Talk:Mad minute

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Wind Drift?[edit]

" when you war army vs army one army can only win. Keep in mind that wind drift also will become a factor at longer ranges. Genereally wind drift will barely be noticeable at 100 m, while already at 200 m and especially at 300 m the wind will start to become a significant factor"

Surely yards should be used? and 300yd would not qualify as 'long range,' 300 yd was the range rifleman were trained to fire too so it should not really be treated as out of the ordinary, over 300yd perhaps (say 500-1000yd certainly), though this was not a requirement in training.

Also wind drift is not significant(under 'average' weather conditions) when using full bore rifle rounds (.303, .308 ect.) at ranges of 300yd or below. This is particularly true with service load Mk. VII ammunition (174gr, 2,440 ft/s (744 m/s)), as issued by the British Army before and during WW1 and WW2.

The inclusion of this whole statement seems a bit odd, I don't really see how it fits with the rest of the article

The rest of the article is quite good, lots of people want more information on the drill

(Fdsdh1 (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for "liking" this article! Several people have contributed to this. I agree that wind drift is not very significant with the high power calibers in question, and have edited the section. However it makes sense to use meters for several reasons:

- Meters should primarily be used since Wikipedia is international

- When talking shooting, meters and centimeters works well with milliradians providing nice and precise numbers (just take a look at the tables)

The rest of the imperial measurements in this article are kept for historical reasons, while meters are the preferred measurement in modern day language.

Sauer202 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding References[edit]

This pages as written had few references, and the first paragraph is still unsourced. I've added some (dubious) references to the use of the term in the Vietnam War, but the whole thing could use cleaning up. 202.55.99.162 (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lee Enfield Association hold competitions including the mad minute http://www.leeenfieldrifleassociation.org.uk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.253.2 (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to a 12 inch target is incorrect, and seems to come from a single Ian Hogg book that has been repeated ad nauseam. Here's a much better description of the practice including the proper target, which was a figure 12" high on a 4 foot board. Inner = 23", outer = 36" http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/43102565094/the-mad-minute-marksmanship-training-in-the . A 12" target does not even pass the sniff test, since this is not much larger than the mechanical accuracy of the rifle, so hitting it consecutively 36 times (or more) even without time pressure would be a challenge (and yes, I have done plenty of mad minute practice). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.59.22 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I amended the description of Practice 22 to include the dimensions of the target. The tables of the equivalent sizes still need to be amended.Onetap (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mad minute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304105756/http://www.skytterlag2.no/skytterlagssider/soknedal/NORGESCUP%2BSTANG%2BOG%2BFELTHURTIG%2B2015.hTZ9yTwdjSYD.ips to http://www.skytterlag2.no/skytterlagssider/soknedal/NORGESCUP+STANG+OG+FELTHURTIG+2015.hTZ9yTwdjSYD.ips

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]