When will they stop showing "Unsafe" Shots on Fieldsports Britain

[chopper]

To be fair it wasn't really a stile , just a bit of broken fence. I'd have done the same as they did and left it on my back as it was a simple thing to hop over. If I had to climb over something like a stile then I would pull bolt back then reload once clear.

* Just watched it again and no one went over an obstruction with a rifle. You can clearly see the rifle was handed to the guide before the shooter climbed over.*

 

[Axe]

No wonder they didn't show the gralloch on the young buck - nicely gut shot

 

[matt_hooks]

Chopper, that's not how I saw it, but if so then that's better (though the rifle should still have been unloaded!)

 

[AndrewT059]

COM-ING UP

 

[Tamus]

But .243's are officially not as dangerous, so do they really need a better backstop than was shown?

The x-purts on the vid feel that you really would be better with a .308 or better still .30-06 and 180 grain bullets to shoot Roe in willow. So, I'm amazed they shot anything.

To be honest, I couldn't tell what sort of backstop existed and I don't think any of you can either. Was that just a rise or a rise with a big old tree on it, in the background?

 

[JAYB]

How anyone can judge what sort of backstop was there from the video is beyond me. The cameraman and the shooter were worlds apart in terms of their view of the beast, perceived obstructions etc. That camera shot was not through the lens and therefore useless as to be an indication of how safe the shot was, you all know that moving your head just a couple of inches can make a world of difference, so I would have to accept that the shot was safe. Not too sure about the calibre thing though.

John

 

[walrus]

How anyone can judge what sort of backstop was there from the video is beyond me. The cameraman and the shooter were worlds apart in terms of their view of the beast, perceived obstructions etc. That camera shot was not through the lens and therefore useless as to be an indication of how safe the shot was, you all know that moving your head just a couple of inches can make a world of difference, so I would have to accept that the shot was safe. Not too sure about the calibre thing though.

John

I,m with you on the backstop/safe shot issue,there are guys on here who just love being pedants and finding fault seems to be a national pastime with self proclaimed experts.It was a scene shot for TV airing on the channel pure and simple.You have to take it at face value NOT start ripping it apart with glee.If it were left to some folks we would have nothing to watch at all never mind the paltry wee bit that is available to us.Evryone and his dog has his own views on calibre choice!!! As far as I can see, if it does the deed then use it,don't go around worrying if this or if that.That kind of thinking leads to overgunned hunting for everything.As far as I am concerned shooting Tiny little deer with expanding ammo from a cartridge so powerfull that it expands to fully twice its original size, before ripping through the animals body and out the other side taking with it a mass of tissue and leaving a massive trauma is far too much gun for the job.That is not a Humane kill that is butchery on the move.
And as for folks picking fault with safety proceedures well if they were followed around with a camera and given an outline script to stick to I bet we all could find fault with some of the things they would be doing too.Despite what they proclaim they actually practice,I would wager that there will be slips of concentration and lapses in good practice from them too.
There are NO perfect Human Beings we all will and often do err.

 

[norma 308]

that glads got a bit of a flinch on him

i thought that too much shooting canons,in africa and the states and the world lucky bast==d

 

[musgrave dave]

If that had been a witnessed level 2 stalk it would have been over before it began, unsafe loading of rifle barrel in the air at 3 minutes in. Take that certificate and shred it.

 

[Ian Harford]

The camera angle was decieving - there was indeed a safe backstop beyond the willow. You can't always tell how the shot will look while filming.

 

[Ian Harford]

If that had been a witnessed level 2 stalk it would have been over before it began, unsafe loading of rifle barrel in the air at 3 minutes in. Take that certificate and shred it.

Ha ha! That's funny! Look carefully and you will see me "under loading" the rifle! That means no cartridge in the barrel i.e. unloaded. Level 2 Witness indeed

 

[Ian Harford]

No wonder they didn't show the gralloch on the young buck - nicely gut shot

Er, I don't think so! Replay it in slow-mo and you'll see... Also, that was the old doe you saw being shot (no antlers gives it away) look towards the end of the film and you'll see the exit wound...

 

[fatbloke]

Well I really enjoy watching Fieldsports Britain I look forward to every Wednesday.

Cannot say I have seen anything dodgy when you consider camera angles etc.

Browsing this forum I have seen much worse seeming breaches of safety on various video clips but as the makers of these are long standing members of this site it is brushed off as camera angle etc.
There seems to be a little nepotism and hypocrisy at times I a certain if the Fieldsports Britain team were long time forum members there would be a whole crop of clingons jumping to their defense and blowing sunshine up there arses.

 

[Taff]

Ian /fatbloke don,t take it to heart most posters don,t shoot there guns very often

 

[deerwarden]

Nice one, the guy in question answers all his critics, now there's silence, as said by those who know all and nothing, camera angles lie, in other words as said by those who have been there, done it, and said it, only looking through the lens see's the whole picture. Ian welcome to the cooking pot. deerwarden

 

[matt_hooks]

Ian, welcome to the site, and thanks for answering the critics.

dw, I am happy to be disproved, and I absolutely realise that what the camera shows is not necessarily the whole story. I did not question the shot on the doe, as has been pointed out the camera angle and the "view through the scope" are often two very separate things.

I did spot the underloading, hence my silence on the "loading it whilst pointing at the sky"

My only point was the failure to unload/check clear when crossing the fence. If the stalker had received the weapon he should have been shown it clear, and as it's such an important part of gun safety I think the editing could have reflected that fact. I understand that the flow is important, but when dealing with something that is going to be criticized left right and centre, by non-shooting types as well as shooters, the safety aspect MUST be emphasized if we are not to give people the idea that we are gung ho, go out and shoot everything in sight types but rather responsible and highly risk averse individuals who are governed by strict rules of safety and animal welfare.

 

[Ian Harford]

Nice one, the guy in question answers all his critics, now there's silence, as said by those who know all and nothing, camera angles lie, in other words as said by those who have been there, done it, and said it, only looking through the lens see's the whole picture. Ian welcome to the cooking pot. deerwarden

Thanks very much! Looking forward to sharing my experiences with y'all!

 

[fatbloke]

Matt get in the real world with rifle handling many people would cross a broken fence like the one in this weeks FB and most people who are stalking together will pass a bombed up rifle to your mate cross the obstacle then have both bombed up rifles over to him before his mate crosses thats what happens on a daily basis in the real world.

Changing state is far more prone to result in an ND than correct handling of weapons.

 

[howa243]

I would have thought the issue as not that it was or wasnt a safe shot or poor handling because the only people who can tell were there. The question surely is whether it makes sense to broadcast it when it looks unsafe. Unless of course the film makers (rather like some on youtube) dont care. If they d, then a little bit of editing would make it look rather better than it did.

 

[gelert]

To be Fair, FS Channel have been chastised recently on her e for various things, and in my opinion they will do more for shooting than some of us ever can, purely by bringing it to the general publics perceptions and silencing the stereotypes and the way they conduct themselves on national television.
If someone watched me drawing plans I’m sure they would find something wrong with what I did.
We as a shooting community who share a common interest should not be so quick to rip some of the things they do, we should be supporting them for giving us a channel worth watching that’s long overdue.
Yes some of the things aired are tongue in cheek, pointing of the N/V last week, seemingly unsafe shots etc. and we should take it with a pinch of salt, but the truth is I would like to think that they would never jeopardise the name of shooting and above all the safety of others by putting their image first, and of course as mentioned the camera angles can be deceiving.