Will B. Droopy

Oh, I see it! I have never seen such a thing in a gun mag before. (I guess Tanfoglio uses the same frame for all of their guns, so they need spacers for the little 9mm rounds). Unfortunately, all of my mags -- even the one that came with the gun -- has the spacer in front of the mag, instead of in the back. I hope that is not a really bad thing, as in causing the pistol to jam a lot... -Bill

Hi J-Ho, I normally like fully adjustable sights, but after taking this gun to the range today, I found that everything is shooting at point of aim, so I am pleased. I am also pleased with the gun's inherent accuracy, as on the bench I was able to place six shots into a two inch circle at 25 yards. (My Taurus PT-911 shoots a average TWELVE inch group, which is why I bought this great Tanfoglio for USPSA). Still can't find out from anyone about what those two set screws are for on the top of the rear sight, though. I don't know which mags I have, since I am not sure what a "spacer" even is! But here are pics of it.

Thanks jmcmanis! A picture of the sights, which are not mentioned at all in the Witness' print/PDF manual, is shown here (I have blacked-out the white and red dots on mine, since I find such things to be distracting/blurry): -Bill

Hi all, I just bought a new base model EAA Tanfoglio all steel full size 9mm Witness. (I found that the pistol I normally use for USPSA, a 9mm Taurus PT-911 -- while a well made and a great looking gun -- just didn't have even close to the accuracy required for USPSA, so it was time for a new gun!). Three dumb questions: 1. How do you pronounce "Tanfoglio"; 2. How to adjust the rear sight (this is not the simple Witness drift-type sight, but it is larger and has two small hex screws, and the sight is marked "LPA" ); 3. And what do I call this particular pistol, a "EAA Witness" or a "Tanfoglio"? See, I told you these would be dumb questions. -Bill

GrumpyOne, I'm afraid I may still be mentally incapable of dropping my mags in the dirt and sand and grit, but I promise to work on it! -Bill

I just got a new pistol with a 3-dot sight, and after taking it to the range a few times I found that I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it. I was about to trade the gun in for another pistol, 'cause I thought this particular 3-dot sighted gun had severe accuracy problems, but then I noticed that every time I shot one of my much older guns -- made before 3-dot sights even existed -- I could not only hit targets much more accurately, but the iron sights were much more clear to my aging eyes (less blurry). I discovered that during the day the white dots would blend in with each other and with the target, causing a blurring of my sight picture. So I blacked out the white dots with a black Sharpie, and voila; the pistol shot as it should! Anyone else have this problem? Or does everyone love white 3-dot sights? -Bill

Interestingly, I actually looked for such a pimp-o-matic in shiny nickel 'n gold (preferably with synthetic ivory grips). However, much to my complete chagrin, new nickeled guns are no longer available: Stainless appears to have taken over the silver gun market. Pity. PS: Ever since I was shown my great grand daddy's pistol (picture below), I have loved pimp guns. (He carried it back in 1858, while working in New Orleans with his small stable of "ladies"). -Bill Great grand daddy Droopy's pistol, circa 1858:

Finally: a truly supportive person on this forum, actually working to fulfill a genuine -- some would say critical -- need for the competitive shooting public. I think I can speak for everyone here: Thank you. Please keep us updated when Bean's Blaster Bag™ becomes available. (I, for one, will not shoot USPSA again until I can purchase this product). Thanks again, -Bill

So I've been told, but I guess I like "flashy", non-black guns. However, that taste in flash only goes to silver and gold, NOT purple, pink, orange, or anything else. Jkatz's purple gun is too much for me (I guess I'm WAY too conservative ). Now Flexmoney's baby Glock "pimp gun" is much more my style. Or how about: OR: or my absolute favorite: -Bill

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: -Bill Wow, methinks I'm too cheap for this sport!! -Bill You are grumpy! -Bill But why did you throw a perfectly good Bedell Limited into a bucket? And what was the bucket full of? (I'm relatively new to USPSA, so I'm unaware of this technique…) -Bill

Yes, please do. I don't want you out on the range getting that Taurus all over the nice dirt. I've met your kind before, Flexmoney -- a Taurus bigot. But seriously, I've owned many a Colt, S&W, Beretta, and etc., but I'm really quite impressed with the 21st Century Taurus models (not so much with their 20th Century products). People just don't give Taurus a chance, but I own two (a revolver and the semi), and they are both well crafted, finished, and very sturdy. -Bill (A stinkin' Taurus lover)

I'll let you know when I get officially classified! I'm not a USPSA member yet, so my club can't send out my numbers. (The club would probably be too embarrassed at my scores to send them out anyway). -Bill

Hmmm, I don't know how to make it less subjective. To put my skills another way: I rarely shoot myself in the foot during a draw, and I hit in the A and B zones mostly (even in the no-shoot targets), with some C's and an occasional D now-and-again. But I agree that you could probably kick my behind in a USPSA shoot. -Bill

Eeee gads, Flexmoney, that picture is downright scary! Maybe I wasn't meant to play in the dirt! But I think that definitely seals it: I got-a go Glock, 'cause I ain't doing that to my shiny polished aluminum and stainless PT-911! -Bill

What's pretty good anyway....doesn't mean much since it's all relative. I was just being modest when I said I was "pretty good". To be far more precise, I am officially classified as "damn good". -Bill

Well, actually, I am pretty good at using my guns , but I think Kcult is right: I need to purchase a 100% tool, which would logically be the ubiquous and boring Glock . That way, since the Glock's already so ugly and utilitarian -- but tough as nails and as reliable as a hammer -- I would not break-a-sweat in abusing the heck out of it. No emotional attachment there. -Bill

By just reading your post, Vlad, made me go and clean my already spotless guns! -Bill

I agree with you on "25 people tell them it's a bad idea, 2 people tell them they agree and all they hear are the 2". I guess it's just human nature. But as to the mags: I'm not concerned with mag damage itself; I'm concerned with damage and wear to the pistol from grit. Unfortunately, unlike many folks here and elsewhere, I do consider a firearm as far more than a mere "tool", but also as a work of art and a miracle of precision mechanical technology. I can maltreat a hammer or a hacksaw or a screwdriver in my home shop, but not an expensive and beautiful gun. (All of my firearms, some that I have owned since '72, may have some holster wear, but that's it). I've always been that way with beautiful things, and I guess at my age I will never change! -Bill

I used PD in reference to USPSA's Production Division class... -Bill

But I'm not a LEO, or I would 100% agree with you about the need for spare mags and a BUG. In fact, the only reason I carry everywhere I go in public, rather than just in the big cities, is that I was a (willing) witness two years ago in Federal criminal court against two really crazy people , so my wife and I are still rather paranoid about reprisals. (One of those nice folks just got released last month, BTW). But I still don't see how I could ever need more than 15+1 unless, as I said, I was a LEO (or in Iraq): my main defense will continue to be good situational awareness, combined with a skilled 'sneaker defense'! -Bill

Thanks Merlin! I feel the exact same way as those folks: I know it slows me down to stow 'em, but that's the price I pay; and I don't mind paying it. (Now I don't feel like the only guy in the world who does this! ). Thanks for the info G-ManBart, but that is exactly why I don't really care whether I can reload ultra-rapidly, as I never carry a spare mag on the street. I figure if my 15+1 of 9mm goodness can't do the job, I'm SOL anyway. -Bill

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I realize my "method" of not dropping mags will result in me never reaching Grand Master, but so will my lack of innate shooting skills! (I'm not bad by any means, but I think the high-end shooters are born, as well as made). The problem with cleaning mags between each COF is that I am too busy assisting in brass pickup and re-setting targets, as well as simply reloading. But I 100% agree with CocoBolo on the importance of such a cleaning! (I have yet to see anyone here really clean their mags, except for the tapping of the dropped mag against their leg to get some of the grit and dirt out of the innards). And I have always liked the thought of buying enough mags so that I could clean them at home, and never re-use one during that day's shoot. However, at a minimum of $31 a mag, and the need for 15 or 16 of them (loaded with 10 rounds, and a total of about 150 rounds shot), then that ads up to $500 or so. My wife would hurt me if I spent that much on just mags! -Bill

When I practice for or shoot in a PD match, I just can't bring myself to drop my mags in the sand, mud, or dirt: even thinking of inserting a gritty/dirty mag back into my nice gun for the next COF (after just a tap and a wipe of the mag) just doesn't work for me. The way I do it is I [quickly!] place my expended mag back in to its holder, and then [quickly!] grab a fresh one for the pistol. I'm probably being OCD'ish about this, but has anyone else even seen any other shooter do the same thing during a match? Or perhaps you even feel the same way as I do about this? -Bill