I'm curious as to how far people can throw projectiles with their slings. I don't know whether this thread will catch on or whether it's already been done but I'd love know what's possible and try and beat it and I'm sure other people would love to do the same!

I think it would be a good idea to list your projectile and maybe the distance of the grip from the projectile 'pouch' on your sling. A picture of the sling and projectile would be great so we can get a good idea.

I'm a complete novice at this unfortunately and so don't know what's possible in general or even what's possible for me!


*With a sling about 60cm from grip to pouch I've managed to throw a golf ball about 100m*
No picture available I'm afraid.

I voted 200-249m. That is with a clay projectile and a 34 inch PJ sling with perfect conditions.

With lead I think I can touch the 300 mark but that is more of a guesstimate then a measurement.

A golf ball with a sling 122 centimeters in length,thrown to 225 meters.

 Hello!!!!

  Brett

As stated above it depends a lot on the projectile and also long distances are hard to measure accurately. I tend to use the measuring facility on Google Earth. With any sort of a decent stone 150m is relatively easy. Finding places to do it safely is the hard part.

I actually voted 100-149m but I have exceeded that and <200 would probably be a better max. estimate.

Hi and Welcome, Lipase;
   Even though threads like this have been done before it's not a bad idea to do it again once in a while because people's maximum distance improves over time (hopefully).
   With a 49" (I think that's right.. it was a few months ago) tapered pj sling with a long pouch I was able to reach 200+ yards, estimated with Google Earth.  I clicked the 200-249 meter option.  I was using egg sized oval shaped stones as ammo and a modified side armed style.  I'm pretty sure that I've tossed golf balls farther than that on another occasion but at that time I had no means to accurately measure the distance.

Not more than 130 m, I guess, and those shots are rare.

The type of sling that I use to achieve my maximum distance isn't something that one would want to use every day.  If I don't get it moving very quickly it drops the projectile prematurely.  It's cumbersome, not all that accurate, and can only be used in open spaces.  It's for setting personal distance records only.   With the type of sling I use every day,  usually either a 32"-40" Cobra or pj, 100-120 yards is normal.    

Best throw is about 120 paces which would probably be about 125 yrds. Average throw is more like 75 to 80 yrds though.  I"m using a 26" to 30" split pouch or same length PJ and that's folded length.  This is with the kitty litter biconicals.

I voted for the 100-149 mark. I use a 20 to 23 inch sling, which many people concider on the short side. I generally throw rocks. I think my max would be about 140 yds, but mostly I keep my shot under 70 yds to work on my aim.

Using my regular 70 centimeter sling. I'd reached a hill about 150 meters away. The rock would need to come down for the real distance though.

What if I can throw between 90 and 110m ? This category does not exist... ;D

freezing old day, captain paul golf ball pouch, 25 inches. angular but smooth 2 ounce (guess) rock.

Here's a picture of the pouch I used to hit my best distance with.  It's the one on the left.  It's funny, looking at the Cobra on the right, how far they've come.  That was one of my originals.

---

The farthest measured shot I made was exactly 150 yards with this 24" [Roughly 60 cm] cotton Apache. (It actually hit the 150 yard sign at the local driving range)

Even though I traded the original (The original one is in the picture BTW), I liked it so much, I made another exactly like it. :D

---

I voted second to last. With my long sling which is 13 feet overall length, I can sling really far in the right conditions.

I have no ware safe to try and go for full power, so i never really try full power, just some mdoerate power within reason.
But i may try ona  turf field near where i sling soon, i think it has a full size soccer field on it, so maybe ill use that to find out.
i voted 50-99m

Quote:

I voted second to last. With my long sling which is 13 feet overall length, I can sling really far in the right conditions.

That would put you in the world record category mrboss.

Any time you want to put your money where your mouth is I suggest you give the guinness people a ring. Otherwise why not just admit your distances are in feet :-)

In fact 450 metres is 492 yards - that would even exceed the dart sling world record.
Have you ever measured 400 yards out ? Not feet Yards. It's an amazingly long way. And metres are even further.

Untill I try with lead glandes I'm still on 240 metres.

mr. boss

I got to wonder why you are the only guy on the forum who measures your sling in overall length. I'm not saying it is wrong, but it is a little confusing. That, combined with the staggering distances you claim to throw, kind of makes you apear to be overcompinsating for something ;) Relax there is nothing to prove here.

I measure my slings from center of pouch to finger loop so it's actually twice as long as I say it is,LOL. ::)

Curious Aardvark wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 7:15am:

Quote: I voted second to last. With my long sling which is 13 feet overall length, I can sling really far in the right conditions. That would put you in the world record category mrboss. Any time you want to put your money where your mouth is I suggest you give the guinness people a ring. Otherwise why not just admit your distances are in feet :-) In fact 450 metres is 492 yards - that would even exceed the dart sling world record. Have you ever measured 400 yards out ? Not feet Yards. It's an amazingly long way. And metres are even further. Untill I try with lead glandes I'm still on 240 metres.

Im actually thinking of contacting guiness eventually.

dunno if they'll take you seriously  ;)

Now I'm certain that mrboss is a powerful slinger, cos I've seen his videos. Is he in Larry Bray's league? I dunno... Larry's throws dont look all that special but he was clearing 300 metres in front of our own C_A.

Somehow we need to measure and confirm or refute what is going on here, because if mrboss is even 80% correct he is the third best slinger in the modern world, after Yurek and Larry Bray. If he is 100% as good as he says, we need to get Guinness on the phone.

We cant just say "piss off, you're full of it" just because he's a cocky kid from Detroit. There's an old giffer from Wyoming and a beardy guy from Eastern Europe who are already there. Hell, I'd like to be there but I dont know how.

I am not going to take one side or another but I would love to see some acctual proof of 450+ yard shots. I would be the first person to make a 13 foot sling if I thought I could chuck that far.


BTW here is the link for the Guiness Book of World Records.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/register/register.aspx?existing=0

Looks like you need to register

Gday guys... just cast my vote... went for 150-200. Hard to judge precisely as everywhere around my place (the range, haha) is either uphill or downhill from someplace else. But I use an old burnt out house-pad that I know for a fact is 200ft for comparison, and stop "tracking" a shot once it has more fall than travel. Hard to do, would be nice if I could throw something and then suddenly be 90 degrees to one side of it!  ;D

Glad to see I'm in the mid ground of figures (machismo being what it is) but I suspect being awkwardly tall, having arms like a trebuchet and being fairly hardened to outdoor work (not to mention being a whippersnapper, to some extent) helps a lot.

I find that with a crosswind at 90deg (live on a montane ridge about 400m up here, serious wind sometimes) can shave 1/3 off distance and of course throws any semblance of accuracy (beyond it going somewhere in front of me) as I don't have any truly round, smooth shot. Using natural stone, if it's round it's typically not smooth and if its smooth it's more tear or egg shaped, of course.

I find that for accuracy practice, guess you could call it plinking, 20-30mm shot of medium density stone seems a good choice. I am lucky enough to have a hill full of conglomerate stone that shatters in impact... this reduces rebounds and dangerous richochets. For distance, I choose a 50-75 mm stone of high density. A stiff tailwind is lovely, too, and I am sure in many an ancient battle or hunt slingers had to choose between tailwind for assistance vs headwind to avoid scent alerting game or foes. Teaches you to work at least halfway with nature, that's for sure.

Into the wind (never measured it, but a stiff breeze up here lets me run LED lights  from a homemade turbine system of aluminium blades and macgyver'd VCR motors) and the usual wind is enough to naturally bonsai trees, altitude seems to be unaffected but distance drops by half, at least. Density of shot matters a lot at this early stage of my practice, with "midweight" shots averaging poorer range and accuracy than double or half that weight... I find I tend to undercompensate.

Was thinking of casting some concrete shots in passionfruit skins (bit of a fruit bat!)... not big on lead. Would make an ideal size though, reasonably smooth and biologically "inert".

Some impressive throws out there... I'm built more like a spearman than a bowmen otherwise I could do better  ;) May have to start swigging more ale? Important to set achievable goals  :P

Does anyone know if there is any kind of device that could be incorporated into largish (palm sized?) shot to measure altitude/distance/time/velocity? would be interesting to see some real figures. Worlds first USB 2.0 shot? good for a laugh, anyway.

A piccy of my favoured "range" is attached. it is sometimes actually that green, lots of lightning and rain of late.

happy flinging,
H_T

---

would be interesting to see a poll of how far we can all throw (by hand, I mean) a similar shot to what we sling, perhaps there is an easily determined basic ratio of power or ability that could be found. I cannot throw by hand very far for my height or build but that has more to do with a few old injuries etc... I find a sling neatly overcomes these and uses entirely different muscle and ligament sets.

we are each contributing quite wildly varying factors in our self assessment such as ,height, weight, strength, experience, style/length/weight/drag of sling, shot not to mention local conditions, warmup v non warmup... perhaps if we could all source an equally weighted, equally form shot with an identical sling under standardised conditions, but I don't think the world is ready for two dozen slingers in an organised formation JUST yet  ;D

having seen people in other disciplines such as shooting, football and swimming tells me that you tend to get power people, and technique/rhythm people... the truly astouding competitor is the one who uses both together to blow the rest of us out of the water.

happy enough to just get em within 5 degrees of each other, here  :)

I am pretty sure that I can hit out to somewhere in the vicinity of +150-200 yards (137-182m) probably 200 if I give it a good ooomph, now that I use longer slings than I used to.  With a 42" PJ sling, I can definitely pass 100 yards regularly.  That's with golf balls.  With clay glandes that are about the size of golf balls, I'm sure I could blast past that.

My answer on the poll was 150-199m.  I'm fairly sure I'm good for that.

Quote:

We cant just say "piss off, you're full of it" just because he's a cocky kid from Detroit.

To be fair, I've seen his slinging style as well - and no way no how is that big rock going much further than 100 yards. I'm only going on 20 years slinging experience, meeting and watching more slingers than anyone else on the forum and holding the largest collection of sligning videos outside (maybe) of youtube. so hey, what do I know :-)

hybrid_throwback wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 1:59am:

would be interesting to see a poll of how far we can all throw (by hand, I mean) a similar shot to what we sling, perhaps there is an easily determined basic ratio of power or ability that could be found. I cannot throw by hand very far for my height or build but that has more to do with a few old injuries etc... I find a sling neatly overcomes these and uses entirely different muscle and ligament sets. we are each contributing quite wildly varying factors in our self assessment such as ,height, weight, strength, experience, style/length/weight/drag of sling, shot not to mention local conditions, warmup v non warmup... perhaps if we could all source an equally weighted, equally form shot with an identical sling under standardised conditions, but I don't think the world is ready for two dozen slingers in an organised formation JUST yet  ;D having seen people in other disciplines such as shooting, football and swimming tells me that you tend to get power people, and technique/rhythm people... the truly astouding competitor is the one who uses both together to blow the rest of us out of the water. happy enough to just get em within 5 degrees of each other, here  :)

In the prehistory of this forum someone suggested the ratio of hand and sling thrown distances. I don't think anyone posted their figures at the time.

To me slinging is very much rhythm, timing, almost no brute force thank goodness  :).

As far as the long distance technique - it seems to me the pirouette has to be the way to go if one insists on the 6.5 foot slings MrBoss uses, if one can get the elevation for the distance, but what little has been posted suggests a technique that could do with a lot of polishing.

I think it's a big mistake to assume that a longer sling will automatically get one a greater distance. It will only if one can modify one's throwing motion properly to the longer sling. The longer the sling the further one has to move one's hand to get the same effect, and they pretty much scale together. I think that is basically why the measures hand-to-whatever have some usefulness.

Personally I can't believe the distances are in feet rather than yards (!) although there are many here who seem to think that a yard is pretty much the same as a meter!

Yeah, I am also very skeptical about Mr Boss´s claims. And let´s face it if you start claiming distances around, even beyond the world record  your word simply isn´t good enough, seeing is believing.
Before that happens , a demonstration, live, in presence of reliable witnesses and a sound way of measuring the distance I stay in the non believer camp.

hybrid_throwback wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 1:41am:

Does anyone know if there is any kind of device that could be incorporated into largish (palm sized?) shot to measure altitude/distance/time/velocity? would be interesting to see some real figures. Worlds first USB 2.0 shot? good for a laugh, anyway.

No, but I'm working on it ;). Don't hold your breath ;D

Quote:

A piccy of my favoured "range" is attached. it is sometimes actually that green, lots of lightning and rain of late.

And there was me visualising a scorched red desert. Which part of Australia is that (sorry if you mentioned it in your earlier posts - havn't read them all yet ;))

hybrid_throwback, the smooth oval shaped stones are the best you can get for distance.

I voted 200-249m.  I've thrown the occasional river rock or golf ball (if I can get a good spin on it) over 200m, but most of my good throws with these projectiles are around 150-200m as measured by Google Earth.  With more practice I think that I can keep improving.  I use sidearm/underhand the most, and keep working on smoothing out that figure-8.

I use both long slings (dragging on the ground with my arm at my side) and short slings (not touching the ground with my arm at my side), made with leather/paracord or duct-tape/paracord.  

100m with a tennis ball is about as far as I think it will go, unless it's thrown very high with a strong wind behind it.

I'm guessing that to reach 492 yards you would need a perfect technique and a very dense, self-righting projectile.  The aerodynamics would be critical.

Hold your horses everybody. Ill need to make conical lead glands, go to the Mojave dessert or some place with high elevation and wait for the right wind conditions before Ill be able to break a world record, so obviously its not going to happen for at least eight months and Ill have to get the money to go there.

Curious Aardvark wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 6:59am:

Quote: We cant just say "piss off, you're full of it" just because he's a cocky kid from Detroit. To be fair, I've seen his slinging style as well - and no way no how is that big rock going much further than 100 yards. I'm only going on 20 years slinging experience, meeting and watching more slingers than anyone else on the forum and holding the largest collection of sligning videos outside (maybe) of youtube. so hey, what do I know :-)

It’s the speed of that 4 ounce payload at release that gets the distance. Although Mrboss’s technique may seem quirky, the speed and power are undeniable. As one who has claimed to exceed a measured 160 m with baseballs and 140 m with softballs I have no problem with mboss original claim of almost 300 m. Add to that the higher density and smaller cross section of stone. The only real proof we have around here are the Guinness records which were set at more than mile high altitude which is 10 times that of Detroit! For those in “Rio Linda” 10 times does not mean 10 times less the air density.      

I do note an article discussed in this forum earlier

http://pennstate.academia.edu/documents/0010/4106/brown_vega_craig2009_slings.pdf

Here, the measurements were done with GPS. The slingers were inhabitants of the Andes, who sling all their lives. The projectiles were pebbles, 3 cm x 5-9 cm.

The distances ? Women, on average 50+ m; men, just under 80 m. (BTW, the archaeologists were pleased, because there had been a hypothesis that sling range was even lower).

FWIW-- these are rigorously documented distances.

Thearos wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 4:27pm:

I do note an article discussed in this forum earlier http://pennstate.academia.edu/documents/0010/4106/brown_vega_craig2009_slings.pdf Here, the measurements were done with GPS. The slingers were inhabitants of the Andes, who sling all their lives. The projectiles were pebbles, 3 cm x 5-9 cm. The distances ? Women, on average 50+ m; men, just under 80 m. (BTW, the archaeologists were pleased, because there had been a hypothesis that sling range was even lower). FWIW-- these are rigorously documented distances.

Add those Andeans to the list. :)          

Thearos wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 4:27pm:

I do note an article discussed in this forum earlier http://pennstate.academia.edu/documents/0010/4106/brown_vega_craig2009_slings.pdf Here, the measurements were done with GPS. The slingers were inhabitants of the Andes, who sling all their lives. The projectiles were pebbles, 3 cm x 5-9 cm. The distances ? Women, on average 50+ m; men, just under 80 m. (BTW, the archaeologists were pleased, because there had been a hypothesis that sling range was even lower). FWIW-- these are rigorously documented distances.

Just because you saw that documentary makes you believe that people cant sling much further than the recorded distances? I can throw a rock by hand 50 yards for peats sake. No offense toward you or anything.

A lot depends on where the slinger is standing & wind direction, for example when i started to learn the art we used to sling out to sea of the top of a cliff, it was relatively easy to exceed 150 yds & with the wind behind you it was possible to go further, the bloke who taught me slinging was a great lanky guy with long arms & he could send a rock way over that.

Wanderer - the silly bit in the middle is the red scorched stuff - mainly we leave it alone so that backpackers and alien contact hopefuls have it all to themselves  ;D I live in Southern QLD... cow country... the other half of the year it's pretty brown and hopeless looking, especially in winter. Mucho moo poo and nitrogen from the storms that hover around the mountain gives it that toxic green glow.

xxkid - a volcano littered this area with lumps of molten stone with a very high iron content onceuponatime... the "bombs" it threw out range from tiny things the size of an ant to foot long specimens. They have been shaped into assymetrical ellipses by their travel and cooling in the air, with a flattened "foot" from impact. Not many came out the right size for my pouch but once in a while I get lucky and they soar like birds. Maybe they can remember being up up n away  :P If only I could find a few hundred of em at the same time!

interesting to see those traditional figures... maybe something there similar to how just because a .303 can throw a bullet multiple kilometres away, in practice noone hunts at those distances and a bang on shot at 100m is worth more kudos than a wild air shot that noone can see the end of. Might be a social construct designed to stop the number of people getting stones in the skull from the neighbours being over ambitious too. More to people's actions than physics and the like. Maybe they don't like to let outsiders know just how far their defensive perimeter can extend if it needs to ;) Wouldn't blame them!

 1500' is a lot farther than 900'.Just sayin'.That adds a relay slinger in there.Come on Mr.Boss,come clean with some solid video evidence.Although I do believe you have awesome velocity on that wind up,I am inclined to question your claims,simply because in the past you posted contradictory statements.

  I have thrown some 2 oz. egg sinkers that I believe to have exceeded 300 yards,but I have nothing to validate my suspicions with.

 Although,I can supply a venue.When you are taking spring break(This year or next),stop through and we'll measure things nicely with a wheel and google earth.Here is a field I sling at frequently.I keep an eye on sporting schedules,and arrive with no one around.The distance marker is 425 meters.

   Brett

---

MrBoss: it's not a documentary, it's a scholarly article. And it's rigorously documented; your claims to throw 50 m by hand are not.

Let me put it differently-- at the risk of being unpopular. Experienced, lifelong slingers, slinging at high altitude, with good ammo, are recorded by indepdenent observers using GPS (and standing downrange, and not recording any throws they're not 100% sure of) as throwing at 50 (female) and 80 m (male) average distances. Therefore, I wonder if people should regard their estimations of their own distances with the same suspicion as fishing stories, and give them serious "haircuts". (just like fighter pilots kill claims, or, indeed, fishermen's tales).

Thearos wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 7:54pm:

MrBoss: it's not a documentary, it's a scholarly article. And it's rigorously documented; your claims to throw 50 m by hand are not.

I think he's mixing up 50m for 50 ft. :P

Ill prove everything in due time. And Ill even make a video of me throwing 150 feet by hand if you want, its not that hard. And the only place Id ever make a world record distance would be one in high altitude, no where else. Im not sure how high in altitude Jax's place is.

Must be remembered though that the average western male is probably a fair bit taller (not to mention has more mass to put behind a shot, all those beers add up) than the average Andean mountain man....though they'd be some buff lil blokes that's for sure. wiki says the average Mayan Indian male (for example) was 1.57m, vs the 1.7m fairly typical for males in most other parts of the world. When talking of leverage, rotation and force, length and weight of the lever makes a tremendous difference to the outcome. Even mass... i would expect a machine weighing 100k to have 20 percent more output than one weighing 80kg (in purely abstract terms, of course.It could just have a heavier case in the real world :P).

Hill people tend to be shorter, stockier and sturdier with more mass in shoulders and hips, with shorter long bones. Likewise plains/grassland people are typically taller, slimmer, with their bulk more evenly distributed and a tendency towards long, lean bones.

I wouldn't want a batallion of stumpy and talented Andeans to start slinging at me anytime soon... but some equally competent Masai or Pitjanjatjara could be expected to throw just a touch farther than someone 15 or 30cm or more shorter than them, at the very least... surely?

I know not everyone uses metres in a daily sense... most forum software tells me I have spelt metres incorrectly,and spelt too, for that matter... lol... but 50 metres is not very far to throw by hand. A metre is of course more than a yard, but only by 10cm. You need quite a few of em laid end to end before that cumulative difference makes much real difference at all. Perhaps we should adopt a universal measurement just for slingers called the "mard". It's around 95 cm  :P

I just threw 40ish metres with any old rock (no wind for once) and  have no background in cricket, baseball, whatever. hated sports as a kid.  50m is  about two or three typical aussie suburban home frontages. If you can't land a rock on the roof of the ppl three doors down, you need to be eating more vegetables :D A standard cricket pitch is 20m long. Most schoolkids here could easily double that distance, and often do, from the number of balls on roofs near sports fields!

Working in feet does make for some big numbers, but the distance itself doesn't change. I am 6 foot 4 inches. that sounds heaps taller than saying I am 1.94m, and not as tall as 194 cm.

Playing with google earth shows me that my average "stuffing around" sling distance is about a hundred metres, the longest I could actually see the impact of was 160. "plinking" or lightweight shots (if there are people or pets around I keep shot under the 30mm mark, and use a conglomerate so it shatters instead of rebounds)  shots fall around the 60, 70 m mark. My accuracy is best between 60 and 90 metres. At 160 I'd be lucky to hit a postcode, haha. My average "trying for distance" is 120m. Somewhere in there between the vagaries of my projectiles and different ways of moving my body is the other 30 or 40 m. Not too unreasonable. As I age and gain skill and middle-aged muscle density I reckon I could average 150 more often than not.

If I can get power and technique balanced, I can hopefully flatten my trajectory quite a bit. A lot of shots must go half as high as they do long, using natural stone I think I need the height to overcome the drag etc.

Distance becomes harder exponentially... anyone can throw to 10m, sometimes accidentally  ;D . 50, probably. 80, with some practice. 100 , with time and oomph enough. much past that you enter the realm I think of "wow, I nailed that one! now what did I do differently that time? doh!". I cannot reliable belt em out to 160m, but then the poll did ask for longest, not average.

I'd say anyone that can hit the side of a bus at 100m is doing extremely well, likewise any shots that land within a few shorts steps of each other or that just make you feel good should be sources of pride. If  I was 5 feet tall I think I'd be average 120 at the absolute outside, newb that I am.

50 feet btw is something like 15 metres. If you can't throw by hand 7 or 8 times your own height, you need to take more walks or something. Youtube has some excellent offerings from Rwanda, Palestine and Somalia of just how far people can throw a stone.

I wonder to what extent the stability of a shot influences it's distance and accuracy... we are all familiar with rifling and I cannot help but notice that broadly (very broadly) speaking, we all seem to have either a nice smooth pouch with minimal "lips" or rather more gripping folded contraptions. A stone leaving a well lipped pouch would have to tumble and spin and "rifle" much more than one from a smooth pouch... let alone once we start taking perfectly smooth v rough projectiles etc into account.

Maybe have a pow-wow and come up with a simple, cheap, basic standardised sling and some kind of object we can all source readily enough. Was thinking an old D cell battery  ;D because comparing say ballista throws between machines where one has a 10 foot arm and another only has 5, one is flinging bricks and the other lead... is like apples n oranges.

Bucketing rain outside so I can't see well enough to throw today... oh, the humanity!

I know that throwing far is fun and all,but maybe people would find slinging more interesting if we were all bragging about our accuracy. I don't really care about how far I can throw(maybe cuz I suck) but someday I want to be able say I can shoot clay pigeons out of the air at 40 yds. I would love to get to the point of 4 or 5 accurate shots in under a minute. No I can not do any of it yet but thats what I like to work on.

It's hard enough for many of us to find places where we can sling without worrying about endangering our surroundings.
It's even harder (for me, anyway) to find places where I can sling at some sort of target, as opposed to just out into an open field.  :-[

We finally have some nice cool weather, and the week's rain has abated, it seems.  So on Sunday I plan to go out to that local park that has the soccer fields laid end-to-end.  I'll use the 42" sling that gave me good results the other week, and see if I can beat, with golf balls, what Google Earth says should be > 200 yards.

Anyway, it would be nice if people said HOW they figured out the distances they reach:

"I figure that's about, hmm, 100m"

"I think my shot landed by that tree, lemme look it up on Google earth, yep, that must be 150m"

"I think my shot went past the 150 m sign on this here driving range"

"I know exactly where my shot landed and used GPS to measure shooting point and landing point"

I mean-- how accurate is measurement on Google earth ?

Thearos wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 8:00pm:

Let me put it differently-- at the risk of being unpopular. Experienced, lifelong slingers, slinging at high altitude, with good ammo, are recorded by indepdenent observers using GPS (and standing downrange, and not recording any throws they're not 100% sure of) as throwing at 50 (female) and 80 m (male) average distances. Therefore, I wonder if people should regard their estimations of their own distances with the same suspicion as fishing stories, and give them serious "haircuts". (just like fighter pilots kill claims, or, indeed, fishermen's tales).

Thearos, you make a very good point. As you say, the veracity of the data referred to is beyond question. However there is the underlying assumption that because these people come from a slinging culture their range would necessarily be greater than that of us modern enthusiastic amateurs. Distances were measured but do we know other relevant details? For example do we know if these people ever sling purely for distance? As their slings are used as working tools to defend flocks etc. they may only ever sling comparatively short distances at specific targets. In his famous article, Forsyth praises Grandfather's power and skill at but only at comparatively short range. After all why would a hunter/warrior want to throw far; too much risk of a miss alerting the enemy or scaring game. I would expect regular slingers like these people to be good shots but not necessarily superb distance slingers as they have no real need to be.

However, I was also very surprised at their low average of only 80m, by male slingers. I can at times sling a tennis ball that far and probably double that distance with a good stone. To sling a stone 100m is laughably easy. I am certain of this as I often sling on a soccer field which the groundsmen have assured me is 100m long and I have confirmed it with both Google Earth and by walking my bicycle between the goals and counting wheel revolutions. Bit naughty to sling stones there but I have occassionally let fly when it was safe to do so.

We in our modern societies have transformed the sling from a weapon into a sporting implement. We build lighter stronger longer and more aerodynamic slings from synthetic materials and develop styles to maximize distance. From the photos in the article it's hard to guess the style used, but the slings themselves look heavy and bulky; working tools not exotic toys.

Sure we may be subject to the old fisherman's disease and as we know, "drawing the longbow (or long sling)" is a euphamism for exaggeration, so deduct perhaps 10% as an enthusiasm factor, but I'm sure our claims are essentially accurate.

There are two football fields, separated with a huge net, near my home.  They are supposedly 90 x 60 meters, with some space around and between each.  One field should therefor give me a total of 100 x 65-70 meters.  I have "confirmed" this by stepping up the distance, a technique  I practiced a lot back when I walked with steel wire.  
I can only now and then be certain where the ammo first hits the ground, and where I can find it later is no indication at all of how far it flew.

While I am big and strong, 180 cm/almost 6 feet tall, I am a lousy thrower, and I do not doubt others can sling much longer distances than I.
Usually I am happy if I sling over the short side.

With my new 50" ultra distance sling and golf balls I recently threw over the long side or maybe through the netting.  I guesstimates this throws to be 100 meters.  It was my initial tests, and can certainly be improved  by more practice with this or similar slings(and of course lead ammo).  There is certainly some safety issues in this.
Without the football field I would have no idea how far I can sling.
timann

PS. I really do practice accuracy much more than distance, anyway ;)

---

Good point about how the distances are measured. Pacing can be a bit suspect unless you regularly "calibrate" your paces.

Google Earth can easily give you distances to the nearest centimetre. The only question is how well you are indicating the start and impact points. If you have clear features on the ground to go by, it is superb!

Mr. Boss wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 12:41pm:

Hold your horses everybody. Ill need to make conical lead glands, go to the Mojave dessert or some place with high elevation and wait for the right wind conditions before Ill be able to break a world record, so obviously its not going to happen for at least eight months and Ill have to get the money to go there.

Mate,

We don't want you to break a world record necessarily. But it would be nice to have some independent evidence of your distance claims. As I have explained to you before, if you claim to sling almost double the distance of the next nearest distance claimed, people are entitled to take your claim with some reservation.

At least post some credible evidence, like a Google Earth photo with an indication of , "I stand here and the stones land here" type of thing.

Aussie.

I have thrown from one landmark to another, this was 120 meters in Google Earth.

I slung with a golf ball in an open field. High arcing shot, beautiful. 100m at least, yep. Good throw.

I paced the distance to where I thought the ball had fallen (in long frozen grass, nearnly no bounce). Maybe 105 paces. Each of my paces I estimate at 65 cm. So 68 m throw.

FWIW.

Miffed, I go to Google Earth. Yep, that's the tree, that's the other tree, it landed about here. I measure, I measure against the scale. 95 m ! That's more like it.

I throw across a river that is 205m wide according to Google Earth.  There are easily identifiable landmarks on each side where I throw.  It's pretty easy to tell where the projectile lands because there is a splash in the water, and then I can estimate how close to the other bank it was.  When I hear the stone crash into the rocks on the other side I know that the throw has gone over 200m.  

I would say that my accuracy is within about 200m along the other bank, which is fine with me because I really just enjoy launching those stones for distance and I'm not aiming at anything.  I don't consider myself a good slinger, and never thought that 200m was anything special, just a stepping stone on the way to 300m and beyond.

I would agree that 80m is very easy, unless the thrower is extremely concerned with accuracy.  An athletic friend of mine, (also over 6ft tall) was putting them out to ~150m on his first day with stones (previous experience with tennis balls).  I can see the smooth techniques in the videos posted here and have no problem believing that some guys are throwing much farther than 200m, especially with hi-tech slings like Jax.

As a side note about throwing stuff by hand, the Javelin world record is around 100m, and the Discus is around 75m.

Here is the sling I like to use for stones and golf balls, I'm sure the Andean slings don't look anything like this:

---

Here's a copy/paste from wiki

"Cleveland Hopkins International Airport covers an area of 1,900 acres (769 ha)[1] which contains three runways:

   * Runway 6R/24L: 9,955 x 150 ft. (2,743 x 46 m), Surface: Concrete
   * Runway 6L/24R: 9,000 x 150 ft. (2,743 x 46 m), Surface: Concrete
   * Runway 10/28: 6,017 x 150 ft. (1,834 x 46 m), Surface: Asphalt/Concrete



 Here's google earth in feet.Next question?

 By the way,runway length is actually longer than safe service distances.

---

The most obvious standard for Google Earth is any American outdoor football field which nowadays usually have semi-permanent markings and numerals at 5 yd intervals.        

well, since we're all asking how we got each others scores, i got mine because i sling at a river bank- the opposite bank is about only 50 yards away. i can hit it a little farther then that, and so i get 65 yards max.

following Jax, i also measured using google maps and i was right

Good idea Thomas, I was curious about the accuracy of Google Earth distances too.  This looks close enough for me.

---

I don't doubt the accuracy of the ruler tool on Google Earth-- what I wonder about is where we place the shooting point and the fall of shot, especially on the smaller scale maps.

The "normal paradigm" of sling ranges is, I think, the following. Slingers in the ancient world routinely reached 150-200m range with stones; with lead, probably considerably more. Modern slingers can reach 200m. This is M. Korfmann's position-- he observed Turkish shepherds reaching a 200m mark. [did he pace it ?]. I've always assumed this to be the case.

The article I quoted earlier made me wonder. Could it be that we should in fact be working on an "Andean paradigm" ? namely, that most people shoot <100m. That was, then, the normal range in the ancient world. Modern slingers, on this paradigm, over report their ranges-- because of difficulty of observing fall of shot ?

My experience of Google Earth was that I could zoom in so close that I could be confident of measurements down to fractions of a metre. Perhaps in rural areas the photos do not allow so close a zoom?

However my point and a similar one has been made by others is that even though on some long shots the final figure may be subject to fisherman factor, by slinging over a football field or similar feature with a definitely known length, we can be certain that our shots must at least exceed that.

Yes, that also works for the landmarks with known distances. But how sure can we be of where the shot is landing ?

I think even the lower end of th edistances here is pretty scary... 80m is still much farther out than you'd expect to be dealing with near-silent lumps of stone travelling at skull-shattering speeds. Assuming that the scale includes people of all ages, health and fitness levels, occupational backgrounds and experience... noone seems too bad at it at all  :)

Re: Thearos and calculating distance, impact point and use of G.E.

I am aware that the human character is prone to flights of fancy and outright deception. Speaking only for myself, I'd be just as proud of being good enough (hah) at an ancient discipline to be hitting 2/3 or 1/2 my distance. In the interest of accuracy of archaeo-anthro data, I voted honestly and as accurately as I could. Some may be deceptive, but assuming even a 75percent rate of decency, the numbers are still pretty clear.

I make a point of loosing at least one hundred shots a day since rediscovering the quiet, meditative fun of swing-flick-brrrrr-THWACK! I go fossicking for specimens for half an hour most days and slinging just means I have a use for all the "boring" rocks now.

My average distances are easily calculated from this volume of shots due to leaving quite clear impact marks in the soft pasture and sandy/scrubby patches around my house. When I can look down from the peak and see no cars are coming up our shared drive (itself 1900 m long) I sling up or down the road. Down the road is a little downhill so I routinely knock 10m or so off for G.E. innacuracy over falling or rising terrain (more on this later).

I may have thrown longer than I could prove to myself but in the interest of not being a tool I figured I'd go with the one I could prove to myself using the following method -

1> sling rock from a handful of fixed locations.

These align nicely with my front gate, the copse of trees over the road/drive, or the corner of the old houes pad on my block (think a fire went thru a hundred years ago or so). All of these are clearly visible on google earth especially in directX9 mode vs openGL. They were chosen for their coverage from prevailing winds, ease of ensuring a clear range (I have inquisitive pets and an all-terrain 4yo, neighbours stock animals, native and protected wildlife etc...if in doubt, don't) and providing me with a clear arc between large trees, etc. As such I could give lats n longs for my sites, to six digits. Lot of free range flings in there too but i don't count those, they're for the fun of the thing.

2> see where rock meets earth from big obvious spray of soil and leaf litter, teardrop shaped impacts with bounce-marks at neatly descending intervals leading away from the direction of shot. In areas where lawn is the dominate surface I can see this being a problem, likewise ppl using tennis balls, etc. Here, it works fine.

Alternately, note which tree (of the many I know well from wildlife spotting, family walks, food gathering and seed saving) had brachlets knocked off. I COULD add another 15m to any distance involving a tree strike but I don't. I aim quite high mostly and so lower scrub is unaffected... it's the giants that cop it.

3>check this location on GE v.5 dx9.

Even without using this, experience in using rangefinder equipped devices and incremented iron sights on longarms not to mention divvying up power supply conduit and irrigation piping have given me a pretty good ability to judge a distance by the "eye-chrometer", even with some fall or bends.  Can't speak for anyone else. I readily agree that people that have never needed to accurately judge a distance by eye tend to be fairly shabby at it. But I don't know why anyone would actually want to tell pork pies about their G.E figures.

Aussie! (matie I've read back thru your threads, sterling stuff, thanks!I'll sling you a cold one sometime) GE coverage in my area (say a line from Kingaroy Q to Samford, Q.) used to be laughably poor, most recent was '96 but of late it seems to have perked right up...might be the new-old computer. I can easily identify individual large stones along the ridgelines , roads, outbuildings, trees in paddocks, fenclines and you'd know what it's like here anyway..you can just "see where that lumpy thing is", clear as day.

I can tell from the angle of shade what time of the day images were taken, and by the conditon of the pasture even what time of year. GE's "sun angle" function is SURPRISINGLY accurate given it's "sectioned" display.

In less distinct and more homegenous landscapes... true open agriculture lands, or desert... lack of observable reference points could play a bit of havoc with guesstimates but in my neck of the woods... I can see the woods just fine. Large acacias, figs and the like are very clear both on the ground and on the maps.

I have checked GE's accuracy (morso the "ruler" function) against local surveyors maps as provided to me by estate agents and measurements are close enough between the screen and the reality to be unquestioned but only...here's the catch... on FLAT GROUND. set to "path" one would assume that GE would place "waypoints" at ground level but it seems not to. fiddling with settings may resolve this. toggling "fix to ground" etc seemed to make no difference... probably missing something here.

Even a slight fall away from you downrange can add dozens of metres to your subjective measurements... downill always seems further away than uphill (unless you've been walking it all day)  . Even a gradual fall can throw accuracy of GE out by many, many paces. this may not happen with other users, my settings may be whacked out somehow.

My distances whilst highish on the poll actually strike me as fairly dismal... quite conscious that I can and will improve. For those hitting lower numbers, who cares? You have a quiet, ancient pasttime to amuse yourself with and it teaches you all kinds of things about other cultures, the earth's history, and more.

My accuracy to whoever raised it is poor at best :P

A massed body of troops might have cause for concern (be handy if you could all kind of stand REALLY close together!) but you could probably invade my hilltop barricade on your with a spare afternoon and an inflatable hammer :P  

I have started working on accuracy at 15m. When I can get 9 or 10 in 10,  I will double it. And keep going.Walk, then run.

Starting long you have too many factors..wind, stone properties (if going native), etc. and it's hard not to take it personally sometimes...frustration doesn't make for smooth and easy shots.

80m, btw, having checked out some maps n photos, and talking to people who have travelled South America is about your useful visual limit in the Andes and well within the practical offensive or hunting distance. Why kill an animal you cannot retrieve without having to backtrack three path-branches ago? People used to closecountry wandering would know what I mean. thinking visibility distance when diving a reef or the distance at which, in a jungle, you cannot see a damned thing for vines, canopy or murk.

After 80-100m it seems, you run out of mountain, encounter a blind curve or an outcrop,or the odd stand of trees,  or it's so far up or downhill that anything like a decent shot would be very hard indeed - the sling being an essentially enfiladed-by-default weapon. 80m for a shortish mountain boy is still very impressive and I bet their ACCURACY is superb. Wheres I won't hit you unless you can deliberately run into my shot!

And I don't think I'd want any of us hunting me for sport even at the lower end of range figures, I like my noggin intact  :o

I went to Lake Lytal Park (don't look for a lake: "Lake Lytal" was actually a guy) to sling on the soccer fields and see what distances I could achieve.

It wasn't long before sunset tonight (Sunday) when I got there, so I wasn't counting on being able to make a lot of throws.
I had a bag of golf balls, and took out a dozen.  After a short bit of stretching (not enough, really, but I was rushed) I make a couple of moderate power throws, and then did the rest with more effort.  I wouldn't say I maxed-out the power, because my neck has been bothering me (quite a bit, actually) since over a week-and-a-half ago.  I deliberately took it kind of easy.

Anyway, most of my shots cleared the trees between the two soccer fields, and ended up just shy of the midpoint of the next field.  My stance was on the crease line in front of the goal facing north.  Google Earth estimates it to be about 154 meters.

I'm curious about how far I might be able to get clay glandes to go on this field.  The ones I made a few months ago are pretty heavy.  I still have the majority of them, having taken ten out a few weeks ago but come back with only five.  That leaves like 25 left, I think.  But I think I'm going to make some that are smaller than my originals, because honestly, it felt like I really had to heft those.  Before anyone asks, I'll say that no, I don't know what their weight is.  It's appreciable, though.

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd269/ornithoid/slingingdistance01.jpg

impressive stuff PJ (btw thanks for your many excellent posts).

I've had a dodgy neck for years now and it never stops me doing as much as it should. The ground is just too damned far away sometimes.

I find it helps a lot to use my centre of gravity which for me is about an inch above my hips and using my arm/shoulder/neck strictly as leverage. Taking up a stretching discipline like tai chi, yoga or qui gung can work wonders... it's not about bulk just mobility.

And tiger balm... lots of tiger balm.

Thearos wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 5:11pm:

Yes, that also works for the landmarks with known distances. But how sure can we be of where the shot is landing ?

For me because I can see it. However I understand that for very long range and those who sling small dark lead glands that may not be so easy.

I know that Yurek used to use an observer who would shelter in a bunker and listen for the sound of the falling shots and determine whether they were landing short of or beyond him.

Hybrid-throwback: good points re. 80 m being good in Andean context (just as longarms don't really need to shoot at 2000m when most firefights take place within 300m), and also re. some people being good, or having to be good, at estimating distances by eye.

Why would people tell porky pies re. G. E. distances ? Well, because to say "I routinely sling over 100 m, it must be 150+ m" is pretty satisfying. When I tried placing my shooting on G. E., I kinda fudged my standing point (it was about here) and the landing point (surely about here ?)-- consciously or not, to my advantage, so that G. E. gives me 85 m, whereas pacing on the ground gives me 70+m. I would say that crude G. E. placement of starting and ending points adds 5-10 m ?

The poll is interesting, but it would be good to separate the data:

observed shot
estimated shot
estimated shot with landmarks / GE corroboration

Quote:

That was, then, the normal range in the ancient world. Modern slingers, on this paradigm, over report their ranges-- because of difficulty of observing fall of shot ?

True to an extent.
However - modern slingers will practice maybe an hour or two a week - some will get in more time most less.
Ancient world slingers were pretty much specialists and would practice for hours every day. No way are they slinging less distance than we are.
Most of us HAVE measured. So the distances on the table are correct. No way were ancient slingers getting less than 100 yards.
I can throw a golf ball 100 yards with a 18 inch sling and a simple overhand throw - how do I know ? Idid it on a golf drivng range :-) If I can do that then a full time professional slinger with a decent length sling, is easily going twise that distance without major effort.
Slinging distances are primarily down to technique and practice.

As for measuring distance - hell yeah until you measure you have absolutely no idea how far things are going.
My 240 yard shot was across the length of a field of known length - and I could clearly hear the stone striking a tree beyond the 240 yards boundary. But how far into the wood ? don't know so didn't guess, just claimed the field :-)
I also paced the distance and checked it on google earth too.

What I think we should all do at some point is to actually find a large flat field or space or abandoned airfield and actually measure out 500 yards.

I've done this in a big bean field in wyoming. This is one of the many reasons I don't believe mrboss can acheive a fraction of the distance he claims.
If you stand at the 500 yard point the slinger is a barely visible black blob about half a centimetre tall.
It is a VERY VERY long way.

At 300 yards you can just about make out someone waving their arm in the direction the sling shot is going.
And when they get it wrong and the shot lands about 5 feet away directly in front of you - it makes you jump.

My opinions are based on slinging experiences nobody else on the forum has had, I'm not guessing how far 400 yards is, I Know what sound a lead glandes makes when it comes towards you and lands practically at your feet.
Been there, done it, measured it, got the t-shirt.  

As a boy, I once slung a shot that hit the wall of a school building on top of a hill. I checked it on Google Earth: 109m ?-- perhaps. I'm not sure, nearly 30 years later, where I was standing exactly-- I know I got the stones from the fill packed around some tennis courts, but I also know I stepped away some ways from the tennis courts, so as not to attract stares when I started slinging. But 90-100m from the bottom of the hill to the top, I would feel 80% sure of. FWIW.

I clicked the 300 to 350 range even though to this date i am not sure i have reached 350 but 300 has been surpassed numous times with 3-5 ounces lead egg sinkers especaily with the yellow ribbon tail attached. wether the yellow ribbon helps thedistance i don't know but it sure helps finding the glands lol i am using my standard 53 inch sling

I honestly belive that modern slingers have better range than those in biblical times.
It's true that people from the ancient world practced for an absurdly amount of time, that would make them far more accurate.

But for distance? not so sure. I have a hard time accepting than a guy from 2000 years ago, who barely made it to 5 feet in height  can throw farther that, say, a 6 foot 6 slavic from today. How could they?

Today we have better alimentation, better medicines and better health overall. I'm sure common illness was a big problem back them, a sick baby or child would mostly die.

Rockman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 3:36pm:

I honestly belive that modern slingers have better range than those in biblical times. It's true that people from the ancient world practced for an absurdly amount of time, that would make them far more accurate. But for distance? not so sure. I have a hard time accepting than a guy from 2000 years ago, who barely made it to 5 feet in height  can throw farther that, say, a 6 foot 6 slavic from today. How could they? Today we have better alimentation, better medicines and better health overall. I'm sure common illness was a big problem back them, a sick baby or child would mostly die.

also adding in the factor that aside from apothecary brews, most tactics where elixirs, beer, cutting to release the ailments, and prayers. i doubt if these where efective

Rockman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 3:36pm:

I honestly belive that modern slingers have better range than those in biblical times. It's true that people from the ancient world practced for an absurdly amount of time, that would make them far more accurate. But for distance? not so sure. I have a hard time accepting than a guy from 2000 years ago, who barely made it to 5 feet in height  can throw farther that, say, a 6 foot 6 slavic from today. How could they? Today we have better alimentation, better medicines and better health overall. I'm sure common illness was a big problem back them, a sick baby or child would mostly die.

Rockman once again makes perfect sense.  You only have to look at how records have fallen in both Olympic and professional sports.  As we learn more about health and nutrition we've become bigger/stronger/faster.  No doubt ancient shepherds, who had little else to do but practice slinging, would be generally more accurate.  They would be smaller, weaker, and in poorer health though.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1896_Summer_Olympics_-_Men%27s_100_metres

Take a look at the times in the 1896 olympics. Event is the 100 meter race.

This is from a little over 100 years ago. What about 1000 years? 2000 years?

I don't think you should read too much into sports statistics though. Remember that the eary Olympics were STRICTLY amateur. Such things as systematic training, sports medicine and psychology were unheard of. Even as late as the 1924 Olympics the idea of having a personal coach was looked on unfavourably.

The increase in height of the general population is more a product of improved diet, environment and sanitation that some sort of evolutionary change.

Aussie wrote on Dec 25^th, 2009 at 8:19pm:

I don't think you should read too much into sports statistics though. Remember that the eary Olympics were STRICTLY amateur. Such things as systematic training, sports medicine and psychology were unheard of. Even as late as the 1924 Olympics the idea of having a personal coach was looked on unfavourably.

The modern Olympics are such a hyper-commercialized, corrupt TRAVESTY that I take great pride in scornfully IGNORING them every time they come around.

I'm much more entertained by the far more interesting events in the X-Games, anyway!  :)

Rat Man wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 5:19pm:

Rockman wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 3:36pm: I honestly belive that modern slingers have better range than those in biblical times. It's true that people from the ancient world practced for an absurdly amount of time, that would make them far more accurate. But for distance? not so sure. I have a hard time accepting than a guy from 2000 years ago, who barely made it to 5 feet in height  can throw farther that, say, a 6 foot 6 slavic from today. How could they? Today we have better alimentation, better medicines and better health overall. I'm sure common illness was a big problem back them, a sick baby or child would mostly die. Rockman once again makes perfect sense.  You only have to look at how records have fallen in both Olympic and professional sports.  As we learn more about health and nutrition we've become bigger/stronger/faster.  No doubt ancient shepherds, who had little else to do but practice slinging, would be generally more accurate.  They would be smaller, weaker, and in poorer health though.

However, technical skill is critical for range. I routinely shoot further (I'm in the 100-150 range mostly, my record is 162 m), and friends of mine who are taller, have longer arms, and are a lot stronger than I am, using longer slings (not proportionally longer), do not match the range, because they don't have the technical skill.

I am right on board with PJ. the X-Games far more interesting. I'm partial to the skateboarding.

Went to the park again yesterday with some golf balls. Made 24 throws, most of which were between about 100-170 yards.

I used to think I was sending golf balls farther than I am. Reality check said otherwise.

But I want to see what happens if I go up from the 42" sling I've been using.

Who would have thought it?
Two hundred yards is out there!
Thought I'd passed that mark...



(My latest slinging haiku.)

I'm revising my answer to the poll. i said i could sling to about 200yrd, guessing about where they land on google earth. but reading the other posts, it made me think i should really make an effort to prove that claim.  i am a member of a hunt club and we have property that has a high tention power line running tru it, and thats where we have our tower stands that we all draw for to use during the seasone. we have 6 stands that are positioned 200yrd apart along the power line. so i went there and tried to sling chunks of rose quartz from one stand to the other.......well......
not quit 200yrds, more like 140 to 150.......paced out. still a nice distance, but not 200.
maybe with lead i could go further, but i'm not willing to try that cause of the chance of lossing the shot and not wanting to leave lots of lead in the woods.