I just read part of the thread 'Big Bore Rifles Why?'

One of the points mentioned, I don't understand. Someone was outraged at the idea of a rifle proficiency test. I don't have a problem with that. Kinda like the idea. I'm tired of seeing folks who don't know their equipment, they do pose a danger to others.
IMO if your afraid of qualifing you need to stay home!

I'm a gun control advocate, hit where you aim!

Probably get bashed for this statement, but I really don't mind .

Probably a lot of us wouldn't be against a reasonable and provably necessary proficiency test, but don't trust the people who would be the loudest in demanding it, i.e. tree-huggers and bambi-lovers who don't hunt anyway.

The question is "Who gets to make up the test?"

Safety? Seems reasonable.

Marksmanship?

What about a guy with a brand new 3000 turbo supreme MaxMagnum with a 24X scope who wants to "try" long range hunting on opening day, and he can put 3 rounds into 2 inches.

Does he pass?

After him comes an old codger with a Winchester 94 with open sights - he won't take a shot unless it's within 50 yards. But at 100 yards, his group is 6 inches.

Does he fail?

Rick.

How do they conduct these proficiency tests in the European countries that require them?

rick3foxes,
The long range shooter is fine but only if he is using SMK's. Anything else and he will lose that long range accuracy/energy he needs.

Todd E

[This message has been edited by Todd E (edited 03-13-2002).]

Todd:

But would that still be "hunting", or just "shooting"?

(Let's see if we can get this one over 1,000 posts...)

Rick.
(grinnin', duckin', and runnin'...)

To qualify for big game hunting in Norway, you have to pass the following test.

First, 30 traing shots with any big game rifle spread over at least two days.
Means, you can�t shoot the training shots and the test the same day.

The test is 5 shots at a full scale raindeer figure/target at 100 m.
All 5 shots must sit inside a 30 cm circle wich is not visible from the shooting line.The circle duplicate the hart/lung area on the raindeer.

You have to take the test with all the rifles you plan to hunt with. You can shoot prone, stitting or standing with support of a sling, but not from a bench or with some other solid support.

If you pass, you got the stamp in your hunting licence card and are ready for the woods.

If you fail you can make another pass, or come back another day.

The reason for the 30 training shots is to force those who seldom wisit a shooting range, to do a minimum of training.

The test it self is to make sure that the hunter know that his rifle hit where it�s aimed.

The test is conducted by authorised hunting or shooting clubs, that is spread all over the country.

It�s not foolproof by any means, but at least it make all those lazy buggers to visit the range, fire 30 training shots, and qualifie with 5 shots.

I belive the Finns have a more demanding test, shooting at a running moose target.

Arild

I've seen all kinds of idiots at the range, from those who shoot while others are downrange to those who, being downrange while bullets fly by, don't object to it.

A proficiency test won't solve any of these problems. Its not a question of hitting what they aim at, but rather hitting things they did not aim at. So, from the standpoint of safety, a proficiency test makes no sense.

Hunting regulations is another matter altogether and I have no objection to this. In fact I think it ought to be enforced as strictly as the hunter safety education rules along with declaration of what weapons and ammunition one intends to use. The regs are on the books but its an honor system. Making people turn out and demonstrate will get some dumb choices weeded out or at least warned against early.

I sympathize with rick3foxes argument. The Finnish running moose is just as unfair in my view. I won't shoot a running moose, so why should I be graded that way? Some kind of reason needs to be applied and government bureaucracies are not famous for making complete sense.

But this isn't a 2nd Amendment question, so all you rights activists out there don't even think about getting in a stew about a proficiency requirement on that basis. It may well be a pain in the neck and you might argue that it annoys you more than you think its worth to prevent wounded game, but its not an infringement of any "right" that you own. Game is a state regulated natural resource. You have no rights to hunt game whatsoever. We receive privileges to do so in a cooperative program of conservation. Hasn't got a thing to do with native rights. What cave men did 100,000 years ago isn't relevant to our situation. Maybe that's too bad, but its reality.

In Sweden we have a few practical tests as well as theoretical. All these must be passed by new hunters before they can obtain a license for a hunting weapon.

For a shot-gun license:
- Safe handling of the weapon
- Ability to judge distance
- Shooting clay-pigeons (4 hits of 6 like trap but double shots allowed)
- Shooting small running target (2 shots, both hits)at 22 yards

For a rifle license:
- Safe handling of the weapon
- Shooting with support (4 shots, all hits within 5 inches) at 90 yards
- Shooting from field position (4 shots, all hits within 7 inches) at 90 yards

For a big game rifle you must also take the "running moose" test. 12 shots total, first shot on standing and second on running moose figure. (You shoot in series of 4 shots). Distance is 90 yards and you must hit the heart/lung-area with all shots.

We don't have a regulation that you must take any of these tests after you have your license but many hunters are required by their hunting-teams to take the "running-moose" test every year.

[This message has been edited by Wachtel (edited 03-13-2002).]

Who cares what they do in Europe? There was a war back in the 1770s that declared the fact that we did not agree with European, or British rule!

I don't see amything about European, or British law that would be good to immulate! There the game has always belonged to the aristacrate, and the rules were designed to exclude the poor man, and I see no reason to start that crap here!

I have no problem with shooting safety courses, or youth shooting programs, but the fact that a person can hit a paper target at 400 yds, doesn't make him safe, or a good hunter. The fact that he is a good hunter, doeasn't make him safe. The simple fact is, the less the government is involved in the private lives of the citizens of the good old USA, the better. We have game laws, and as long as they are abided by, nothing else is needed IMO!

As someone above said "who is going to make these rules for the rest of us to live by?" The government is eaten up with lay about animal rights dim wits now, are they the ones who will decide if I can hunt or not?

<<<<<<<< I VOTE NO! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

------------------
..Mac >>>===(x)===>
also DUGABOY1
DUGABOY DESIGNS
Collector/trader of fine double rifles, and African wildlife art

Mac your starting to sound hard cord on this. could you have changed your moderate stripes. My the way I argee with you 100% we don't need any shooting test.

MacD37- The idea behind the shooting tests in Europe/Sweden isn't for safety reasons but for ensuring the hunter's ability to shoot straight, in other words less wounded game. It is also the reason that Swedish hunters are on average excellent marksmen.
This test wouldn't work in North America. The number of hunters in the field would drop by over 50% since at least that many can't shoot worth a shit. It's called lack of practice.

Nobody wants to hear the truth however, so I'm sure to catch hell for this one!

Perhaps it's about time we begin to view hunting in general as a privilege, not a right.

[This message has been edited by bearguide (edited 03-16-2002).]

Bearguide- the day that "hunting is a privelidge, not a right" dawns, is the day that the government mandarins and their spitlicking lackeys will be the only ones allowed to hunt. The governments on this continent (and I don't care who's, their all guilty) have no use for individual rights and would much rather see them done away with. It would make their job of thinking for the great "simple" majority so much easier. Do i think that hunters need more practice? Yes. Should the government be involved? No way! Anything the government touches it screws up. - Dan

The best our tests can do is to enlighten some, how much training they need.
What the test do not do is guarantee that every hunter is safe or proficient with their choice of rifles. Thanks to a conscript army most hunters are trained in safe gun handling, but once you exchange that FN-FNC or G3 all knowledge goes to hell.
Within my first year of hunting we had a hunter walking up to where I and a few others of the team were talking , he suddenly remembered to unload his rifle.
He was struggling with that bolt for a good five minutes ( I was finishing my cig) only good thing about the situation was that he kept it pointed away from us into the ground.
When i thought that the situation was embarrassing enough, I said " Maybe that bolt will be easier to work if You take the safety off?"
My first and last Moose hunt.

Never surrender Your freedom !

I'll crawl back down under my rock now.

//Jens

MacD37
By all means...!!!
There was no suggestion to introduse Europeian laws in the US of A, just an answer to a simple question from Todd E.

By the way...laws in Europe differ quite a bit regarding gun ownership an hunting, and I for one, can do wery well without some of the British and continetal laws.

The game in Norway belonge to the land owners wich in most cases are regular farmers, and to the state (government land ).

There is no artistocracy in my country, not a single Earl or Lord.
But lots of honest workers, both blue and white collars, who can hit the woods each fall and enjoy the spell and the age old gun and hunting culture we still have.
Best regards Arild