I have done some research and its seems most ancient lead bullets were a little over 1 oz. I think it was for aredynamics but if there's more to it please tell me. And has anyone done any reaseaech to find if bigger or smaller oz go further and/or have more power to bruise/penetrate (please specify which). Thanks!

It's a mystery that no one can answer with 100% certainty without actually going back in time and asking them. My guess is that they had switched to our modern mindset that wounding in war is more effective than outright killing as it consumes more resources to deal with many wounded than many dead. Heavier lead projectiles would go further so there has to be more to it than distance. There is a thread on this subject on the forum if you are interested.

If you could link me to it that would be great. I have a hard time searching threads here for some reason.

Would it come down to economics? I think 1 oz seems very light to sling anything but if you have to supply 1000 slingers with enough ammo I can see them taking a less is more attitude

Well, I would think smaller would mean less resistance (air and any material around the ammo) which would mean more penetration power since there is less surface area that it has to pass through. I've thrown 1 oz lead sinkers and they burry themselves very deep into the ground. I haven't thrown anything heavier though... just my hypothesis.

Next time I go somewhere that sells lead fishing sinkers cheap I'll try and get a few different ozs to test."

Since no one can answer all my questions with complete accuracy... Anyone have any more opinions, theories, or preferences partaining to lead sling ammo ozs?

I can't find the thread Drakolith. I think so long as the glandes are smooth and pointy even fairly large ones would easily penetrate the human body. 7-8 ounces is not too large. Maybe the 1 ounce glandes were harder to remove and therefore would be more likely to cause lead poisoning?  ;) Or just a shortage of lead? It could be any number of things really.

Morphy wrote on Feb 7^th, 2017 at 10:09am:

and therefore would be more likely to cause lead poisoning?

i think romans didn't know of lead poisoning ,
since they used it a lot as a sweetener

I remember reading somewhere that they used lead pipes in Pompeii. So I don't think they did.

Lol, true. I was only joking.

i found if im not throwing something between 4 to 6 oz i dont get as much out of it that weight range is good for me i think the whole range seeking thing just depends on the strength of the slinger and the projectile that you need something with good shape and a comfortable weight

Thearos would have more on the subject I believe but I think it was mostly economical related. 7 shots that are likely to penetrate and wound the enemy are better than 1 that just destroys a soldier.

Personally, as a modern day recreational slinger, I prefer 4oz. I've bought quite a few oval 4oz lead fishing weights and the flight was outstanding. They essentially shot like a laser out to 50 yards and then out of sight for distance throwing. If I were to make a mold today, I'd probably use 3.5-4oz

2 oz is about right.

Most ancent ones were between 30-80 grams.

It's the best compromise between damage inflicted and cost of individual ammunition.

There is a histogram of weights in the Scientific American article by M. Korfmann in the 1970s, a translation of his thesis on Bow and Sling (in German). I seem to remember a cluster around 30 g, another cluster around 60 g, and a few outliers in the 120g range.

I have fitted ancient sling bullets, in the 30-35g range, in a little leather sling I happened to have with me. They feel great.

It was for range.

A unit of skilled slingers would know exactly what their range was for a given projectile's weight.

With lighter projectiles you could strike further and as the enemy advanced or as you closed in you could transition to heavy projectiles.

The sling was a ranged weapon so just like archers knew how far their arrows would fly by weight, its pretty safe to assume slingers knew this as well and would choose their projectiles based on the engagement.

Had any one been successful with slinging one ounce lead
I gave up apon it a long time ago but now am interested in pursuing it again
It's one of those mysteries that is eating at my soul

lobohunter wrote on Dec 24^th, 2023 at 1:23am:

Had any one been successful with slinging one ounce lead I gave up apon it a long time ago but now am interested in pursuing it again It's one of those mysteries that is eating at my soul

Yes, I have found that projectiles weighing 25 grams to 44 grams fly farther than even 65 gram shot. Also, I recently put out a sling bullet vs Ballistic gel video, and found that even 35 gram bullets penetrate very well, about 3 1/2 inches, where 50 gram bullets penetrate about 5 2/8 inches. To give perspective, .380 acp Silvertip ammo from a pocket gun penetrates about 6 inches. That ammo is known to be an anemic ammo type, but it is still a firearm round nonetheless. So I think the reason 1 oz ammo is used all over in antiquity is probably because A. Cheaper for more volume
B. Longer range
C. Still can penetrate unarmoured limbs, meaning they still can cause debilitating, casualty causing damage to an army.
D. Carry amount is doubled as opposed to 50 gram ammo, since the mass is about half.

Wenn man sich direkt vor einem Testkörper stellt und darauf schießt sagt das nur sehr wenig über eine tatsächliche Wirkung aus. Bei sehr leichten Projektilen ist die Wirkung auf Distanz nur noch gering.  Ich schieße bis 120m auf ein Ziel. Ein 20g Blei macht auf diese Distanz kaum noch eine. Kratzer in das Brett. Bei 40 oder 50 gr 50 sieht das ganz anders aus. Da bleibt das Blei im Holz stecken oder macht ein Loch. Ein 20 g Blei fliegt auch nicht weiter . Nicht bei meinen Tests. Und ich aber tausende Bleie verschossen.

If you stand directly in front of a test object and shoot at it, it says very little about the actual effect. With very light projectiles, the effect at a distance is only slight. I shoot at a target up to 120m. A 20g lead hardly makes any difference at this distance. Scratches in the board. With 40 or 50 gr 50 it looks completely different. The lead gets stuck in the wood or makes a hole. A 20 g lead won't fly any further. Not in my tests. And I shot thousands of leads.

Jaegoor wrote on Dec 25^th, 2023 at 5:04am:

Wenn man sich direkt vor einem Testkörper stellt und darauf schießt sagt das nur sehr wenig über eine tatsächliche Wirkung aus. Bei sehr leichten Projektilen ist die Wirkung auf Distanz nur noch gering.  Ich schieße bis 120m auf ein Ziel. Ein 20g Blei macht auf diese Distanz kaum noch eine. Kratzer in das Brett. Bei 40 oder 50 gr 50 sieht das ganz anders aus. Da bleibt das Blei im Holz stecken oder macht ein Loch. Ein 20 g Blei fliegt auch nicht weiter . Nicht bei meinen Tests. Und ich aber tausende Bleie verschossen.

Interesting, I wonder what the difference is then? In my experience, using the same sling for both 65 gram and 35 gram bullets, the 35 gram consistently go much farther, normally by  around 25 meters. When I've fired over a radar, the speeds are always higher with 35 gram bullets as well. They definitely don't have the same force, but they will penetrate a human target even at long distances, just won't do as much damage as heavier shot. I also found that for hard targets like wood, steel or stone blunt ammo almost always does more damage at the same weights than the lead bullets, even though the energies are the same. Only reason that makes sense to me is that the lead deforms,  where stone or steel don't. Same reason fmj firearm bullets work better for penetrating than all lead do. But steel or stone shot don't even start to penetrate soft targets, where as even light lead bullets easily go through. Just my take on it.

Diesen Effekt kennt man auch bei Pfeilen. Die Bögen wurden immer schwerer. Warum Zuggewichte von 120lbs und mehr. Ganz einfach. Damit man schwere Pfeile verschießen kann. Kraft ist Masse mal Beschleunigung. Das gilt auch für die Schleuder. Warum aber nun so leichte Projektile. Dazu noch ein Gedanke. Oft sind Bienen darauf abgebildet. Man nannte sie wohl auch Bienchen. Slinger waren plänkler. Pferde haben Angst vor Bienen. Wie fast alle großen Tiere. Abgesehen mal von Bären. Diese kleinen Projektile in Massen verschossen klingen wie ein Schwarm Bienen. Damit kann man Reiter beeinflussen. Die Pferde werden scheu und lassen sich schwer lenken. So werden sie im Kampf behindert. Das ist die Aufgabe einer Einheit plänkler.


This effect is also known with arrows. The bows became heavier and heavier. Why draw weights of 120lbs and more. Very easy. So you can shoot heavy arrows. Force is mass times acceleration. This also applies to the slingshot. But why such light projectiles? One more thought. Bees are often depicted on them. They were probably also called bees. Slingers were skirmishers. Horses are afraid of bees. Like almost all large animals. Except for bears. These small projectiles fired en masse sound like a swarm of bees. This can be used to influence riders. The horses become shy and difficult to steer. This hinders them in combat. That's the job of a skirmisher unit.

I have some Roman biconal glandes. I managed to get them accurately weighed (one of the perks of working at a museum) and all were a hair under 3 ounces. i think that was about the maximum for them. The more they weigh (within reason) the greater the force of impact. F=v x m.

Yes, the significant damage mechanism of a sling is blunt trauma, whereas for firearms and bows it is blood loss I think. In De Medicina, Celsus mentions penetrating wounds from slings, both by pebbles and lead glades, but from context I would conclude that they did not penetrate deeply. On the other hand, Vegetius states:
"Often, against soldiers armed with helmets, cataphracts and cuirasses, smooth stones shot with a sling or sling-staff are more dangerous than any arrows, since while leaving the limbs intact they inflict a wound that is still lethal, and the enemy dies from the blow of the stone without loss of blood."
Borovsky et al. also published a study on the traumatic potential of a sling in 2016, finding projectiles above 100g to be most dangerous.

With a light and thin sling, 40.5" long, the fastest speeds I have measured were with ~20-25g stones. The highest confirmed speed was 86m/s (which I did twice in the session, with most readings just under). Also got "one off" 89 and 90m/s measurements (but they're quite possibly misreading's).
Back to the point, these very light projectiles provide great effect for reduced cost. There is no point in trying to be highly accurate with them, so just whang them top speed into the phalanx by the thousand. Preserve the heavier, more accurate bullets for when they get closer, where striking your mark becomes much more important.

That doesn't make much sense

It would be interesting to see what 90 m/s would do against ballistics gel.

Jaegoor wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 2:23am:

That doesn't make much sense

Why doesn't it?
We know that the Romans carried bullets of different weights, several such sets have been found in forts across Europe. It's a waste to use heavy bullets at long range. Since they are slower, they will impact at a higher angle which means reduced hit probability. Since light bullets are less accurate to sling, overall hit probability between heavy and light bullets at large, long distance targets is probably fairly similar. (especially since you can have two light bullets for the price of one heavy one) Lethality is also reduced at long range for both bullets, so maiming will be more likely. For the most part, I'd say two smaller bullets are more likely to maim that one, more dangerous bullet.
The reason for using heavy bullets in the first place is because they are more dangerous, and using them at close range makes better use of their attributes.(which is that they are more accurate and more lethal)
If you are defending a position and you only have time to get off a few shots before you're overrun, would you rather have a handful of light bullets or heavy bullets to stop them?

I'm agree with Jaeggor. Why ?
Because reason in terms of weight only, neglects the Roman cultural and military environment. Summarize the question at f=1/2mv2 is a bit short.
Just my idea.

They write. Light projectiles against a phalanx. That doesn't make much sense. One phalanx was heavily armored. Their deeply staggered lines with deployed lances were even capable of 70% fire  Stop. How far do you think you can throw 10 or 20g? In the end they fall. And in this case, according to the laws of physics, they hardly have any energy left. They are too light. In Switzerland there is a Roman Battlefield examined. The bullets are 40g And more . These shoot 200m with the core shot range being 100 to 120. It is known that slingers have even fought successfully against elephants. Even against cavalry. And this is exactly where very light bullets make sense. These weren't called bees for nothing. Bees were often depicted on them. They also buzz like a swarm of bees. Horses and elephants are afraid of bees. As simple as that.

Jaegoor wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 7:54am:

They write. Light projectiles against a phalanx. That doesn't make much sense.

Don't take it too literally, I just used it to illustrate a large body of men. In retrospect I should have used a different word.
Back to the topic, at what angle are you envisaging these bullets are being launched? The ideal is the flattest trajectory possible, since it gives to the greatest chance of hitting a standing object. It's the same reason guns evolved to shoot faster and smaller bullets.
Small bullets have a multitude of designs on them, not just bees. A great number of them have scorpions, thunderbolts, spearheads, etc. A stable bullet will not buzz like a bee, you'd have to either sling it sideways, or modify the bullet to generate sound in flight. (the latter making much more sense). Another thing is that animals will be trained to be desensitised to the sounds of battle. If it was highly effective, then they would be trained not get spooked. For example, cavalry was used in ww1 where they charged into bombs and gunfire.

A flat trajectory? How is that supposed to work? Show me a flat trajectory at 120m. You will always shoot ballistically. The sling is a distance weapon. Like the bow too. 

A flatter trajectory was what AA meant. Not flat, but flatter than if thrown slower. This simulation accounts for air drag differences of heavy vs light ammo.

---

Jaegoor wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 10:46am:

The sling is a distance weapon

It's a bit peremptory.
The sling allows a remote bombardment. But not only, the Trajan column for exemple.

I already understood it. I regularly shoot at a distance of 120m. A 20g lead doesn't even get there. It falls down beforehand. Light leads lose energy very quickly. That's why their flat shot is very relative. When the bullet reaches its apex, it falls. 9.81 sec squared. Which one has more energy down below? 20 or 100g. Is there a meter indication m😜 on the Trajan column. Unfortunately no. It shows a slinger with a spherical projectile. Probably a stone. Very difficult, one might assume. But this stone is also subject to a ballistic curve.

I agree with Archaic Arms on the likelyhood of their use.
Although frightening horses is another possible use, I think that the use would be more broad than simply that.

The terminal velocity (max velocity of an object falling in air) of a 25g lead sphere is 65 m/s. It is 81 m/s for a 100g lead sphere.   

I have slung a 100 g stone 63m/s. For argument's sake, lets assume 60 m/s release velocity of a 100g sphere of lead. It probably loses about 5 m/s in flight, traveling about 270m for a 40° release angle. It will strike the ground at approximately 50°, with ~150J of energy (55m/s).

For a 25 g lead sphere, assuming a 80 m/s release velocity, it will travel, 360 m and still strike with 52 J of energy at its terminal velocity of 65 m/s. The stated 360m range
seems reasonable to me, I've done about 380m with 35 g lead sinkers (possibly more, but unconfirmed).

Given the 30% increased range and reduced cost, I can easily imagine that 25g lead projectiles would be very useful for harassing troops as they approach. Harassment with heavier ammo wouldn't be possible at long distances, despite the advantage of heavier ammo hitting harder.  Unarmored portions of the body would be severely damaged by 52 J of impact energy.

Note: all values were determine using online calculators that have unknown assumptions, but should be good enough for direct comparison (rather than reliable values).

Lots of theory. Little practice. In practice they don't shoot any further with 20g. And certainly not over 300m. Come over. Bring your sling. Ammunition is plentiful. 😊

Jaegoor wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 2:43am:

Lots of theory. Little practice. In practice they don't shoot any further with 20g. And certainly not over 300m. Come over. Bring your sling. Ammunition is plentiful. 😊

In personal experience, I can safely say that atleast a 35 gram lead bullet will definitely travel farther and on a flatter trajectory than a 60 gram lead bullet by a decent margin when using the same sling for both. I don't think 20grams is optimal however, since 45 grams seems to be a good choice for range and still having some force behind it, or 60+grams for slightly less range than 45 but even more force. But to say flatly that 20 grams can't go out to 300m? I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't bet against someone using a 4-5 ft sling and 20 gram lead ammo. Especially since all of my experiments on this indicate that 35 grams consistently fly farther than 60 grams, and I have used a 5 foot sling with 65 gram balls to reach 240 meters with ease. Maybe that 15 grams difference would be so substantial that 20grams would just fall flat after 100m, but something is telling me that they wouldn't.

I'll make some 20 gram bullets here soon and see what kind of range they have in comparison.

One more thing about the "bees" theory, if the bullet is flying straight and rifled, they don't make any kind of buzzing like a jagged stone would. They only make noise if they are slung and don't come out straight and tumble or the sling is poor at imparting rifle spins. In my humble experience, I have found that paracord pouches struggle to give good rifle spins to small projectiles (not that they can't, but they seem to do so less than a leather pouch will) , and I strongly suspect that balearic slings may have similar issues due to the similarities from a braided pouch. Could be entirely wrong, but I always seem to get better results from leather pouches or seat belt style pouches. So
excluding whistling bullets with holes drilled in them, I doubt that the regular bullets scaring large animals from sound thought is correct. Unless all the bullets being slung were expected to tumble. But then why make that shape knowing full well that slings are good at making things fly point first when someone has some practice with them and thus won't make sound at all? Just some thoughts I had, which could be incorrect or misinformed, but just speaking from my experience on the matter.

Assuming best case scenario they did make a buzzing sound would that really be enough to scare the horses? I would assume these horses were trained for battle. People were dying all around them. Battles are noisy business. It's hard to imagine that tactic was used long term. After a.few battles of it happening one would imagine they would be training the horses not to react to unusual noises. The sling was used for thousands of years. I feel like any tactic like that assuming it ever happened, would not have worked for long.

If IG says he got that kind of range with light lead sinkers that's proof enough for me. I've talked to people that have seen AA sling and both he and IG are some of the strongest slingers out there. Perhaps they are just having better luck with lead glandes than you have Jaegoor.

To me the obvious answer seems most likely. The lead glandes were effective. If IG is getting that range out of them I have no doubt they were penetrating flesh. Lead on that scale is too expensive to use if it isn't at least wounding the enemy.

To make this clear again. By light I meant weights under 20g. . And yes, horses have endured a lot. The bee theory is therefore only one part. There were a lot of leads in the mold Flat. That alone creates noise. Hubert has already shown it very well here. When it comes to strength and experience, I certainly don't have to hide here. And with lead I have a lot much experience. I have shot tens of thousands of leads of various shapes and weights.

Jaegoor wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 8:48am:

The bee theory is therefore only one part

What are your sources ?
Because right now, no one has to believe you.


Jaegoor wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 12:02pm:

Is there a meter indication m😜 on the Trajan column. Unfortunately no.

How far can one reach with such a short sling ?

What kind of sources? I can also ask this question. Find Greek leads. There you will find leads with a bee. These are available up to 30g. Pour it in and shoot a few thousand. You can also confront horses with bees. I used to have bees myself. My neighbor had horses. I also know the problem of bees and horses from my childhood.Whether they can follow my theory or not is their business. Whether you believe me, I'm certainly not inexperienced with the sling. Believe that or leave it be. They want to know how far you can shoot with a short slingshot. Ask the Balearic Islands. They will certainly show you amazing distances. They don't believe me anyway. Preferably her Ask Luis Livermore or Jaume Darder. I would be happy to tell you how to protect even more distance with a short slingshot. The Trajan Column shows interesting images. But they are pictures. Not more. Some things are logical and coherent. But not anything else. The ammunition is shown being carried in the coat. At the same time the arm also carries a large shield. You can do it. But they tire very quickly. Very impractical in battle. But that's how it was depicted on the pillar.

Jaegoor wrote on Jan 5^th, 2024 at 5:52am:

What kind of sources? I can also ask this question. Find Greek leads. There you will find leads with a bee. These are available up to 30g. Pour it in and shoot a few thousand. You can also confront horses with bees. I used to have bees myself. My neighbor had horses. I also know the problem of bees and horses from my childhood.Whether they can follow my theory or not is their business. Whether you believe me, I'm certainly not inexperienced with the sling. Believe that or leave it be. They want to know how far you can shoot with a short slingshot. Ask the Balearic Islands. They will certainly show you amazing distances. They don't believe me anyway. Preferably her Ask Luis Livermore or Jaume Darder. I would be happy to tell you how to protect even more distance with a short slingshot. The Trajan Column shows interesting images. But they are pictures. Not more. Some things are logical and coherent. But not anything else. The ammunition is shown being carried in the coat. At the same time the arm also carries a large shield. You can do it. But they tire very quickly. Very impractical in battle. But that's how it was depicted on the pillar.

So real quick, just because there is a picture or word indicating a bee, does not necessarily mean they were meant to act like bees. Do poorly shaped stones buzz? Yes. Would the impact of the bullet be representated as a bee? Sure. But they also put lightning bolts, scorpions, and funny insults on them. Another point about ur argument against their effectiveness is that 20-30grams is 300-450 grains. I have a 40# recurve bow that can take deer with arrows weighing 450 grains, and that bow only shoots up to 165 fps, whereas IG has speeds with shot 5 times as heavy reaching into the 200 fps range. If he was to sling 20gram shot, it could potentially be in the 250fps range. I Highly doubt that they wouldn't have enough force to atleast cause serious, fight ending injuries downrange.

One more thing, u said earlier that there are some bullets that are made flat on one side, if so then that definitely does promote atleast the idea that they were purposefully meant to make noise as a primary function since it abandons ballistics, and would love to see some pictures or sources if u wouldn't mind sharing them 😄

Jaegoor wrote on Jan 5^th, 2024 at 5:52am:

The Trajan Column shows interesting images. But they are pictures. Not more. Some things are logical and coherent. But not anything else. The ammunition is shown being carried in the coat. At the same time the arm also carries a large shield. You can do it. But they tire very quickly. Very impractical in battle. But that's how it was depicted on the pillar.

I tested the Greek style " Lécuyer", without shield, but with pebbles from 50 to 150 grams and a short sling, in the middle of a forest. At 20/30 meters, it's very convenient. If you wish, replace the trees with panels representing warriors. This style can be hypothesized for the Trajan column.

If you run through the maths, you can see that generally the lower the mass of a projectile, the faster it looses energy over the course of its trajectory. When keeping initial velocity fixed, heavier projectiles will always have a higher range. So increasing the mass, and even more so the density, will increase the energy that eventually arrives at the target.
Also I don't think we can equate the terminal velocity of a projectile with the velocity it will have at the end of a flat trajectory: The terminal velocity results from the equilibrium of drag and gravitation. The horizontal component of the projectile's velocity is however attenuated even below that, down to zero, as gravitation only affects the vertical component.

kairo wrote on Jan 5^th, 2024 at 2:59pm:

If you run through the maths, you can see that generally the lower the mass of a projectile, the faster it looses energy over the course of its trajectory. When keeping initial velocity fixed, heavier projectiles will always have a higher range. So increasing the mass, and even more so the density, will increase the energy that eventually arrives at the target. Also I don't think we can equate the terminal velocity of a projectile with the velocity it will have at the end of a flat trajectory: The terminal velocity results from the equilibrium of drag and gravitation. The horizontal component of the projectile's velocity is however attenuated even below that, down to zero, as gravitation only affects the vertical component.

You are correct in your statements.

But that wasn't my intention to equate the terminal velocity to the velocity at impact. Only to bound it. I was only suggesting that if a projectile is thrown at a velocity above its terminal velocity, the lower bound of velocity will be its terminal velocity. At impact it will likely be higher. But we can get an idea of the lowest energy it would have by using the terminal velocity. So, likely the energy upon impact will be above this value and therefore, if the lowest value is enough to be damaging, the real value will certainly be enough to damage.

Yeah that's true. I was thinking the (horizontal) velocity of a projectile shot flat might fall below the terminal velocity. But thinking about it, I have the feeling that it would touch the ground before that happens. Then the terminal velocity is indeed a lower limit in the flat case, too. Good point!

The majority hypothesis is that : to save lead, the small bullets are used for distance, and vice versa, the big ones for short range. Why not, but :
1) Do you have historical or archeologic sources ?
2) Jaeggor doesn't think so and yet he throws a lot.
3) Another hypothesis is possible : the big ones for distance because they go further ; and the little one for short range because they still have all their power.
4) The modern world has not saved oil, so why the Roman world should save lead ?

To be frank, I deeply doubt the majority hypothesis.

Well, one thing is for sure. The lightweight bullets would certainly be released at faster velocity than the heavier bullet. I believe that utilizing this higher velocity would be the main reason for making small lead projectiles.  Making a frightening sound could have been one reason for their use, but I think they would have been used for more than just that.

TOMBELAINE wrote on Jan 7^th, 2024 at 9:54am:

The majority hypothesis is that : to save lead, the small bullets are used for distance, and vice versa, the big ones for short range. Why not, but : 1) Do you have historical or archeologic sources ? 2) Jaeggor doesn't think so and yet he throws a lot. 3) Another hypothesis is possible : the big ones for distance because they go further ; and the little one for short range because they still have all their power. 4) The modern world has not saved oil, so why the Roman world should save lead ? To be frank, I deeply doubt the majority hypothesis.

I'll address each point in order:
1: No, all we can do is perform archeological testing using the same materials as was used then to get a general idea of then hypothesize. Has to be done with every single weapon ever used because it is uncommon for there to be written knowledge on exactly why they used one arrow over another. Hence it has to be tested .

2: I don't discount jaegors experience, it is a valuable thing. However simply relying on him because he has alot of experience is a logical fallicy called the appeal to authority. A regular joe doesn't have to be a musician to be able to tell when a piece of music sucks, even if the composer has 10 years of composing great music!

3: lighter projectiles, given the same amount of effort as heavier projectiles will consistently (this is just physics) move faster. However a heavier projectile doesn't need to move as fast to deliver more force. Speed affects range dramatically, take a airgun with a .30 cal pellet weighing only 3 grams shooting at 550fps. That pellet will travel a thousand yards or farther if launched at an upward angle, and can target shoot very accurately, nice and straight, for a hundred yards. It only has about 30 fpe in force. Now take a 1 oz steel ball and sling it at 175 fps, it has 30 fpe in force as well! However the farthest I have gotten one of those to go out of a very short sling is about 190 meters. At very high angle of launch. This principle applies to all things. Now just go out and try it ourself with the same sling length and materials and shap and u will see it with ur own experiment, so u don't have to take anyone's word on it. Now a heavier projectile will be slower and have a bit less range, but will have significantly more damage downrange even with a bit less velocity.

4: the modern world does save oil as much as the companies want to save, they want a profit and so if there is profit to be made by quickly sending oil out, then they will do that. In contrast, if the oil they sent was worth much more per barrel, they would send much less of it because there won't be as much of a buyer market due to the increased cost, and they most certainly don't just throw it away.
If u plan on attacking an enemy position, a smart warrior would try to be as logistically and tactically sound as possible. That is basic logic. If I can wound an enemy for less than half the cost per round, and the enemy is just as out of the fight as if I outright killed him, and I have a longer range than before, and I can carry more ammo per troop, which in turn means I have a higher firepower because more ammo can be expended more haphazardly in order to get as many rounds in air as possible, why wouldn't I do that? But what if there is a higher value target like cavalry, that is tougher? Or what if the enemy is closed in a bit and we need to start hitting them harder, then we probably want some heavy hitting ammo just for that.

Now I don't truly know if I'm correct or not, I might be missing something hugely important that would completely change my opinion. However from my own experience, I think this makes the most sense. And I'm positive that there are going to be alot of exceptions to what I said, as in armies using exclusively 60 gram or heavier ammo, but atleast someone out there for a period of time determined that lighter bullets were giving so.e kind of significant advantage that is worth giving up some downrange damage and produced a massive amount of these lighter ones. Whether the thoughts on them are correct? I guess no one will ever truly know. Thanks for reading this massive speel, I love that we can bounce ideas back and forth here, it will get us all closer to the truth the more people that engage in discussions like this 😀 😄

After some further consideration, I've changed my tune somewhat. Historical clay projectiles almost never weigh more than ~50g, and majority seem to be around 35g or so. Why so light, when cost of a heavier bullet would not be an issue? This is somewhat a mystery.
I concede that ~20g lead bullets would most likely be used for harassment, dissuasion/intimidation, and as "filler" ammo. 
Heavy bullets make a lot of sense for medium range targets, where you have the accuracy, the trajectory, and the high impact to be very effective.
For long range targets, I think it would make most sense to use medium weight bullets ~50g. This is because they can travel the great distances, but also with accuracy and hitting capacity.
For close range, use heavy stones if you have them. They have the highest impact and anti-armour capabilities. The main reason to use lead in the first place is because it gives you much greater range and damage at that range. Thus, for close range targets, lead loses a lot of its advantage over stones.

Just a few of my recent thoughts anyway.

@Foresight17 - It would be really interesting if their was some way to sling say 25 gram lead glandes at long ranges and see what kind of penetration they had on ballistics gelatin. Of course that's probably damn near impossible without either a ton of gelatin or a ton of lead and slingers.

One thing that could be done is to drop 25 gram lead glandes straight down and see what kind of penetration only terminal velocity had on the gelatin and then infer from that roughly how much more penetration the added speed would have.

A lead glande only needs to penetrate about 3 inches in the chest to cause fatal injuries. Less if it hits other parts of the body. And we need not assume those using light lead glandes were mostly focused on instant kills. Wounding seems more likely.

Anyways, just some thoughts. Anyone with access to a tower or other high place away from people could probably figure this out in a day or less. My money is on the fact it was very effective at wounding large amounts of enemy troops.

Morphy wrote on Jan 8^th, 2024 at 8:57pm:

@Foresight17 - It would be really interesting if their was some way to sling say 25 gram lead glandes at long ranges and see what kind of penetration they had on ballistics gelatin. Of course that's probably damn near impossible without either a ton of gelatin or a ton of lead and slingers. One thing that could be done is to drop 25 gram lead glandes straight down and see what kind of penetration only terminal velocity had on the gelatin and then infer from that roughly how much more penetration the added speed would have. A lead glande only needs to penetrate about 3 inches in the chest to cause fatal injuries. Less if it hits other parts of the body. And we need not assume those using light lead glandes were mostly focused on instant kills. Wounding seems more likely. Anyways, just some thoughts. Anyone with access to a tower or other high place away from people could probably figure this out in a day or less. My money is on the fact it was very effective at wounding large amounts of enemy troops.

Yeah, the long range plan would be staggeringly difficult or expensive. If there was some big youtuber out there that would be willing to support such an endeavor and get a few well known slingers in the forum like u guys who have experience with lead bullets, instead of some re-enactor that doesn't know squat like the documentaries always do, then we could get some serious historical knowledge! Alas, oh well. Tower idea may just work if someone is near something like a lighthouse or water tower and has permission!

First, agree on what weight is light. Now there is already talk of 25 g and 30 g. I was talking about less than 20g. The tower is an interesting idea. He just has a problem. He has to reach 200 be 300m high. One statement was that light weights fly so far without any problems. And there is another problem. Leaving a biconical projectile fall, it always hits with the width. Not with the tip. And another tip from a reenactor. Ballistic gelatin must be refrigerated. Otherwise tests have no comparative value. This is a Statement from real forensic experts.

it would be much easier to use a radar to measure speed than hit a gelatin target. then you would either sling at close range with a radar to make sure you have the right speed, or a special airgun could be made for point blank tests at the correct velocity.( it would go point first but without the correct spin rate)

Sarosh wrote on Jan 9^th, 2024 at 4:34am:

it would be much easier to use a radar to measure speed than hit a gelatin target. then you would either sling at close range with a radar to make sure you have the right speed, or a special airgun could be made for point blank tests at the correct velocity.( it would go point first but without the correct spin rate)

OH that idea for the radar and then just slinging the same speed at close range is a great idea!

Jaegoor wrote on Jan 9^th, 2024 at 3:14am:

First, agree on what weight is light. Now there is already talk of 25 g and 30 g. I was talking about less than 20g. The tower is an interesting idea. He just has a problem. He has to reach 200 be 300m high. One statement was that light weights fly so far without any problems. And there is another problem. Leaving a biconical projectile fall, it always hits with the width. Not with the tip. And another tip from a reenactor. Ballistic gelatin must be refrigerated. Otherwise tests have no comparative value. This is a Statement from real forensic experts.

First, when I said reenacted before, I was referring to the videos an documentaries (atleast that I have seen) online and on youtube. They all suck horrifically, especially in comparison to u. U are probably among the most accurate slingers Out there in the modern era based on the videos I've watched from ur channel. Not in any way am I intentionally knocking on ur skill 😀
As for the gel, yes absolutely it has to be refrigerated and used quickly once removed from the fridge, and also to be officially called ballistic gel, u have to fire a .17 cal metal bb from an airgun traveling at 590 fps +/- 15 fps, and it has to penetrate between 2.95 and 3.74 inches. Anything more or less disqualifies it as ballistic gel, which is a huge problem on the internet as no one calibrate it and ends up with radically different results.
I also don't know how the biconical would fall, and I doubt it would hit tip first either, so that is definitely another issue.
I think sarosh's idea of using a radar is a hood idea, and for most of my ballistic tests I sling relatively lightly and with short slings specifically to get an idea about the damage done downrange from a distance after some energy is lost, maybe I'll try using a terminal velocity calculator for a set of bullets and then sling as close to that as I can for a gel test. Depends on my scheduling on when I may do something like that, as I still have a ballistic head test I plan to do at some point.

Let's just start. Let's agree on a weight of 15g. Now try to shoot 200m with 15g. Forget the goal. First we try the distance.  We can also take a specific lead and make it the standard. Then everyone has the same base with the ammunition.

Oh yes. Anything else . The cooling problem with gelatin is well known. But there is a very good alternative. Forensic scientists only use gelatin under laboratory conditions. In field tests it is ballistic Soap is the first choice. We are not forensic experts. So we can also use other things. For example, a large, sturdy box.

@Jaegoor okay, I have some 15.4 gram lead balls lying around for a muzzle loader that should work well. I'll see about giving it a wirl since I have a location that I may be able to find the projectiles again. Next time I'm there I'll give it a shot and report either here or in a new thread.
As for the cooling problem, I personally did a little test before my ballistic gel videos to make sure they would still be calibrated. I purposefully made a small batch, made sure it was calibrated right out of the fridge, and then left it in a room at 74 degrees F for 15 minutes, then did the calibration test with the airgun again. The result was exactly the same, down to the mm. So I think as long as it isn't too terribly long, I think most gel tests should be okay for atleast 15 minutes outside the fridge.
And yeah, we aren't laboratory scientists, so a bunch of layers of cardboard or a sturdy box like u said should work for comparisons just fine as long as we are comparing against other weapons, especially ones that we know for a fact penetrate flesh well. However I do like ballistic gel because then we can compare against other people's ballistic tests on youtube to give us a comparison between a very large variety of weapons, that is the main reason I like the gel. But that's just my preference and definitely isn't the only way to test weapons.

Edit: one thing to be clear, the argument about the less than 20 gram bullets was whether they would fly farther than a regular 50-60 gram bullet, so that'll be the aim of the test to find out. I'll be using a medium length sling, probably around 32 or so inches for both projectiles, and both ammo types will be made from the same material. So it's perfectly even. It was also stated that 20 gram or less lead doesn't reach past 120m at all and fall before then, so that'll be a sub point to see if they will go past that.

Sarosh wrote on Jan 9^th, 2024 at 4:34am:

it would be much easier to use a radar to measure speed than hit a gelatin target. then you would either sling at close range with a radar to make sure you have the right speed, or a special airgun could be made for point blank tests at the correct velocity.( it would go point first but without the correct spin rate)

That seems like a much easier way to do it. Start with whatever the velocity would be at for reasonable height one would expect it to fall from during a battle and use that as the baseline degree of penetration. We know it would be going faster than that but if that baseline is already a significant enough amount to cause penetrating injuries anything more would just further point to wounding/killing as the prime goal historically.

Using a ball could falsify the test. A glandes is not a ball.😉

Your test is very good but beware of hative conclusions. if a biconical enters the flesh, it only proves that it enters the flesh. It does not prove that it was designed for it. The shape existed before, the density of lead significantly improved aerodynamics. Maybe, it's the only reason.


Foresight17 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2024 at 5:26am:

If u plan on attacking an enemy position, a smart warrior would try to be as logistically and tactically sound as possible. That is basic logic. If I can wound an enemy for less than half the cost per round, and the enemy is just as out of the fight as if I outright killed him, and I have a longer range than before, and I can carry more ammo per troop, which in turn means I have a higher firepower because more ammo can be expended more haphazardly in order to get as many rounds in air as possible, why wouldn't I do that? But what if there is a higher value target like cavalry, that is tougher? Or what if the enemy is closed in a bit and we need to start hitting them harder, then we probably want some heavy hitting ammo just for that.

Your reasoning ignores cultural diferences. A Roman 2000 years ago doesn't think of the world as an Anglosaxon of today.
https://books.openedition.org/pur/25931?lang=fr
This French text explains from cultural diferences about the meaning of war why the Romans won against the Gaulishes.
There are no smarter or braver people ; the Roman wants to slaughter and win, the Gaulish wants to cover himself with glory.

I'm a bit of a killjoy but I assume.

Jaegoor wrote on Jan 9^th, 2024 at 9:03am:

Using a ball could falsify the test. A glandes is not a ball.😉

Oh yes absolutely I agree, I should have specified what my intentions were, sorry about that. I have a hammer and anvil and can easily hammer those balls into glandes for the test 😀

@TOMBELAINE the cultural thing is something I didn't consider, since in my view the only thing that matters in war is winning. However that is a very valid point since the culture could be much more hell bent on killing an enemy in war rather than winning the war exclusively, which I honestly don't doubt would be a thing back then. Especially with the romans. Still doesn't discount the use of the lighter bullets, but that does make a good point.

Foresight17 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2024 at 7:31am:

Still doesn't discount the use of the lighter bullets,

I'm ok with you. The choice to use light or heavy bullets is an interesting question.

:-/

I haven’t pitched in here at all, but I’m just going to say it’s been a good read, and very interesting points made ! Great stuff haha

blargslap wrote on Jan 10^th, 2024 at 1:21pm:

I haven’t pitched in here at all, but I’m just going to say it’s been a good read, and very interesting points made ! Great stuff haha

Same :)

https://www.alesiajura.fr/Balles%20de%20fronde%20de%20Marcus%20Agrippa%20%C3%A0%20Agen.pdf

This pdf is in French but there are photos.
1) It's hard to believe that they were designed to penetrate. Tests with ballistic gel are anyway necessary. Compare with pebbles of equivalent weight.
2) Their weight ranges from about 25 to 65 grams.

Jaeggor, do you have the weight range for the battle in Switzerland ?

I haven't confessed to all of them yet, but most are between 35 and 55g. I shot the tests at 40 and 50 g.

@TOMBELAINE the torpedo/more tapered shots that are longer than they are wider look decent for penetration, so far stone shot I have used on gel will literally fly back at u when launched at gel, but atleast 45 gram lead shot I have used that look like those torpedos tend to penetrate 4-6 inches, which is as good as My 40# recurve bow. Even penetrate through leather about half the length of the bullet surprisingly enough. The others... I have no idea honestly. Because they really don't look like the type to penetrate well. I could be wrong on that though.

I like this subject.

Foresight17 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2024 at 3:48am:

@TOMBELAINE the torpedo/more tapered shots that are longer than they are wider look decent for penetration, so far stone shot I have used on gel will literally fly back at u when launched at gel, but atleast 45 gram lead shot I have used that look like those torpedos tend to penetrate 4-6 inches, which is as good as My 40# recurve bow. Even penetrate through leather about half the length of the bullet surprisingly enough. The others... I have no idea honestly. Because they really don't look like the type to penetrate well. I could be wrong on that though.

Were your stones tapered ? If yes, one may think that a significant density is needed for penetration.  Just my idea.

Foresight17 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2024 at 3:48am:

@TOMBELAINE the torpedo/more tapered shots that are longer than they are wider look decent for penetration, so far stone shot I have used on gel will literally fly back at u when launched at gel, but atleast 45 gram lead shot I have used that look like those torpedos tend to penetrate 4-6 inches, which is as good as My 40# recurve bow. Even penetrate through leather about half the length of the bullet surprisingly enough. The others... I have no idea honestly. Because they really don't look like the type to penetrate well. I could be wrong on that though.

That's a crazy amount of penetration. I would love to see what IG or AA could get penetration wise.

I haven’t used ballistic gel but I’ve slung at a few pumpkins.
The higher the density the better penetration. This is true across alll weights I’ve used from ~20g - 300g
But also the “pointyness” and hardness seem to be pretty big factors  and at a certain weight and speed things become pretty destructive.

For me personally I get the best speed/weight/control with the 80g-120g range

Morphy wrote on Jan 12^th, 2024 at 5:59am:

Foresight17 wrote on Jan 12th, 2024 at 3:48am: @TOMBELAINE the torpedo/more tapered shots that are longer than they are wider look decent for penetration, so far stone shot I have used on gel will literally fly back at u when launched at gel, but atleast 45 gram lead shot I have used that look like those torpedos tend to penetrate 4-6 inches, which is as good as My 40# recurve bow. Even penetrate through leather about half the length of the bullet surprisingly enough. The others... I have no idea honestly. Because they really don't look like the type to penetrate well. I could be wrong on that though. That's a crazy amount of penetration. I would love to see what IG or AA could get penetration wise.

Dude I would LOVE to witness AA or IG do a ballistic gel test with some good bullets.

Foresight17 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2024 at 10:35am:

[quote author=7B5944465E4F360 link=1486181813/71#71 date=1705057186][quote author=0C25382F39232D223E7B7D4A0 link=1486181813/69#69 date=1705049310] Dude I would LOVE to witness AA or IG do a ballistic gel test with some good bullets.

Zud seconds and thirds that notion.
👍😁👍