Marksmanship Standards

So I was at a range today that shall remain nameless as it's not about the range but the shooters. It is primarily used by stalkers and vermin shooters. I have a pretty miserable view of stalkers shooting abilities generally but after today I have to question the availability of a FAC without a firearms competency test.

The target area is surrounded by a 5'+ square of timber which was peppered with bullet holes. Some very large bullet holes. Not ones that are being shot at bunnies. Fortunately for them, the shooters are nameless but such was the number of negligent discharges (3' 4' and maybe even more, cannot be considered anything else) that these people represent a danger to the rest of us, either physically or that they do something like that out stalking and somebody catches a bullet with the inevitable firearms law review.

Clearly these people don't know (or perhaps care) about bore sighting a rifle and don't know what to do if a shot does not appear on the target.

I hear all the stuff about maintaining our freedoms so no compulsory training, tests etc however after that today I am afraid I have changed my mind. Freedoms only survive if people are responsible enough to make sure they are competent and operate safely. Clearly not everybody is, or cares, and that is the environment where more legislation will appear eventually.

I now am coming to the view that the DSC1 shooting test is inadequate. It should include mounting and zeroing a scope with bore sighting. That is a basic skill. I am also coming the view that if DSC2 is supposed to demonstrate competence then it should include shooting test to a much higher level ie out to 300 yards prone and equivalent off sticks etc. At the moment you can whack a deer at 50 yards and are deemed be fully competent. Eh naw.

Most of you will disagree with me, but you did not see what I did. If someone was shooting like that on a range with me I would be off home quick.

 

[SimpleSimon]

I do find it a bit weird that there is no test of knowledge or competency required to obtain a firearms certificate, and I'm perhaps in an unpopular group by saying I would support the introduction of such a requirement.
Ever hear somebody describe having done something totally illegal or in breach of accepted good practice purely because nobody ever told them not to do it? I certainly have.

HOWEVER

The rest of the OP is hard to agree with. Even if you've boresighted you still don't really know where your very first rounds are going to go before your scope is zeroed. Likewise if you're trying offhand or open sight shooting for the first time. Especially if like many people, you'll put several targets on the board at once.

What about people who are testing different ammunition to determine POI?

What about if someone has a brain-fart and forgot to re-dial their scope, or dialled it and forgets how to re-set the zero, or their scope is faulty?

There's a reason why the backstop at formal ranges is always much bigger than the target. So that you can miss without fear of the consequences.

Besides, as has already been said nobody gets better at anything by not doing it. Would you go to the clay ground and slag off everyone who doesn't hit every one and call it an ND?

 

[samdk]

Maybe. I am being deliberately obtuse so it is hard to identify the place.

I call a 3' miss above a target at 100 yards a negligent discharge. You may disagree. A 5' miss is definitely an ND. You can workout the MILS yourself. Repeated misses of 3' are a series of ND's.

Negligent discharge is the unintentional firing of weapon. Missing a target by 3’ or 5’ is not a negligent discharge as it was an intentional, conscious firing in a safe direction.

However, a miss of that much is unsafe and is avoided by bore sighting and basic rifle knowledge, as you say. Training would ensure people had this information so I agree with you on that.

 

[muddy42]

Negligent discharge is the unintentional firing of weapon. Missing a target by 3’ or 5’ is not a negligent discharge as it was an intentional, conscious firing in a safe direction.

However, a miss of that much is unsafe and is avoided by bore sighting and basic rifle knowledge, as you say. Training would ensure people had this information so I agree with you on that.

You mean un-intentional?

 

[Triggermortis]

What’s a pretentious bugger of a post….if people want to shoot deer at 50 yards - so what? Nothing at all wrong with that and it takes probably more skill to get within that range than it does to plug a deer at 250-300 yards.

Are you saying because people hit a frame it was a negligent discharge?

Regards,
Gixer

I recently bought a rifle specifically because I want to shoot deer at closer ranges, it has open sights, an Enfield .303, nothing wrong with stalking in as close as possible.

 

[Jagare]

I posted a thread about the marksmanship of rifle shooters on SD many years ago. When I did the Forrunner of the DSC1 the standard of shooting was abysmal apart from a few people there. I was a member of a small rifle and pistol club when I lived in the UK and again there were a few good shots, some reasonable shots and those that were rubbish shots. There were a few who spent every range day chaseing shots round the target and twiddling knobs on their scope and those that would never hit a barn door all the time they had a hole in their arse.
Here in Sweden we have a compulsory hunting test before you can get a hunting weapon. this test involves weapon knowledge, safety and passing a three part shooting test. Even though we have the hunting test I've seen some abysmal shooting and weapon knowledge down the range.
I like to think I'm a competent shot and over the years I've put in a fair bit of practice to keep my shooting standard up.

 

[samdk]

You mean un-intentional?

I meant unintentional, which is what I put!?

 

[cjm1066]

Load development, zeroing a scope lots of reasons for shots away from your target.

3-4 negligent discharges, was their a RCO present, did you raise your issues with the organisor?

 

[Ronin]

There is a case for a mandatory shooting skills test

Example such as this post certainly highlight this and it emphasises the need to practice - regularly and seek training of skills fall below what’s required

Did the OP raise the incidences of ND to the RCO or been in contact with the Club Secretary afterwards to highlight ?

 

[bogtrotter]

I recently bought a rifle specifically because I want to shoot deer at closer ranges, it has open sights, an Enfield .303, nothing wrong with stalking in as close as possible.

That's why it's called stalking.

 

[topscots1]

Maybe. I am being deliberately obtuse so it is hard to identify the place.

I call a 3' miss above a target at 100 yards a negligent discharge. You may disagree. A 5' miss is definitely an ND. You can workout the MILS yourself. Repeated misses of 3' are a series of ND's.

Your use of the term Negligent Discharge is a little off, the individual fired the weapon intentionally and as in your example the rounds all travelled in the RDA template. This seems like an intentional shot, you don’t mention the range these shots were fired at. I’ll assume 100 Y/M where a shot with a POI 5-6 yards from the POA , does seem a little off. Did you check the target board before hand to ensure the holes in the frame were not there before.

I will use one frame with a multitude of targets dots to check zero if I take all my rifles to the range.

Bore-sighting does not guarantee an A3 size fall of shot unless done correctly, the use of the correct bore sight chart for the calibre and scope, taking in to consideration a scope height above bore and conducted at the correct range for that calibre and set up.

Simply swagging your bore and Point of aim on to a target screen has its own points of failure.


I will agree there are some terrible shots out in the world of stalking.

 

[bogtrotter]

Wouldn't call that a ND just poor shooting
I've seen plenty.poor shooting in sixty.years of shooting but no more than a handful of NDs
We had an iron stag that all clients had to shoot at before being allowed to go to the hill
It was set at 150 yards the firing position was deliberately uncomfortable as that was what they would most likely encounter when it came to the real thing .
That stag was peppered by bullets from the tip of it's nose to it's ar@e poor shooting yes
ND, no in most cases it was nerves pure and simple brought on by the thought of the task ahead and being under the watchful eye of the pro.
Also some of the target type shooters complained that they couldn't shoot from such a poor firing position( it wasn't that bad) you were lying on rough surface on a slight incline
While it's good to be able to shoot out to 300 yards or further it's not necessary for stalking yes practice by all means but limit your distance to what you.csn hit consistently if you can put your shots in 3, inch circle at a 100 yards it's good enough for stalking..
The skill is getting close enough to make.a clean kill what ever that distance is for you
It's stalking you are not a sniper which some
target shooters seem to forget.

 

[finnbear270]

Being able to keyhole on a target @ 100/200 yds does not automatically mean the same level of accuracy on a beastie on the hill, I’m always wary of clients who show great paper target displays.

Keyhole my friend is "shooter speak" for a projectile that is miserably unstable, passing through the target sideways ish, leaving a "Key hole " instead of a circular hole.

 

[gixer1]

Wouldn't call that a ND just poor shooting
I've seen plenty.poor shooting in sixty.years of shooting but no more than a handful of NDs
We had an iron stag that all clients had to shoot at before being allowed to go to the hill
It was set at 150 yards the firing position was deliberately uncomfortable as that was what they would most likely encounter when it came to the real thing .
That stag was peppered by bullets from the tip of it's nose to it's ar@e poor shooting yes
ND, no in most cases it was nerves pure and simple brought on by the thought of the task ahead and being under the watchful eye of the pro.
Also some of the target type shooters complained that they couldn't shoot from such a poor firing position( it wasn't that bad) you were lying on rough surface on a slight incline
While it's good to be able to shoot out to 300 yards or further it's not necessary for stalking yes practice by all means but limit your distance to what you.csn hit consistently if you can put your shots in 3, inch circle at a 100 yards it's good enough for stalking..
The skill is getting close enough to make.a clean kill what ever that distance is for you
It's stalking you are not a sniper which some
target shooters seem to forget.

Spot on…

 

[Klenchblaize]

I lay the blame firmly on the ill-considered choice of scope rings & mounts.

K

 

[Dunwaters]

Maybe. I am being deliberately obtuse so it is hard to identify the place.

I call a 3' miss above a target at 100 yards a negligent discharge. You may disagree. A 5' miss is definitely an ND. You can workout the MILS yourself. Repeated misses of 3' are a series of ND's.

Its not the shooters.

What you are highlighting here is DANGEROUSLY INADEQUATE RANGE PROCEDURES.

It needs to be urgently addressed before you have a round miss the back stop completely.

Where I shoot ALL rifles have to be proved to be adequately sighted in before you can enter the 100M range.
You check zero at 25M and 50M, at those ranges you can easily spot your hits and adjust accordingly.
Bore sighting just isn’t adequate, safe or sufficient preparation to shoot at 100M.

 

[baguio]

Laughing at people who are shooting poorly on the range surely constitutes the same as mocking a fat bloke who has bothered their arse to go to the gym to do something about it?

If more of these ‘experts’ actually passed on their knowledge instead of standing back and judging those less capable the world may be a better place.

Only, they're not allowed to pass on their knowledge. Especially on here! People get offended when anyone tries to teach anyone anything these days. "I've been doing this all my life, how dare you tell me that I'm wrong" The person with knowledge gets shot down and told that they're talking horlicks. They get called 'experts' as in your post. There are no experts. It's a fact that some know more than others and some a lot more than others. No one was laughing at anyone. You're making that bit up to suite your agenda.
I'm sorry but you and many other have gone down exactly the same route as the OP. Who is wrong or is it the case of 'you started it so it's alright for me to start abusing you'?
This could have been a good discussion but I knew it wouldn't be because this is the SD.

 

[Bowland blades]

Really do think this might be one of the worst things i have read on here . In my life i have been a competitive rifle shooter in many disciplines and i have taken numerous good target shooters out for their first deer, fox, rabbits etc , lets just say no matter what they have achieved on the target field forget it as the skills seem to go all to heck when they are onto quarry, very easy shots are screwed up . No RO can also be factor in safety matters in a sport where having one in the chamber or certainly rounds under the bolt when moving about is the norm. You seriously need to watch and observe closely. Explain and demonstrate what is" Under the bolt " and what is "chambered" in particular!!!
Assessing a safe shot is not something a target shooter does and they never have a round chambered until the RO says so
Remember many have never shot without bags / rests / bipods and other aids and do not let them take the longer shots they say they can until gradually proved they can under field conditions . Make damb sure you carry your rifle along because if they make a wounding shot they can panic enough to clean miss a broadside Elephant!

 

[C h r i s]

They were maybe shooting the frame on purpose if it’s just a wooden frame…

Actually Gixer1 might not be too far from the truth, people pin targets to the outer edges of the frame (although generally shouldn't of course), people using LBPs or cap and ball revolvers can easily miss by 3 or 4 foot at 100yds but so what, if all shot are well within the backstop, that's what its there for. Probably wasn't worth the OPs time raising this on a public forum as an issue, its just something else the anti's can grab hold of and use against us - after all, a range is supposed to be a "safe place", lets not insinuate that its anything other than that.

 

[C h r i s]

Really do think this might be one of the worst things i have read on here .

Yes, so why's it here on a public forum.... .we need some common sense.

Anything unsafe should have been dealt with at the time, not on here behind a keyboard FFS.

 

[TH4]

It seems not to occur to the OP that a lot of people put stick on targets all over the backing board so that they have multiple targets. When these are removed it looks like someone has been missing the centre by miles but actually they were spot on where the target was.