I know we've discussed this before, but...

Some friends and I took our slings out my favorited slingin' spot, along with a couple of bows and some 'ninja' stars.  My friend shot a couple of arrows from his 40lb bow to gauge the distance.  He was getting about 2 1/2 times what I can do with a sling!  Admittedly, the stones I throw are all sorts of odd shapes, and I'm no Yurek when it comes to range, but still...  We've always talked about slings out-ranging bows, and that seems to be what the historical texts suggest.  What's goin' on?  

I think it's this:

1/ The bow and arrow your friend used were commercial items, optimized for performance.
2/ Modern bows and arrows are an improvement on ancient items.  The modern compound bow is absolutely dynamite!
3/ Ancient slingers had a lot of practice, and had built up a much strength in the needed muscles
4/ Wartime slingers often used very long slings.  They sometimes even stood on platforms to have room to swing the sling.
5/ Finally, they used optimized lead or stone ammo.

I dont know if slings will ever out-shoot modern bows.  The problem is that with slings there's little opportunity to store energy "at leisure" in the device, to be later transferred almost instantaneously to the missile.  This ability collect and store energy is the great advantage of the bow.     mgreenfield

Hobb
Get a copy of the "Anabasis" by Xenophon. The Rhodian slingers outranged the Persian archers(who were considered the best in the world at the time)who kept harassing the Greeks as they tried to get back home to Greece. They were slinging lead and kept the Persians at bay. The ancient slinger could easily hurl a projectile at a quarter of a mile with ease.

Well we know it is possible to easily outrange a bow.  The sling world records far outreach the range of nearly every type of ancient bow.  And we know it was true in the past, too, although of course the Greek writers may have been exaggerating Greek slinging achievements.  Anyways, does it really matter?  I am a total convert to slinging over archery.  I don't care whether it can't outrange a bow, just get fairly close, and what bow can you knock up in a shed with a bit of fabric and some shoelaces?

Training and strength is important, but I think proper ammo is vital.  If you had a Roman lead projectile and he had a crudely fashioned stick for an arrow, you'd out range him.  You have to compare apples to apples, it's not so easy with vastly different weapons.

Chris

So I guess it's fair to say that ancient archer were out-distanced by ancient slingers when both had good equipment and ammo and ideal conditions, but it's a bit ambitious for a novice like me to go up against modern bows.  I can live with that.  

Don't get me wrong, English.  I'm not about to give up the sling!  I wouldn't mind some degree of proficiency in both, but the sling's got my loyalty.  I was laughing as my buddies 'geared up,' unloading an SUV full of stuff, placing a special target, stringing bows, donning archery gloves and braces... then they had to retrieve their arrows every 5 minutes.  Meanwhile, I was slinging away, happy as a clam -- if clams could sling.

When practising archery, all I have with me is three extra strings, a basket quiver of decent homemade arrows, the bow (similarly homemade), and that is about it.  I think archery is great, I like the noise of the arrow hitting wood, and I would trust my life to my proficiency, but I prefer slinging.  I am definitely not as good, in any way, but it is nicer because it is simpler and the amount of skill required is higher, and so there is more satisfaction gained from a good shot.  And yeah, with my homemade bows, I think I can outrange my homemade slings, but that is not the point.

I think the reason acient text seem to say that singers out ranged arrchers is not because they could throw farther but because of differing cost in amunition. Let me explain,arrchers could shoot farther but did not have good acuracy at that range. Because arrows are expensive they could not aford to miss. rocks are much cheeper thus slingers could take "pot shots". At least thats what I think

Distance is distance, so unless someone shows me that "out-range" means "more accurate", Il'' go with the  meaning that it could land the projectile further then the bow.

Shouldn't this be easy to settle? Surely someone can find the world distance record of a modern bow?

Uh Oh... not sure if we're going to like this one:

http://www.usarchery.org/results%20&%20records/records/National%20Regular%20Flight%20Records.pdf

They have the "intermediate" and "juniour" titles reversed I think but still... outranged by a 12 year old girl?  ;D

Also note than Don Brown's record is often given as 1336 yards 1' 3" (1,222.01 m)...

The good news is that self-bows look to be limited to about 300 yards - which we _can_ beat without much trouble or training. Not much scope for technology improvements in slings (techstuf not withstanding). I'm actually surprised that an '87 record has held up. Lots of composites improvements since then.

Seems that once the human limit is reached, and bow energy recovery is pegged (not much room for improvement in current designs) the only thing left for them to play with is projectile design (barreled arrows etc...)

We've got a definite aero advantage over an arrow, so all we really need is a way to store energy more effectively (how 'bout that compound sling video?)  ;)


Matthias

1,336 yds 1' 3" (1,222.01m) , shot by Don Brown with an unlimited conventional Flight bow in 1987.

You've got to keep in mind that bows in ancient times were considerably worse, both in material and engineering.  We know the range of archers from historical texts, which is less than 350 yards,.

Chris

I looked it up,turkish arrchers were said to have shot 874yr. in the 18th cent.,using a composite bow(horn,wood,and sinue).However it was with a flight arrow(179gr.)not a war arrow(300gr.+)

Nathan

18th century is still very modern.  I'm talking about pre-roman times, when the sling was still a vitally important weapon.  

Chris

Sometimes the page rollover hits in just the right place....


wrote on Apr 19^th, 2004 at 8:27pm:

Uh Oh... not sure if we're going to like this one: http://www.usarchery.org/results%20&%20records/records/National%20Regular%20Flight%20Records.pdf (chopped)

Looks like a pretty comprehensive list of current records with different types incl. turkish / composite / self / compound... interesting to see the different age/sex classes too.

I suspect that the definition of the classes allows modern arrows though, and I can guarantee that a 3mm solid carbon barreled arrow will fly a whole lot farther than a goose quill fletched willow one...

Matthias

Quote:

18th century is still very modern.  I'm talking about pre-roman times, when the sling was still a vitally important weapon.

The eighteenth century is not that modern.  If the bows were made of the same materials, and in the same way, as in ancient/medieval times then when it occurred does not matter.  Also, the Mongols could shoot fairly easily four hundred metres with their bows, and that was accurate range with war arrows rather than flight arrows, ie, they could hit and kill a man at that range.

One might think that 16 yrs.  is a long time as well.   To others, the blink of an eye.   'Very modern' vs. 'not that modern'...... A couple hundred years compared to a thousand....hmmmm  depends on perspective I guess.   I for one am a bit more interested in what the contemporaries of the slingers and archers of those days had to say.....versus the impromptu musings of the modern teenager.....no matter how bright and 'clever' a lad he may be in some ways!  ;)

You really are rather patronising, Techstuf.
I was thinking that in Turkey, etc, the bow would still be practised with at the time, in rural regions, and so the various techniques probably would not have changed for at least a few hundred years; ergo, not that modern.  I was merely making the point that it is possible to achieve ranges as aforementioned with traditional methods.
Also, most arrows used with compound bows are flight arrows by nature.  The Mongols, ( I shall continue to use this example) used reeds.  This is because power in a compound bow comes not from the weight of the arrows, as in a longbow, but from the speed of the arrows.  Ergo, flight arrows and war arrows are much the same thing.

I wish to hereby retract my former statement, as it now appears that the statements by English were less 'impromptu' and more 'calculated' than they seemed by all appearance.   Although,  I can make no apology for speaking as the patron that I am.  An optomistic patron at that. ;)   Ergo, I take your observation to have been proffered as complimentary.  

I'm getting the impression that slings can out-distance & out-damage some types of bows, but not others.  So, what types of bows are there?  I'm no archer, but my understanding is that there are

recurve bows -- where the tips curve back the other way

longbows -- bloody big bows that shoot really far

compound bows -- bows with pulleys to assist in
holding the bow in a drawn position

and (presumably, if there are long bows) short bows, or ordinary, plain old bows that don't shoot as far as the others.  

Since we're using texts from the roman-empire era, and our most famous comparison to date is the one where slingers could out-distance the Persian archers, who were the best in the world at the time, then what type of bow were these Persians using?

The Persians used a composite recurve bow which had a wooden core with strips of horn glued to the back and reinforced with tendon. Its small size allowed them to be used both when mounted and on foot.

The arrows were of cane or reed, with three-feathered flights and triangular sectioned bronze tips. The arrows seem to be of relatively light weight and with their broad heads were more effective against unarmoured targets than for penetrating shield or armour.
The bow string was pulled back with the index and middle fingers of their right hand with the end of the arrow rested between these two fingers. This was the method used by the Scythians and others throughout the Mediterranean. The Greeks however, held the end of the arrow between the thumb and the index finger, and pulled the string back with the end of the arrow. This was not as effective and so limited distance and penetration of the arrow.
The Persians seemed to have relied on long range shooting, their massed ranks and fast rate of fire would blanket enemy troops 8) ;D


Nathan

Seems like I recall seeing photos of old middle eastern composite recurve bows; with so much recurve, that when unstrung, the bow tips overlapped.   No idea how you'd string and unstring such a bow.   mgreenfield

If you look at that list of record ranges, the longest longbow distance is around 400 yards, less than the range of a sling.  The longbow was considered the premiere long range weapon in Europe. (Crossbows were almost never used for range).  The Turkish or primitive bows are around 250 yards.  Isn't Yurek getting something like 450 yards?

Chris

Beyond that:  "Longbow" in this context only means that the limbs aren't recurved - the whole bow must be straight when unstrung. High-tech composites and laminated construction are allowed, along with modern materials for arrows and bowstring... No mechanical releases are allowed either.

The records for "traditional" longbows and "primitive" bows (including composite const) top out at around 300 yards. No problem beating that  ;D

Matthias

Quote:

Seems like I recall seeing photos of old middle eastern composite recurve bows; with so much recurve, that when unstrung, the bow tips overlapped.   No idea how you'd string and unstring such a bow.

Ancient recurve bows, as some people call them, would often be almost circular when unbraced.  To string them, you must use wooden supports which you tie to limbs and then apply the string.  But once strung, it does not need un-stringing - in fact, it benefits from remaining strung (like a muscle in the body.  The sinew used on the back of the bow IS muscle.  The more you use a muscle, the stronger it becomes.)
 A common misconception is that longbows are merely bows with straight tips.  The English longbow in fact had recurved tips.  And a yew stave, by nature, as soon as it is cut from the tree, bends forward in a shallow C shape, to the back.  (This is known as reflex; a reflex bow is one that is "recurved" all the way along).  This often begins to wear out with use, and so the tips are often recurved as well, ie, bent forward.  

Quote:

recurve bows -- where the tips curve back the other way longbows -- bloody big bows that shoot really far compound bows -- bows with pulleys to assist in   holding the bow in a drawn position and (presumably, if there are long bows) short bows, or ordinary, plain old bows that don't shoot as far as the others.

Short bows would be a large category; flatbows come under this, as do most native American and ancient Egyptian pre-Hyksos bows.  And even early Han dynasty Chinese bows.  Compound bows are also known as composite bows; it is only the "modern compound bow" which has pulleys.  A composite bow is one which is made of either wood + other materials, like sinew, bone, horn, etc, or entirely of materials other than wood, like antler.  Everyone knows recurve, but many do not know the aforementioned reflex, or deflex, doubly convex, and many other bent wood bows.  Probably the most powerful bow one can make with natural materials is a composite recurved bow, like a Mongolian, Indian, Hungarian, Scythian, Persian, etc style bow.  
A traditional longbow can shoot consistently at around 350 metres.  A composite bow can shoot at least 400 metres, probably more with the right arrows, good conditions (ie, not humid; moisture profoundly affects the workings of a compound bow, as the sinew becomes slack).  I think that a sling can outrange these weapons, but (I don't think at least) consistently, and for the entire duration of a battle.  I think that about four hours of brutal swings would wreck the shoulder blade, whereas archers can carry on for as long as there is ammunition and enemies, if they are well trained and quite fit.  Perhaps a sling can outrange a bow of nearly any type, but I think that the bow is probably more useful in a battle situation.  (Although of course if you had bows and slings working together, the combination could wreck nearly any formation at incredible range and still maintain firepower throughout the course of a battle.)

I don't know about that English.  Those long bows can have 100 pound draws.  You'd get tired pretty quick.  In some ways, casting a sling is a more natural motion, although it does take some serious force to get to the ranges we are talking about.  

Chris

Yes, longbows had ranges of 100 pounds (at least), but the Mongols often used bows of about 180 pounds.  That is very nearly physically impossible to draw if you have not been brought up with the bow.  But now think of the battle of Agincourt; I like this example.  The English had been marching double time for days.  Most had dysentry - so much so that they fought the battle with their breaches down.  They had been subsisting off oysters, berries, and small amounts of old meat for months, and were incredibly weary.  They got up early in the morning, and their muscles were probably fairly dilapidated by this time.  And yet they fought for a few hours with their bows, and eventually in a melee.

Somthing that I don't think has been discusd yet is hiting power,we've talked about range and I think have concluded that both arrows and glandes had the same range (400-500yr).Maybe glandes would simply be more powerful at that range, and arrows would be more of a close range (50-200yd) rapid fire wepon? :-/ I can tell you from experinace,it is much easier to "snap shoot"a bow than a sling.


Nathan

Nathan,
That crossed my mind a while back. Pretty much a question of mass.
There was a show years ago where they were testing a bows against an atlatl. At one point there was a gizmo that mesured impact. On the first test a good reading was taken on the arrow, but the dart went threw the pad and the sensor pad with no reading.  It would be nice to find one of these gizmos and see how glandes of diffrent mass fair.

it is also easier to move with the bow ready to fire.  you can lay the arrow accross the handle and put the knock against the string, so that all you need to do is pull and release.  you can run this way, shifting the bow to avoid things on the ground and such.  the sling is harder to run with, as the ammo can dump the ammo if the sling hits something(a problem with longer slings especially), or if you jerk in a direction, such as off to the side, then the sling can dump the ammo easily.

but also, you have to consider durability and feild conditions, as well as the ability to repair them.  bows need to be kept dry and clean, generally speaking.  slings can be put through the washing machine and the dryer (perhaps equivelant to several months straight of working the sling in your hands, without use) there are stories about slings being chucked in the ocean withought any repurcussions.  plus, slings can be stuck in a little pouch or something, wrapped up to be the size of a watch, depending on the material and construction.  a new sling can be made in the matter of ten minutes if need be.  bows take years, if you count the drying time of the staves, otherwise it would count as perhaps a month or more.    

ammo, as well needs to be considered.  there is ammo everywhere imaginable for a slinger.  for a bow, you need specialized ammo.  it is hard(er)to make ammo for a bow in feild conditions than it would be at an encampment perhaps.  with a sling, you can pick rocks up off the ground.  if you need to make ammo for the sling (ei: lead, clay, etc)
it is easy.  you only need a fire and a mold, in the case of the lead, and only a fire and an hour or two for the clay.  

don't get me wrong, bows are great, it is just that they are harder to take care of.  perhaps a fair anology is to compare a ceramic knife to a steel one.  i have read that ceramic knives are far better for edge holding capability, and that they are much smoother to work with, making them very nice to use.  but would you take a ceramic knife out in the woods with you to go on a camping trip?  no.  you would take a steel one, because of the durability of the material and ease of sharpening.  even though a ceramic knife may be better, a steel one is more durable.  so then, if the conditions are suitable, a bow is excelent, but if you need to use and abuse a weapon out in some bad conditions for a while, withought the chance for making more ammo and what not, a sling is what you will want.