the mismatch between competence and perception

Very interesting and applies to so much more than just shooting. Does go some way towards the benefits of formal testing.
 
who will set the level that is required ? will it be 25mm or a 75mm group size at 100 mts from the standing - sitting- prone- kneeling and maybe from a high seat too. the only reason im asking is that a few on this forum appear to be pushing for a shooting test of some sort . maybe we should have one and I hope that the ones that are allways calling for it can pass it . lets have a 50mm group size as the max that should sort out the ones that are allways blowing there trumpet about it . as good as they think they are I doubt it . some on the fourum need to spend more time out stalking and less time thinking up new tests .
 
and then some careful self examination!

Self-examination is right!

Perhaps we should have mandatory shooting tests?

Shooting tests are also a good idea.

If we combine the idea of shooting tests and self-examination, we end up with responsible stalkers taking their rifle out to do a practice (or test, if you prefer) shoot reasonably often from the field positions that they're likely to be using, and casting the cold eye of self-appraisal on the results.

That seems to me a good idea.

Mandatory pleases me much less. Do we not bear enough impositions of that sort already?
 
Last edited:
who will set the level that is required ? will it be 25mm or a 75mm group size at 100 mts from the standing - sitting- prone- kneeling and maybe from a high seat too. the only reason im asking is that a few on this forum appear to be pushing for a shooting test of some sort . maybe we should have one and I hope that the ones that are allways calling for it can pass it . lets have a 50mm group size as the max that should sort out the ones that are allways blowing there trumpet about it . as good as they think they are I doubt it . some on the fourum need to spend more time out stalking and less time thinking up new tests .

I have thought for a long time that shooting tests are a good idea, however here in Scotland you run into an immediate obstacle. There's nowhere to practice. I shot best when I practiced every week. I don't practice enough as it's very hard to find suitable locations to practice in.

Standards and tests and facilities go hand in hand. Until stalkers have easy access to ranges to practice on, standards won't improve in my opinion. It's very frustrating to see how differently this is tackled in places like Norway and Switzerland.

Regards

JCS
 
What is interesting about this is that someone posts some evidence which may indicate that everyone knows less than they imagine and this provokes an outburst of calls for other people to have to take more tests. As the recent BDS paper indicated that shooting practice was helpful in reducing wounding and missing perhaps it would be more useful if we all simply practiced a little bit? It did, of course, also indicate that stalkers with "qualifications" beyond DSC1 also missed and wounded less but I don't think there is a "formal" shooting test in DSC2 but it almost always involves stalkers with more experience and, perhaps, more practice.

As some may recall there were, some years back, calls for compulsory testing in Scotland and amazingly many people on this forum were keen on this. I did a Freedom of Information request to SNH for the details of proven complaints of animal welfare issues, death through firearms use and death from meat hygiene problems caused by stalkers. (plus a few other things I can't remember, I think) Clearly, if stalkers need more training then there must be clear evidence of a problem. SNH reported that there had never been a single case, to their knowledge, of any of these things.

So, while there are a small minority calling for more testing of this, and more control of that, and more interference in the life and business of the other person it is also important to note that there would appear to be no quantitative support for this and, also, that we all know less than we imagine.
 
Also how do we escape being ripped off in the process of being formally tested - Invariably more regulation / testing means more cash needing to be paid for the privilege of complying.
Chainsaw, Quad & Argo testing etc etc. The cost really adds up & us poor "amateur" sods can't get this paid for by employers etc.
Don't get me wrong I think testing is a good thing for improving competence - we just need it for free!(well nearly!).

Ian
 
I know some people who have to be tested frequently and have to pass those tests to be able to use firearms. The Police. But from recent headlines, it's clear that frequent training and passing tests is no guarantee that things won't go awry.

By far the most important aspect of shooting is safety and responsibility. It's fair to say that practicing shooting will make someone better in that they become more accurate. However, we all can't be super snipers or George Digweed. The important thing is to be aware of one's limitations and shoot accordingly.

I guess that's where the Dunning-Kruger effect comes in. How do you teach someone to accurately assess their own abilities? Tests often are met with many responses for poor performance: "I was unlucky", "I'm better than that" and "I always do worse in tests than in real life" being just three examples that spring to mind.

It is the human condition to think we're better than we are. Perhaps that's what spurs us on though. Is that one of the differences between us and animals, the reason that, as a race, humans develop so quickly?


Phew. Off for a lie down after that.
 
Ah ha....but how many pass..........?

Tim.243

No idea the overall pass rate, everyone on my course passed. It is a new shooting test the FC are doing now, wether it means shooting tenants will have to sit it I'm not sure. If they have to I suspect a good few of them will fail first time round. It is not the DSC shooting test, a lot more to it.

Al
 
No idea the overall pass rate, everyone on my course passed. It is a new shooting test the FC are doing now, wether it means shooting tenants will have to sit it I'm not sure. If they have to I suspect a good few of them will fail first time round. It is not the DSC shooting test, a lot more to it.

Al
Any details?

my issue with testing based in group size as suggested is this is not a test of the shooter accuracy.
It is a test of rifle accuracy.
you can shoot the smallest group you like but if it is in the deer's arse it is not much use!

i think any test should reflect the circumstances that shots are likely to be taken from.
a time limit, a positional element, and something I really like the idea of.....simulated stalk scenarios

whether that involved walking up 500yds of 45deg hill before you put your one shot in a silhouette or walk along a wood road to shoot at a target you have to find before you shoot it.
displays positioning capabilities, timing and breath control.....which all effect accuracy
 
There are some excellent quotes on there that I'm gonna pin on A3 sheets to my office walls, never a truer word was spoken ...

“…incompetent people do not recognize—scratch that, cannot recognize—just how incompetent they are,”

“the more incompetent you are, the more knowledgeable you think you are.”

Magic !! :rofl:
 
Back
Top