What sort of projectile velocity can be achieved with a sling?

Ancient writers often described almost gunshot-like *penetrating* wounds inflicted by sling missiles (presumably the lead "glans" type.) Was this ability to break the skin and penetrate into the body due to the high striking velocity of the sling projectiles, or was the shape of the projectiles the key?

I would think that to penetrate the skin with a *blunt* projectile would require a striking velocity of *at least* 200 feet per second (a bit over 120 miles per hour, I think). I'm not even sure that would be fast enough for anything but a head shot, where the penetration such as that described in the David and Goliath story might be called a depressed skull fracture.

Could expert ancient slingers sling that much harder than we can now? was there some trick that has been lost?

I've wondered about this for a while. I'd really appreciate any fresh information anyone might have.

Thanks.

Oz

It seems the Romans had medical instruments to remove projectiles from the body. I've read where Aztec slingers could kill a horse with slingstones. Spanish observers noted that the sling was only slighty less powerful than that of a firearm. If modern day baseball pitchers can throw a ball around 95 miles per hour, I'm sure the ancient slinger could easily double that! I think it is somewhat of a lost art, at least at that speed.

Quote:

Could expert ancient slingers sling that much harder than we can now? was there some trick that has been lost?

Modern forensics may tell us how fast a round lead ball or similar has to be travelling at time of impact to penetrate soft tissue.   This info might not be hard to find in an internet search.

Regarding lost tricks; I assume there are some of these.  The stories that directly claim and indirectly infer great range and accuracy (common?) in ancient times indicate this may be true.    Also, ancient art shows slingers in set-up and immediately-after-shooting poses that none of us use.  Finally, there are tales of shooters' slings cracking like whips when they shot.  

For inferred range/accuracy, consider the willingness of armored foot soldiers to fight with slingers in their rear, slinging stones over their heads into the enemy.  For poses, see Babylonian(?) and other drawings showing slingers set-up to shoot with their thumbs IN the sling pocket.   Our slings are silent.

mgreenfield

Quote:

Finally, there are tales of shooters' slings cracking like whips when they shot.

 I have noticed that this happens with some slings when I sling powerfully.  I remember techstuf saying that the crack is a miniature sonic boom.  Does anyone else get this effect?  I have known release-node knots on the release cord to come undone due to this (I know it is due to this and not the stone because I was swinging and practising with no stone in the pouch and it happened).  If you swing very violently, powerfully, then this effect happens.  I am sure it is not unknown for everyone else.

The crack of the sling happens when the release cord ends in a little tassel. Is the same than with a wipe, supposed you snap aggresively. I have some Peruvian slings that sounds very well. I think Andean and Tibetan slings generally have tassels, as they are used frecuently only to scare the catle with its sound, without sending a stone.

Yea, the crack you can hear with whips is the end breaking the sound barrier.

As for lethality, the sling was definitely a deadly weapon in the right hands in ancient times.  People were exposed to slings all the time (grew up with them) and became naturally proficient, unlike many of us starting later in life.  As johnny notes, pitchers can throw with their arms around 100 mph.  Add a 3 foot extension to that, and you more than double the power.  Add a 6 foot extension and it's like 8 times that power (I don't believe it's linear).  I've read somewhere that it is believe that slingers either built little platforms to stand on, or dug ditches to accommodate longer slings.  Ranges of up to 3000 feet are not unrealistic (Yurek is getting 1500 feet with a 4-foot sling).  With proven projectile designs (the Romans used a very specific american-football-like shape), such ranges seem even more plausible.  And I think projectile shape does matter quite a bit for these ranged shots (more on that later).  

Also, we know that the sling can go through armor and shatter steel (i.e. Spanish swords getting shattered by Aztec slingers during the spanish conquest of meso-America.)

Chris

Sometimes the crack also is caused by the pouch. It depends of a sling design. My old lost leather sling with pouch made of fat leather, with the bicycle chain on the ear (picture in the gallery) was cracking very nice and loudly. No of my next slings sounded so showily. I suppose it was caused by the release ear which was slaping into the pouch outside.

Every sling has own specific sound. I have noticed that the longer slings (release cords) have a less inclination to snaping. Probably, due to the longer way of the release cord, that causes a bigger velocity loss.

Jurek

Some of the leather slings I fashioned and played with in my younger days would snap, crack, and pop upon release as well. And sometimes the projectiles would buzz or hum in the air, bee-like, or like ricocheting bullets.

But I'm not sure what that proves. Even if some part of the tip of the released thong of the sling broke the speed of sound (which I understand to be about 1100 feet per second at sea level) like a whip's tip, I don't know that that proves the projectile itself even approached such a speed.

However, if ancient slingers could achieve even a mere *300* feet per second striking velocity, that *might* account for the effects reported. I have read that the .41 caliber Deringer that John Wilkes Booth used to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln only had a muzzle (starting) velocity of about 450 feet per second, but it sure killed the hell out of Lincoln.

Oz

The buzzing sound projectiles sometimes make is due to oddly shaped ones spinning through the air.  It produces a sound as it essentially "slaps" the air as it rotates.  

The cracking of the cords or pouch could be similar to a whip breaking the sound barrier.  I wouldn't know how to prove that though.  Certainly the projectiles aren't reaching those speeds.

The thing that makes bullets quite deadly is the fact that they are small, dense and pointy, which equals more penetration force.  Rocks are often big, not as dense as lead or copper, and may not be pointy.  Speed is only a tangential factor, further reducing the effectiveness of a sling projectile.  However, because we can potentially have much much heavier projectiles than a typical gun, the blunt force impact can be just as deadly.

Chris

ozymandias312
Chris is quite right here. The sling is so effective not so much for the reason of pure speed, but rather because of the weight of sling projectiles.
I have used the sling time and again to tear fair sized branches off trees, have pulverized the bark on black oak trees. Not something to be taken lightly.
Sling projectiles gain energy at the square of the speed like all others. but at the same time, because there are lots of limiting factors in the sling / human operation the main factor in the damage they can do is due to the weight of the projectiles at speeds acheivable with the sling.
I'm like you in that I'd also like to know what would be a reasonable speed reache by the average slinger. Inquireing minds want to know.


WalkingBird

On the Discovery Channel / BBC documentary I assisted with, their slinger got up to 80 MPH (tested with equipment).  However, I wasn't impressed with his slinging style.  I'd assume a typical slinger could approach 100 mph with people like Yurek conceivably approaching 300.  

Chris

FYI:
100 mph = 146.7 fps
150 mph = 220.05 fps
200 mph = 293.4 fps
200 fps = 136.36 mph
300 fps = 204.54 mph
400 fps = 272.72 mph
500 fps = 340.9 mph

I think I've gotten to at least 200 mph, because it seems to be the speed of a paintball round, and that's pretty standard at 300fps.

Alternately, you could sling into a target on which penetration data is available, arriving at the foot-pounds, and from there, knowing most of the other variables (stone weight, distance etc), probably deduce velocity. Just a thought...

Chris
Who was the guy(slinger) on the BBC documentary?
Thanks
Johnny

80mph? hmm
In 7th grade I could throw a Whiffle ball 72mph. I did it at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle. I'd wager that I could get close to 80mph with just my arm.  To bad we can't get a chronograph and actually time some of the people on this board.

Alan Birkbeck, a mechanical engineer workling at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.

Chris

There was once a chronograph on my street, one of those ones that displays the speed of passing cars in big red numerals. Late one night I crept up alongside it and threw a stone by hand. I remember it read about 68mph. Then I got out my sling and cast a stone. Nothing. The meter only went to 2 digits, so was it possible I exceeded 100mph and it blanked out? I like to think so. :)

80 mph does seem a bit slow.  I remember someone telling me that the average speed for a cricket ball released from a bowler is about 90mph, which is why they hurt so much when you get hit (and why cricketers wear lots of padding.)  I think a sling could easily outdo that, surely?  And they said it had about the same power as a .22 round on the documentary.  If Yurek could do, say, 300 mph, that must be about a .45...?

That is an interesting matter. There was the discussions about the velocity and impact energy a few times before now. But I see this subiect has came back.


Quote:

If Yurek could do, say, 300 mph, that must be about a .45...?

I really don't know what release velocity I can do. I would like to know it. I'm sure Larry's velocities were quite a lot bigger, when he had surpassed the record. Once I tried to determine the averange velocity of my best shots (in that time, with my ordinary sling) with stones. For the calculations there wasn't used results of precise measurements but only my estimations. I can't say how much the results differ from the real numbers, but hope not so much.

Here is the link to the my estimations and discussion about velocities and energies:

http://www.slinging.org/forum2/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=1;action=display;num=1067042777;start=7#7

Jurek

It's designed to gauge the speed of cars, so it probably didn't register because your rock was too small and moving too fast.  

Chris

This should be easy (haha) to figure out... Just for fun, I took Barak's video and did a frame by frame analysis. Unfortunately, at 15 (low quality) frames per second you lose resolution right at the point where you need it at the release.

The plots for his throw show a smoothly accelerating swing over the last 6-7 revolutions, with substantial acceleration in the last 2. There aren't enough data points to predict the exact point of release.

Final radial speed works out to ~45 rad/s which assuming a 25" sling gives about 110kph. Arm/shoulder motion adds 9m/s in translation for a total speed of 150kph.

This isn't too bad actually! No aero-drag gives a range of >160m It doesn't look like this demonstration throw is taking full advantage of the "snap" though like I mentioned there isn't enough data in the last bit to be sure. I'd be comfortable accepting that the instantaneous radial speed at the time of release was as much as 50% higher. Maybe Barak can vet some of this...

Interesting thing to note are that Barak's hand moves only vertically during the spin up phase, and only through about 8".

I think I might write up a little prog (Sling analyser v0.1  :D ) when I get some spare time. If there is interest I'll try to post an article. If we filmed a couple of throws with the intent of crunching the video we should be able to produce some intersting results - I can probably borrow a high speed camera later this summer.

Matthias

wrote on Apr 7^th, 2004 at 3:52pm:

And they said it had about the same power as a .22 round on the documentary.  If Yurek could do, say, 300 mph, that must be about a .45...?

The "power" of a .22 round is quite different, since it's lighter and going much faster. A .45 chronos at about 500fps...

wrote on Apr 7^th, 2004 at 5:08pm:

It's designed to gauge the speed of cars, so it probably didn't register because your rock was too small and moving too fast.   Chris

It did respond to my hand-thrown stone, so I'm inclined to take a different view...

To work out the average speed, why not use the slinger and a helper, and sling stones into a lake. The helper uses a stop watch, starts it as they see the stone leave the pouch, and stops it when they see the splash. Do about 10. Use the average.

For short distance power shots, do the same, but against, oh, I don't know, a barn rock face, sleepy cow, tax office...Of course the timing is more critical, because it is so much shorter.

One could then compare the long shots with the short shots. One would give you an average speed over a long distance, the other would give you more closely the speed when it left the pouch.

I know this isn't accurate. There are many variables, and human reaction times- and the two shots are different- the short ones would be nearer a flat trajectory, and closer to the distance actually paced off, the long shots would actually be a...oh I can't describe it in words accurately, so lets say semi-circle- though it's not really.

Justin

I recommend this particular Chronograph for it's low price and quality:

http://www.competitionelectronics.com/pc%20paintball.htm

Not to mention it's extra large aiming area below the diffusers!   One has only to properly illuminate the sensors and shield the unit except for the aiming area and go to town.  I do recommend very heavy plywood or metal  sheeting with a cutout slightly smaller than the aiming area on the Chronograph as a single miscast could take out the unit by catching the diffuser/supports.  I have achieved 363fps with a basic non-compounded spectra and leather sling weighing less than 1oz. and spherical lead ammo weighing 2.5 oz.   and much more than this with a compounded sling and 1.25 oz. ammo.

Bushnell's Speedster radar gun goes for about $150 but it only measures up to 300mph. They state that it only goes up to 110mph for baseballs, so maybe this is due to the smaller sig - like a glande.  :(

There's also the Speed Chex:http://www.astroproducts.net/speedchek2.htm

363 FPS = 206 MPH.  Nice slinging techstuff.  How long was your leather sling?

Chris

Hi Chris,


I believe that was my 49 inch model.  Very light and fast with extremely thin kevlar cord and small star shaped pocket which wraps around the lead ball ammo securely for a great release each and every time.  I will be posting some more pics as I dig through my ancient relics!   When I get some time,  I will be duplicating some performances of old, with more advanced equipment and will get some video uploaded that should prove impressive......I went to the lake awhile back to fart around and quickly found how rusty I've become.  I hadn't been slinging in a coon's age and it showed.  Also,  I had gained a considerable amount of muscle mass from weight lifting as part of a recuperative regimen to realign my upper spine and I can tell you that the increased muscle mass of the forearm is a 'speed slinger's worst enemy.  I no longer can sling the light stuff (>4oz.) to hyper velocities like I did in the late eighties.  The resulting blood rush to my hand and lower forearm is an agonizing experience.  Like you,  I had mastered the 'loose wrist/wrist curl combo' and achieved amazing results but am currently no longer able to duplicate some of my earlier performances largely due to the increased forearm mass...... So,  I am relegated, for now, to slinging at more moderate speeds with heavier ammo.    >:( :( :'(

Since a sling and its common ammo are dirt cheap, I'm sure we can afford a $150 radar gun. Think of handgunners and other sportsmen who can't even look at their primary weapon for that price.  ::)

On that note, I can't really see a Slinging magazine coming up, since most of the trade glossies depend on advertisers and aside from nice braided slings, we don't have much product to sell. So I guess we're safe from the ravages of Madison avenue... :)

A slinging magazine would be unfeasible, but it would certainly broaden appreciation of the weapon.  I think that a newsletter style thing would be better, but what information could it contain that isn't already on this website?

Yeah, I think there isn't enough people to warrant a slinging magazine.  This site is the first step.  People spreading the word about this site to friends, or at renaissance fairs, or with stickers on their cars, will gain momentum and hopefully earn some much needed respect for this truly great weapon.

Chris

>>>To bad we can't get a chronograph and actually time some of the people
Anybody [not me] want to stand close enough to a slung bullet zipping by to chrono it?  :-?

So where do we get the stickers?  I'll let my van wear one!

M. Demetrius wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 7:45pm:

Anybody [not me] want to stand close enough to a slung bullet zipping by to chrono it?  :-?

Psst, not so loud or Aardvark will really do it. ;-)

wrote on Apr 4^th, 2004 at 10:11am:

Quote: Finally, there are tales of shooters' slings cracking like whips when they shot.  I have noticed that this happens with some slings when I sling powerfully.  I remember techstuf saying that the crack is a miniature sonic boom.  Does anyone else get this effect?  I have known release-node knots on the release cord to come undone due to this (I know it is due to this and not the stone because I was swinging and practising with no stone in the pouch and it happened).  If you swing very violently, powerfully, then this effect happens.  I am sure it is not unknown for everyone else.

It did happen when I performed the figure-8 correctly. The crack is quite loud and.......cool. The sling is just a normal sling, nothing fancy designed for the crack. So, those tales are true.

Quote:

Psst, not so loud or Aardvark will really do it.

has already done it. :-)
Well I had to stand pretty close to video the penetration tests we did :-)

Maybe next year we'll get a radar gun setup as well :-)

Curious Aardvark wrote on Oct 11^th, 2007 at 11:25am:

Well I had to stand pretty close to video the penetration tests we did :-)

Isn't a tripod cheaper than a human? ;-)

A sling can have the same killing power as a 45. cal pistol. Anyone who does not belive me can eat math:(mv^2)/2= KE   75g=typical sling projectile weight   111m/s=accepted sling projectile velocity   1/2(.075kg)(111m/s)^2=460J   .22 caliber long rifle=190J, .45 caliber Automatic Colt Pistol=450J

111 m/s is quite on the high side for the average slinger, but attainable by some, definitely not me.

hmm, well the typical weight for a sling glande was 1 1/2 - 2 ounces. so nearer 50 grams than 75. And yes it makes a difference as to the reachable velocity of the slung missile.
Not arguing that  a slung missile is lethal.

But you just don't get the penetration you get with a firearm. So while a lucky head shot might kill someone, you are far more likely to cause broken bones or deep internal bruising.

That said at short range I've seen a 3/4 inch ball bearing go straight through a 3/4 inch sheet of plywood. Dunno what that equates to but you wouldn't get me standing in front of larry bray with a ball bearing and a sling - no matter what body armour you had on hand :-)  (unless someone else tested it first lol)

'Stopping power' or 'killing power' as far as I know has no definition in terms of an equation. So, I'm not clear why kinetic energy as a means of comparison is any more appropriate than, say momentum.

I'd also argue that even comparing the kinetic energies in the example quoted needs a truly exceptional 'muzzle velocity' and heavy projectile. I suspect that very few of us would exceed 60m/s.

As C_A writes, the results of being hit by a sling projectile are rather different from guns, but in neither case would I stand down range of someone using them. My suspicion is that comparing kinetic energies for slings and bullets may underestimate the effectiveness of the sling.

Curious Aardvark wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 9:53am:

hmm, well the typical weight for a sling glande was 1 1/2 - 2 ounces. so nearer 50 grams than 75. And yes it makes a difference as to the reachable velocity of the slung missile. Not arguing that  a slung missile is lethal. But you just don't get the penetration you get with a firearm. So while a lucky head shot might kill someone, you are far more likely to cause broken bones or deep internal bruising. That said at short range I've seen a 3/4 inch ball bearing go straight through a 3/4 inch sheet of plywood. Dunno what that equates to but you wouldn't get me standing in front of larry bray with a ball bearing and a sling - no matter what body armour you had on hand :-)  (unless someone else tested it first lol)

Interesting story by Saxton Pope, an American instrumental in reviving archery in the early part of last century.

An overconfident museum curator offered to allow Pope to shoot at him when he was wearing chain mail. They eventually thought better of it and draped the armour over a wooden dummy. The bodkin pointed arrow produced sparks as it penetrated the chainmail, both sides of the wooden dummy and produced a bump as it pushed on the rear side of the chainmail. The curator turned a sickly pale.

If I slung 148 gr. baseballs to 57m/s (on radar) when I was 55yrs. And this was done under bad indoor conditions. What is the  problem with you strong young people slinging past 60m/s with stones of minimum frontal area? Of course you can and do, judging by the impact reports I read.

tom

There is an easy way to measure your slinging velocity by recording the sound of the sling over a short measured distance. Using "Audacity" it is very easy to see the exact time interval and calculate velocity with a very high degree of cetainty. This was discussed in a thread started by Dork (Nov. 20, 07)

The program is called "Audacity". http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

Aussie

Thanks for reminding me, I did install that program when the link was first posted, however other duties, a hospital stay and winter here in Ohio,U.S. precludes any velocity testing or just plain slinging. I did come up with a feasible ballistic pendulum design prior to hearing about this more elegant sound method.

tom

I think the best way test all these theories is with high tech equipment. Equipment one might find on a documentary type show running tests on ancient weapons.

If only someone from the discovery channel would contact us looking for help. They could settle all bets.

Like that will ever happen

I have tried throwing sharp objects, and if i use a football shaped object with pointed ends(I sharpened a section of a railroad spike) I found that as it comes out of a sling with the spin it flies smoothly and one of the spikes is facing my target.  I had this projectile(I'm not sure of the velocity but I'm sure it was in upwards of 120 mph and it went through both sides of a metal trash can

Quote:

if i use a football shaped object with pointed ends(I sharpened a section of a railroad spike) I found that as it comes out of a sling with the spin it flies smoothly and one of the spikes is facing my target

Bloody hell !
Be VERY careful where you sling stuff like that. Talk about your dangerous projectiles lol.
How long a piece of railroad spike did you use ?

I attacked a tank with my sling and concrete ammo and I tought it was empty but then the top opened and a guy stuck his head out and shouted at my and I ran away. jk

Quote:

I attacked a tank with my sling and concrete ammo

Lmao - Umm, not sure there's an answer to that except to say, I have to admire your ambition if not your common sense ;-)

taken from The Sling in Literature - Michael Gillelan

The velocity required for a bullet to puncture the skin is sometimes given as 163 feet per second, to break a bone 213 feet per second. Modern sling projectiles have been clocked at about 130 miles per hour, or approximately 190 feet per second. We have no reason, therefore, to doubt the testimony of the ancient medical writer Celsus, who writes (7.5):

   There is a third type of weapon that sometimes needs to be removed, a leaden bullet or rock or something similar, which breaking through the skin lodges inside in one piece. In all of these cases, the wound needs to be opened a bit wider, and what is inside must be extracted with pincers along the same pathway by which it entered.

Monkeywjcr wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2008 at 12:09pm:

I attacked a tank with my sling and concrete ammo and I tought it was empty but then the top opened and a guy stuck his head out and shouted at my and I ran away. jk

LOL  ;D

At the request of a forum member, I am reposting the following links.  I do so to prove that the biblical account of David's rock sinking 'deep into goliath's forehead' need not have been embellished.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5648598808576881556&hl=en


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6333833449320039360


The rocks I sling for accuracy exercise are usually nearly the size of a closed fist and weigh in at 3 to 6 ounces.  Their velocity is usually around 150fps.  


Peace,


TS


P.S.  

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1254949/ninja_misdirective_double_shuriken_throw/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1255004/3_shuriken_in_fast_succession/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1254983/shuriken_distance_throwing/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1254968/fast_easy_shuriken_throwing/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1254917/shuriken_throwing_splitting_the_difference/

Totally awesome shots.

Nice to hear from you again, Techstuf.

Hey Tint.  Thx.



TS

the chunk of railroad spike i used was about 3 or 4 inches an was sharpened with a taper from the point to the center and back to the point, took a long time to do, but me and cheebz had already done one side in a poor attempt to make spear heads

Techstuf, I like the videos! You really show the power behind the sling when the user is competent.

I'm not sure if I'd be confident leaning them on the side of a house though...  :-/

Yes, it does take some time to achieve consistent accuracy with heavy ammo at appreciable speed.  I no longer practice often enough to feel comfortable slinging at targets leaning against my garage.  The video was hastily edited and gave some the wrong impression.  Getting a shot of the backside to show the penetration was an afterthought and goliath was already back in place leaning against the garage.


I've been known to throw a pretty mean shuriken on occasion....I might have to throw a clip or two up soon.



TS

Quote:

I might have to throw a clip or two up soon.

Well go on then ;-)

There was another show on that tested the sling. it was another in the Mummy Forensics series.  However, this one did not bode well.

Thom Richardson, from the British Royal Armory was the slinger. His only reached 67MPH. They were trying to break a pig skull with it. As a result, the sling was regarded as ineffective. At that sped, i don't doubt it.

buncha wimps - hell we'all could have done better than that :-)

Curious Aardvark wrote on May 14^th, 2008 at 7:01am:

buncha wimps - hell we'all could have done better than that :-)

Without even using a sling too.

I have been trying to find some video of this on the internet but I unfortunately can not.  There was a television special I saw as a child called "Ancient Secrets of the Bible."  I found it on Amazon.com but I digress...  They did a section on David and Goliath with the usuall "there's no way it could ever happen," and "heck yes it could, check out what I can do with a sling!" back and forth.  The guy they had on to show how awesome the sling really is, I wish I could remember his name, proceeded to break a series of pine boards (1/2 in. thick I think) from about 40 feet away.  The amazing thing was, the boards were only eight inches square, and he had someone holding them up in the air and he shot the boards out of their hand.  He even shot one that was thrown up in the air.  Needless to say, as a six year old kid, I was very impressed.  Anyone know about this and perhaps know this man's name?

An archeologist who had done research in Syria once wrote that the boys in the village near the site where he worked shot down the flying birds from the air with a sling. The problem about modern experiments is the fact that only few people train their abilities in using devices with that serious aproach which once had been necessary for survival. And if they have no success the audience blames the sling for the result.  :-[

funda iucunda

Stacy Groscup.  Good man.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_i92VekJnY



TS

nice video - shame about the pathetic target stacy chose to destroy. You'd have thought he'd have gone for something a bit tougher.
:-)

Yeah, white pine don't hold a candle to marble and granite.  Neither lead balls to sulphur ones, I suppose.


http://www.wyattmuseum.com/cities-of-the-plain.htm


The slinger makes all the difference, I'm told.


God bless,


TS

Interesting - actually sulphur is a very interesting element.
In that it is strongly allotropic. Ie: sulphur can hold several different crystalling and physical forms at the same temperature.
It can form a plastic like solid, a powder and a solid crystalline form all at room temperature.

So finding unusual looking sulphur deposits is not in itself unusual. It just means that those particular sulphur deposits show signs of allotrophic activity.
It's possible that sulphur was formed into balls in it's semi-solid form and ignited and then slung as a missile.
Doesn't have to be divine intervention could be simply manmade intervention.

But the evidence for the four cities is pretty good.

Curious Aardvark wrote on May 17^th, 2008 at 6:44am:

nice video - shame about the pathetic target stacy chose to destroy. You'd have thought he'd have gone for something a bit tougher. :-)

Couldn't agree more about the target choice; you can snap a small piece of pine along the grain with light finger pressure. It would take a lot more than that to kill any man let alone a powerful warrior. As "proof" that it could be done, TechStuf's own video of him putting a stone through a plywood Goliath is much more convincing.

Generally I found the "Mythbusters style" video very weak and inaccurate in many ways. Firstly David was no weakling incapable of picking up Saul's sword; he used Goliath's own large sword to decapitate him after killing him with his sling. Nor was Saul's armour rejected because it was too heavy but because it was restrictive. He also did not tell Saul he intended to use his sling, the first mention of anything related to slinging is when he selects his sling stones from the stream. The Sunday School graphic of little David with his tiny sling killing the huge nasty Goliath with a shield in his hand, may be cute but it is historically wrong and only serves to lend credibility to the next speaker's assertion that it would not be possible to kill a fearsome warrior in armour and with a shield with a leather sling and a "pebble". This assertion may have been correct but David was not using a small pebble and Goliath was not using his shield. He was taken by surprise before he had a chance to cover up.

The videos of an allegedly Palestinian boy slinging is again nice but the size and speed of the stone he throws would barely break an Isreali Police station window much less kill anyone. The Spanish civil war grenade throwers scene is so obviously fake it's laughable. Two guys on a roof can barely get the grenades over the roof ridge and on the other side we are supposed to believe is utter devastation and explosions that would do credit to long range artillery.

Next we see the alleged expert who also makes statements which are questionable. He claims that his sling is a replica of the one used by David. He has no justification for making that claim. There are no slings intact from David's time and no details of it are recorded in the Bible at all. If we are to assume that sling technology in the Middle East has remained essentially the same for thousands of years then David's sling is more likely to have looked like the braided styles used by the Balearics, much stronger and longer and suitable for use with a larger stone, capable of smashing a man's skull.

Not that I need convincing, but if I were a skeptic who needed convincing that it could be done I would need two questions answered; is it possible to sling hard enough and accurately enough to do the job? For that I would like to see a single video clip of a competent slinger throwing a sizeable stone with a reasonable velocity at a small target and hitting it several times in a row, just so I know it's not a fluke and the video is not a montage. Sorry but we Australians are a cynical bunch.
.

Quote:

Not that I need convincing, but if I were a skeptic who needed convincing that it could be done I would need two questions answered; is it possible to sling hard enough and accurately enough to do the job?

Well said.


I've yet to meet a skeptic worth his (pillar of) salt who could be convinced of much of anything of true value.  Especially facts.


Mr. Groscup's various demonstrations have spawned a legend or two in their own right.  His sling demos (for a man of his advanced years, He has been dead a while now) are excellent examples in support of the accuracy side of the slinging equation, which many a skeptic would be otherwise hard pressed to admit.  



TS

Aussie, as far as David refusing Saul's sword, it certainly wasn't because he was weak, which you pointed out. However, for a boy (speaking relatively) who has spent his life as a shepherd, wielding - at most - a sling and staff, a sword would have been a pretty foolish choice to carry into the fight.
Goliath, we must assume, was a well-trained, experienced warrior. He was also a brute, and well-outfitted. David wielding a sword would have been pathetic. David would have been pulp.

Here we go again though. If Goliath was so smart and battle-savvy, how was he dumb enough to not realize he was about to get creamed with a rock? I mean, the sling wasn't exactly a novelty in those days.

Ethan wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 9:50pm:

Aussie, as far as David refusing Saul's sword, it certainly wasn't because he was weak, which you pointed out. However, for a boy (speaking relatively) who has spent his life as a shepherd, wielding - at most - a sling and staff, a sword would have been a pretty foolish choice to carry into the fight. Goliath, we must assume, was a well-trained, experienced warrior. He was also a brute, and well-outfitted. David wielding a sword would have been pathetic. David would have been pulp. Here we go again though. If Goliath was so smart and battle-savvy, how was he dumb enough to not realize he was about to get creamed with a rock? I mean, the sling wasn't exactly a novelty in those days.

Agree with you fully re the sword. My comment was based on the video which shows a wimpy David who has to apologize to Saul for dropping his sword. I know that many people think the Biblical account is just a story. Be that as it may, but it is the only record that we have and it records no such conversation between David and Saul. David tells Saul about how he killed a lion and a bear which threatened his sheep. David's whole demeanour brims with confidence and outrage against Goliath. The sling does not get a mention until David selects his sling stones from the stream.

The account in 1Sam. 17 also clearly states that Goliath's shield bearer was going before him, ie. Goliath was not carrying his shield. Additionally David drew Goliath's sword out of its scabbard, ie. he did not have it in his hand at the time he was hit by David's stone. Yet what does the graphic show? A little David wearing what for all the world looks like a diaper nailing Goliath who is holding both shield and sword. Sure it's only a picture but those images stick in your mind and they are clearly wrong. This is supposed to be a scholarly objective look at the possibility of David' defeating Goliath yet it makes basic errors like that.

Now TechStuf vouches for Mr. Groscup's ability but otherwise being my cynical suspcious self I see him whizzing his little sling around then the camera shows a breaking board. I must accept on goodwill that the two events are actually related. Then I am told that I have just seen a demonstration of how effective the sling can be. Sorry a fly colliding with Goliath's head would cause as much damage even assuming it was genuine.

If this video is intended to convince me as a skeptic that the Biblical account could be, not necessarily is, true then I need much less hoopla, pseudo experts etc. and lots more objective evidence that a slingstone will have the required destructive power and can be thrown with the required accuracy to do the job. And I am not a skeptic! So how will the real skeptics be convinced? Personally I think this video is counter productive.

As far as why Goliath allowed himself to be so easily beaten, I am as amazed as anyone. However all speculation is just that, speculation. Sure the sling was common in shepherding societies but then Goliath was no shepherd. Perhaps he was not aware how accurately a stone could be slung. It may be that David concealed the sling until the last moment. The account says he had it in his hand but coiled up it may have been not readily visible. It may be that in single combat you were not supposed to use a sling and David pulled what amounts to a dirty trick. I am willing to accept any explanation on the understanding that everything is only a maybe.

Quote:

Now TechStuf vouches for Mr. Groscup's ability

Indubitably.



Quote:

If this video is intended to convince me as a skeptic...

An IF big enough to hang one's 10 gallon Akubra on, to be sure.  
Obviously, the clip is not intended to convince skeptics nearly as much as to pique the curiousity of optimists.  



Quote:

So how will the real skeptics be convinced? Personally I think this video is counter productive.

Quote:

...being my cynical suspcious self I see him whizzing his little sling around then the camera shows a breaking board. I must accept on goodwill that the two events are actually related. Then I am told that I have just seen a demonstration of how effective the sling can be. Sorry a fly colliding with Goliath's head would cause as much damage even assuming it was genuine.

Disadvantageously produced is certainly not counterproductive.  I vote Aussieslinger put his skills where his mouth is and show us a video of him hitting any moving arial target AT ALL  at any distance as well, much less with the force of a fly landing on Goliath's nose.  Give an old man a break, at least he can hit what he aims at, even if his power and sphere of influence has been reduced with age.  In my opinion the potential of the sling is reasonably well represented, especially given the relative rarity of more dedicated examples at the time of the production.



Quote:

As far as why Goliath allowed himself to be so easily beaten, I am as amazed as anyone.

Yeah, it's real easy to achieve both fantastic accuracy under pressure and devastating power both at the same time, with a sling.   ::)


Then too, perhaps Goliath, like so many in every era, was simply a skeptic right up until he wasn't?  A poor time for anyone to wish they had been more of an optimist in life, eh?


I guess, when you get right down to it, an optimist affords himself a wealth of educational opportunities that are otherwise ill afforded by the skeptics.  I know I learned a thing or two even in that short, counter productive video clip.



Nothing but love for ya though, AS,  I understand that you only played devil's advocate (in lieu of a more suitable candidate for the job) merely to incite a response.



Whatever worked, I guess.  8-)



TS

Now TS old mate, don't shoot the messenger. I at no time claimed or implied that hitting a moving (or any) target was easy, or that I could do it. What I said was that Goliath allowed himself to be defeated easily. (Now I also know you Americans have just about abandoned adverbs in favour of adjectives but "easily" is not the same as "easy".)

What is clear is that Goliath was not prepared for what was coming. He was not crouched behind his shield or apparently taking any measures to defend himself against what was coming. It appears the whole encounter lasted only a few minutes. In that sense Goliath was defeated easily. To face such a killer was undoubtedly an extraordinary act of courage and the slinging skill, especially the accuracy was also extraordinary. However I am also sure that many of the slingers on this forum, you definitely included as I have said before, would be capable of slinging powerfully enough. The thing that I have yet to see is a slinger who can consistently put in a first shot that would be accurate enough. Your Dr Groscup may be this man but the shots shown on the video, all hyperboles aside, would not have been nearly powerful to crack Goliath's skull.

As far as me facing Goliath, if he would kindly consent to standing absolutely still and not waving his arms about or doing anything else to distract or frighten me, I am fairly sure I could also eventually knock him down. But I do not claim to be a particularly good or strong slinger. Chronologically I am definitely on the decline, nor was I ever particularly sports minded.

When you say I am acting as devil's advocate you are right. To make matters worse I am an Australian devil's advocate. I believe the Bible to be true but generally Australia is a particularly secular society, religion is often viewed as suspect and a conjob. That's why I cosidered the video counter productive because I know that in Australia it would attract derision as religious crap, for the reasons I listed before, rather than conviction that the story of David's defeating Goliath is perfectly plausible. If I was to show my workmates any video to demonstrate how potentially destructive a sling can be it would be your own.

jolly good glad we got the sorted. And for the record. I did not believe that the board in the air was broken by a bloke with a sling either lol.

Show me the video where both man and sling and board are all on the screen at the same time and I'll believe you. But those tv-magic cutaways make me suspicious every time :-)
If you watch that video clip, at no point do you see the man and the target in the same frame at the same time.
Being cynical I'd have said he used a slingshot to break the boards - which would account for the choice of boards. He is known as an expert with a slingshot. A much easier weapon to hit airborne targets with.

And the david and goliath discussion - well that's just repitition of the david and goliath threads :-)

I doubt that anybody half sensible would shoot at a board held in the hand unless the person holding it is well armoured. Even with relatively high precision weapons you would never do that. So either they were very foolish or they were faking. In both cases they might give other people the wrong impression that a sling is a safe and precise weapon, which can cause deathly accidents.

They should have stayed with the shot in the fruit, that was much more realistic.

Upon rewatching that video, I was reminded of how inacurately they portrayed David and Goliath in their dramatization.  It seems that instead of actually reading the biblical account, they went of of what somebody thought they remembered from when they were a kid.  The other parts of the series (the part about the crossing of the red sea, Sampson, etc.) were similarly inaccurate.  Whatever you might say about the sling demonstration, it was responsible for my initial intrest in slinging... so not all bad!

lol yeah even I wouldn't hold a target for someone to sling at. Slingshot - no problem, you seen the new ones with a laser red dot. seriously neat.

I'm not saying the guy couldn't do it - just that those particular video clips don't convince me :-)

My two cents ... I have done a bit of research on Dr. Stacy Groscup, and I have read several accounts written by folks who had met him and watched him demonstrate his prowess with a bow.  By all accounts he actually could hit aspirin tablets or flying insects in mid-air.  He also was reputed by those people to be an honest man.  The idea of him participating in a fraudulent demonstration of the sling, strikes me therefore as unlikely.  I suspect that he could, and did, hit those pine boards with a sling (or more precisely, with lead shot slung from a sling).

That said, it is clear from the video that the sequence of events was edited and/or there were two cameras.  Dr. Groscup's slinging technique was viewed from his left.  The impacts on boards held in someone's hand, were taken from a point of view downrange and to Dr. Groscup's right (the shot enter the frame from the left).  If there was just one camera available, then the filming would be done in two stages: one set of takes showing Groscup slinging, and another set showing the target as he slung a second round of shots.

Similarly, the gentleman slinging at a melon, was probably done in two or three takes: one shot from in front of him showing his technique, a second shot from behind showing the melon, and a third shot (or the same shot viewed by a second camera) showing the stone flying and striking the melon.

Video editing does not necessarily invalidate any demonstration of skill; it does, however, require validation of the honesty of the performer and of the video folks.  I agree that a single take, with no cuts or interruptions, is preferable.

By the way, apologies for the ambiguity of "shot".  I hope you can infer correctly when I am talking about a small lead sphere, about the slinging of same, and about recording said events on film/tape/whatever.  I could have been more precise, but this is more than sufficiently verbose already.

Hey!  I just ran across an animated video on YouTube, that is a reasonably accurate account of David and Goliath (that is, it is reasonably close to what Samuel recorded in his first book):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RD0xCmlZcg

The armor may not be historically accurate, but the sequence of events is correct.  It starts with David arguing his case with Saul, shows David trying on Saul's armor (it doesn't fit at all and would be a hazard to him in the field), shows David facing Goliath and Goliath's shield bearer, shows that Goliath's sword was in the scabbard (he was going to spit that pipsqueak with his spear), shows David's stone hitting Goliath above the eyes and sticking in his forehead, and shows David removing Goliath's head with Goliath's own sword.  The slinging style is even reasonable; it is a sidearm style with just a couple of windup spins

Sandbumoen wrote on Apr 4^th, 2004 at 12:17pm:

Yea, the crack you can hear with whips is the end breaking the sound barrier. Chris

How strange -- check this out.

I wanted to get myself convinced, if possible, that it really was a breaking-of-the-sound-barrier that caused a whip's crack.  I was skeptical because I have found lots of old beliefs debunked in my time, and I thought, why would the tip have to break the sound barrier in order to sound? Hands clap and they don't have to do so.

So I tried Snopes.com first.  Nothing there.
I tried Google by searching for "whip crack sound barrier" or something close to that.  I found a scientific article that mentioned someone who had done research on the cause of a whip's crack.  there was a comments section, and the only comment left was by a whipmaker and enthusiast.

And on his site was a link to his mini-biography.  Guess what else he's into!  ;)

Whipartist (Ben Scott) was about on this forum until a bit ago.

Maybe we'll see him about here again. :) Nice to see that he has 'unretired' himself.

There's good evidence that the tip of a whip can travel going on to twice the speed of sound when it cracks. 8-)
    http://www.npr.org/programs/wesat/features/2002/june/whip/index.html

The above link leads into a detailed study of the dynamics of stretched rubber bands.              

http://www.hiviz.com/PROJECTS/BAND/band.htm

If any of you pursue the mischievous path try the old stunt of stretching just one side of a rubber band. If one is right handed loop the band over left thumb and index finger to the extent where you create some tension.  Next place the banded hand with palm facing forward. Place the right forefinger under the left thumb and onto the front band element. Extend forefinger toward potential target and at the same time let the band slip off the left finger. Pull back and release from thumb.
Like I said, this is really old like rubber.  

Quote:

Thom Richardson, from the British Royal Armory was the slinger. His only reached 67MPH. They were trying to break a pig skull with it. As a result, the sling was regarded as ineffective. At that sped, i don't doubt it.

I wouldn't want to go up against a wild pig with nothing but a sling.  Maybe a spear.

Asleepundertrees wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 1:17pm:

[quote]Thom Richardson, from the British Royal Armory was the slinger. His only reached 67MPH. They were trying to break a pig skull with it. As a result, the sling was regarded as ineffective. At that sped, i don't doubt it.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=TVPeOE7Wgsk

Go here to see what a good sling shot can do to a pig skull.

Curious Aardvark wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 9:53am:

hmm, well the typical weight for a sling glande was 1 1/2 - 2 ounces. so nearer 50 grams than 75. And yes it makes a difference as to the reachable velocity of the slung missile. Not arguing that  a slung missile is lethal. But you just don't get the penetration you get with a firearm. So while a lucky head shot might kill someone, you are far more likely to cause broken bones or deep internal bruising. That said at short range I've seen a 3/4 inch ball bearing go straight through a 3/4 inch sheet of plywood. Dunno what that equates to but you wouldn't get me standing in front of larry bray with a ball bearing and a sling - no matter what body armour you had on hand :-)  (unless someone else tested it first lol)

1 and 1/2 ounces??? WHAT SORT OF AMMO IS THAT????
I am used to 6-8 oz stone... with my bigger slings(>40 inches) upwards of a pound. I can crack 2 inches of steel-reinforced concrete in 1 shot, put a hole in it in 3 shots.
This is slinging hard quartz ammo.
-Squirrel

Aussie wrote on May 19^th, 2008 at 5:25am:

Now TS old mate, don't shoot the messenger. I at no time claimed or implied that hitting a moving (or any) target was easy, or that I could do it. What I said was that Goliath allowed himself to be defeated easily. (Now I also know you Americans have just about abandoned adverbs in favour of adjectives but "easily" is not the same as "easy".) What is clear is that Goliath was not prepared for what was coming. He was not crouched behind his shield or apparently taking any measures to defend himself against what was coming. It appears the whole encounter lasted only a few minutes. In that sense Goliath was defeated easily. To face such a killer was undoubtedly an extraordinary act of courage and the slinging skill, especially the accuracy was also extraordinary. However I am also sure that many of the slingers on this forum, you definitely included as I have said before, would be capable of slinging powerfully enough. The thing that I have yet to see is a slinger who can consistently put in a first shot that would be accurate enough. Your Dr Groscup may be this man but the shots shown on the video, all hyperboles aside, would not have been nearly powerful to crack Goliath's skull. As far as me facing Goliath, if he would kindly consent to standing absolutely still and not waving his arms about or doing anything else to distract or frighten me, I am fairly sure I could also eventually knock him down. But I do not claim to be a particularly good or strong slinger. Chronologically I am definitely on the decline, nor was I ever particularly sports minded. When you say I am acting as devil's advocate you are right. To make matters worse I am an Australian devil's advocate. I believe the Bible to be true but generally Australia is a particularly secular society, religion is often viewed as suspect and a conjob. That's why I cosidered the video counter productive because I know that in Australia it would attract derision as religious crap, for the reasons I listed before, rather than conviction that the story of David's defeating Goliath is perfectly plausible. If I was to show my workmates any video to demonstrate how potentially destructive a sling can be it would be your own.

I have found that my first shot can hit, the others are more than 20 feet away. This is not just joking, this is actully consistant. I still do not know how I do it.
-Squirrel
As in, I use a 2x2 foot target. I sling golf-balls for accuracy. I can stand more than 30 meters away and nail this thing with my first shot of the day. Cannot do it agian, sometimes when I get up , sling, do HW, etc for 6-7 hours, and then sling I can do it twice....