Firearms Course Query

ironclaw

Hi Folks,

First time shooting poster, so this might be completely wrong, advance apologises! However, I'm from a country background and there was shooting in the family. I never took to it myself but now I thinking of trying some target shooting mainly rifles and possibly clays. I heard that there is a new draft coming in that may require applicants to pass a course before they can apply for a full license.

Has anyone heard of that or know of similar courses in Ireland? I know the UK and the US have courses, whether they are mandatory is another matter.

Many Thanks!

ironclaw.

Bananaman

There are many courses you can attend. Regardless of what requirements may be introduced these courses have been on offer through clubs for a number of years and provide a very good grounding in safety and firearms handling and are to be highly recommended, not just for the beginner, but for everyone who owns a firearm.

Personally I know of many Target Shooting Clubs that run safety and handling courses in Shotgun, Rifle & Pistol.

My own Club - Hilltop - Is in Wicklow and regularly run these types of course. (I'm an instructor so biased )

Most of the clubs in the NASRPC run the same or similar courses. There will probably be one near you.

The NARGC also run courses - more game shooting oriented I assume - but I have no experience of those. Lots of NARGC lads on here to provide more info on that.

I'm sure there are plenty more.

Where in the country are you?

B'Man

cavan shooter

first of all welcome,

The requirement to do a course is there already and various different associations have them. If you are going for target shooting (rifle) then a proficiency course in relation to same might be for you, where you can get hands on experience. The target lads will point you in that direction, Will this course make you proficient

---

NO, but it gives you the basics for becoming safe.

Do yourself a favour and keep away from the 2 hr ppt courses that are floating about, they are a disgrace and only there to make money and realy shouldnt be allowed as they are instilling a false sense of security and only facilitating an applicant in getting a fire arm (shocking):mad:.

Best of luck and enjoy your sport:)

Sparks

Technically, the requirement is not for a course; but to prove competency in handling a firearm. Those who've held licences for some time are deemed to have provided that proof by way of long experience; new applicants have to fulfill the requirement by doing whatever their local superintendent specifies as being acceptable.

So before you do any course for the purposes of fulfilling that requirement, check with your local Superintendent first. There is, as yet, no course which is deemed to fulfill that requirement on a national level.

If, however, you'd just like to do a course to learn, then there are several courses being run by various groups around the country including those mentioned above and others not yet mentioned.

Bananaman

All the curses I have attended (or instructed) are a full day course which includes classroom instruction, introduction to the various forms of the firearm in question, live fire range instruction and a written examination.

Best advice on that one is to ask for a syllabus of the course you are interested in doing. Ask around the club to see who else has done what and which one was worth the money.

It should never be seen as 'something I have to get out of the way to get my license' - if you do not learn something from it - why do it?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

It should never be seen as 'something I have to get out of the way to get my license' - if you do not learn something from it - why do it?

That wasn't my meaning B'man - my point is that all of these courses cost money; and while knowledge is no burden, we're not made of money these days either. So if you're going to do a course to learn the basics, do a course that both teaches you the basics and has been approved by your local Superintendent.

That way, you learn what you need to learn and you don't have to spend the time and money doing multiple courses until you hit one at random that the super has approved.

This would all be a lot simpler if we had a proper standard for a beginner's course, but at the moment we don't; and it's not a simple thing to bring in because if you muck it up, we'll be stuck with monopolies running courses for commercial profit instead of standard tests administered by the PTB and courses run by anyone who wants to, whether for commercial gain or just for love of the sport. There are well-established ISO standards for doing all of this, so we have blueprints; but it's not been done yet.

Until it is done, we should continue to remind people like the OP, whenever this question is asked, that it's down to the local Superintendent what course or courses are deemed acceptable for the purpose of proving competency. Anything less could lead to unethical stuff, like advertising courses as being all that's required, when noone knows whether or not they'll be accepted.

rrpc

Might I suggest to the OP that very first thing he does is find a club near him that will fulfil his requirements from a target shooting point of view. Most clubs will have an induction course for new members and if he's going to join it, there's no point in him going off to do what could possibly be a totally irrelevant course or spending money when he doesn't need to.

When he's done that, the strong chance is that his Superintendent will accept it as 'proof of competence' as it will have been carried out by an authorised club.

We certainly don't want to end up with a de facto acceptance of x course for proof of competence when in many cases it may well be entirely inappropriate. Wasn't a heavily be-medalled WTSC member asked to do an NARGC course for her air rifle license application recently? :eek:

btw that requirement was dropped on further information being supplied I believe.

Sparks

Not sure rrpc, but it wouldn't surprise me. Training budgets in firearms procedures for superintendents appear to have skipped the Meath area...

(and yes, checking with your local club would be the best idea; but you also have to check with the super that that club's induction course is going to be accepted by him...)

bunny shooter

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056036748

Another option

Bananaman

The advice on informing the Super as to what course you plan to take is sound. It is extremely unlikely that they will not accept the course once it has some form of pedigree.

As Sparks said - all of these things cost money - unfortunately that is true - course materials, facilities hire, equipment hire, consumables, potential travel and accommodation for the instructor(s), etc. all cost money.

As was said there is no prescribed course - which in my mind is a good thing - in this country it would only lead to a financially motivated monopoly - but there are plenty of perfectly sound courses you can do.

The courses I (and many more people) run are NRA certified courses (I am an NRA certified Instructor) - so the syllabus was drawn up by the NRA and has been refined over years of running courses throughout the world.
We have done these courses ourselves, have then undergone Instructor training (on how to be an instructor) and then done further courses to be an instructor in each firearm type. We must also periodically renew our instructor rating.

I am sure the other courses have an equally good pedigree and am in no way trying to belittle them or bias your decision making process but am just highlighting that the courses on offer are not some fly by night thing - these are courses designed to give you a good grounding in the safe handling and operation of your particular type of firearm - not tick a box on your application form - hence my advice that even those that have their license could benefit from doing such a course.

B'Man

bunny shooter

An interesting thought ........................ every NCO & Officer in the Permanent Defence Forces, Reserve Defence Forces, Naval Service and Naval Service Reserve are by virtue of their rank deemed by the Minister for Defence to be qualified instructors on a number of weapons. Therefore, could/would/should this prove competence for an applicant? (I know it ACTUALLY comes down to the Supers/ Chief Supers discretion in REALITY)

kildare.17hmr

bunny shooter wrote: »

An interesting thought ........................ every NCO & Officer in the Permanent Defence Forces, Reserve Defence Forces, Naval Service and Naval Service Reserve are by virtue of their rank deemed by the Minister for Defence to be qualified instructors on a number of weapons. Therefore, could/would/should this prove competence for an applicant?

I was told i needed something other than a letter from CO. Didnt mind by the way as it was an afternoon shooting and didnt cost much

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

every NCO & Officer in the Permanent Defence Forces, Reserve Defence Forces, Naval Service and Naval Service Reserve are by virtue of their rank deemed by the Minister for Defence to be qualified instructors on a number of weapons

Er, are you sure about that?
The idea that rank and rank alone deemed you to be qualified on an army weapon, let alone a qualified instructor, just seems... wrong.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

Er, are you sure about that?
The idea that rank and rank alone deemed you to be qualified on an army weapon, let alone a qualified instructor, just seems... wrong.

As a total outsider, I have to say that that seems highly unlikely. In the BA - ALL Other Ranks are required to take so-called Drill and Duty Courses to qualify them for the next promotion. Part of those courses at ALL levels involves, initially, taking a firing detail on a live-firing range [Cpl rank] up to and including organising and running a week-long range programme for a minor unit - the so-called Range Officers' Conducting Course - at Sergeant/Staff Sergeant level.

At no time, unless 'range-qualified' is any soldier - or officer [officers do not usually run ranges, BTW, the PDF might be different there] - automatically qualified by virtue of rank. When I left the BA I STILL had to take the NRA Range Officer's course to be qualified on a civilian range.

And to renew it every five years, too.

AND to take the NRA Bisley Range Competency Course, too.

Needless to say, the PDF can, and does, exactly what it wants with its soldiers, and I might have made a complete hames of it all by misunderstanding what my pal over in Drogheda said to me, but then, he was only in the Air Corps for around 25 years, and may have missed something, lost in the haze of past recollections.

tac

kildare.17hmr

Sparks wrote: »

Er, are you sure about that?
The idea that rank and rank alone deemed you to be qualified on an army weapon, let alone a qualified instructor, just seems... wrong.

In order to pass out from recruit and before you fire a single shot in the DF you have to pass TOET's(test of elimentory training) on your rifle training. we had maybe 30+hrs of training on safe handling, stripping, cleaning and shooting ect and theory in a classroom before we did TOET. big part of NCO course is weopon instruction. Any NCO should be qualified to instruct on rifles and any gunner should not have to do course in order to get a rifle licenced in civi street

cavan shooter

There is always a heated debate over this when it pops up in fact you could go as far as to say, it is okay to slag of my wife but dont mention or knock a training course my association does or I have done.:D

Fact of the matter, is that we dont have an (NRA) in this country where you can become proficient in type a, b or type c firearm. We seem to have a broken/fragmented approach based on what sport you partake in and an ar$e about face view on what we deem as competent. Think about it, you could driver a car without ever taking a lesson??

Competence is defined in statute and has been since the 70's, and for civil purposes even longer (certain criteria used before you can deem yourself expert)

In short, It is defined as having the training, knowledge and experience for "whatever" and your only deemed as competent so long as you have all three for what your doing.

I'll use myself for example, I shoot game,clays with a shotgun and 22 rifle have proficiency course done through NARGC (twice) shooting since I was 16,member of a 3 clubs, Have a safety officers course done had a BASC course done (In England).......but I never shot a pistol...or a high powered rifle or one of those fancy lazery looking yokes that sparks shoots.

If Im competent in relation to anything its for shotgun and 22 caliber, but this competence thing is really annoying because people dont understand what you need to prove competence and proficeincy (including the Gardai). The 2 hour course for €25, which seems to be the norm.

A two hour course gives you knowledge, as in Jeepers I didnt know that
a training course gives you the understanding why and how and the ability to explain it and demonstrate All training should be assessed.

Experience allows you to put the above into practice and in the end its the experience that counts

I am sure some people will disagree, its also a topic that can run forever and ever and ever

Bananaman

I agree that experience is the most important aspect of competence.

That is why all firearms training should involve hands-on live-fire instruction with the firearm type in question.

Even at that - it is only a start - I'm only in this game a few (~5 years) but I learn something new virtually every time I go to the range.

B'Man

Sparks

cavan shooter wrote: »

Fact of the matter, is that we dont have an (NRA) in this country ... We seem to have a broken/fragmented approach based on what sport you partake in

Speaking of heated topics
Why do folk here think that the NRA is a single cohesive monolithic body in the US that runs everything?
They're no more that than the NARGC are that here.
The US NRA is big, yes, but there are a dozen different bodies over there running sports shooting, and about a dozen more doing political lobbying (the other side of the NRA).
Just saying that they don't have it sorted out either...

Think about it, you could driver a car without ever taking a lesson??

Though that's now being changed, at last... and maybe once it's changed, it'll help change minds in other areas too.

one of those fancy lazery looking yokes that sparks shoots.

Oi, I object to that! I have the least fancy looking air rifle in Ireland (It's not quite as bad as a 10/22, but there are precious few original parts left on it anymore). I mean, look at it!





Bolts and tape everywhere. And my air pistol is the subject of a lot of jokes as well, since it dis-assembles itself at least twice during a normal match. And there's not a laser in sight there either.
So take yer fancy shiny polished wood sculpture of a yoke and feck orf

I am sure some people will disagree, its also a topic that can run forever and ever and ever

Well, yeah - but it's a topic that's been discussed for a few hundred years or so in other countries, and a solution was hammered out and is now an ISO standard and an international treaty (or two, I can't remember) that allow courses to be run to set standards of quality and internationally recognised and so forth.
In other words, we're reinventing the wheel here, the hard way, and for no decent reason.

tac foley

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

In order to pass out from recruit and before you fire a single shot in the DF you have to pass TOET's(test of elimentory training) on your rifle training. we had maybe 30+hrs of training on safe handling, stripping, cleaning and shooting ect and theory in a classroom before we did TOET. big part of NCO course is weopon instruction. Any NCO should be qualified to instruct and any gunner should not have to do course in order to get licenced in civi street

Respectfully - weapons training does not qualify you to run a range. The Range Conducting Course and the entry in your records to the effect that you have successfully completed is what qualifies you to run a range.

Since it is NOT a civilian qualification, there is no way that any civilian organisation need pay the slightest attention to a military qualification of that form.

As for TOETs, we ALL have to do them in order to pass our recruit training at soldier or officer training. But TOETs are NOT a range-qualification, only a test to ensure that you fully understand function, stripping, cleaning and handling to a certain level of proficiency.

You will, of course, have acquired a knowledge of what is required to run a range by being on one for a period of time. But you will not have done the course unless you have done - and passed - the proper range conducting course.

IF anything had ever gone wrong on a range, the very first question asked would be - WHO was in charge of the range? Followed by - WAS he range-qualified?

Of course, I here insert my usual proviso, that the PDF may do things differently.

tac

kildare.17hmr

tac foley wrote: »

Respectfully - weapons training does not qualify you to run a range. The Range Conducting Course and the entry in your records to the effect that you have successfully completed is what qualifies you to run a range.

Since it is NOT a civilian qualification, there is no way that any civilian organisation need pay the slightest attention to a military qualification of that form.

As for TOETs, we ALL have to do them in order to pass our recruit training at soldier or officer training. But TOETs are NOT a range-qualification, only a test to ensure that you fully understand function, stripping, cleaning and handling to a certain level of proficiency.

You will, of course, have acquired a knowledge of what is required to run a range by being on one for a period of time. But you will not have done the course unless you have done - and passed - the proper range conducting course.

IF anything had ever gone wrong on a range, the very first question asked would be - WHO was in charge of the range? Followed by - WAS he range-qualified?

Of course, I here insert my usual proviso, that the PDF may do things differently.

tac

I think you took me up wrong there tac, i wasnt saying a member of the DF would be qualified to run a civilian range i was saying that a gunner in the DF has the training and is compatent in the use of a rifle and an nco compatent to instruct on its use. I was refering to the new requirment for proof compatence when applying for a licence and said that should be suficient for the guards as proof of compatence.


EDIT: any day we had at the range was overseen by an officer who was incharge of and responsable for the shoot

PS sparks, that is one funky lookin gun!

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

a solution was hammered out and is now an ISO standard and an international treaty

What is the ISO standard for the Safe Handling and Operation of Firearms ?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

What is the ISO standard for the Safe Handling and Operation of Firearms ?

It's not an ISO standard for the Safe Handling and Operation of Firearms, it's an ISO standard for running courses on any topic to an acceptable standard (ISO Standard 17024 to be specific, as I explained here two years ago):

Sparks wrote:

there would need to be paperwork, but the thing is that it's possible to have a unified basic course for everyone that every club was certified to run.
The basics are that we go to FITAC and work out an agreed syllabus with all bodies. We're talking about the basics of firearms safety and ownership here, so there's no need for things like ISSF rules, that sort of thing. Yes, there would be carryover - ISSF 10m air shooters learning basic safety for semi-auto shotguns, that sort of thing, but given that a lot of ranges see lots of disciplines, well, no harm. We could modularise if *really* necessary, but it ought to be resisted as much as possible. Once that's agreed, you go to INAB and have them come in and accredit anyone running this course to ISO standard 17024. This would mean that the person/club/NGB running the course would be able to certify those who passed it as competent. And since the accreditation bodies are independent of shooting, there's no fear of what Sikamick was talking about above.

Here's what Sikamick was talking about:

Sikamick wrote: »

Do we want a situation like we had before, where people were making money from club members for course that they did not need to do.

ironclaw

Wow! This thread expanded fast

First off, thank you for all the pointers folks. I do some rifle shooting in college but its a step up to live ammo as opposed to air.

These training courses, are they put together by clubs themselves or is there a training college / association / accreditation? I've done powerboat courses but the syllabus is set by the ISA not by individual clubs (Which years ago was the case)

I see nothing wrong in club based courses, I just don't want a scenario where a course wouldn't really be worth anything i.e. Club A's course isn't worth anything against Club B's accredited course etc.

kildare.17hmr

I think the best advice has been givin, best thing for you to do is ring up your local station and ask for the guard who looks after the firearms applications and have a chat with him, ask him is there any particular club/course the super prefers or will joining a club and doing some training with them be accepted. It seems to be different in every district as it is down to each super

cavan shooter

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

I think the best advice has been givin, best thing for you to do is ring up your local station and ask for the guard who looks after the firearms applications and have a chat with him, ask him is there any particular club/course the super prefers or will joining a club and doing some training with them be accepted. It seems to be different in every district as it is down to each super

Thats the worrying bit, there is a massive amount pushing 2 hr courses:( and not "proficiency types" At least an on line training course actually fails you if you get the answer wrong on the 3rd time:rolleyes:

But do a course that suits your shooting,and is an assett to you otherwise your codding yourself.

kildare.17hmr

cavan shooter wrote: »

Thats the worrying bit, there is a massive amount pushing 2 hr courses:( and not "proficiency types" At least an on line training course actually fails you if you get the answer wrong on the 3rd time:rolleyes:


But do a course that suits your shooting,and is an assett to you otherwise your codding yourself.

I agree 100% with ya, when i did the course i was asked for with my application there was 2 young lads doing it with me, both had shot guns but were applying for 22lr. 1hr 45 mins later they left and i would imagine forgot everything they were told:rolleyes:

rrpc

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

I think the best advice has been givin, best thing for you to do is ring up your local station and ask for the guard who looks after the firearms applications and have a chat with him, ask him is there any particular club/course the super prefers or will joining a club and doing some training with them be accepted. It seems to be different in every district as it is down to each super

Well to be honest, I don't think it should be and really all you're doing by ringing them and asking, is putting them in the position of advising on which course to do.

Which was not the intention, because if it was there'd already be an accredited course. I don't even believe there should be a course per se, because you're asked to prove your competence, not produce some certificate or other.

If you join a club and do whatever induction course they run, you can ask for a letter from the club secretary stating that they deem you competent on the basis of your induction course and experience to own the firearm you'll use in their club and for which you're applying.

That's what the FCA1 form is actually asking for. All this stuff about courses seems to have grown up out of nothing. :rolleyes:

Sparks

Thing is, everywhere else, proof of competence is supposed to be proof, not someone else's word (if you follow me).
It's like the way that crossbows are now restricted firearms; not because anyone thought they should be, it's because noone thought about them at all and they got caught out by a default when the restricted list was formatted as a not-restricted list.
So because we never specified what proof of competence should be, we're stuck with what we have right now, which is borrowing from other examples in other avenues.
That being said, if we had an ISO 17024 course setup here, it'd be a pretty good way of doing it; if it works for amateur radio and flying, there's no reason it shouldn't work for shooting.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Er, are you sure about that?
The idea that rank and rank alone deemed you to be qualified on an army weapon, let alone a qualified instructor, just seems... wrong.

Do you know what it takes to be an NCO and/or officer in our Defence Forces? Or are your just assuming that soldiers & sailors are allowed all these weapons with inferior training. Maybe they should all be sent to your club for 'proper' training :rolleyes:

I have recieved "Army" training and I am deemed an instructor on a number of current weapons (in this instance they are ) used by the Irish Army. I have also done "safety" courses in civilian ranges here too. The instruction I have recieved in both has been more or less the same. The priority is SAFETY. Doesn't really matter if your in DPM or jeans the desired result is the same thing................we all want to go home safe

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Thing is, everywhere else, proof of competence is supposed to be proof, not someone else's word (if you follow me).
It's like the way that crossbows are now restricted firearms; not because anyone thought they should be, it's because noone thought about them at all and they got caught out by a default when the restricted list was formatted as a not-restricted list.
So because we never specified what proof of competence should be, we're stuck with what we have right now, which is borrowing from other examples in other avenues.
That being said, if we had an ISO 17024 course setup here, it'd be a pretty good way of doing it; if it works for amateur radio and flying, there's no reason it shouldn't work for shooting.

Sorry Sparks, I don't agree. Mainly because proof can be someone else's word; it's certainly good enough for a court of law, so it should be in other areas. Secondly because it's competence we're talking about, not mastery and finally because there is no requirement for somebody to take any course at all.

The lack of specification is because since there were no accredited courses in existence at the time, it's pretty difficult to specify anything. You can't have the legislature effectively giving a monopoly to somebody, although that hasn't stopped the mad scramble to get a slice of the pie :rolleyes:

Which is why I maintain that there is no requirement for a course to be taken and why in the first instance, in the case of target shooters, they should ask their club for that proof.

Why you should be suggesting that club members reach into their pockets yet again, to prove something that's already self evident in the process they go through to become a functioning member of that club, is beyond me. The OP has already indicated that he's target shooting in college which means he's achieved a degree of competence already.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

are your just assuming that soldiers & sailors are allowed all these weapons with inferior training.

Actually, I'm just assuming that the process of qualifying on a particular weapon and the process of gaining a new rank are not one and the same thing in any armed force. The peter principle doesn't apply when your primary work tool is designed to be lethal...

Maybe they should all be sent to your club for 'proper' training :rolleyes:

One or two of them are already training there
And there's a long history of RDF members showing up at local ranges to learn the basics on the unofficial orders of their NCOs.
But hey, fling monkey-poo if that's your thing Bunny.