timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Perhaps we need an equivalent to the German Jagdschein?
BDS ?
- Thread starter NullMac
- Start date
308rws
Well-Known Member
In this country, it is perfectly legal to discharge a firearm in public without recourse to any form of training, supervision or public liability insurance.
I ask you:
I ask you:
- Does that sound like a 'safe system'?
- Who amongst us would want to be a Chief Constable?
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Police meddling in our shooting activities is the price that we pay for not having mandatory safety and competence training. I'd be quite happy to be required to be qualified if it meant that S1 controls were replaced with S2 for rifles.
Only more training and practice will change that, there isn’t a great deal of difference between the old and new test.
And it’s not used by just the DMQ if it were that poor why would other organisations adopt it?
I t
I think you have some ill thought out errors in this. Marksmanship is primarily concerned with deer welfare providing the shooter hits the backstop as the backstop should be massively bigger than the target. Safety is connected with three things, safe rifle handling, proper situational awareness and good judgement. Also I would suggest that the police use DSC1/2 to manage liability that may land on their desk rather than risk which we as firearms users have to take responsibility for.
308rws
Well-Known Member
OK, let's pick-up on the topic of backstop.
Where do I find the legal/official Health and Safety Executive definition of 'safe backstop' and what is it?
308rws
Well-Known Member
In the spirit of healthy discussion over whether firearms licensing and training constitutes a 'safe system' ...
How does a novice UK firearm owner establish that a backstop is safe before taking their first shot? Without recourse to supervision and training, how do they know what a safe backstop is? How do they obtain that knowledge? How do they learn to apply it in the field? Just because a Police FEO/FLO has cleared their good reason and land for the firearm doesn't mean that the backstop is safe.
Bullet performance is governed by science; flightpath by external ballistics, target impact, backsplash and ricochet by terminal ballistics. So, backstop for a known range of target can be calculated. Only through an understanding of ballistics and the factors which affect a bullets ballistic performance can a shooter assess the safety of a backstop. It will vary by bullet type, calibre, elevation, environment, range and terrain.
(As an aside, I would be interested to know what terminal ballistics calculator FEO/FLO use to inform their decision to clear a piece of land for a calibre?)
Discuss.
How does a novice UK firearm owner establish that a backstop is safe before taking their first shot? Without recourse to supervision and training, how do they know what a safe backstop is? How do they obtain that knowledge? How do they learn to apply it in the field? Just because a Police FEO/FLO has cleared their good reason and land for the firearm doesn't mean that the backstop is safe.
Bullet performance is governed by science; flightpath by external ballistics, target impact, backsplash and ricochet by terminal ballistics. So, backstop for a known range of target can be calculated. Only through an understanding of ballistics and the factors which affect a bullets ballistic performance can a shooter assess the safety of a backstop. It will vary by bullet type, calibre, elevation, environment, range and terrain.
(As an aside, I would be interested to know what terminal ballistics calculator FEO/FLO use to inform their decision to clear a piece of land for a calibre?)
Discuss.
Last edited:
Bandit Country
Well-Known Member
Just had an email from BDS letting me know that ScotGov have opened their latest deer consultation. Managing deer for climate and nature: consultation
BDS will be gathering views from members before formulating a formal response. It would appear they aren't entirely inert ...
BDS will be gathering views from members before formulating a formal response. It would appear they aren't entirely inert ...
Yes just been reading through it.
You are missing or avoiding the point that the need for precise marksmanship is in order to hit a relatively small target located in front of a much larger “backstop” area. Failing to hit the target (kill zone) by a reasonable margin of a few inches will only affect deer welfare and not safety providing the stalker has exercised proper decision making whether the backstop is adequate. If you manage to aim at the deer and miss the deer and backstop then you are not fit to use a rifle full stop!
308rws
Well-Known Member
I completely agree with you. Hence my earlier points about accreditation of the shooter/stalker. For a ‘safe system’ the firearm user should be trained (in order to gain sufficient knowledge of firearms, ballistics and quarry) and assessed in their ability to take a safe, humane shot (accreditation) before being allowed to hunt unsupervised. Furthermore, it is my opinion that this should be linked to licencing and mandatory. Not optional (best practice) as is currently the case. The current system is totally ad hoc, has low standards and no independent safety regulation. My opnion only.
Also those who would advocate for train and assess once, clearly have never witnessed skill fade. Which also happens to drivers. When you factor the number of deaths and injuries from RTA, it’s amazing to me that driving licences aren’t 5 year limited. Again, my opinion only.
Ronin
Distinguished Member
DMQ shooting test has changed significantly
It used to be
Three shots on a zero target at 100 yards prone (all shots must be within 4” target area)
Three shots prone at 100 on deer target in kill area
Three shots kneeling or seated at 70 yds in kill area of deer target
Three shots standing at 40 yards again at deer target and all shots must be within kill zone
The kill zone was designated by a removable portion of the target and had designated bands for the bullets to fall within to pass
The significantly watered down test is now just six shots
Two at 100 on deer target prone or seated from lock high seat
Two at 70 on deer target standing , kneeling seated
Two at 10-20 mtrs at deer target head standing
There is no provision for shooting a zero group
So effectively the test number of shots has reduced by 50%
The reduced time period for training does not allow any practical practice on the range - it used to
Candidates with zero experience of firearms are going through the test and being coached through
There have been analogies comparing the use of firearms with driving vehicles whoxh I believe is really a non starter
Learning to drive a vehicle one has many hours of lessons and eventually a lengthy pass or fail test
The DSC shooting element now has zero practical training and candidates are coached through the test - in my own experience I’ve seen at least three people with zero firearms experience going through the test which does not address basic weapons handling, safe and competent use of firearms and is pure luck when passing the shooting test (or decent coaching skills)
All the above has degraded Level one into a farce
As I’ve said before the BDS could have stepped up to the plate to object to the changes made or refused to accept : implement the changes on the basis of welfare grounds as the changes made are retrograde and against the ethos of the Society
Yet the current officials did not
There were promises of pre DSC courses to be implemented on local level to address the pitiful standards now being used as a base level - this never materialised
Repeated requests for allowance for CPD training to raise standards of marksmanship of existing members towards longer range familiarisation in the event of a wounded animal requiring follow up were met with derisive comments when discussed at length - again a welfare issue which is at the core of the societies ethos
I can’t speak for other organisations adopting the new “standards” I can only speak from experience of BDS who should be leading from the front in matters for deer and deer welfare
I believe the idea behind this is dispatching a previously shot animal which, as you say, makes a lot of sense. There is a separate HAD course, which covers a lot more.
Longer range second shots should be covered by the 70 and 100 metre shots.
Distances beyond that are, in my opinion, more appropriate for more dedicated courses, of which there are many available.
Last edited:
308rws
Well-Known Member
I agree that the current DMQ DSC shooting skills test may warrant review.
Back to basics. What training need / marksmanship requirements should be accredited?
For example:
For a professional shot, one cold barrel shot into the kill zone of a deer target at an unknown range (upto 200m) Followed by one dispatch shot into a second quartering deer target at greater range.
For a novice shot, a number of shots into the kill zone of a broadside deer target from different positions at different known ranges up to 100m.
For all, an accredited zeroing assessment.
For all, a close quarter humane dispatch headshot.
Or, something along these lines. In my opinion some requirements would be common to all, others driven by experience/role.
Back to basics. What training need / marksmanship requirements should be accredited?
For example:
For a professional shot, one cold barrel shot into the kill zone of a deer target at an unknown range (upto 200m) Followed by one dispatch shot into a second quartering deer target at greater range.
For a novice shot, a number of shots into the kill zone of a broadside deer target from different positions at different known ranges up to 100m.
For all, an accredited zeroing assessment.
For all, a close quarter humane dispatch headshot.
Or, something along these lines. In my opinion some requirements would be common to all, others driven by experience/role.
David Barker
Well-Known Member
My Personal feeling is the DMQ,s are not trusted by the industry and there for are not fit for purpose. To do a test that is taught and tested by the same person will give it little credit. To have a test that can for all intent and purpose be done in the pub will not give the industry confidence. When looking out side the industry eg NGO Local authority's etc. It is necessary to resit an equivalent test to shoot on public land.
For all, an accredited zeroing assessment. We have to produce a stamped up cinema session at the very least, but that is usually followed by a visit to the hunt range.
Herbert's or not can you justify that for all members?
After all, they were the first to put in place a training scheme from Novice to stalker.over a five year period. (Also for FC rangers I Believe)Copied by others into a one day affair. A negligent discharge occured Once I believe in 60years. having experienced such more than once on military ranges one of which was a full mag from a Sterling, that's a duck situation.
I must add I am not a member of the Club.
They were from the higher echelon of that club, on the week and also unofficially observing, that is from memory as it was a long time past. ( Caused a few visible arteries on necks of scheme staff )
Similar threads
