Thread: Mountain Safety Council Firearms Course

I recently took the firearms safety course run by the Mountain Safety Council at Auckland Central Police Station.

After hearing and reading some information about the course, I was looking forward to it. I felt that this course would be well structured and thought out. Offering a sound foundation for new shooters, instructing them in the types of firearms, their safe handling and an outline of the legislative act.

I could not have been further from the truth.

The course appeared to have no structure at all. If their were any learning outcomes other than the seven firearm rules, they were not presented or achieved. Much of the time spent discussing the seven firearm rules was utilized on a story, which was often drawn out so long and convoluted that I had to refer to the manual several times to remember what we had began to discuss. Yes, storytelling can be a useful way to provide an example of real world use or accidents, but it must easily connected to the topic.

Some vital information, required for the test, was only briefly touched on as the tests were handed out. Once again, this information was presented in a confusing and convoluted manner.

Information presented was often misleading or incorrect, such as:

• Students were told that it was allowed to leave a firearm unattended in a vehicle.
• Thumb hole stocks made a semi automatic an E Category firearm-Example shown was a Ruger10/22.
• People shouldn't use safeties.
• Firearms must be stored out of sight
• Hunting permits must be applied for months in advance and you must record the make, model and serial number of firearm to be used. If you buy a firearm after you apply, to not even think about taking it with you.
• Semi automatics are a poor choice for hunting.
• Display ammunition was often loaded and cycled though the action. Students were not informed that they were display only and could have easily believed that it was acceptable to cycle live ammunition through your firearm in a building.
• Shooting at night is perfectly safe. No mention was made, that it is illegal to shoot at night in State forests or National Parks.

Information that should have been included, but was not included or mentioned only in passing includes:

• Licence category's
• Firearm types-This was briefly covered with examples of most types of actions shown. I do not believe it was to an acceptable standard.
• Types of ammunition-A wide range of ammunition was on display, but was not really covered. One person asked a question of what is the difference between a centerfire and a rimfire, the answer "One kills better".
• Use of accessories that would change a firearm to a different category, such as a magazine holding more than 7 rds of center fire ammunition in a semi automatic.
• Duties and obligations of a firearm owner and user

This course is often many peoples first contact with firearms. If information is delivered to them in a haphazard manner or the information conveyed is false or misleading, it defeats the purpose of the course. People will not achieve the learning outcome(be safe and responsible firearms owners) and may face future criminal charges due to being presented with false information.

I feel that a practical skills test, such as what is in place in the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, would be hugely beneficial.

The way that this course was delivered, two men sitting at the front of a large class talking at the class, is not conducive to an adult learning environment and does not cater for the 3 types of learners; auditory, visual and kinesthetic .

I believe that this course needs an urgent assessment on its suitability and relevancy to the required information. Instructors need further training, and need to be assessed on their competency to deliver this training in accordance NZQA framework.

Good on you for bringing up your concerns. Did you make these concerns clear to the course advisors?? I think you should.

Personally I can't remember what mine was really like, other than it was by a guy who we knew already and most of us in the room had plenty of previous experience with firearms.

No. I did not bring up my concerns at the time. I feel that putting an instructor on the spot in front of a room of people is not fair, and the instructor usually gets their "back up". Not the best time for the review process to begin.

I have emailed my concerns to Mountain Safety Council and offered to assist them in developing a new training package. I await their response.

As I recall the evening course that I attended all those years ago was very similar and the single instructor helped people pass their multiple choice test. There may be a business opportunity there.

The only thing that I took away from my "course" was a healthy dose of disdain - thankfully I already had a fair amount of firearms experience prior to attending. The attitude was blasé to say the least and I don't think there was even a firearm of any kind present to demonstrate proper handling skills.

I've often said that a proficiency test should form a compulsory part of the firearms licence test - this is mandatory in South Africa as well as Canada.

Originally Posted by Ryan

I've often said that a proficiency test should form a compulsory part of the firearms licence test.

+1

+100

I clearly remember when sitting mine that me and another guy passed, think you allowed two wrong?
The other like 6-8 guys got there papers altered so they passed.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by BRADS

The other like 6-8 guys got there papers altered so they passed.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fuck that, if you fail you fail - don't see many driving instructors "passing" prospective drivers.

to the opening post.
That is absolutely Shithouse!

We all know they are too basic but that beggars belief the amount of misinformation there!

clearly the instructors had no idea of the rules.

Wait till you receive your licence and say something about it.

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

Agree completely with the original post, mirrors my experience.

No point raising it with the "instructors", I think the system needs to change from the top, and some serious changes made to instructor competency and course content.

The guys on my course were going on about the benefits of the half cock vs using a safety.... I just decided to shut my mouth, pass the test and get my license...

Obviously the standard varies a bit, I remember mine being decent enough, mostly common sense. They did 'help' people pass the test, but they did it by explaining why some of the 'correct' answers were what they were - what with some of the questions being worded quite ambiguously or just being stupid questions.

I think I got one question wrong - "would you go hunting with someone who had been drinking alcohol". I ticked the box for "I would use my judgement", because if someone has (for example) had a beer with a meal a couple of hours earlier I don't think thats going to impair them. But the only acceptable answer was a flat 'no'.

I certainly agree that some practical training and/or testing should be included though.

Originally Posted by ebf

No point raising it with the "instructors", I think the system needs to change from the top, and some serious changes made to instructor competency and course content.

I agree completely. I am interested to see what, if any, is the response from MSC. As I said, I've offered to assist or if they want, to develop a structured training program. If MSC takes it's responsibility seriously, they do need to address this issue. If they do not, I believe NZ Police should take the funding and responsibility of firearms training away from them.

Auditing and validation of a training package is continual process. I would be interested in seeing their auditing schedules and evaluations.

Originally Posted by ebf

I just decided to shut my mouth, pass the test and get my license...

I did the same. I learned long ago,that arguing with the instructor only wastes everybody's time. Many have the unfortunate attitude that because they are the "instructor", they know all and are incapable of learning themselves.

Yes definitely would not raise the issue with instructors at the time.

It needs to be raised with police and msc.

The OP is the worst example I have heard by far.

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

I have to say the OP pretty much mirrors my own experience of FAL test run by local FAO.
I learnt shitloads more from forums and books. The system needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century to my mind.
One would hope that the testing and teaching was more rigorous in light of the number of incidents occurring each year.