JudoP wrote on Sep 16
th, 2017 at 5:46am:
With shorter slings the weight and air resist doesn't seem have too much of an effect.
But this effect depends not only on the length (shortness) of a sling but on the "caliber" too. For throwing a stone of weight 50 -70 g only even the shortes balearic "fat-cords-heavy-weight-split-pouch-sling" were pretty useless / not suitable.
I think a slings cords are made thicker only for three reasons:
1. Higher durability (stone resistance - even for stones of weight 300 g)
2. Higher rigidity (tangle ~ and bend resistance)
3. More possibilities for (higher) tapering ratio (thick : thin ... heavy : light)
But I think the need of high tapering ratio is (becomes) over-estimated: There are other solutions to give the release cord enough "drive" or "bend resistance" (rigidity).
Also the two other "advantages" of thicker cords can be performed on other ways - espacially by using modern materials.
So I always would prefer the thinner ones - even for that out of natural materials - because I see no need for making a sling durable for throwing 80.000 stones instead of making 8 slings that are durable for only 10.000 throws. The cheapness of less material (for one single sling) have no more use / advantage if the handwork costs more then 6 hours, because then its price would be 120 Euro nevertheless.
A sling always is as good as its slinger only - but that speech is not to revers! A slinging master (like yedi master Joda, e.g.
) also slings with only a lumpy brace(s), belt or hoisery still very good, far and accurat.
For more flexibility in changing / choosing the thrown "calibers" (70 - 200 g / 20 - 60 mm) the thinner and lighter cords are better and more "comfortable" to carry.
But sure - it remains the question: What means "thin"? 2, 3, 4 or 5 mm ?
__________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps for more aesthetic: If the slinger is thick & short the sling should be thick & short too.