Level 1 DMQ shoot test

Should DMQ shoot test be harder


  • Total voters
    0

jimmy milnes

Well-Known Member
OK another thread has inspired me to ask "set up pole"

Is the shoot test done on level 1 DMQ sufficient ie.... should it be harder and if so how
Smaller target?
Longer range?
Timed?
Timed follow up shot?
Any other suggestions?
Regards
Jimmy
 
OK another thread has inspired me to ask "set up pole"

Is the shoot test done on level 1 DMQ sufficient ie.... should it be harder and if so how
Smaller target?
Longer range?
Timed?
Timed follow up shot?
Any other suggestions?
Regards
Jimmy

I'm not in the UK, and therefore haven't done DSC1, but may I ask why you think a harder test is necessary? Have a large number of deer been wounded by DSC1 holders recently? Or do you feel that too many people are passing the course?
 
Interesting question. I think they should put head and neck shooting in it and a representative target area, maybe against a scenario. For example, positioning a deer target and the student is asked would they take the shot. If it is yes, then where would they aim and how would they do it, then get them to do it. Maybe not as part of the shooting test per-se but as a practical element. Maybe then show them pictures of what can go wrong. It's a bit gruesome but for warned is for armed.

What about mother and calf scenario, shoot the calf then mother in a timed scenario. Again, not part of the shooting test but a practical element.

Not necessarily make the test harder but add more to the practical elements.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy as you know I have seen many shooting tests and at this moment I think DMQ have set a very good base standard of shooting. The problem lies with how it is conducted and what is allowed . For example we have many who turn up with rifles that will not shoot .They then need to use the range officers rifle and that shows that we have a problem. We also have some coaching from assessor that should not be allowed in my opinion. This will be so that there course is seen as the best, We need standards to be maintained at all times and im sure more would fail but it would be the ones that could injure a deer with there pour quality equipment. Jimmy the shooting test still allows 3 goes at each standard and this to me is a worry .
 
Although I had a great deal of experience with shotguns I had never fired a centre-fire rifle before sitting my DSC1 (about 15 years ago). I would strongly advise anyone thinking of taking the DSC1 to take a shooting lesson first if they don't have much/any rifle shooting experience. I was presented with an unmoderated .270 with a stupidly short stock & eye-relief & promptly cut myself, although I did at least pass first time.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the test isn't especially hard, but it's supposed to be a simulation of possible real life scenarios. The target is the correct size to represent a deer and the ranges are realistic of the distance it's possible and likely to encounter deer, so why change it?
If somebody can hit a target half as big from twice as far away then that's great, but it's irrelevant.
 
Why should it be harder?

Smaller target? why? It covers the cull area , if a candidate can hit that it should be sufficient
Longer range? definatley not! it covers normal stalking ranges, there is a!ready a provision in DMQ where all the candidates are hill stalkers for the initial target to be at 150 metres.

Timed? certainly? not again its supposed to simulate a stalking situation, your shot should not be rushed when stalking
so why should it be rushed when taking a test.

A follow up shot ? maybe but not sure how it would best be done.

I believe there are more people fail the shooting test than any other part of DMQ 1 but I don't believe its necessarily because they are poor shots,nerves can play a big part.

Just to illustrate the point that nerves can play, when taking clients on the hill they all had to shoot at the target we had a full size stag target this was shot at from 150 yards, the target were shot marks on the target from end to end , and many clients who managed to miss the target completely, purely down to nerves

No amount of tinkering with the test will do anything to help with nerves, this is where target shots may have an advantage over stalkers as they are used to shooting in front of others.
 
Last edited:
DSC1 is in reality a base level for deer stalkers and the ability to pass the existing test is fit for that purpose, perhaps there ought to be an advanced shooting test available as an add-on incorporating simulated field conditions, e.g. slightly wobbly uncomfortable high seat, cramped position through a wire fence or gate, etc.

Ian Farrington (IanF on SD) does some really useful coaching for practical shooting positions.

atb Tim
 
Interesting question. I think they should put head and neck shooting in it and a representative target area, maybe against a scenario. For example, positioning a deer target and the student is asked would they take the shot. If it is yes, then where would they aim and how would they do it, then get them to do it. Maybe not as part of the shooting test per-se but as a practical element. Maybe then show them pictures of what can go wrong. It's a bit gruesome but for warned is for armed.

What about mother and calf scenario, shoot the calf then mother in a timed scenario. Again, not part of the shooting test but a practical element.

Not necessarily make the test harder but add more to the practical elements.

This is already covered in the walk around with an examiner.

I put no in my reply. As some of you may be tired of hearing, :) the conditions when I did mine were vile, freezing cold and very very windy indeed with the accompanying driving sleet, tougher conditions would have been really difficult.

David.
 
Jimmy as you know I have seen many shooting tests and at this moment I think DMQ have set a very good base standard of shooting. The problem lies with how it is conducted and what is allowed . For example we have many who turn up with rifles that will not shoot .They then need to use the range officers rifle and that shows that we have a problem. We also have some coaching from assessor that should not be allowed in my opinion. This will be so that there course is seen as the best, We need standards to be maintained at all times and im sure more would fail but it would be the ones that could injure a deer with there pour quality equipment. Jimmy the shooting test still allows 3 goes at each standard and this to me is a worry .

Pretty much covers my thoughts.
 
Yes I know but it doesn't go into the type of shot you would take - at least it didn't when I did it. The walk around though is different to the shooting test as you know. By including a part on the shooting that is not tested but is given to provide exposure at shooting at the head and neck, it would surely give the student exposure at hitting a smaller area, rather than purely from the literature.


This is already covered in the walk around with an examiner.

I put no in my reply. As some of you may be tired of hearing, :) the conditions when I did mine were vile, freezing cold and very very windy indeed with the accompanying driving sleet, tougher conditions would have been really difficult.

David.
 
I've seen some good shots fail DMQ and other various deer related shooting tests (military sniper was one of them) - why? Lack of familiarity with their stalking equipment, lack of practise, poor ammo choice, overconfidence - I have even seen one have their scope fall off during it!

In my humble opinion the test is good at what it does. What doesn't seem so good is the application of the test criteria (coaching, number of re-takes) - I think that should be tied up more rather than fiddling with the test format.
 
By including a part on the shooting that is not tested but is given to provide exposure at shooting at the head and neck, it would surely give the student exposure at hitting a smaller area, rather than purely from the literature.

Why would it do that, when Best Practice recommends a shot to the chest?

http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/uploads/guides/161.pdf

DSC1 is a basic qualification, and the shooting aspect is designed "to show competence in shooting at simulated targets."

It is not meant to encourage newcomers to the sport (and others!) to take shots that increase the risk of wounding to the detriment of deer welfare.
 
Why would it do that, when Best Practice recommends a shot to the chest?

http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/uploads/guides/161.pdf

DSC1 is a basic qualification, and the shooting aspect is designed "to show competence in shooting at simulated targets."

It is not meant to encourage newcomers to the sport (and others!) to take shots that increase the risk of wounding to the detriment of deer welfare.

You beat me to it W_G. I was pondering on this issue.
 
Jimmy

It's a very good question. In principle I favour a stiffer test, but that has to be tempered with the fact that most folk have no-where to get training or practice. As with earlier comments I have seen folk turn up to DSC 1 tests that couldn't hit a barn door, and it wasn't nerves that were the problem either.

Also, to me a test that ultimately everyone can pass, isn't much of a test.

Regards

JCS
 
Yes, DSC 1 is a basic course, but in the literature, the manual I have somewhere shows places to effectively and humainly shoot a deer - this includes head and neck shots, it also does in the link provided.

http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/uploads/guides/161.pdf


Whilst I don't advocate head or neck shooting, I still think it is important to at least practice in a controlled environment with experienced individuals on hand. As I said, not part of the shooting test, but non the less a practical element. There will be those on that course that will attempt it, so isn't it better to have a little preparation in the bag, not matter how much it is discouraged.

Maybe also having a few shots at 200 yards wouldn't go a miss.
 
Last edited:
I said yes only as I feel that more guys would benefit from some rifle skills , sadly we all have seen a more than few guys that have none or very little skill at arms as to how to shoot or even worse thinking the safety on the rifle is all they need to be safe ? I would add if you do the Gap 180 DSC you are watched like a hawk and this is a credit to the trainers . You spend many ££££ getting to the point of holding a cert ! so why would some not think they need training with the object they intend to take a deer's life with ? I would also like to see hands on training as part of the dsc1 on what to do once you shoot your first deer on your own, wouldn't take much to set up if there is a chiller on hand . :popcorn:
 
I said yes only as I feel that more guys would benefit from some rifle skills , sadly we all have seen a more than few guys that have none or very little skill at arms as to how to shoot or even worse thinking the safety on the rifle is all they need to be safe ? I would add if you do the Gap 180 DSC you are watched like a hawk and this is a credit to the trainers . You spend many ££££ getting to the point of holding a cert ! so why would some not think they need training with the object they intend to take a deer's life with ? I would also like to see hands on training as part of the dsc1 on what to do once you shoot your first deer on your own, wouldn't take much to set up if there is a chiller on hand . :popcorn:

I like the idea of demonstrating the whole process. Not to make the cert harder, but plug gaps, leading to what is required for level two.
 
I voted no simply because if its made harder it will put a lot of newer lads/lasses off,like the price for dsc2 reg does to some extent, but i agree with paul there should be more time spent on gun handling/safety side of things,not sure about head neck shot training theres no need just have smaller targets if need be,not so sure about processing the deer either as you would need a chiller plus upto eight carcasses depending on class size and who pays for the deer,
 
Back
Top