BDS ?

[willie_gunn]

And the deer target is at right angle to the shooter, that isn't always the case in the field, like wise a leg might be back?

Of course deer don't always stand broadside on, but we are talking about the target used for the DSC1 shooting test, which is at a simulated target that is broadside on.

This is a blatant digression and I’m not trying to teach Granny to suck eggs but this shot placement is outdated and suboptimal, it will as you say result in a dead deer and might save a small amount of the triceps muscle BUT it places the bullet perilously close to the apex of the diaphragm which in turn is far more likely to result in a carcass contaminated with rumen contents.

It is hardly a blatant digression - if you actually look at the DSC1 roe target, and where the chest killing zone is, I can't think of better instructions to give to a Candidate to ensure they get all shots in the zone?

Inserts for Roe Target A4 Head and Body DMQ approved -

Two inserts for Roe Target A4 Head and Body DMQ approved1 x Size A4 297 x 210mm replacement – BODY1 x Size A4 297 x 210mm replacement – HEAD

bds.org.uk

The reality is that the chest killing zone hasn't moved - what has changed is that the old DSC1 target gave you an aiming point that only exists on deer seen in Gary Larson's Far Side cartoons:

 

[Ratel]

Guess those two were possibly part of the new wave you mention.

PM me their names and I'll have you my honest opinion on them.

 

[finnbear270]

PM me their names and I'll have you my honest opinion on them.

AH!, way back in history ... I doubt even Bob or Griff would remember.

 

[Buchan]

What is behind this fixation with DSC1 being primarily a test of shooting competence?

Just picking up on this, as I feel it has become part of the problem. DSC1 is the minimum standard required to pass the test, but not, of itself designed as a test of marksmanship. As the only accredited shooting test (I'll stand corrected, but a google search and I can't find any other examples of marksmanship assessments) it was I think used as the test for the badger culls. So it's easy to see how it has become quoted as a standard of marksmanship. Which it isn't.

 

[Dickie]

Just picking up on this, as I feel it has become part of the problem. DSC1 is the minimum standard required to pass the test, but not, of itself designed as a test of marksmanship. As the only accredited shooting test (I'll stand corrected, but a google search and I can't find any other examples of marksmanship assessments) it was I think used as the test for the badger culls. So it's easy to see how it has become quoted as a standard of marksmanship. Which it isn't.

I believe that forestry use it for rangers and the land they open to syndicates.

 

[Oldstalker]

I used to use the zeroing test for Paying Guest stalkers whom I did not know; i.e. 3 shots in a 4 inch circle.
It was very instructive watching them shoot; less movement at the kidneys/small of the back usually indicated a competent shot and certainly if one could not predict when they were about to squeeze off. It also provided them a zero opportunity and an indication to me of a) speed of shooting, b) confidence and c) some guide to their likely accuracy. To them it gave confidence the rifle was on zero. I used to ask them to "call" their shots as this gave us both confidence.
I did refuse to take guests who failed and this included my Brother one time. It turned out to be the 'scope which had failed internally and his shots were random - 2 in one area and the next could be 6 (or more) inches away. He is not that bad a shot!

 

[Treedave]

Just picking up on this, as I feel it has become part of the problem. DSC1 is the minimum standard required to pass the test, but not, of itself designed as a test of marksmanship. As the only accredited shooting test (I'll stand corrected, but a google search and I can't find any other examples of marksmanship assessments) it was I think used as the test for the badger culls. So it's easy to see how it has become quoted as a standard of marksmanship. Which it isn't.

If the shooting test element of the DSC 1 is not a test of marksmanship, what is its purpose?
If it is an opportunity to show firearm handling safety then why fire live rounds in a contrived situation far from the reality of deer stalking?

As for the 6 round test being used by other agencies, they may, but the last test I completed for an agency was 15 rounds (total) from 5 different positions with distances in excess of 100m. The emphasis was on repeatable accuracy in real world situations/positions. They also asked you to call your shots before the set of 3.

I know there is room for improvement in my shooting and think that it is likely to be the case with the majority of others. Its only practice that is required and the opportunity to do so is getting harder to access with the recent change of approach from the BDS.

As for the DSC 1 its an introductory piece of paper that has has its status elevated whilst its difficulty reduced (in line with a lot of Lantra/NPTC awards). Is this down to decisions or a risk averse attitude within the BDS hierarchy? I don’t know, i wasn’t in the room, so to speak, but the consequences are there to be seen.

@Ronin my compliments for such a well aimed grenade toss and having the sand to stay with it.

 

[finnbear270]

^Seconded.

 

[Siggy]

Totally in agreement with @Ronin in that the shooting test has been so watered down as to be pointless. The kill zone is so huge that there is no test of the candidates marksmanship beyond did they point the rifle at the chest of the deer and “get lucky” twice. We all know that two shots proves nothing which is where the zero target comes in. Three shots on target within a 4 inch group from a rested position is not difficult at all yet it at least shows if a candidate is capable of shooting a group or not. The target area has been increased in area by a massive 50% by my calculations based on a 125mm kill zone on the new deer target compared to the 4 inch grouping target having a diameter of 101mm ( 122cm2 vs 81cm2 target areas). Furthermore because the aiming point on the deer target is deliberately obscured there is no test of accuracy and an abysmal test of precision!
As an example of how poor the test is I shot the test for fun with a heavy recoiling rifle (.375 H&H) off my elbows- no bipod- that was zeroed with different ammo using factory ammunition I had never shot before and passed the test. When I subsequently checked zero the ammunition was grouping 4 inches high and two right yet still fell within the kill zone with my two shots. Quite simply I should not have passed the test that day but because I held or pulled my shots a little low by chance I passed.

First, the chest zone in the new target (2021) is actually slightly smaller than the previous. I believe this is only because they switched from imperial to metric, if memory serves it was 4 inches, it's now 10 cm which is fractionally smaller.

I take your point about the use of a zeroing target, but the candidate would also need to demonstrate being able to place a shot on a deer. You can argue that the kill area is wrong but it needs to be a test that is simple enough to standardise so that it is repeatable.

I disagree that the test is watered down. okay you don't have to shoot sitting or kneeling at 75 metres and now most people shoot using quad sticks standing, but you could always use stalking aids back when I did it back in 2023. I would argue that the majority of deer shot in lowland Britain not shot out of a high seat are shot off quad sticks and I can't remember the last time I shot a deer kneeling or standing, so if anything the test reflects standard practice. Now you also have to do the dispatch shot at 10-20 metres with is very practical test which requires an additional skill set so effectively the test is more complex.

You can argue that the standard is too low, but a significant number of people do fail the shooting test for a variety of reasons, from nerves to their zero magically changing since they were shooting at Bisley the other weekend. I would support being able to qualify at a higher standard, but see no need for this to be part of DSC1 or DSC2.

At the end of the day, the DSC1 is an entry level qualification and as such needs to be realistically achievable by a beginner stalker.

 

[Cris]

The thread looks to have moved on to DSC discussion.
As said already, DSC is an entry level requirement these days. However once a complete non professional novice has passed it, they are then out on there own. If your lucky enough to be employed as a professional then you would get trained by your employer.
Otherwise apart from a very few clubs we don’t have a structure around how our hunting is done to support new stalkers / hunters in the UK. It’s generally a solitary and secretive world. Syndicates perhaps will help but most want experienced members and fees maybe beyond a new stalkers means setting out.

 

[lksopener1]

Moved away from BDS the thread but just wanted to give a shout out to the East Mercia branch, been a member over a year and they have arranged some good events for very little cost that were worth attending.

Also the quarterly magazine is very good and often contains scientific articles (cited and referenced) which are interesting to read.

They have my support and seem to represent me more than most.

 

[Ronin]

The thread looks to have moved on to DSC discussion.
As said already, DSC is an entry level requirement these days. However once a complete non professional novice has passed it, they are then out on there own. If your lucky enough to be employed as a professional then you would get trained by your employer.
Otherwise apart from a very few clubs we don’t have a structure around how our hunting is done to support new stalkers / hunters in the UK. It’s generally a solitary and secretive world. Syndicates perhaps will help but most want experienced members and fees maybe beyond a new stalkers means setting out.

Think there is a separate DSC / DMQ thread

Let’s stay focussed on BDS within this one

 

[Cris]

Think there is a separate DSC / DMQ thread

Let’s stay focussed on BDS within this one

Just following the thread and were it goes but BDS get my support for al they do.

 

[AGR]

Just following the thread and were it goes but BDS get my support for al they do.

Occurs to me that you should probably avoid the 'Purchased not Brought' thread.

 

[Cris]

Occurs to me that you should probably avoid the 'Purchased not Brought' thread.

Not looked at it. Does it have anything to do with the BDS?

 

[Selous]

First, the chest zone in the new target (2021) is actually slightly smaller than the previous. I believe this is only because they switched from imperial to metric, if memory serves it was 4 inches, it's now 10 cm which is fractionally smaller.

I take your point about the use of a zeroing target, but the candidate would also need to demonstrate being able to place a shot on a deer. You can argue that the kill area is wrong but it needs to be a test that is simple enough to standardise so that it is repeatable.

I disagree that the test is watered down. okay you don't have to shoot sitting or kneeling at 75 metres and now most people shoot using quad sticks standing, but you could always use stalking aids back when I did it back in 2023. I would argue that the majority of deer shot in lowland Britain not shot out of a high seat are shot off quad sticks and I can't remember the last time I shot a deer kneeling or standing, so if anything the test reflects standard practice. Now you also have to do the dispatch shot at 10-20 metres with is very practical test which requires an additional skill set so effectively the test is more complex.

The kill zone in the new target is 5 inches (see attached). The old zero target was 4 inches (see attached and note the callipers have not changed measurements to illustrate the difference). Now perhaps you could explain to me how you say the standard has not reduced when the target is now much larger, the number of different ranges and positions has reduced and the round count has reduced to the point that the stalking marksmanship component of the test is now only 4 shots!
I totally agree that the HD component is a useful addition but the fact remains that the test has got easier by a country mile. I’m all for improving things and the test needs to be relevant but the standards need to be maintained and not reduced.

 

[VSS]

The kill zone in the new target is 5 inches (see attached). The old zero target was 4 inches (see attached and note the callipers have not changed measurements to illustrate the difference). Now perhaps you could explain to me how you say the standard has not reduced when the target is now much larger, the number of different ranges and positions has reduced and the round count has reduced to the point that the stalking marksmanship component of the test is now only 4 shots!
I totally agree that the HD component is a useful addition but the fact remains that the test has got easier by a country mile. I’m all for improving things and the test needs to be relevant but the standards need to be maintained and not reduced.

I don't think that the size of the kill zone on the deer target has been increased.
However, I do agree that the shooting test needs a revamp.
When I did my DSC1 it was 3 shots at the 4" zeroing target at 100m prone, followed by 6 shots at the deer silhouette consisting of 2 at 100m prone, 2 at 75m standing and 2 at 50m kneeling/sitting (iirc). You could not move on to the next shooting position until you'd passed the one you were doing. 3 attempts max. (So, for example, if you failed to place 3x2 bullets into the kill zone of the deer at 100m prone, that was that. You didn't progress any further. Failed. As it should be.
Personally, if I was redesigning the DSC1 shooting test I'd have kept it as it was but added in a couple of 100m shots from a simulated highseat, and the close range HD shots.