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.

 

[spanj]

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.

I think you need to look up the definition of a ND. What you have described is either poor markmanship or people practicing hold over / under.

FWIW & IMO ranges are places where people practice with the aim (see what i did there ) of improving their shooting. Nobody is born an expert.

 

[Merlyn]

When teaching someone to shoot you take them to a very safe area.
These safe areas are called shooting ranges.
People learning to shoot nearly all flinch at some time.
Bad flinching makes you miss the target by a long way.
It is not a negligent discharge.
It is learning to shoot.

 

[StephenJD]

Now I have read your post through I have a better understanding of your point.
I am surprised that some people are taking DSC1 without having some previous experience. I had been deer stalking 7 or 8 years before I took my DSC1 and I was very lucky to be stalking with a guy who was AW and was always happy to share his knowledge with me and it was this guy who told me to put in for my DSC1.

While I agree in principle, the reality is that a lot of people are unable to acquire an FAC without having attended DSC1 first these days (and we can debate the rights and wrongs of that another time!) So it can be tricky to get meaningful practice in before the course itself if not a member of a club.

I do think that the organisations running the courses could do a better job of managing the expectations of those attending / signposting them to opportunities to get some practice in beforehand.

That being said, the organisation who ran my course do offer a one day “pre-DSC1” course which I went on about a month before I did the main course a few years ago. While I’m sure it’ll come in for criticism as an opportunity for said organisation to milk those new to stalking out of their hard earned (and perhaps, cynically, it is), I personally found it really useful: I got to try out the “estate” rifles that we’d use on the day and get some coaching on shooting off sticks, which I was doing for the first time. And all of this was on the range and with the same instructors that we’d have for the assessment itself so, even just removing the psychological “fear of the unknown” element was worth it in my book.

 

[User00039]

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.

I understand the point you are making but I have disagree slightly about it not being the range!
Folk go to a range not just for the availablity of somewhere to shoot but somewhere to shoot safely under relevant instruction/ guidance.
I would of expected the folk that did anything dangerous to reprimanded and that anyone new to the range be tested on the competence for not just safety but accuracy, and assistance given to get them onto the target!. That's just my 2c.

 

[Sime]

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.

 

[JockStalk]

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.

I have a pretty miserable view of many target shooters stalking abilities and to hit anything much at all in field conditions. Particularly when a deer does not stand obligingly like a DSC1 target.
But I’d be a right tugger to go sounding off here about it.

 

[Overlay]

My thoughts are on two very seperate and distinct learning curves first one know your kit shoot your kit get used to and it’s performance, practice and more practice, all this on the range learn and utilise all range style training, particularly the safety aspect. THEN AND ONLY THEN start again on training and getting yourself lined up as a proficient learner stalker, they are both learning curves although they don’t mix - combined they put you on the best side of safety and shot accuracy and in a good spot to kick of your steady stalking career

IMHO you need it all to get you on the right path to start learning about deer and shooting them precisely and humanely

The more you learn and train the better you become