I am unsure if this type of poll has been on slinging.org before.  Probably so.  It's always an interesting sort of thing though so let's do a fresh one.  Maybe it will be surprising.

Here is a conversion chart if you are unsure of grams but know the ounces.

http://www.metric-conversions.org/weight/grams-to-ounces-table.htm

Slinging has always been a diverse activity world wide, where different styles, projectile weights and levels of skill existed in different regions.   Yet I have always found it shocking that most sling stones found are considerably lighter than what I believe the average weight used today by the world wide slinging community.  They are certainly lighter than my own preferences have been over the years.  And this has bothered me for years since I first learned it.

Manfred Korfmann's The Sling As A Weapon, references sling stone weights in the Near East as ranging from 13 grams to 180 grams.  Quite a range!  I am sure our pole will show the same.

But the range is usually much much narrower than this he states.  Usually 20 grams is the bottom threshold and 50 grams the upper threshold for sling stone weight.  In different regions average weights were 24 grams.  47 grams at another site. About 25 grams was not just the average weight but the vast majority of stones fell right on this weight, with very few diverging far from it.  According to one chart, the vast majority of stones weighed between 24 and 33 grams with most of those weighing about 24 grams.  It seems 25 grams is some sort of ancient ideal weight.    

I have two questions about this:

1)  Why were the ancients so picky about this narrow range of weights in their sling stones?  The most plausible explanation to me as to why their stones were of such uniform weight, was because they were trying to obtain high level accuracy with them and a narrow weight range was necessary to do this.


2)  Why were these stones so light in weight?  I know it has been discussed before and yes ancient people's were a bit smaller then we are so we have to factor that in, but still, isn't 25 grams really light?

I am sure the poll will either bear out question 2 or make it nonsense.  

Why did the ancients prefer stones that were so light and uniform in weight?  Could this reflect upon the technique they used?  

I ticked 160-200 grs; ideal weight for me. Everything under 100 is too light and does not provide a good energy transfer.

As for super-small and super-light projectiles in antiquity, I think they were not used as single shots, but several of them together in a pouch, like buckshot.

I work mostly with tennis balls.with stones, I prefer to 100g.But I must confess that I use stones with more than 150g very rare and therefore I just missing the exercise.

of the reasons why have been used from early antiquity often quite small weights, can speculate a lot.one can observe, however, there was a trend toward more serious bullet.which could mean a rough estimate, the better the armor were heavier were the bullet.

a recordable:if you fight against farmers whose protection was no more than a braided shield just before the battle from willow.25g would be enough to cause serious harm glands.But if you are driving against heavily armored opponents, it should be a bit more weight on.

but also, perhaps, were their Resurse very limited.

or perhaps should demoralize the glans simply because of the small diameter, they receive a very high torque, which makes shooting at a correspondingly shaped a lot of noise.

But I think the truth lies somewhere in between. ;)

grüsse hubert

Note that it's not stones which were light-- ancient sling stones were big affairs, the "hand-filling stone" which must have weighed 200 g. It's the specialized hi-velocity projectile, the sling bullet, which weights bts. says 25 g and 50 g, with outliers around 100 g.

The bullet retains its initial high velocity, because of its shape and the density of lead-- it flies very far, outranging the 200 m which sling stones achieve-- and inflicts its damage by virtue of its speed. The smallness of the projectile means you can pack more in battle, cast more with less lead. The ideal size of the sling bullet may have been found by trial and error.

I prefer around 4-6oz or so for most slinging but most rocks that weight around here are a little larger than a baseball (some kind of sand stone). But when I get river rocks or clay ammo I usually make them that around that weight. Though If I want serious distance I might go for more around 3oz or so. But if I have a nice dence 8oz rock that fits in the sling I'll probably use that too but only at around 100yds or less and it will have tremendous power at that distance.

 I am faimliar with the ancient records and would assume that it was beacuse they slung so much lead it would be incredibly exspensive to have them around 4-5oz glands. And this army also used a strategy where the archers made them lift their sheilds and the slingers would hit their lesser aromored bodies. and then the send in the infantry to finsh them off. Also I belive, within certain parameters, the bigger the ammo the more effecent because when you square the SA you cube the weight therefore having less air resistance and being more effecient. Another eson they used smaller ammo is they were foucusing more on penetration than BFT kind of like how an arrow works. Perhaps for this army the just figgured a sling gland should be just a little heavier than arrow and it would get the necessary penetration for a lower cost and faster production.



Simple concersion unit btw. 1 Ounce = 28.3495231 Grams or about 1oz=30grams

Not my ideal but the general weight around 100-140g.This weight for me is ideal for mid range and accuracy slinging.For long distances 50-60g is ideal.For short range demolition 150-200g.
Agreed with Thearos about the ancient stones and glandes.

Dan-- which ancient records are these ? And where does this "archers make people raise shields, etc" idea come from ? I've seen it aired before on this forum, but don't know of any ancient source for it.

It matters-- people read this forum for info, so well-sourced statements should go on it.

I checked 60-90 grams.  I use stones somewhere around the size of a chicken's egg but I never weighed one.  I'm guessing that's approximately what one weighs.  Has anyone ever weighted an egg sized stone?

Rat Man wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 2:50pm:

I checked 60-90 grams.  I use stones somewhere around the size of a chicken's egg but I never weighed one.  I'm guessing that's approximately what one weighs.  Has anyone ever weighted an egg sized stone?

150 gram approx for the granites and other igneous rocks that are common here.

I voted 100- 140 gr.

Rat Man wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 2:50pm:

I checked 60-90 grams.  I use stones somewhere around the size of a chicken's egg but I never weighed one.  I'm guessing that's approximately what one weighs.  Has anyone ever weighted an egg sized stone?

I did and a it's usually heavier.A denser type would be about 150g a less dense egg size about 100g. Of course it depends what the chickens eat,how much eggs they lay,how close your stones are in volume to them,what type of stone etc :D If you usually sling chicken egg sized limestone than the 60-90g should be accurate,if you use denser stones your slinging heavier stones

Thearos wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 1:55pm:

Dan-- which ancient records are these ? And where does this "archers make people raise shields, etc" idea come from ? I've seen it aired before on this forum, but don't know of any ancient source for it. It matters-- people read this forum for info, so well-sourced statements should go on it.

I also read the "archers make people raise shields" from someone else on this form when discussing the same topic of why lead ammo was so light back in the day.

The records were that of an ancient greek general I think it started with an X or T, also from one of the few comprised slinging books today. I considerd this forum well sourced (still do) when I read those statements so I pass them down so that others may be well informed.

To be honest I will sling just about anythin over half inch across and up to anything the size of a soft ball just to get some practice in. However the classic chicken egg sized rocks have been my prefered ammo for quite awhile.

Rat Man wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 2:50pm:

I checked 60-90 grams.  I use stones somewhere around the size of a chicken's egg but I never weighed one.  I'm guessing that's approximately what one weighs.  Has anyone ever weighted an egg sized stone?

Eggs vary of course but large ones have a volume of around 45 ml. So depending on the density of the stone but typically around 3gm/ml will mean your stone will weigh around 135 gm. (Ball park figure only)

150 - 250g

50-80, usually around 70ish, although i'm completely fine with less than 50. as long as it has some amount of density i can sling it. i don't like too heavy ammo however, and i think 4 ounces is already a little too heavy. i'd go with golfballs any day if they weren't so darned slippery.

OK, Dan seems to be referring to the well-known discussion of Xenophon, Anabasis, which is the most complete account of lead in action (3.3.16-18, 3.4.16), easy to find online and well discussed in this forum. Nothing there about weight, but clear indications about range (self bow outranged by sling with stone, sling with stone outranged by sling with lead by a good margin).

The "archers make people raise shields and then slingers hit them in the body" meme has been floating on this forum for a while. But who can point me to an ancient source ? It sounds like something straight out of Rome Total War. Don't spread the meme without a source ! Don't "pass it on" as "information you get on the internet" !

It's interesting that nobody has yet voted for the weight ranges described by Korfmann.  What are we doing differently from the ancients that we prefer so much heavier stones than so many of them did?

I would find the economics argument convincing if Korfmann were only describing lead glandes.  But he's also describing stones and clay projectiles.  At least with stones there is not point to having them smaller.  If economics is the issue, why shape them or select them at all.  Just sling what you find at the river.  I think the weight range being so precise and narrow is probably a reflection upon an attempt to increase accuracy.      

I experimented myself today with some lighter stones.  I was able to sling accurately down to about 35 grams out of my sling.  Below that the cradle is too stiff to release consistently.  Even at 35 I was having some trouble.  A 60 gram stones felt great however.  A lighter or shorter sling than mine would still do well down to 20 grams I think.

 

I weighed some of my clay projectiles, they are golf ball sized and weighed around 1 ounce (30g), more or less, most slightly more if the scale was correct.  Bill

Whipartist wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 10:10pm:

What are we doing differently from the ancients that we prefer so much heavier stones than so many of them did?

Using longer slings?

The "sweet spot" for projectile weight varies considerably with sling length.  500g is a good weight for a 10' sling, but completely impractical for a 24" sling.

My math says that optimal weight scales linearly with sling length, but I'd like to do some empirical trials to see if that's true.

Indeed DeeNewcum,longer slings require heavier ammo to put tension on the cords and be effective.
Short,thin,lightweight slings are the most appropriate for the lightest projectiles combined with styles that put great tension on cords.Short,quick styles like byzantine,apache,overshoulder are more efficient with heavier ammo.

Could it be that the ancients were simply full of it? Remember that this are the same people who claimed lead melts in air and that sword can cleave through armor and helmets.

jlasud wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:09pm:

Rat Man wrote on Oct 11th, 2011 at 2:50pm: I checked 60-90 grams.  I use stones somewhere around the size of a chicken's egg but I never weighed one.  I'm guessing that's approximately what one weighs.  Has anyone ever weighted an egg sized stone? I did and a it's usually heavier.A denser type would be about 150g a less dense egg size about 100g. Of course it depends what the chickens eat,how much eggs they lay,how close your stones are in volume to them,what type of stone etc :D If you usually sling chicken egg sized limestone than the 60-90g should be accurate,if you use denser stones your slinging heavier stones

 Then my vote is incorrect.  I never sling limestone.  I sling more dense stones. Basalt stones are my favorite when I can find them.  

Hi Whipartist-- are you sure the weights Korfmann gives are for stones and bullets together ? (I mostly remember the histogam of bullets from Olynthos). If it's all projectiles combined, does he explicitly say that there are slingstones weighing 25 g, rather than "lead and stones range from 25 g to 200 g", but not making clear that e.g. 25 g proj. are lead, 200g are stones ?

At any rate, what would a 25 g archaeologically recognizable sling stone look like ?

Archeologicaly, I believe the term is a pebble.  ;)

And how do we say "This pebble was used for slings" ? At maiden castle in Dorset, the huge ammo dumps are almost certainly for slings, so we get a good idea for ancient celtic slingstones-- big things.

DeeNewcum wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:53pm:

Whipartist wrote on Oct 11th, 2011 at 10:10pm: What are we doing differently from the ancients that we prefer so much heavier stones than so many of them did? Using longer slings? The "sweet spot" for projectile weight varies considerably with sling length.  500g is a good weight for a 10' sling, but completely impractical for a 24" sling. My math says that optimal weight scales linearly with sling length, but I'd like to do some empirical trials to see if that's true.

Friend, The underlined statement has really piqued my interest. Would you like to elaborate on this math is?

If I were going to war using just a sling, in ancient times of course, I'd want to use stones no smaller than half the size of my fist (fairly large fist).  I wouldn't want projectiles suited for hunting birds and rabbits.  I'd want to be able to kill anyone without armor and rattle the hell out of anyone wearing it.  Big slings, big stones, or better yet, heavy lead.  Nothing lighter than 4 oz. or approximately 113 grams.  If able to I'd prefer to use a staff sling.  Then I could double the weight easily.

Quote:

Hi Whipartist-- are you sure the weights Korfmann gives are for stones and bullets together ? (I mostly remember the histogam of bullets from Olynthos). If it's all projectiles combined, does he explicitly say that there are slingstones weighing 25 g, rather than "lead and stones range from 25 g to 200 g", but not making clear that e.g. 25 g proj. are lead, 200g are stones ?

He says that the range for all of the above is about 20-50 grams and shows pictures of all, including the stones.  I would presume the majority were stones


Quote:

At any rate, what would a 25 g archaeologically recognizable sling stone look like ?

Ovoid like an acorn and presumably carved or shaped.  Oddly one end is slightly larger than the other.  Not so odd if you've ever tried to sling perfectly symmetrical stones without loading them sligthly off center.

I believe this weight range represents shorter slings and fast throws quite different to the Balearic styles or the quick styles.  That is not to say that ancient people's didn't use all sorts of slings and sling stone sizes world wide.  I'm just saying that it's curious that we aren't spending much time with something they apparently spent a lot of time with.  Small sling stones.  Pebbles, if you will.    

   

25 grams - that's the weight of a pack of cigarettes - or less. A small pack of tissues.

Whipartist-- ah, that's helpful. If the chart is for "all of the above", not distinguishing, it is not a valid assumption that "most are stones". For a projectile to be archaeologically detectable, it can't just be a pebble--it has to be a pebble for which we have good reason to think it's a sling stone-- that takes us to Maiden Castle.The "small shaped pebbles which must be sling stones" are rare, not necessarily sling stones, and to be considered as oddities.

Archaeologically, most sling projectiles that are detectable are in fact either clay, or lead. Therefore, it's likely that the chart in Korfmann is mostly about lead bullets; the high range (200 g +) must be stones.


Therefore, we should not be slinging very light stones. We should be slinging big stones, or small lead bullets-- if we want to imitate the ancients.  

Rat Man wrote on Oct 13^th, 2011 at 4:58pm:

If I were going to war using just a sling, in ancient times of course, I'd want to use stones no smaller than half the size of my fist (fairly large fist).  I wouldn't want projectiles suited for hunting birds and rabbits.  I'd want to be able to kill anyone without armor and rattle the hell out of anyone wearing it.  Big slings, big stones, or better yet, heavy lead.  Nothing lighter than 4 oz. or approximately 113 grams.  If able to I'd prefer to use a staff sling.  Then I could double the weight easily.

I would still prefer the hand sling but everything else, to me, seemed right on.

Couldn't agree more.

A 25 gram stone isn't going to have much killing power - you really need to be rocketing fairly sizeable rocks at very high speeds to take out even small game and medium sized birds if hunting - wild creatures are incredibly tough and can still escape when injured.

Let me just quote Korfmann.  


Quote:

Measurement of a representative sample of biconical and ovoid stone missles from sites in the Near East indicates how broad the range could be.  The minimum weight was 13 grams; the maximum, 185 grams.  With respect to volume the range was from five cubic centimeters to about 65.  (If the missled had been perfectly round, the diameters corresponding to these extremes in volume would have been respectively about two centemeters and five centimeters.) Taking sling missiles in general, whether they were made of stone, clay or lead, the range of weights is usually narrower than this.  Few of the lighter missiles weigh less than 20 grams and few of the heavier ones more than 50.  This was true, for example, in Roman times.  In 1885 the German classical scholar K. Zangemester published among other findings the weight of sling missiles from the certain sites in Sicily and Italy.  He found that the missiles with the lightest average weight (ranging from a minimum of 24 grams to a maxium of 46 grams) were from Sicily.  The heaviest were from Asculum, a mainland site; their average weight was over 47 grams.  Those from a second mainland site, Perusia, were intermediate in weight.   The missiles sometimes used by the Balearic slingers provide a notable exception to even the Near Eastern maximum of 185 grams.  The Sicilian-born historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in the first century B.C., gave and account of the Battle of Eknomos, where carthaginian forces, including 1000 lightly armed Balearic slingers, defeated Agathocles of Syracuse.  The slingers are given much of the credit for the victory.  Diodorus stated that their stone missiles weighed on mina each.  Nw the mina is variously calculated to be equivalent either to 300 grams or to 450 grams.  If one conservatively chooses the lesser value (which roughly corresponds to the Roman pound and the Attic mina) and assumes that the Balearic missiles were made of limestone, each stone would have been 6.3 centimeters in diameter, or nearly the size of a tennis ball.  That size and weight probably represents the outside limits for sling missiles made of stone.

And to further back this data up, here's a quote from Hondero's wonderful book at Project Goliath http://slinging.org/wiki2/index.php/Main/PROJECTILES


Quote:

Thousands of clay projectiles have been found throughout the Middle East, corresponding to this period, and equally in many other places and periods, such as in North Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, etc. Above all, they were used by the Carthaginians, who were perhaps the ones who spread this type of projectile throughout the nearby Mediterranean. Thus we find them also in Roman archaeological beds, and even the Gauls used the incendiary projectile of fired clay. Their shapes were varied, from spherical (fairly rare) to ovoids, biconicals, spindle-shaped, etc. Their size, being variable, could be placed in average terms around 4.5 x 3 cm and weighing around 35 grams. To mention a typical bed of these projectiles, the excavations and ruins of Carthage have brought up thousands of clay projectiles, used in the defense of the city against the Roman attack. In Numancia, these projectiles have also been found, of an average weight of 30 grams and of biconical or ovoid shape, although their Celtiberian affiliation is not clear as they do not appear in other settlements. They may have belonged to African auxiliaries supplied by King Yugurta, who fought against the Numancians on the orders of Scipio. In fact, a group of them have appeared near others of Roman lead, below the layer of ashes and remains that identified the siege and tragic destruction of the city (3).

The entire page where this quote comes from is well worth reading for anyone interested in this subject.

If anyone likes slinging heavy, that's great.  Many ancients did, and heavy projectiles from long slings deliver the most energy to their targets, as a rule.  Obviously the Balearic Islanders, the Persians and others which have been mentioned, slung large projectiles.  

Yet just the same, the majority of stone, clay or lead sling missiles found and described in Korfmann's landmark work and in Project Goliath, were under 50 grams.

Please note also that the stones found at these sights do stand out as being used for slings because they have been shaped.  They aren't your average river rocks, but rather carved football shaped stone projectiles which clearly distinguish themselves from the natural surroundings.

If that's like slinging a pack of cigarettes and wouldn't even kill a bird, then I guess the ancients must have been hunting mice or something?  Or else the alternative was that they had far more velocity and accuracy behind their shots then we are presently imagining, making every shot worth the great efforts they put into crafting and shaping the projectiles they used, be they stone, clay or lead.

Out of 22 votes so far, we only have one vote for the weight range described by both Korfmann and Hondero.  

A lower weight is lighter to be shot. However, it also often leads to a bad Sling method. With higher weight one feels the Sling much better. And one learns the strength of the Sling where from really comes.

For many light projectiles there is still another explanation of the use.
One has not shot them individually. But as Schroot Just for the hunting on birds
if the big advantages have.

If this is, however, really in such a way, one has also shot a higher weight.
Several Glandes bring it easily on weights of from 100 to 200 g

Interesting reply, Whipartist. A few points:

Zangemeister's publication is one of the basic, and early sling bullet publications-- so his figures apply to lead bullets (Asculum, Perugia). The Sicilian ones (this is before the big Monte Iato excavations) are probably clay. So: lead bullets weight usually btw 25 and 50 g. You are right that some stone projectiles, and clay biconals, are also in the light range.

But this does not mean that we should sling light stones if we want to imitate the ancients, nor that the ancients 'usually slung light". The stone "acorns" and the clay biconals are in fact rare, and to be considered huting ammo. or short-lived solutions or special ammo (as in heated clay bullets); most ancient sling stones were big and heavy, as shown by visual evidence, from the Makron cup (480 BC) to Trajan's column (AD 117), and by archaeological finds where documented. Most sling stones, of course, will not show up as such in the evidence.

[Edited for spelling of Makron]

Today I bought a kitchen weight, so now I know something about the ammo weights I use.  Mostly I use tennis and bandy balls, the latter weight a few grams more than the tennis balls (both around 60 grams), but behave more like golf balls (=much better :D)
For stones I have lately used some wheighting 200+ grams, and like them for close range/short sling accuracy slinging.
But they are not optimal for long sling/distance work, and is heavy to carry.

My older stones is +/- 100 grams, I`ll test myself again with them with the long sling when the soccer field is free from people.
They work fine for accuracy too, but when the heavy stones hit they hit ;)

I`ll not be difficult though, give me stones from 80 - 250 grams and I`m a happy slinger :D
timann

PS I find figure8 good with all ammo weights and all sling lenghts (relevant to me-27 - 41")

Quote:

But this does not mean that we should sling light stones if we want to imitate the ancients, nor that the ancients 'usually slung light". The stone "acorns" and the clay biconals are in fact rare, and to be considered huting ammo.

Quite rare?  The trusted sources I quoted from express them as being the dominant stuff found.  How can anyone know that they are hunting ammo?  Please cite your source for this opinion.


Quote:

or short-lived solutions or special ammo (as in heated clay bullets); most ancient sling stones were big and heavy, as shown by visual evidence, from the Makron cup (480 BC) to Trajan's column (AD 117),

The Makron cup offers absolutely nothing in the form of proportion.  The stone in the sling cradle is about two to three times the size of the stones bouncing out of the bag carried oddly on his arm, which should be free for battle and balance.  I wonder if size 15 4E feet were common among ancient slingers as well?  

Trajan's Column is the same thing as above.  Does anybody on slinging.org sling grapefruit sized stones with a sling shorter than the length of their forearm?  Once again the stone in the sling is more than twice the size of the ones in his tunic.  In fact that stone is as big as his size 5 6E foot.  His toes are long enough to be used for fingers.   The handle on his sword doubles as a toothpick once you unscrew the pommel.

Can anyone figure out how the slinger on Trajan's Column reloads his sling, once he lets go of his first shot?  His left arm and hand are completely pre-occupied both with a heavy shield in his hand, and in holding those big stones in his tunic from falling out.  Have you ever tried to reload your sling without your other hand?  

Also, judging by the way his tunic is slung over his arm, balancing the weight out of all those stones, that tunic is either made of lead lined fabric or else those stones are actually really light in weight, and exaggerated in size only for artistic reasons.  Because if those are big rocks, the weight of that tunic isn't going to hold them up for a second.  

These artistic representations of slingers show little more than that slingers were around at the time of the artist's work, that they slung things they carried in quantity, and that they were in battles.  The pictures seem to me to indicate a stylized unfamiliarity with some of the realities of actually using the weapon.    

Crude disproportionate artistic pictures are poor evidence of proportion, size, and weight of real world items.


Quote:

and by archaeological finds where documented.

Which documented finds?  


Quote:

Most sling stones, of course, will not show up as such in the evidence.

That's an argument from silence.  Actually even natural river stones really stand out when they are found, away from rivers.

I don't doubt that many ancient slingers slung big.  But the sources I quoted show stone and clay projectiles in the lower weight ranges as being the dominant finds.  Until I am made aware of other finds which show that the above sources are out of date, I have to conclude they aren't.  


Quote:

For many light projectiles there is still another explanation of the use. One has not shot them individually. But as Schroot Just for the hunting on birds if the big advantages have.

The shaped sling projectiles were definitely not shot, which is logically round or else just crude small river stones.  There is zero point to taking minutes if not hours and hours to carve a perfectly shaped ovoid out of solid rock, just in order to sling it in the form of shot.  Shot achieves its effect through dispersal and quantity, not specially carved shape.  

Also, if this were the case then I'm assuming that you'd also expect glandes to be a form of shot, given that they are in the same shape and weight class as the stones?

It's fine if many people on slinging.org like to sling heavy.  It is a valid way to sling both historically and for physical reasons.  But no modern slinger's preference changes history.  I think lighter weight sling projectiles have not been an adequately explored subject among us modern slingers and merely want to point that out.  

Thearos wrote on Oct 13^th, 2011 at 1:06pm:

And how do we say "This pebble was used for slings" ? At maiden castle in Dorset, the huge ammo dumps are almost certainly for slings, so we get a good idea for ancient celtic slingstones-- big things.

I like big stones just under 1/2 lb and up, maybe it's the Irish (Celtic) in me that does it?  Maybe I'm just mean though, I'll put any random piece of junk in the pouch to see if I can sling it.  I shot a big twisted piece of scrap metal, like half a chair.  I made it go like eight feet  ;D  I tried to sling some rebar, and failed miserably. :-[  Batteries and little bits of scrap-iron are great.  Sticks and logs do not work, but little wood nuggets do.


Whipartist wrote on Oct 15^th, 2011 at 11:52pm:

I think lighter weight sling projectiles have not been an adequately explored subject among us modern slingers and merely want to point that out.

Little dense stuff, even rocks, shoots a touch farther IME, but is a little harder to aim.  Maybe that's why they used light stones, for range.  I put an iron bolt into a hill at 45 ft, deep enough I couldn't get it back.  So penetration might be it too, if the enemy was poorly armoured.

@Whipartist:

I write about the period I know best, classical Graeco-Roman antiquity. Clay biconals are a rarity. Stone 'acorns" are nearly unknown. Case: the "small material" from Kameiros on Rhodes, published by the Italians, in monographs ans as aprt of the Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene. I've read the excavation reports One shaped stone bullet (Italian exavation), as opposed to 20-30 sling bullets out of lead. This does not include the countless lead bullets from the countryside (Kalavarda).  Case: excavation of the Pythion at Athens, or of the shrine of Athena at Stympahos: lots of lead sling bullets, no clay or "stone acorns"

It is true that clay is found e.g in N. Africa or Syria (Bronze age). Also in Sicily (Monte Iato).

Hunting ammo: this is my speculation, based on two things-- 1. it takes surprisingly little shock to kill a bird. 2. It is a good idea not to mash the bird.

Makron cup: the point is that this slinger is throwing big round things, the "hand-filling stones" known from the literary sources. Another C5th cup shows a big chunky stone.

Trajan's column: perhaps the sling size is problematic, and the coat fold has been a puzzle. But the artist assumes that sling stones are big.

Liv. 38.20-21 shows Acilius Glabrio, in his campaign against the Galatians, gathering lots of projectiles for the forthcoming battle, including "mid-sized stones that can be thrown with the sling".

Archaeological finds: those quoted above, and of course Maiden Castle.

It's not quite an argument from silence, it's an argument from absence, and from pattern of finds corresponding to visual and literary sources.

Therefore: I submit that slinging very light stones does not reflect widespread ancient practice; perhaps hunting practice. Whipartist is right to draw attention to the lightness of clay bullets. But by the "golden age of slinging" (400-50 BC), the choices are "smashers", heavy stones, or "hi-velocity", light lead sling bullets.

(Edited: spelling of Pythion corrected. Monte Iato added.)

The other site from Classical antiquity where sling projectiles have been found in vast quantities is Olynthos.

Note this paper on Olynthos (which wonders if slings weren't used indoors):

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/histpublications/files/00070-lee_2001.pdf

He also notes that Pritchett observes that classical archaeologists usually don't pay attention to stone or clay projectiles, only lead. But I would also note that baked clay projectiles are noticeable archaeologically, and so are stones that are clearly meant for slings.

Olynthos, then, should be added to the roster of sites where lead, but not "light clay" and not "light stones" are found.

In other words: clay projectiles and stone 'acorns" are light. But they are not the predominant projectiles for slings.

Thanks for the link to the cool article.  Interesting to see how archaeologists piece history together with evidence they dig up.  I doubt the speculation that slings were being used indoors, but it's hard to make out any other theory to explain why the glandes were found mostly indoors.

 

Yes, it's a good piece. Maybe people with sling bullets in bags being chased indoors and killed there ?

most people do not weigh their ammo and consequently have almost no real idea of what things weigh.

Example: I filled a couple of squash balls with sand this week.
The size feels nice and the weight and density is great. They feel like almost perfect sling ammo.

So I weighed them.
I was extremely surprised.

I gave them to various people and asked them to estimate the weight.

Nobody has yet guessed a weight LESS THAN DOUBLE the actual weight.
Some going up to 3 or 4 times.

They weigh 54 grams, just under 2 ounces. And if you were hit with one - you'd be going down.

The reason ancients used this weight lead ammo is very simple. It's the right weight for both distance slinging and vicious impact at the terminal end.

And I would put good money on the fact that all of you who are quoting high sling ammo weights are way way out and massively overestimating the actual weight of your missiles.

I don't know why - but somehow I am still surprised at how many people we get on here who claim to know more than the ancient professional slingers. Who lived, breathed and died slinging.
These were people at least as intelligent as people are today, but tremendously more skilled in their professions than those of us who do the same thing on an amateur scale today.

They'd had centuries of hard lessons and technical practice to work out the right shapes and weights of their sling missiles.

And yet we still get people trolling up to the forum on a regular basis who 'know better'.
And state that the professional slingers were obviously not using the right weight or shape ammo.

I should be used to it by now - but somehow I still get exasperated by people who believe ancient, skilled professionals were idiots who had no idea what they were doing.

So todays lesson that you will mostly ignore - weigh the ammo you use and see just how close or far away your guesstimates have been :-)  

Hmmm... If your balls are lighter than your friends guessed, it might be a surprise. It does not, however, necessarily allow conclusions about other people on this forum estimating their weights inaccurately.

A pound of food is a whole meal. C_A has a point.

Edit: Just weighed some stones, they are less than 1/3 lb and more than 1/4.  So 5 oz or so. (Improvised balance.)  So I was off by 3 ounces.

Guess I could go lighter if the pros did it.  I always feel silly shooting little stones though.

Quote:

I gave them to various people and asked them to estimate the weight.   Nobody has yet guessed a weight LESS THAN DOUBLE the actual weight.   Some going up to 3 or 4 times. They weigh 54 grams, just under 2 ounces. And if you were hit with one - you'd be going down.   The reason ancients used this weight lead ammo is very simple. It's the right weight for both distance slinging and vicious impact at the terminal end.   And I would put good money on the fact that all of you who are quoting high sling ammo weights are way way out and massively overestimating the actual weight of your missiles.

I think this is true to a certain extent.

I tend not to weigh my ammo because I'm fortunate enough to live near pebble beaches so I use anything that looks like it'll "fit in a range". I'm still learning to get accurate, but have decided to try and get reasonably competent with a normally-distributed range of ammo weights before I start to narrow it down. My reasoning for this is that, when you learn to throw things (without a sling) you learn the balance between weight, density, drag, angle, power and distance intuitively, over time. The great thing about slinging is that all of that information -- already in your brain -- is still relevant, you just have to learn how it maps to having a longer, faster, more powerful, arm.

The downside of it is that you'll probably never get beyond a certain level of accuracy, because that really comes with specialization and regular, consistent ammo. But I don't really feel as if I'm at that stage yet.

I own several swiss army pocket knives. A Camper model weighs 2.7 ounces (75g) and a Huntsman weighs 3.5 ounces (95g). While not in any way 'heavy', they're both heavier than you'd 'imagine' their respective weights to feel. 2-3 ounces in a relatively small form factor (higher density) seems to weigh an awful lot more to the senses than the same weight in a larger package (lower density).

Density affects your perception of an object's weight. For example if you pick up a 2oz lead sinker and a tennis ball, the lead sinker will feel heavier despite having almost identical weight. The concentrated mass in the palm of your hand gives a higher pressure on the sensory nerves in the skin.

Another difficulty is that weight (mass) varies as the cube of the dimensions. Increasing a stone's size by 10% will increase its mass by 33%.  So estimating visually is also quite unreliable.

My kitchen scales usually don't lie. 174 and 188 grams for the two representative more or less egg-sized quartz pebbles that I weighed before I ticked my range.

Aaah, kitchen scales, that`s the word I was searching for.  Before I bought my kitchen scales I had no idea what weight my ammo was.  The stones was either light or heavy.  
Perception of weight, now that`s not one of my great abilities >:(
I was glad when I learned that light is around 100 grams/3,5 ounces and heavy is around 200 grams/7 ounces, so I`m at least using ammo similar to what a lot of other slingers use :D

I used to think that lightweight was rather useless. But recently, I realize that what lightweight ammo gets you is...

VELOCITY! 

Sub 40g stones go SO fast out of a long sling.  Man it's fun! I can now understand how small lead glands (like the ones found in the 25-50g range) could go 400m. I have yet to confirm this distance with my own throws, but it seems totally feasible knowing the speed at which small stones come out of a sling. Couple that with a better ballistic coefficient (higher density, lower surface area, i.e. less affected by drag) and I can easily see 400m being realistic on a regular basis from a skilled slinger.

IronGoober wrote on Jul 26^th, 2022 at 5:47pm:

I used to think that lightweight was rather useless. But recently, I realize that what lightweight ammo gets you is... VELOCITY!  Sub 40g stones go SO fast out of a long sling.  Man it's fun! I can now understand how small lead glands (like the ones found in the 25-50g range) could go 400m. I have yet to confirm this distance with my own throws, but it seems totally feasible knowing the speed at which small stones come out of a sling. Couple that with a better ballistic coefficient (higher density, lower surface area, i.e. less affected by drag) and I can easily see 400m being realistic on a regular basis from a skilled slinger.

They come out like a bullet. Terrible accuracy though.