When I did my DSC1 the instructors asked at the first coffee break if anybody had did not have their own centre fire rifle, four candidates put up their hands. A session was arranged after the theory that day where they where taken to the range to practice with a .243 Estate rifle. All of them were from a county where the FAO insisted on DSC1 prior to approval of a centre fire rifle. As I had given one of them a lift from the B&B I went with them, just as well, as one was left handed and couldn't hit the target, offered the use of my LH 6.5x55 and he hit the bull at each position. Everybody passed the shooting test but several candidates failed the safety section!
Pre DSC 1 shooting skills training
- Thread starter Ronin
- Start date
There are many holders of DSC1 and DSC2 who subsequently fail the FC skills test on safety grounds I believe
And the FC are the be all and end all I suppose, they could take a lesson or two on awarding lease’s as far as I can see.
Not saying that FC are perfect at all but my dealings with them have always showed them to be very professional in all respects. What I am saying is that a lot of experienced people who present themselves for assessment fail because they have become complacent or because the ability to shoot was poor. At the risk of derailing a thread, what lesson should they learn on awarding leases?
I found it to be a clique set up, & with left overs of grounds.
Forestry Commission
Alastair Boston
Well-Known Member
But really should be FE = Forestry England !
I don’t see what that has to do with failing a skills test for FE ( correction duly noted!!) or any other organisation that requires skills testing. As with all tenders, someone will get it and the rest won’t. That’s life, if you fail move on…. At the end of the day the tenders are given to the candidates who have performed the best through the process. So are you suggesting that the leases should be given out to the less capable candidates who can’t pass the test or who don’t fulfill the requirements? Not sure that makes much sense…
Well I have started many guys off with a little shooting instruction and handling . Never charged a penny though , why ? Because a few guys helped me out when I started and charged me nothing at all !
Time to put it back and pass it on for more of us and screw the money ! It's a debt that many of us need to pull our fingers out and return
Time to put it back and pass it on for more of us and screw the money ! It's a debt that many of us need to pull our fingers out and return
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Really?I can't honestly believe that you are suggesting that it's perfectly acceptable to give a complete novice a gun and ammunition and say just get on with it. That's just plain potty.
How old are you? Because that’s exactly what used to happen ( and probably still does in a lot of cases ). Little Nimrod got hold of a .22 or an air rifle and learned the basics, maybe under supervision, maybe not. As his or her ambitions progressed they moved up to more powerful ordnance and larger game.
Damn few of us lost an eye despite all the dire warnings.
The current insistence that everything is certified and overseen is just that, a current fad that has little or no real world impact.
You can ask BASC for the accident statistics over the last 3 or 4 decades and check for yourself. We were always a fairly safe bunch in comparison to just about any other group you care to mention.
8x57
Distinguished Member
With all due respect that isn't exactly what used to happen. I like many others of my age started off with an air rifle but was only allowed to use it in the garden after strict instruction and initially close supervision from my father. He had gained the majority of his training and experience in the army and while he no longer held any interest in shooting saw that it was his responsibility to ensure that I got the correct start. I then progressed via both the ATC and Army cadets and later on in military service plus 45+ years of civilian shooting (both target and game). Kids these days are simply not not getting that development process and progression. For instance ow often have you met a young shooter that doesn't know how to zero a rifle, or how to use open sights.
As for "accidents" involving firearms including air rifles, yes we may pride ourselves, perhaps mistakenly, on a relatively low incident rate but I personally know of several fatalities locally as a result of poor gun handling and several incidents (near misses sometimes) where damage has occurred but has gone unreported. Two of those incidents in very recent years resulted in the deaths of two young boys who had gained access to air rifles. There was also a case reported in the local paper only just this week where a guy shot a work colleague in the face at a place of work. His defense was that he was showing the gun to another workmate as he was trying to sell it. He told the court that the gun had just been returned to him by the police after it being seized from his pal who could no longer hold a SGC and he alleged that the gun was returned with a cartridge still loaded in it. To my mind his defense was quite unbelievable, none the less why hadn't he cleared the gun when he received it from the police and why was he pointing it at someone in the first place. He received a two year sentence which to my view was extremely lenient.
redirect.viglink.com
So I think there is a definite training need with regard to introducing novice shooters to all shooting sports.
I've absolutely no desire for any further restrictions on firearms and have been resolutely opposed to any compulsory firearms training up until a few years ago. Then after witnessing too many instances of poor gun handling I changed my mind completely.
As for "accidents" involving firearms including air rifles, yes we may pride ourselves, perhaps mistakenly, on a relatively low incident rate but I personally know of several fatalities locally as a result of poor gun handling and several incidents (near misses sometimes) where damage has occurred but has gone unreported. Two of those incidents in very recent years resulted in the deaths of two young boys who had gained access to air rifles. There was also a case reported in the local paper only just this week where a guy shot a work colleague in the face at a place of work. His defense was that he was showing the gun to another workmate as he was trying to sell it. He told the court that the gun had just been returned to him by the police after it being seized from his pal who could no longer hold a SGC and he alleged that the gun was returned with a cartridge still loaded in it. To my mind his defense was quite unbelievable, none the less why hadn't he cleared the gun when he received it from the police and why was he pointing it at someone in the first place. He received a two year sentence which to my view was extremely lenient.
Gunman blinded best friend after blasting him in the face at work
A GUNMAN who blinded his best friend after shooting him in the face with a semi-automatic weapon has been jailed.
redirect.viglink.com
So I think there is a definite training need with regard to introducing novice shooters to all shooting sports.
I've absolutely no desire for any further restrictions on firearms and have been resolutely opposed to any compulsory firearms training up until a few years ago. Then after witnessing too many instances of poor gun handling I changed my mind completely.
I have looked down the end of too many shotgun barrels when beating, and heard too many shots passing through the hedge. And in many instances the paying gun is not reprimanded.
I think there is a complacency about safety partly encouraged by an attitude resistant to regulation, and partly encouraged by the “The antis are all against us…so I am not going to do what I am told”. Care and responsibility towards others is somewhere lower down the list.
But we get the same arrogant attitude from qualified drivers whether they are the undertakers, the tailgaters or the lane hoggers I guess.
The same attitude towards others, but combined with ignorance of basic safe gun handling or of the Highway Code cannot be preferable.
Alan
LarryLightFoot
Well-Known Member
Following on from my fist post in this thread, I started out like most people with an air rifle, then on to shot guns and this was my daily tool as a trainee keeper my boss and mentor always impressed on me safety and being on driven shoots both lowland and moorland grouse with paying guns safety was ever present in my mind . I was finally allowed to shoot a .243 after some .22 RF experience and once I had proved I could group that was a small milestone but I only ever got to take one shot on a Charlie whilst it was successful, my boss always took the shots and I lamped out the passenger window always observing handling and procedure etc. As I mentioned before that was many years ago, so whilst I have safety etched in my mind and can zero a scope without issue successfully, I haven’t shouldered a CF for a while unless you count an AK47 in the same category a few years back state side . Applying what I know regards safety, breathing, body posture in prone position, how to use sticks etc is all good, I was merely suggesting that a session on a CF larger bore in order to reacquaint myself with said discipline would be appreciated, but not a deal breaker when it comes to sitting my practical on the DSC1 . Common sense and a calm approach is no bad thing .
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
There are 2 types of “ certificates of proficiency “ and one of them is a waste of paper.
A cert which confirms only that the person has completed a course is a total waste of time and only serves as a potential shield against litigation.
A cert which states that a person has completed a course, passed a formal assessment and achieved the required standard is a different qualification.
We are currently bedevilled with lots of certifications that confirm solely that you rocked up on the day, not that you’ve actually learned anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
No certificate guarantees that the qualified person will follow the training or education they have been given in the future, even if they have passed a formal assessment to a required standard.
But there is a huge difference between relying solely on common sense as you seem to be suggesting, and relying on common sense informed by the body of knowledge about handling guns safely which has been built up over generations. That body of knowledge and experience is what I feel is worth passing on to every wannabe gun owner. Save them reinventing the wheel each time.
The OP’s suggestion is a way of doing just that. He has been talking about providing training and information and not about providing a certificate.
Alan
I am a blacksmith and I have been designing and making all the burners and furnace bodies for my Propane gas forges since the seventies...totally un-certificated but qualified by experience. But when it came to having a Propane Gas fired Rayburn plumbed in to our previous house I thought I ought to have it done by a Corgi qualified installer.
He did the job, gave me a Corgi Registered Installer's Certificate and drove away. Shortly after he left I smelt gas, and traced it to three of his soldered copper pipe joints.
My choice was then to either call back an incompetent, though qualified Corgi engineer, or effect the repairs myself and sleep easy clutching my Corgi Gas Registered Installer's signed-off Certificate....a difficult decision.
Alan
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Correct, no certificate guarantees anything.
But a certificate based on a set syllabus and a formal assessment process should ensure that the students have at least attained a basic level of competency and knowledge which has been tested and confirmed.
An uncertified course is just that, uncertified, it means nothing.
And a course that concludes with the presentation of a “ Course completion certificate “ is a waste of time and money because if there’s no assessment, there can be no failure.
If everyone is guaranteed to pass why bother?
Similar threads
Available:
DSC Lev 1 Course - Central Scotalnd
