding average differences. I doubt that you will find any evidence that I am personally discriminatory or abusive to women. I am equally abusive to everyone regardles of race, color, sex, or creed. I will continue to assert that there are average differences in behavior between men and women. I refuse to subscribe to the ridiculously PC notion that factual observations about groups of people is group "-ist". The use of that information in any discriminatory or abusive matter is. If I observe that persons of Scandanavian descent are more likely to be blonde and blue-eyed than the general public I have not made any sort of discriminatory or abusive statement. I think I can quite handily present data to support that statement. By your PC definition I'm now a scandanavianist, engaging in scandanavianism. Cheers,

Rhino, Despite having been successfully and happily married for just more than 19 years, and despite my professional research into the evolution of sexual differences in behavior, I will not claim to be an expert on the inner workings of the female psyche. However, I will respectfully suggest that you might find greater success with a phrase slightly more romantic than "willing participant in my breeding experiments". Cheers,

Although by some measures I may be a sexist, before you finalize judgement I believe a bit of explanation is in order. I am a biologist (Head of Biology Department at a regional state university). My research field is the evolution of behavioral and morphological differences between males and females. Although I work mostly with lizards, many of the principles can be extended to other species. Males and females differ in morphology, physiology, and behavior (applies to humans as well as MANY other species). This is a well documented fact. I have no choice but to recognize the enormous data that support this fact. When/if I make comments that suggest behavioral differences between males and females those statements are based on solid biological data. No-one suggests that the assertion that female humans are generally smaller and have less physical strength than male humans is a sexist comment. If we accept that morphological and physiological differences between the sexes are a fact of life and are not a sexist opinion, why would we assume that comments on behavioral differences between the sexes constitute a sexist opinion??? Male and female humans exhibit marked differences in behavior (thank goodness, viva la diference, etc.). Males tend to be far more competitive. Little boys do not "play" they "compete". This is entirely natural, evolutionarily predictable, and generally desirable. Females are generally more interested in physical comfort (again entirely natural, evolutionarily predictable, and generally desirable). My comment regarding "nice restrooms" may have seemed sexist, but I meant only to suggest that women have different priorities in determining how they will spend their leisure time and disposable income. For most women competition is not as important as it is for most men and creature comforts are more important. For me, males and females display fundamental differences (and again thank goodness that they do) and recognition of those differences does not constitute discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex (Vince's definition of sexism). Cheers,

Although I would not presume to speak for Wakal, I know him pretty well and I think I might understand what he's saying. At any rate I would like to add my $0.02 worth of clarity to this discussion. I do not believe that we should reduce this to a "hate" rant when it began as a serious (though stridently presented) discussion of the recognition of special categories (everyone please be cautious of the difference between "category" , "class", and "division"). Also please notice that although Wakal plowed up a bunch of snakes by using the term "sexism" he has in earlier posts decried the recognition of other categories. My personal assessment of his character is that he is firmly against any sort of discriminatory behavior whether that discrimination is based on sex, height, skin color, race, religion, favorite color, pet breed, or whatever. I would also point out that Wakal is not alleging individual sexism in USPSA/IPSC. As several members have pointed out it generally does not exist. What Wakal decries is institutionalized sexism (or colorism, or heightism, or racism, or ...etc.) through recognition of special categories. I understand that the recognition of special categories is an effort to attract more shooters. By recognizing special categories we may encourage shooters who are not likely to win the overall match by providing some positive feedback regarding their performance. I doubt that anyone (Wakal included) believes that encouraging these shooters is a bad idea. Encouraging people by recognizing their accomplishments is a reasonable goal. It is also becoming a widely accepted practice in our current society. It has become so pervasive that we invent special categories to be able to recognize people. Make everyone feel good about themselves no matter what their actual abilities are. Everyone needs self-esteem so we hand out awards for everything. I doubt that many of us honestly believe that this is a bad idea...at least philosophically. It is good to recognize people's accomplishments. Those of us who have been at this game for a while are always trying to win the match, but for people who are just starting out it is nice to encourage them by recognizing that they won "C" class (or whatever). It is reasonable to recognize those classes. "C", "D", and frequently "A" and "B" class shooters are not likely to win the overall match. If these people are shooting in these classes because they are new shooters and have not yet developed the skills to shoot at higher levels we should encourage them to continue with the sport and to try to attain higher classifications. If that is the honest limit of their ability we should still encourage them to continue to participate and have fun even though they will likely never win a major match. I do not believe that many of us disagree with this philosophy. We love this sport and want to encourage people to participate in it. We cheer honestly and solidly for the people who win "D" class and are happy for them when they receive prizes/trophies to recognize their achievement. We expect that these shooters are the future of the sport and that they will eventually rise to levels of ability where they will be competing for their overall placement instead of just winning their class (professional sandbaggers excepted). Or we recognize that although they are not likely to win a major match (because their ability is not sufficient) they are still valued members of our shooting community and we appreciate their participation. This sport would be NOTHING if everyone who had no reasonable expectation of winning a National match quit. The vehement argument arises because for some people the recognition and support of self esteem appears to have reached ridiculous levels. We already have 5 divisions and 6 classification. Do we really need to recognize 6 special categories as well? Theoretically you could host a USPSA match with 36 shooters and be required to give each of them a trophy. Wakal suggests that we need a category for "fat white guy with glasses and a mustache" category. I think we also need a category for "fat white guy with glasses, a mustache, and a ponytail" since Wakal might beat me in the former category but won't in the latter. Junior category extending to age 21 is patently ridiculous. J. Kelly McCoy at 20 would stomp J. Kelly McCoy at 44. Why should he get a trophy that I couldn't. Juniors are 16 or under. Where do you stop? When is it not enough that your fellow shooters encourage you and compliment you on your shooting? Several people have said that when females/kids came out to shoot other shooters offered advice/help/equipment/encouragement. Do you really need a plaque too???? The intitutionalized sexism (racism, heightism, ageism, classism, etc.) occurs whenever we recognize a special category. Simply by recognizing that category we are saying that we do not expect you to win the match because you fit in that category/class. The classism exists and we probably do not want to change it. Do we really need the category-ism? Do we want to say (as a sport, as an organization) that we do not expect a woman to win the overall match so we need a special trophy for the woman who does the best (although we know it won't be as good as the best man)? As an organization do we really want to say that "we don't expect women to shoot as well as men"? When I was shooting smallbore position rifle and rifle silhouettes (smallbore and highpower) I competed with lots of women (and was regularly beaten by them). We didn't hand out special trophies because they were women. We all (all of us males) knew that there were women out there who might beat us. Someone asked Wakal "what soured it for him"? He may have no specific example. However, I witnessed a well known female shooter become quite upset because she did not receive her "High Lady" award because of a registration error (the stats guy - me - didn't get her recorded as "Lady", I will point out that at no time during the match had she checked her registration information). We shot in the same class/division and I thoroughly stomped her in that match (that was the last time). I didn't receive any special award. Why did she deserve a special trophy for losing to me (5th C)? Since I think most of us agree that attracting more kids and women to the sport is a good thing, you might ask what we could do. Changing the age requirements for junior category would help. Having the "junior" category extend to age 21 does not accomplish the goal of encouraging new shooters. A 14yr-old newbie has very little chance of beating a 20yr-old who has been in the sport for 5 years. Attracting more women is a whole other question. They don't have a Y chromosome so they (mostly) don't have the same feeling about competition that males do. You won't ever get as many women as men in USPSA competition. Building nice restrooms at your range would help as much as anything might. Cheers,

I will admit that I have had great fun introducing my kids to shooting. My oldest daughter and I shot .22 silhouettes for a while (until the local club stopped) with a nice junior Anshutz that I bought for her (us). Although she's not really interested enough to practice for competition she likes to shoot. She REALLY likes the Open Mini14 with the compensator, red dot sight, and 30-round magazines. My younger two are still a little young to shoot (5 and 6) but they come to the range with me when I'm practicing and working on building stages. I'm working on a single-shot .22 pistol to start them with. The youngest is really interested (something about that Y chromosome) and I think he'll take off with it. Many years ago, my father (now passed on) found an old rusty and abused H&R Topper .410 shotgun partially submerged in a flooded woodland where he was working. He took the shotgun home and spent many hours cleaning off the rust, sanding, repairing and refinishing the stock, and generally refurbishing the shotgun. I had already left home by then, but my mom says she asked why he was investing so much effort in this foundling shotgun when he already owned several much nicer ones. Dad replied that he was working on "the first grandson's first shotgun". My son (the first grandson) is still too young to shoot it, but he knows that his shotgun is in the safe and that his grandfather (who he never met) repaired it for him. Although it is painfully sad that Dad never got to take his grandkids shooting or hunting, it helps a little to participate in passing on that kind of feeling and tradition. I expect to take my kids shooting and I look forward to taking my grandkids shooting. Cheers, p.s. I'm 44 and my youngest are 5 and 6. That "older parent" stuff doesn't hold much water with me. You're only as old as you feel. Although Rhino is going to have me beat if he doesn't get busy.

For a single stack I like Ed Brown's mag release and button, but there are lots of them out there. Yes, that is a fairly universal part that fits most 1911's. Some guns have trouble feeding the top round out of 8 and 10 round magazines and the JP elevated mag catch may help. It is available drilled and tapped to accept most extended buttons. Cheers,

I started this sport (before the introduction of the "new" divisions) shooting a box-stock EAA Witness .45ACP. I had an Uncle Mike's holster and 4 10-round magazines (I stuck spare magazines in the back pocket of my jeans). I shot with that equipment for several months and then started upgrading. That rig would have qualified for Production, but I was doing pretty well in Limited at our monthly club matches. Even if the "new" divisions had existed I would probably have followed the same progression of equipment upgrades that I did. I play this game to compete, not to win prizes. Most of the competition (at least at our club) is in Limited and Open. We get a few shooters in L10 and Production, but not enough for the competition to be fun. It isn't much challenge or much fun to be one of two shooters in your division. I don't shoot Open for philosophical reasons (I am resisting the power of the Dark Side), but I probably will when my eyesight gets a little worse (getting old is hell). Given my experience, I have relatively little sympathy for people who think they can't come out and play this game with the equipment they already own. No, you probably won't win the Open Nationals shooting your Witness with 10 round mags and an Uncle Mike's holster, but you can still have a lot of fun with it. Not winning your class/division at your local matches? Practice more! Don't whine until we add new divisions to fit the equipment you already own. If you want to shoot...come out and shoot. Sorry, didn't mean for that to turn into a rant. Cheers, p.s. I'm not sufficiently motivated to dig up the old rule books, but I'm pretty sure that Revolver division already existed when I started and doesn't really count as a "new" division.