Could you give me the pros and cons of both lobbing and throwing the projectiles and which is the best technique?

The Mortar Throw vs. The Cannon Throw

>:( >:(who will win?!?!? >:( >:(

here is the poll

All guess what is my position.  :)
When I was a little boy, I fell in love just sling force.

This is a much debated aspect to slinging. In my personal opinion power and accuracy are of the utmost importance. you may find it easier to lob rocks and hit a target at the start, but learn to control powerful shots and you will never go back. 8-)

powerful shots

pros.

Power/kinetic energy/ damage to target, speed, more accurate(IMO), distance.

cons.

Possibly harder to master for some people, harder to control if you do not have a strong upper body, can be quite loud when you crack the whip.  

I like to do both depending on what my objective is. If I want to drop a rock on top of something then lobbing it is. If I never want to find the rock them I throw it. There is a happy medium to though.

I think we need to define “throw” and “lob”.  I think of a slow high toss when I hear lob and a flatter faster shot with a throw.

Is it about trajectory and speed or just trajectory? The longest record throws might be considered to be lobs because they are thrown on a high 45 deg. mortar trajectory but are thrown with maximum force.

I guess I throw at targets and throw really hard and high for distance. They are both effective and fun!

Not to be a nitpicker,just longest shots would be about 38-40 degrees for a nice lead gland. Depending on sectional density and aerodynamic properties.

I read the other thread but will add to this one:)

I always try to have a strong effective shot. Casual slinging; I often don't put 100% power into my shots. But I can send a straight shot within 30 meters and not have to max myself out.
I think one of the most appealing things about slinging is the power that is created. I Doubt anybody ever hunted with a lob
Unless its suppose to fall on a group of animals.

Though the lob has its place, like in a target shooting competition,  I like to pulverize my target.  Most times I'd rather throw, hard. 

I like stones zipping,almost leaving a vapor trail behind  :o
But sometimes i've lobbed fist sized stones in a high arc,in a lake, or on dusty ground.

Throwing all the way for me. I'm actually less accurate if I lob because I'm not used to it.

You can read more about it in the thread we just had here http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1383243780

I'm with you fellas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xJkUyotSc4

But seriously-- learn to lob, too. It helps with shot placement.

This summer, I was shooting straight at my usual target and missing, at 23 m or so. And we're talking a very large target. Then, because my arm was sore, I lobbed, and hit it plumb in the middle. The next five shots I lobbed, and they hit the same spot. It almost felt like cheating. And these were not weak shots, but involved egg-sized things dropping and shattering against the cliff face with satisfying cracks and puffs of stone chips and dust.

You should be able to do both as each one has meritt and application.

I suggest adding another category - "BOTH"

When I said lob, I meant the thing you see in all of these target competitions y'all post where they throw it like a panzy. My stance is that a sling is a weapon, not a game of cornhole  ;D.

Power and strength make a weapon. However I see a lob being useful in the ancient military. When groups start closing, rain mortars on their heads; however, they probably lobbed it, just with power. Throwing it strong and high.

By kinetic energy, a lob should be the most powerful attack, if thrown with force. In parabolic trajectories, the maximum force/KE is at both the starting and ending points. Anywhere in between is less force and the closer to the center, the less force. But when you throw it like a three year old, no matter how parabolic your trajectory is, it should hit with the power of a 3 year old's sling throw.

I had my answer before I posted this, I just wanted to see the general opinion on this. 8-)

A high arching throw is only more powerful than a straight shot if the projectile while approaching terminal velocity, surpasses the speed of the straight shot. to achieve this the shot would have to go very high. even then the projectiles overall terminal velocity(if reached) may not be faster than the powerful straight shot. ;)

TheSlingin-Injun wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

My stance is that a sling is a weapon, not a game of cornhole  ;D

"cornhole"? I'm not familiar with the term of cornholing in the context of slinging or any other shooting activity. How does one cornhole?  :)

Maybe the term, cornhole or to cornhole, should be added to the Slinger's Guide. What do you think Dan?  ::)

Marauder is right on.

Cornhole is a country name for bean bag toss. :)

Haha, TSG is pretty much done now. No more new entries until after CA sees it. :)

Dan wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 9:29pm:

Marauder is right on. Cornhole is a country name for bean bag toss. :) Haha, TSG is pretty much done now. No more new entries until after CA sees it. :)

No TSG Cornhole  :(

Note that the point is not whether a lobbed shot is as powerful as a whanged shot-- of course not. The point is whether a lobbed shot is powerful enough, as it drops, to inflict harm when it hits. Which it is.

QUOTE-A high arching throw is only more powerful than a straight shot if the projectile while approaching terminal velocity, surpasses the speed of the straight shot. to achieve this the shot would have to go very high. even then the projectiles overall terminal velocity(if reached) may not be faster than the powerful straight shot. ;)-QUOTE

-English Marauder


I voted for straight shot. I thought that that was implied by "slinging isn't a game of cornhole/bean bag toss". I'M ON YOUR SIDE MARAUDER.....

not trying to be rude so don't take this the wrong way :-X

But yeah, lets try to keep the sling as a weapon so it's not underestimated.

throwing up hill, a straight shot would have less power because it is at the center of its trajectory (losing KE), this is where the lob would have the advantage, if done properly. A good strong underhand throw could make the lob a great throw style but the so-called "target lob" is kinda annoying. The lob throw in ancient military was close to that of a modern mortar, powerful overhead smash attack (without explosives :D).

btw, are there any underhand slingers out there? It seems like my most instinctive style if I ever trained in it. It seems to just always go in the direction I want it to, just the elevation (up/down aiming) is hard for me to get right every time because of the release.

I sling underhand fairly often but there is pretty much zero lob there as its always within 20 yards. The shot still goes in a straight line towards the target, the start of the trajectory just begins lower.

Keep working on it SI and underhand can be as accurate as any other style.

If I really needed to throw over a wall (siege), I'd use sidearm and I'd throw just as hard I normally do, just at an increased angle.

QUOTE- If I really needed to throw over a wall (siege), I'd use sidearm and I'd throw just as hard I normally do, just at an increased angle.-QUOTE

- Dan
----------

And that sir is a lob in the sidearm style :). It doesn't have to be underhand  ;).

What kind of sidearm? Belaeric? :-?

In a mob type situation both straight line and lobbing have their place.
If you happen to have a few squad mates with you than some can throw straight, and the others can lob to really keep the opposition on their toes!
imagine trying to keep track of rocks coming straight at you a well as from the sky?!? Unnerving to say the least.
Straight line and lobbing both have their place.

Thearos wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 6:06am:

Note that the point is not whether a lobbed shot is as powerful as a whanged shot-- of course not. The point is whether a lobbed shot is powerful enough, as it drops, to inflict harm when it hits. Which it is.

That's my stance exactly.

TheSlingin-Injun wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 6:57am:

QUOTE-A high arching throw is only more powerful than a straight shot if the projectile while approaching terminal velocity, surpasses the speed of the straight shot. to achieve this the shot would have to go very high. even then the projectiles overall terminal velocity(if reached) may not be faster than the powerful straight shot. ;)-QUOTE -English Marauder I voted for straight shot. I thought that that was implied by "slinging isn't a game of cornhole/bean bag toss". I'M ON YOUR SIDE MARAUDER..... not trying to be rude so don't take this the wrong way :-X But yeah, lets try to keep the sling as a weapon so it's not underestimated.

no offense taken. 8-)
simply pointing out some physics as it came to mind.

TheSlingin-Injun wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 7:38am:

QUOTE- If I really needed to throw over a wall (siege), I'd use sidearm and I'd throw just as hard I normally do, just at an increased angle.-QUOTE - Dan ---------- And that sir is a lob in the sidearm style :). It doesn't have to be underhand  ;). What kind of sidearm? Belaeric? :-?

Regular sidearm, look it up on YouTube.

No, that is an arced "whanged" shot, similar to what you would use for distance. A lob is a deliberate drop in power in order for more (how much varies significantly per person, for me there's pretty much no difference, but Thearos improved noticeably) controllability in the throw.

SI, can also use the quote button in the top right of each post if you want to use a quote box

The least controversial view is still to say that both have their place... But straight throwing still has way more places.  ;)
 

Regular sidearm is just a diagonal helicopter throw that is released with a sidearm curveball-like windup throw right? At least that's how I do it

Thearos wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 6:06am:

Note that the point is not whether a lobbed shot is as powerful as a whanged shot-- of course not. The point is whether a lobbed shot is powerful enough, as it drops, to inflict harm when it hits. Which it is.

I agree too.

Marauder: You are very often talking about "maximal energy". Please consider that in the formula there are two variables: Mass and velocity. You don't have to increase the speed if you increase the weight.
For me it's much easier to increase the weight of my stones than the speed I'm doing my movements with. Timing is less of a question and I can maintain a similar accuracy. Maximizing speed (= maximizing distance) doesn't play a big role as you will hunt on distances as close as possible. Further the "lobbed" throw will be (more) silent.

For many people what messes up the accuracy when they "whang" is, that they are "forcing" their throw or that they make their movements faster than they can control it. Jaegoor told me this the first time and I experienced this many times with myself and while teaching slinging to other people. So if you "take back your force", you will do your movements at a speed that you can control. Not the energy you put into your throw is the problem. It is the speed or the timing of your movements.

If their technique is fine, they can then put their full power in a heavy stone, which will fly slow and make a high arc but carry a devastating force and hit accurately.

One last physical and also more theoretical point: The velocity is squared in the expression of the kinetic energy. Therefore if you can't manage your shots at full power and have to slow your movements a bit, it is better to take heavy stones and therefore do slower movements as the impact on the "total energy" will be smaller of this decrease of movement velocity.


So my tip: Learn both. Start with slow "lobbed" shots which you can control and then work your way up.

Teg wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 3:55pm:

Thearos wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 6:06am: Note that the point is not whether a lobbed shot is as powerful as a whanged shot-- of course not. The point is whether a lobbed shot is powerful enough, as it drops, to inflict harm when it hits. Which it is. I agree too. Marauder: You are very often talking about "maximal energy". Please consider that in the formula there are two variables: Mass and velocity. You don't have to increase the speed if you increase the weight. For me it's much easier to increase the weight of my stones than the speed I'm doing my movements with. Timing is less of a question and I can maintain a similar accuracy. Maximizing speed (= maximizing distance) doesn't play a big role as you will hunt on distances as close as possible. Further the "lobbed" throw will be (more) silent. For many people what messes up the accuracy when they "whang" is, that they are "forcing" their throw or that they make their movements faster than they can control it. Jaegoor told me this the first time and I experienced this many times with myself and while teaching slinging to other people. So if you "take back" your force, you will do your movements at a speed that you can control. Not the energy you put into your throw is the problem. It is the speed or the timing of your movements. If their technique is fine, they can then put their full power in a heavy stone, which will fly slow and make a high arc but carry a devastating force and hit accurately. One last physical and also more theoretical point: The velocity is squared in the expression of the kinetic energy. Therefore if you can't manage your shots at full power and have to slow your movements a bit, it is better to take heavy stones and therefore do slower movements as the impact on the "total energy" will be smaller of this decrease of movement velocity.

K=1/2mxv squared

when you plug the numbers in to this basic formula you will notice that velocity plays a much bigger role in producing energy than mass. mass contributes by a coefficient of 1/2
while velocity contributes by its square. ;)

What I am trying to say is, that when you are "lobbing" at a somewhat constant velocity increasing the weight of your projectile even by double is not actually producing that much more power. actually you are probably producing a lot less power using the bigger stone, as the bigger stone is probably travailing at a lower velocity.

In end. increasing the weight of the projectile without increasing the velocity, does not give you much if any(depending on whether the shot slowed down do to increasing the weight) extra Kinetic energy/destructive power. 

quote Teg,
"One last physical and also more theoretical point: The velocity is squared in the expression of the kinetic energy. Therefore if you can't manage your shots at full power and have to slow your movements a bit, it is better to take heavy stones and therefore do slower movements as the impact on the "total energy" will be smaller of this decrease of movement velocity"

In my opinion, with respect. It is bad practice to limit the weapons potential based on not being able to control the power that is potentially being produced. learn to master the faster movements/ reflexes it takes to control powerful shots. :)

English_Marauder wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

K=1/2mxv squared when you plug the numbers in to this basic formula you will notice that velocity plays a much bigger role in producing energy than mass.

This statement is correct.

Quote:

mass contributes by a coefficient of 1/2 while velocity contributes by its square. ;)

This statement is wrong. Mass contributes linearly, while velocity by its square. The factor 1/2 applies to both the mass and the velocity.


Quote:

What I am trying to say is, that when you are "lobbing" at a somewhat constant velocity increasing the weight of your projectile even by double is not actually producing that much more power. actually you are probably producing a lot less power using the bigger stone, as the bigger stone is probably travailing at a lower velocity. In end. increasing the weight of the projectile without increasing the velocity, does not give you much if any(depending on whether the shot slowed down do to increasing the weight) extra Kinetic energy/destructive power.

I disagree.

Your statement is: I can easily increase my movement speed to increase my energy, while maintaining the same accuracy. Here I disagree. I get a lower accuracy as I do my movements faster.
My statement is: I can increase my energy if I take heavier stones, but keep my movements at a constant speed. This keeps my accuracy.
I can double the weight of my projectile.
If I would keep the the weight constant I would have to increase my velocity by a factor of sqrt(2)= 1.41 to achieve the same energy. I am not able to increase my movement speed by this factor while maintaining my accuracy.

The target of my reasoning was how to proceed to maximize energy (which I think is the target of your reasoning) and accuracy (without which power is useless) from a given starting point: Someone who is able to throw accurate but not full power at a target.

My main point is: Don't focus only on speed. There is also weight. Don't think black and white. There is also grey. Trying to increase speed is not wrong. I also try it. But only trying to maximize speed is also not the perfect way to maximize energy while maintining accuracy.

But as Thearos pointed out: The question is if the "lobbed" shot is powerful enough to inflict harm. And yes, it is in my opinion.

If we would talk only about maximizing energy I would completely agree with you. Focus on speed. But we also want to be accurate. And this is the point where I think your argument fails.

English_Marauder wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:

quote Teg, "One last physical and also more theoretical point: The velocity is squared in the expression of the kinetic energy. Therefore if you can't manage your shots at full power and have to slow your movements a bit, it is better to take heavy stones and therefore do slower movements as the impact on the "total energy" will be smaller of this decrease of movement velocity" In my opinion, with respect. It is bad practice to limit the weapons potential based on not being able to control the power that is potentially being produced. learn to master the faster movements/ reflexes it takes to control powerful shots. :)

;D No offense taken, but I think we misunderstand each other in this last comment. I don't want to say: Limit yourself to low power because you can't master high power. Sure, go for the max! Do your best!
I wanted to say: There are also other ways to "accurate high power". And for me there is not only one way to "accurate high power". And I think the math with which I wanted to express it did not translate very well into english words. I'm not a native speaker. I could express it with formulas but I fear then at least half of the readers would no longer understand it. Please forget this last comment.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/vectors/mr.cfm

Mortar rounds are launched between 45 and 60 deg. with 45 being the angle that gives the maximum distance.

My best range is with a fig. 8 throw with an earlier release which launches as near 45 deg. as I can. This kind of throw would be very effective throwing stones or glands over a wall into enemy lines.

quote Teg
"This statement is wrong. Mass contributes linearly, while velocity by its square. The factor 1/2 applies to both the mass and the velocity."

I have do disagree with this.
               

Proper example base line.

KE= 1/2(2kg)(2m/s)^2

KE=  (1)(4)= 4 J


double mass/ velocity constant.

KE= 1/2(4kg)(2m/s)^2

KE= (2)(4)= 8J

double velocity/ mass constant

KE= 1/2(2kg)(4m/s)^2

KE= (1)(16) = 16J

Therefore this proves that mass does NOT act linearly. ;) Velocity increases kinetic energy exponentially faster than mass. Mass simply contributes by a much lesser factor.

simple terms. mass is not as important as velocity when it come to getting the job done. whatever done is. ;D 

From English_Marauder:

Quote:

Proper example base line. KE= 1/2(2kg)(2m/s)^2 KE=  (1)(4)= 4 J double mass/ velocity constant. KE= 1/2(4kg)(2m/s)^2 KE= (2)(4)= 8J

-----
So you double the mass and you double  kinetic energy, the velocity being held constant. Surely that makes it linear in mass?

I think Teg is unduly optimistic anticipating only one half of the readers would stop once the math started flowing - nearer 9/10 ;D. However, some of us will keep reading so go ahead ;)

Aussie, too, would have been pleased by the continuation of maths and physics.

Note the two type of combat ammo known from the ancient world: very light (ca. 30-35g, sometimes lighter), specially shaped lead bullets, and "hand-filling" stones which might have weighed 200g.

Now, people will correct me easily with this, but let's assume shooting at a combat range (see separate thread) of 80 m.

Shooter A has lead and is shooting straight at high velocity. Projectile weight, 0.03kg, proj. velocity 50m/s-- I assume the same velocity at arrival. KE= 37.5 Joules

Shooter B has a big stone, lobbing. Proj weight 0.2 (200g). Proj. velocity at pouch, 38 m/s. Now velocity is lost because of friction, but some of it is regained because the proj. rises and fall. I ASSUME, but with no clear idea if this is right, that at target, the velocity is half, so 19m/s KE= 36.1 joules. If the velocity conservation is better than half, say 24m/s, the KE is 57.6 J.

Does this make sense, or am I barking up the wrong tree ?

OK, but what about with stones ?

Shooter A shoots straight and fast. Let us admit that he shoots with a 80g stone, and that target velocity, from a start of 45ms, has dropped (this is not a bullet) to 41m/2 (an 8% loss). KE is 67 J

Shooter B lobs with a 200g stone, with a 35 m/s initial velocity, dropping by the same 8% to 32m/s. KE is 102J.

Does this look right ?

This reminds me of the 5.56 NATO garbage. Worrying about only speed will get you a weak cartridge. It's going to be the same with a sling. You must worry about BOTH. Take the 7.62x51mm NATO for example. 2,733fps with a 147grain bullet. The 5.56 has over 3,000fps but only a 62 grain bullet. the 7.62 Has much more power than the 5.56.

Worry about both and stop fighting about which is better. By these examples though, the heavier bullet has the edge as long as it is not too slow.

Thearos. I cannot comment on these examples as the math is way off. Definitely up the wrong tree.

The maths comes from an online KE calculator. The question is whether my assumptions on velocity are off.

Here:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.html

So let's assume shooter A shoots pretty damn fast, 50m/s on  impact, with his 80g stone (just under size of an egg or so ?): 100J.

Shooter B, with his big ole stone, 200g, shoots at HALF that speed on arrival, 25m/s, 62.5J. Not the same as the fast guy, but not negligible. Dial it up to 30m/s and you get 90J. Same order of magnitude for power, but with 40% less velocity, and hence perhaps better control.

OK, but what if shooter A and shooter B are basically using the same stones, just shooting with different styles ?

Shooter A whangs a 100g stone at 48m/s. These heavy stones are good energy conservers, because they overcome drag (dixit Aussie). So at impact, let's say 45m/2. KE=106 J

Shooter B lobs carefully, at 75% of A, at 36m/s. The stone loses speed when it rises, gains some of it back because of drop, but lose some because of drag, though the stone's weight helps it overcome part of the the drag. Speed at impact, 33m/s. KE= 54 J.

But what is the loss of speed of the stone ? There's the rub. Apparently, a pitched 150g baseball loses .44m/s every 2m or so. A So over 20m, that would be a 4m/s loss. Let us assume that a heavy stone loses less than that. So my completely made up guestimates of speed at impact are perhaps roughly OK.

I hope Aussie would have found this interesting.

In order for me to actually throw a stone with a noticeable arc at less than 40 yards, its more like 50% of the original power of the throw, even with tennis ball sized rocks of quartz.

This thread convinced me to practice lobbing more, and I did. I was actually less accurate because it felt like I was 'forcing' a weak throw.  After some practice it wasn't too bad, but even slinging 110% (normally not very accurate) was more accurate than lobbing for me.

So if there is significantly less velocity and KE and no accuracy advantage (usually less accuracy), it's really not very helpful to me at least, perhaps others can find more use for it.

Lobbing also cuts down on the sling's ammunition versatility. If you require such heavy ammo to sling pretty much every thing egg sized and under is out.

Don't take the above as animosity, I'm just explaining why I find flat lining superior (as apparent by the poll, most people already do).

Trying to adjust my figures--

Shooter B, lobbing a 200g stone at 30m, with a 37m/s initial velocity, will have (I assume) a better velocity retention than a pitched baseball. The pitched baseball would lose .44m/s every 2m, so about 7m/s over 30m, so the velocity of the stone on impact would be BETTER than 30m/s, so KE > 90.

Shooter A whangs a 80g stone at 30 m, with a 48 m/s initial velocity; we assume the same loss of velocity (i.e. something like a pitched baseball, not so good, though, as the heavier stone), so around 41 m/s at arrival, so perhaps a mite above 67 J, or even a bit lower if drag and speed loss is significant.

"Good news for batters, the "muzzle velocity" of a pitched baseball slows down about 1 mph every 7 feet after it leaves the pitcher's hand"

http://www.bostonbaseball.com/whitesox/baseball_extras/physics.html

1 mph = .45 m/s
7ft=2m 13.

:) I like where this thread has gone.

Thearos, your math is good. I don't know about your assumptions on skin friction, though. I will find some measurements for a hand filling stone and calculate the drag on a smooth sphere in laminar flow to give us an idea how quickly the stone will decelerate when we neglect acceleration due to gravity.

F_D=¹/₂ρv²C_DA

Stop focusing so much on maximizing energy, guys. I maintain that in ballistics it is momentum transfer that is important, not energy transfer. And, lucky for us, in the equation for momentum (p=mv) both mass and velocity vary linearly.

Edit: Found a primary source for Maori sling stone dimensions close to the size of a baseball. I'm using 84mm in diameter and 28 oz for my calculations.

---

I think both points-- that re. drag, I have no idea what I'm talking about, and that momentum transfer must be what matters-- are very well put, and show how my laborious calculations are mere possibilities and starting points, nothign definitive.

I don't mean to sound arrogant so please do not take it that way, but I have a set  of 42g darts that I use. this is very light to me. The stones that I am "flat lining" at over 25 yards are between 180g minimum and 260g maximum. you can see the size of rocks I use in my videos and I have weighed them. Point being. Thearos, The dramatic weight difference that you are using in your examples is what is misleading your math. you have doubled the weight in your example and only have a velocity difference of 10 m/s. this is also misleading. As I have not done chrony tests it is impossible for me to speculate accurately on the actual velocities, but I can assure you it would exceed the proposed 10m/s.

Where was I going with all of this :-?
coffee time ;)

you do not have to decrease to weight of the projectile that much to gain double the velocity. Lets not forget to, that this is all depending on the persons physical capabilities and how well they can harness the mechanical advantage gained by the sling. I am assuming that by your examples a 200 gram stone is heavy to you. where I would find something exceeding 350 grams heavy(a weight I would need to lob)

use a slightly lighter rock than one you would need to lob and you will gain much more velocity/ power. or just strengthen your muscles and practice maximum efficiency with the larger rock and before long you will be rocketing that bigger rock. win...win. 8-)

At 20^o C and 101.325 kPa, dry air has a density of 1.2041 kg/m³

I will borrow v_i=50 m/s because I have no clue what to make up in its place.

C_D=0.47 for a sphere

A=πr²=0.005541769 m² or 55.41769 cm²

So:

F_D=0.5(1.2041 kg/m³)(50 m/s)²(0.47)(0.005541769 m²)=3.92029588108 N

Given a mass of 28 oz or 0.793787 kg the acceleration is going to be roughly 4.9 m/s² in the free stream direction at the moment of release.

Mas, I think the weight in the pictures are wrong.  I think somebody long ago messed up converting grams to ounces.  Rock A is 2/3rds the size of rock B but is 1/2 the weight, Rock C is is 3/5th the size of B but only 1/4 the weight.  Something isn't correct.

Bill Skinner wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

Mas, I think the weight in the pictures are wrong.  I think somebody long ago messed up converting grams to ounces.  Rock A is 2/3rds the size of rock B but is 1/2 the weight, Rock C is is 3/5th the size of B but only 1/4 the weight.  Something isn't correct.

Well, that sucks. Let me compare it to a baseline density for basalt of 2.8 g/cm³. (Thank you, ask.com!)

V=⁴/₃πr³=0.000310 m³=310 cm³

2.8*310=868 g=0.868 kg

I'd call that acceptable error, but since I have a new mass for the sphere:

a=4.51646990908 m/s² in the free stream direction.

Now, the force due to drag will vary with the square of the velocity but we can use snapshots with respect to velocity to approximate it since we know that it is parabolic. If I were a nice person I'd calculate the drag at a couple more velocities and draw a graph, but I'm not going to. :P

now this is really getting silly. ;D

Ok. enough numbers for a while.

Cave man thoughts on momentum.....

Throw big rock, fast.....smash >:(

English_Marauder wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 6:49pm:

now this is really getting silly. ;D

That's my job!

Also worth noting: I'm assuming all of this is happening at substantially less than transonic speeds, so no parasitic drag. It's isothermic, laminar, and incompressible flow that is fully attached where M<0.2. In English that means it's a windless day at room temperature with no humidity, the rock is smooth as glass, and it's not flying any faster than 1/5 the speed of sound at that altitude.

Massi - WTF? It's called a sling. You use it to throw rocks farther and faster than you could otherwise. That's all. 
~Engineers like to solve problems. If there are no problems handily avialable, they will create their own problems.~

Bill - Basalt can have different densities depending on how it is formed such as much time it has taken for the magma to cool after it has been extruded. On an island, magma may have cooled under water or under limestone long before it was pushed to the surface above the water. It's possible the measurements on that illustration are accurate because what is not provided is the stone's density.

Mr Marauder:

1.  the velocities I give are pretty much within the range of what is recorded-- between 30+ and 50+ m/s. You can play around with the figures, but the general outcomes and orders of magnitude all seem to point the same way.

2. The point is not what you find light or heavy. It simply to show that a perfectly respectable weight (80 g) slung fast produces less KE than a heavy stone (200 g) slung slower, but still at a good speed.

If you sling 250g fast, then 400 g lobbed a bit slower would produce greater KE. Scale all my figures up if you wish-- it's the general point that matters here.

The point being to confirm something seen instinctively-- the smashing power of lobbed shots-- but which the love of whanging has obscured.

Thearos wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

The point being to confirm something seen instinctively-- the smashing power of lobbed shots-- but which the love of whanging has obscured.

The love of whanging, and the use of the equation for KE rather than the equation for momentum.

Still, let us say that the straight shooter reaches a speed of 50 m/s. The KE is 100 J. Greater than the lobbed shot at 200g, but by 10 J. Same point remains about the power of the lobbed shot.

Momentum, momentum, OK.

Thearos wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Still, let us say that the straight shooter reaches a speed of 50 m/s. The KE is 100 J. Greater than the lobbed shot at 200g, but by 10 J. Same point remains about the power of the lobbed shot.

The answer is simple. It's PURPLE because aliens don't wear hats on the roof when playing strip poker.

Thearos wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:

Momentum, momentum, OK.

My point was that the equation for kinetic energy overemphasizes the role of velocity in terminal ballistics and makes it easy to discount the effect produced by varying the mass of the projectile. I wasn't trying to correct you.

No, Masia., I didn't take it as a correction, just reminding myself of what you wrote (because it looked like I was ignoring your post).

What I wanted to say with all my posts: lobbing heavier stones a bit more slowly is a useful skill and a legitimate way of slinging. It can allow for good accuracy. You should not feel that it's somehow not "real" slinging or a betrayal of the nature of the weapon, because it generates good power.

I agree pik. It is PURPLE ;D 

On figures, I took as a baseline for the straight shooter 48 m/s and 80 g stone. The lobber's power I dialled down to 75% of that, to 36 m/s, and gave him a big smasher of a stone. This setup is quite realistic, I think, and the lobber generates a lot of power, and figures for momentum might be even more in his favour. I insisted on this because the results were surprising even to me.

But you could also choose to have both shooters using the same stone, and the wangler going at 57 m/s (dropping to e.g. 53 m/s on impact) and the lobber going at 32 m/s (dropping to 28 m/s on impact). The whanger gets KE= 140J, the lobber 39J. But all that say is that if you shoot fast, you get more energy into the shot-- which no one contests. 

here is my theory- its GREEN, not purple

Ok so all these formulas..... Yuck!
Let's talk trauma. I bet a speeding glande makes a much different wound than lobbing a fist sized stone. The question is, which one is more fatal? Against armor? Without armor?
Let's say one is just as accurate as the other

Masia. has thoughts on this. I'd like to read them.

Long version: (Sorry, I can't really make this not seem technical without taking too many details out and making my description wrong.) According to scattering theory in particle mechanics, the momentum-transfer cross section describes the radiation resulting from a collision -including particle radiation and the deflection of particles in the material of the target. Depending on how elastic of a material the target is it can absorb different amounts of kinetic energy before shattering or tearing and may even return to its original shape, but that deformation is a kind of wound itself in a living target. The deformation and the type of injury caused is irrelevant, though. The important thing is that more momentum means more damage to a living target in almost every instance. The damage is caused by a force -and therefore energy- but using the kinetic energy of the projectile to model impact force neglects the fact that elastic collisions do not conserve energy and that every collision is elastic to some degree. There are a few instances where a very larger cross sectional area, an impact at a very acute angle relative to the target, or a collision that occurs over a longer period of time will affect the momentum transfer, but they don't apply to us. A projectile's momentum at the time of impact is the best way to quantify the damage caused by a projectile without actually trying to calculate the damage. And I don't want to try that, it's doctorate level mathematics.

Shorter version: There's a math theory that describes how radiation travels after a crash. These radiating waves are what cause damage to a target and they're mostly cause by the momentum of the projectile. We don't live in a perfect world and that sometimes isn't enough to describe the damage all by itself, but we luckily don't have to worry about that to have a functional model. Plus, the math for that is over my head. The projectile with more momentum will be the most physically damaging.

Keep in mind, dead is dead and "more dead" is still just dead. The math doesn't say whether a small, fast projectile will break the skin or whether a large, heavy one will cause internal bleeding. This only models straight tissue damage.

In short, Masiakasaurus hasn't been out hunting much.

speed equals death. ;)

English_Marauder wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

In short, Masiakasaurus hasn't been out hunting much. speed equals death. ;)

I challenge you to shoot a deer with a fast and straight .17 Hornet and another with an arcing .45-70 government. You'll come around to my way of thinking.

Have you ever shot a deer??? ;D

I know I have, and I've also put a lot of different rounds through a lot of different animals.

when you dredge up reloading data for 45-70 the round can be made quite fast. when store bought 45-70 have very poor penetration.
bad example. in my opinion of course.  :) 

Jaegoor, who lobs, killed a deer with his slinging technique-- lobbing heavy stones.

lets get back on track.

when I was a kid, out with a slingshot, I learned very quickly that using a larger stone wasn't the answer. hitting a squirrel broad side with the bigger rock moving slower didn't produce tangible results, over reducing the weight by a bit in order to gain a fair amount of speed. the impact diffirence was very clear to my 9 year old self. thats what brought home the bacon/squirrel. :)   

I get that you don't know me so I'm not going to fight with you about my qualifications. But find the velocity for any 300 gr .45-70 hollow point factory load and compare it to a 20 gr .17 Hornet v-max bullet factory load. There will be at least a 1000 ft/s difference between them and shot placement won't be as critical with the .45-70.

Thearos wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

Jaegoor, who lobs, killed a deer with his slinging technique-- lobbing heavy stones.

;D

well here in Canada the deer aren't the size of dogs

Masiakasaurus. I didn't mean to offend. Just a little fun banter. ;)

If I was offended I would've bit the bait, my friend.

Okay ladies. You are both very clever.

---

Careful E_M. Massi is a pretty big wheel down at the cracker factory.  ;)

;D

I guess I made a good thread. friggin 6 pages. didn;t think that this one would go for as long as it has

P.S.

how's my new sig?

Heavier, to a point, has always been more efficient in my experience. I look at it as a  bell curve.  I also agree that some of the figures given about the heavier projectile being only 75% slower might be off. Maybe not if your He-Man, otherwise, not likely with your typical target slings.

It's all about sling length, throwing style and the physique of the slinger in my opinion.  I guarantee I could never throw a 7 ounce projectile at 75% of the speed of a 3 ish ounce projectile.  Just isn't going to happen.  At least not with my normal sling length. With a long enough sling though I could probably sling the 7 ouncer almost as fast as the lighter stone. Just another example of why there is no one size fits all sling length.  Tailor fit the sling length to the projectile weight, slingers physique and throwing style.  Just like you would with a bow.

From a lethality point of view, stone profile is just as, or possibly more important than a few ounces of additional weight.  A pointed three ounce projectile should probably kill a deer quite easily, as it will have the profile needed to penetrate into the deers vitals and leave a 2 inch hole in it's wake.

Good points. I do wonder if a slung stone will penetrate a deer's hide

An interesting and long discussion.

But then I throw 50g or 500g projectile, I will let throw every straight. :)
(Except if I will throw the length.)

To Morphy: yes, the issue is those velocities which I entered the KE calculator. 75% lobs was purely impressionistic.

Pikaru, I knap basalt quite a bit, I know the densities change.  However, they don't change that much, if they do, they they aren't basalt anymore, they are pumice or dacite or something else. 

That's why I said that there was something wrong with Mas' picture.  Either some one messed up converting grams to ounces or someone misidentified the type of stone.  I lean towards the last, anthropologists are not geologists. ;D

When i used my 150cm sling,i could sling fist sized stones almost as far as egg sized ones from the 110cm sling.
And only because i couldn't launch in a high enough elevation,because the very long sling would have hit the ground behind me.

Slinger,sling,slinging technique,and ammo define the shot that delivers the most KE to a set distance.

But saying it simply,according to my experience,bigger stones will hit harder, even if they are much slower.

A 1 pounder stone from my long sling would likely break a pine plank. No way, i could do that with a 2oz stone.

egg-sactly

Momentum, then.

Whanger slings 80 g stone, velocity on arrival 48 m/s, momentum is 3.84 k m/s

Lobber slings 200g stone, velocity on arrival 36 m/s, momentum is 7.2 k m/s.

OK, maybe the figures are not right for the lobber. Let's stay he's lobbing a 150g stone, with a speed of 24 m/s on arrival, momentum is then 3.60 k m/s, so about the same as the whanger.

If the lobber slings with a 160g stone and a terminal velocity of 30m/s, the momentum is already 4.8.

Lob and crash. That, too, is the way of the sling, as well as zippy straight shots.

zippy straight shots are better IMO for long range target, precision shooting, and destroying/puncturing stuff.
much better with pointy lead glans...

lobbing sooo much better for rocks, large targets, knocking over stuff....

The clay balls From the Enlaka roman fort were ~ 120 grams (my favourite intermediary ammo,or general ammo) and 200g bashers. Also a very nice weight,for mid-close range hard hitting.
200g with 40 m/s is absolutely doable to launch. On ..say 50m,arriving with 35m/s is possible and not extreme at all.IMO

Let's talk historical, militarized slinging.

A slinger in combat range-- he has two possible types of targets. One is light infantry in the skirmishing line, people like him-- guys with wicker shields and javelins, archers crouching behind bushes, other slingers. You shoot straight and light: your target is moving around, and unarmoured, the fast shot allows to reach out and touch him. You whang.

The other type of target is a line of heavy infantry, armoured, with big shields, wearing helmets. They're not going anywhere in a hurry. You want heavy ammo, and you don't mind if the flight time is a bit slower and even if the stone lands a bit off-- momentum is what matters. You lob.

I'm going to introduce a third concept here. I know with self bows, they have a certain ideal arrow weight so that they can utilize all of their energy (light arrows may result in hand shock and a 'loud' bow), usually this is around 10 grains per pound of draw weight. Obviously an arrow that I way too heavy (like a log) won't go very far at all.

There has to be a balance. Personally, I see lobbing akin to half-drawing a bow and shooting an arrow that's way to heavy (which obviously doesn't utilize the bow as well as it could be utilized), so my balance leans towards straight throwing. However, I would think just straight throwing with a heavier rock (egg to large egg sized) would be better than having to learn to sling two different ways. Most slingers, when they switch ammunition weights, will have to readjust their trained release timing.

Slinging is hard enough as it is, I think a compromise leaning towards straight throwing is the best option if you are looking for maximum KE and accuracy. If you just sling for enjoyment or because its awesome, then it doesn't really matter what you do.

well said Dan.

You're thinking of lobbing wrong. Lobbing is aiming high and making the stone drop. If you want to translate it to archery, lobbing is a normal and comfortable shot that's going to arc more with more distance and whanging is overdrawing the bow for distance shots and using Turkish flight arrows.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 10:37am:

You're thinking of lobbing wrong. Lobbing is aiming high and making the stone drop. If you want to translate it to archery, lobbing is a normal and comfortable shot that's going to arc more with more distance and whanging is overdrawing the bow for distance shots and using Turkish flight arrows.

I respectfully still completely disagree. I've seen professional lobbers, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQJv0LJqd9Y, and I've lobbed myself. Its not comfortable at all (in fact for me, its down right unnatural), its intentionally less powerful, similar to short drawing, but the arc  and energy is made a little more significant with heavier ammunition.

If I was throwing comfortably at anything less than 40 yards and aiming high, I'd be throwing high too.

Arcing in is for long distance, when you have to and you are still slinging 'hard' to utilize all the sling's potential energy.

There is a fine line between 'over-slinging' like a madman and strong flat-lining like EM, Yurek, and myself would do.

While lobbing can produce good results, I'm still pretty sure straight controlled slinging is the best way to sling.

And Dan comes in with a big hit to the jaw. POW. :o

KO for Lobbing.

7 pages later....

English_Marauder wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

And Dan comes in with a big hit to the jaw. POW. :o KO for Lobbing. 7 pages later....

It ain't over till the fat lady sings.


Dan wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:

While lobbing can produce good results, I'm still pretty sure straight controlled slinging is the best way to sling.

And I still respectfully disagree. To continue the archery metaphor, you don't -or shouldn't- use all your strength to pull back the bow. If it takes all you've got to draw your bow to anchor then you're overbowed and it will negatively effect your technique. Nor should you try to get more power with a floating anchor point that changes based on target distance. Same for the difference between lobbing versus whanging in slinging. If you aren't using absolutely everything you've got and you aren't changing the strength with which you sling, you're lobbing. Changing the force with which you sling changes the speed of the sling's rotation and changes release timing. The better way to aim at targets at different distances is to learn to adjust your aim instinctively rather than adjust your power just like instinctive shooting in archery.

To restate what I tried to show int he previous pages: whanging does not necessarily generate more KE or momentum than lobbing, and lobbing generates a lot of impact. It also allows for accurate shot placement.

Some people can lob quite well, but feel awkward doing it-- hence the forced archery analogy. I fear its main function is to provide psychological cover for the real anxiety: that lobbing is somehow less manly than full-on whanging.

It's nice to be able to do both well. I can. You should.

And here's a fine picture of point blank straight shooting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b4NhUqlH0&list=UUmlzXXkU-ofs7aO-DVqm1mA&index=8&feature=plcp

(which does not mean that lobbing heavy shots at longer distances isn't good, too).

Masiakasaurus,
"And I still respectfully disagree. To continue the archery metaphor, you don't -or shouldn't- use all your strength to pull back the bow. If it takes all you've got to draw your bow to anchor then you're overbowed and it will negatively effect your technique"

I don't believe the bow analogy was meant to be about a maxing of user input. But rather using the full potential of the weapon.

example.

you wouldn't half draw a bow in order to achieve an arching shot.

Or if you found that the arrows that you were using were to heavy(shots lacked speed) for x bow. you would lighten the arrow to gain speed.

Back to slings.
If I was using rocks of a weight that I could not achieve good flat shots out of my 30" sling, I would do one of two things. one, lengthen my sling. two use lighter rocks. for me under powering a rock intentionally is not an option.

side note. I knew that last comment would draw a certain Masi back to this. ;)      

 

English_Marauder wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 8:43am:

I don't believe the bow analogy was meant to be about a maxing of user input. But rather using the full potential of the weapon.

You're right, but I don't see your point. The lobbing side keeps saying that you maximize the potential of the sling by lobbing and that whanging is either throwing too hard and sacrificing technique or throwing a stone lighter than necessary and sacrificing terminal ballistics. I already addressed the effect of a lighter stone than necessary, now I've addressed throwing harder than necessary. Using another person's metaphor and changing the terms to show that it can mean something different is a part of debate.


English_Marauder wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 8:43am:

You wouldn't half draw a bow in order to achieve an arching shot. Or if you found that the arrows that you were using were to heavy(shots lacked speed) for x bow. you would lighten the arrow to gain speed.

Right, again. But you're just reiterating Dan's point in the same terms he did. Dan said lobbing was like half drawing and whanging was getting to anchor, I said that lobbing is getting to anchor and whanging is either using Turkish flight arrows (too light to be effective) and/or overdrawing. Because I keep saying that lobbing has already maximized the potential of the weapon. The exception would be at point blank range -however long or short that is- where a lobbed stone would have to fly very high but not very far or it would have to be so underthrown as to barely impact the target.

This may be one of the best debates we've had actually regarding slinging. Good work guys. :)

"Whanging" is really an unnecessarily derogatory term for strong controlled slinging.
No one would say that myself, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ65qYFKcwQ
EM, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCM2PKlRcZw
or Yurek, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6jkEa57V8

are slinging uncontrollably with the shots going in every direction because of our ridiculously over-powered throws. Its just not true, the evidence is in favor of straight throwing being the best way to utilize the sling in accuracy and power. There's no sacrifice of anything, just proper utilization of a weapon that relies on the user for its power.

If straight throwing required throwing pebbles or air soft BBs, your Turkish flight arrow analogy might be more appropriate. But it doesn't. I can straight throw any reasonable weight (3-8oz, maybe more too but I haven't really had the motivation to try before) sling stone with no difficulty. So your argument that straight throwing requires ammunition too light to be effective (like "Turkish flight arrows") is invalid.

I'm not saying that all your shots will go rediculously wild, I'm saying your accuracy will plateau earlier if you have to force your throws to try for a flatter flight and that accuracy will depend much more heavily on the target being the proper distance away from you.

"Flight arrows" is a valid analogy even though you're throwing stones heavier than a pebble because we're comparing a mass that has more favorable terminal ballistics to one that has less favorable terminal ballistics. It's necking down a cartridge to lessen the bullet drop. The new caliber will probably be effective against some targets, but it's going to have less stopping power than its parent cartridge. If you want the most damaging effect on target you should learn to instinctively compensate for drop rather than reduce the bullet's mass like E_M said he does.

If you need an analogy of sufficient manliness, just imagine, as you lob, that you're throwing an American football

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDNgeZ_D1rQ

with the variation in weight of the stones I use.(simply beach stones) I compensate by putting more power into a slightly heavier stone.(to maintain a flat trajectory) when I mentioned changing stone weight or sling length that would be with something heavier than I could physically handle(a rock I could not flat line). 

I Picture throwing through the target, destroying it.

I do NOT picture someone catching it on the other end.(football) ;)

Masia.:

"The lobbing side keeps saying that you maximize the potential of the sling by lobbing and that whanging is either throwing too hard and sacrificing technique or throwing a stone lighter than necessary and sacrificing terminal ballistics. "Flight arrows" is a valid analogy even though you're throwing stones heavier than a pebble because we're comparing a mass that has more favorable terminal ballistics to one that has less favorable terminal ballistics. It's necking down a cartridge to lessen the bullet drop. The new caliber will probably be effective against some targets, but it's going to have less stopping power than its parent cartridge. If you want the most damaging effect on target you should learn to instinctively compensate for drop rather than reduce the bullet's mass like E_M said he does"

That's an excellent piece of writing and arguing.

Anyway: repeat to yourself "I sling like a quarterback", if you need to feel manly. And don't catch fist-sized stones if lobbed at you.

Thearos, with respect, with the amount you talk about people relating hard throws to manliness, my guess is your not feeling very manly yourself. :-[

Just remember only you have made reference between throwing style and Manliness.   

For me, Masia.'s arguments on terminal ballistics (heavy stone hits hard, choice of lighter stone for flat traj. sacrifices on that front) have actually worked the debate out to its conclusion. Lobbers win. Whangers listen.

My contribution is to add the consolatory mantra or images for those who feel uncomfortable lobbing (beyond point-blank range, remember), as somehow "untrue to the real nature of the sling" or "not powerful enough". These images will worm into the whangers' brain-- they will try not to think about it-- and one day, they will realize-- hey, at the right distance, my hand reaches for the heavy stone, and my arm, it lobbeth ! Why did I fight it !

We will all laugh about this in some years time, as everyone lobs, happily fulfilling the potential of the sling, at the right distances.

To put what Masia. said slightly differently and insist on one of his most striking points: using lighter ammo to achieve flat traj. sacrifices terminal ballistics, and hence does not fulfil the full potential of the sling as weapon.

you can lead the horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Its okay maybe one day you will grasp the fundamentals.

If you keep practicing your form and building your strength maybe some day, you to can enjoy the full power available from this amazing weapon.   

Point-blank might be a distance window-- for me, say 10-20m; at the further end of that window, it is already intersecting with the beginning of the "lobbing" window.

Some old links:

Jaegoor's "Technik"
http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285662189/9

Jaegoor hunting with his technique (and shooting a roe deer):
http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1277358869/4

Just for the record I don't think I ever said lobbing was "weak" per se just less powerful than straight throwing, and that it also doesn't completely utilize the sling's energy potential.


Thearos wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

For me, Masia.'s arguments on terminal ballistics (heavy stone hits hard, choice of lighter stone for flat traj. sacrifices on that front) have actually worked the debate out to its conclusion. Lobbers win. Whangers listen.

Masi's argument does not end the debate, because straight throwers are equally as capable of throwing near comparable weight rocks at a much greater velocity (I even went out in the freezing rain and slung to confirm this before typing this). I said that earlier. Straight throwing doesn't require uber-light rocks; golf ball, chicken egg, and even tennis ball sized rocks can all be straight thrown comfortably.

The sling has been around for thousands of years and many of the world's best slingers (Luis Pons Livermore, World Champion Slinger straight throws, so I get a feeling it can't be as bad as you make it sound) still straight throw.


Thearos wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

My contribution is to add the consolatory mantra or images for those who feel uncomfortable lobbing (beyond point-blank range, remember), as somehow "untrue to the real nature of the sling" or "not powerful enough". These images will worm into the whangers' brain-- they will try not to think about it-- and one day, they will realize-- hey, at the right distance, my hand reaches for the heavy stone, and my arm, it lobbeth ! Why did I fight it !

I have lobbed before, I've seen lobbing (posted about it earlier) and the more I do it, the more I'm sure it is not the best way to use a sling.


Thearos wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

We will all laugh about this in some years time, as everyone lobs, happily fulfilling the potential of the sling, at the right distances.

Its been a few thousand years, people will still be straight throwing well into the future (because its the best  ;) )


Jaegoor also thinks apache and figure 8 are improper ways to sling, just because he killed a small deer 20 years ago, it doesn't make him a slinging god. If you want to use the ad hominem there's plenty of straight throwers out there who can attest to its success as well(Paleoarts straight throws and killed a turkey and many other game).

I'd prefer that people lob than not sling at all, but I am really sure lobbing is not 'the peak of sling technique'.

Throwing a football like that is arcing, not lobbing. He isn't intentionally throwing it less hard to achieve more arc, that's just what is necessary to get the ball from point A t point B. Similar to distance throwing.


Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 12:20pm:

I'm not saying that all your shots will go rediculously wild, I'm saying your accuracy will plateau earlier if you have to force your throws to try for a flatter flight and that accuracy will depend much more heavily on the target being the proper distance away from you. "Flight arrows" is a valid analogy even though you're throwing stones heavier than a pebble because we're comparing a mass that has more favorable terminal ballistics to one that has less favorable terminal ballistics. It's necking down a cartridge to lessen the bullet drop. The new caliber will probably be effective against some targets, but it's going to have less stopping power than its parent cartridge. If you want the most damaging effect on target you should learn to instinctively compensate for drop rather than reduce the bullet's mass like E_M said he does.

Straight throwers don't have to force a throw for a flat trajectory. I just throw normally and the rock (usually around 3-5oz) flies forward in a straight trajectory. Over distance, there might be a little more arcing but I'd never sling less powerfully just to achieve more of an arc.

It's a barely necked down cartridge, it at all, with more than sufficient weight to take care of business. If I was slinging one ounce stones, you'd be right on, but I don't. No straight thrower has to.

If you watch EM's videos, you'll see his ammunition is still egg sized rocks, just like most slinging cultures throughout the world have been using for thousands of years.

I know you could totally own me in science type things, but using realy simple science, KE is still velocity biased (Obviously you already know this but for others, KE = 1/2mv^2, where m is mass in kg and v is velocity in meters per second), and you are only taking down the weight by a couple ounces, so the power should definitely be in straight throwing's favor.


Again, no hard feelings against lobbers, I just want to make sure straight throwing is being fairly represented.

Oh sure, if you like target plinking at point-blank range, go ahead and short-change the sling with your zippy straight shots with sub-optimal ammo. It's not because it looks chunky that it's heavy *for your sling*.

But if you want to fulfil the potential of this age-old weapon, choose a big fist sized stone, and lob it well, send it crashing into the target.

Dan wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 2:40pm:

Masi's argument does not end the debate, because straight throwers are equally as capable of throwing near comparable weight rocks at a much greater velocity (I even went out in the freezing rain and slung to confirm this before typing this).

Imagine double or triple the distance to your target. How would you change the way you sling so that the stone gets to the same spot on the target? If you didn't use 100% of you strength before and you don't now, but instead aim higher then you do what Thearos and I call lobbing. If you already were using 100% and can only aim higher, if you throw harder at longer distance, or if you use a lighter stone for distance then you don't. You might not realize this because you might be slinging at your point blank range.


Dan wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 2:40pm:

I have lobbed before, I've seen lobbing (posted about it earlier) and the more I do it, the more I'm sure it is not the best way to use a sling.

I imagine that's what a gap shooter thinks when trying to learn instinctive archery and vice versa. It's because you aren't used to the technique, not because lobbing is in any way deficient. In regards to the OP, not using absolutely 100% of your strength increases your potential for accurate slinging and increasing the weight of your stones will yield better terminal ballistics than trying to sling faster.

Man, I gotta go slinging.

Dan wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

I know you could totally own me in science type things, but using realy simple science, KE is still velocity biased (Obviously you already know this but for others, KE = 1/2mv^2, where m is mass in kg and v is velocity in meters per second), and you are only taking down the weight by a couple ounces, so the power should definitely be in straight throwing's favor.

If KE mattered in terminal ballistics, you'd be right. It's momentum (p=mv) that determines how hard a stone will hit. The equation for KE is heavily weighted in favor of speed. If KE was important in collisions then Linemen and Running Backs would be the same size and speed in football.

Let's say you took two stones that are the same size and weight(the size of a plum for example) and shoot one as a lob and the other as a flat trajectory at the same target(30m distance), I bet the zinger hits harder. The only way I see a lob winning is with bigger ammo.
I am certain once you go past forty or fifty meters all your shots will start to have an arc but the flatter arc seems better than a high floater.
So I guess what I am saying is within closer distances a straight shot is almost automatic and greater distances demand a lob. I still think I will always try to throw strong straight shots at targets. Lobbing seems more of a distance thing for me

I went out today and did a little slinging with rocks that varied in weight from about 180g to 260g. to some these are considered "big smashers" that you would lob. These rocks were easily flat lined at 20 yards. not considered point blank distance by any stretch of the imagination. ;)

sling hard...sling fast...sling well!

The video will be put up tonight.   

Masi, You are correct regarding momentum, however while the two sides are no quite as lopsided, I still stand by straight throwing with slightly lighter rocks at a much greater velocity being stronger. The sling is user dependent, and if the slinger is putting more energy into the throw, it should be a stronger throw.



Increasing the angle of a straight (hard) throw for distance doesn't make it lobbing, it is just straight throwing on a different angle (like if you were trying to sling straight at a bird or an enemy soldier on top of a castle). Lobbing is using unnecessarily heavy ammo, aiming high, and throwing with less energy (I'd even say weaker if I wanted to be derogatory, but I won't  ;) ) in order to drop the shot in on the target in a controlled manner.

The historical slingers that utilized 2oz lead glands slinging near 400 yards definitely weren't lobbing, but they did need to increase their straight throwing angle in order to achieve maximum distance.

I would encourage others to sling the same way as it is the most versatile way to sling while maintaining accuracy and great power.

Mr Marauder: I would say that 20 m is the edge of point-blank shooting, and in fact already within good lobbing distance.

In fact, a good definition of point-blank is the distance at which you can reasonably shoot straight.

Dan wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

Masi, You are correct regarding momentum... I still stand by straight throwing with slightly lighter rocks at a much greater velocity being stronger. The sling is user dependent, and if the slinger is putting more energy into the throw, it should be a stronger throw.

Those three sentences aren't actually compatible.

Well Thearos, Then I should see some video footage of you slinging at 40,50 60,70+ yards accurately. If indeed 20 yards is so close and unchallenging for you. ;D

Point blank = distance at which you can sling straight on. I can sling level at that distance. But I'd prefer to lob. And at 30, 40, 50m-- I have to lob, and it's actually quite challenging and interesting: requires thinking and correcting the shot.

"Point blank" usually refers to something being shot at extremely close range.

I understand to technical blah-blah-blah of what the term means, but in general, by most people it describes a very close shot

But what else would constitute point blank distance with a sling ? 2 m, 6 m ? Impossible, too short-- think of the nature of the contraption.

The stone has to fly a bit-10, 15m; 20 m is the edge of that "straight shot" envelope.

Your missing the meaning of a straight shot. It is simply a shot in which there is sufficient power to launch the projectile along a flatter trajectory. you cant put a distance to this. I can make a fully powered straight shot at 100 yards, all I would do is increase my angle. everything has a trajectory. This "envelope" you speak of does not exist. 

He is talking about a distance so close it is nearly impossible to miss.
for me- 5 yards is about right. I use 35"+ slings with figure 8 for accuracy training(my usual slings are roughly that length)...
So my projectile is launched from about 8 feet off the ground(give or take a foot or 2). So I need... a goodly amount of space.

Mr Marauder writes "I can make a fully powered straight shot at 100 yards, all I would do is increase my angle."

and Dan writes "Increasing the angle of a straight (hard) throw for distance doesn't make it lobbing, it is just straight throwing on a different angle"

I assume they sling full-on all the time. But at a distance, those really have become lobs.

Anyways, straight shots (not angled), with full power-- they fly straight for a certain distance (then they drop). 20 m is achievable (even I can do it). So it's the edge of the point-blank envelope.

I must say, the concept of the "straight throw at an angle to achieve distance" is starting to defy logic. It's a lob, only far out, so you've started to ramp up power. You can't shoot straight out to 100 m.

I guess somewhere along the line you also lost the meaning of a lob. where a lob is a shot that is purposely underpowered to achieve a higher arch before it hits the target. Or using a stone with a weight that you can not physically shoot with speed.(so it lobs, without speed)

A high arching, high powered shot meant for distance is NOT a lob.

I think you never actually grasped what we've been saying about lobbing. The points of my and Thearos's posts on lobbing have been to show you that "a shot that is purposely underpowered to achieve a higher arc" is not a lob. Again, a lob is a throw that accounts for bullet drop. Not a short range throw pointing high so it will drop more, and not a short range throw that is softly tossed. A lob is a shot that has been thrown at the most effective speed that the slinger can produce and is allowed to drop, instead of the slinger pushing themself past that to make the throw faster and flatter when slinging at longer distances.

Now, throwing with everything you've got is not efficient and is not a good idea. If you do that, dial it back slightly and your accuracy will improve because your technique will improve. This may be the source of confusion.

Rat Man wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

... also most of us have found that shooting with full power does cost some accuracy.  The general consensus seems to be that approximately 75% or so of one's full power will give the best accuracy with a negligible loss of power.

Letting a stone fly long enough and slow down enough to start dropping will not have a noticeable effect on the terminal ballistics as long as it doesn't skip off the target at a shallow angle. This is because momentum is what determines terminal ballistics. If KE did, then slowing down over a long distance or being slow enough to noticeably drop WOULD be a bad thing. It just isn't in real life. Just to reiterate what I've said about KE vs Momentum, as well.

Point blank -by definition- is the distance at which a shot will not miss because of wind, drop, etc, after it has left the weapon. They only way you can miss the target with a sling at point blank range is with a botched throw. Equivalent to a mechanical failure in other weapons. At point blank range neither a lobber nor a flat-liner (better than whanging, Dan?) will notice drop. It is past this that the difference becomes noticeable. So, point blank can be 20 meters.

What I'm getting out of this is that you and Dan both lob at medium-long distance and you haven't noticed yet that your accuracy has plateaued at short distances. If you aren't actually lobbing all along.

How bout we say this-
A lob is a shot when the bullet/projectile follows a flight path in the shape of an arc or parabola, and this is accounted for when aiming.
a whang/flat liner does NOT account for drop WHATSOEVER, because either there is sufficient speed or the target is close enough for the drop to be insignificant. 

So most of my shots past 30m are lobs.
Most of my closer shots are flat-liners.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 8:19pm:

I think you never actually grasped what we've been saying about lobbing. The points of my and Thearos's posts on lobbing have been to show you that "a shot that is purposely underpowered to achieve a higher arc" is not a lob.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 8:19pm:

Now, throwing with everything you've got is not efficient and is not a good idea. If you do that, dial it back slightly and your accuracy will improve because your technique will improve.

These two statements contradict each other. If dialing back to achieve accuracy, your speed will drop producing a lob. as seen in the videos you guys have referenced.

second, I don't know what would lead you to believe that your accuracy and form will increase by "dialing it back." All of the video evidence that I have seen strongly suggests a direct correlation between strong hard slinging and an increase in accuracy. as well as achieving high levels of accuracy myself. all of the most accurate slingers I have seen, have NOT lobbed.


Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 8:19pm:

What I'm getting out of this is that you and Dan both lob at medium-long distance and you haven't noticed yet that your accuracy has plateaued at short distances. If you aren't actually lobbing all along.

I'm not quite sure what your getting at by a "accuracy plateau"? Is this in context of not being able to achieve any better accuracy, at x distance.? If so, I would disagree. I would argue that there is no accuracy plateau, and that the rock only flies where you make it fly. I am shooting at a target that is 1.5 foot sq. with a bulls eye that is 3 inches in diameter. and an outer ring that is 8 inches in diameter. With hard fast slinging my accuracy improves by the day.       

Masi, do you have any footage of you slinging? I would love to see some. ;)

Edit: I replied before E_M, saying "keep slinging" and deleted it while trying to edit on my stupid phone.

English_Marauder wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 9:21pm:

I'm not quite sure what your getting at by a "accuracy plateau"? Is this in context of not being able to achieve any better accuracy, at x distance.? If so, I would disagree. I would argue that there is no accuracy plateau, and that the rock only flies where you make it fly. I am shooting at a target that is 1.5 foot sq. with a bulls eye that is 3 inches in diameter. and an outer ring that is 8 inches in diameter. With hard fast slinging my accuracy improves by the day.

Yep, you haven't reached a plateau yet. Keep slinging and you'll see what I mean. Your accuracy at all distances will cease improving and if you're smart you'll wonder why you aren't as good as you want to be. If you want to develop your skills past that point, lob, and you'll break through the ceiling.

English_Marauder wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

Masi, do you have any footage of you slinging? I would love to see some. ;)

Not online. See here for why I'm not uploading anything else to YouTube.

I hear a lot of Big Talk. At some point their has to be some pudding. ;)

Why should I? You've already brushed off arguments that don't fit your opinion rather than trying to refute them. What would a video of my lobbing accomplish that Jaegoor's hasn't? What's better proof than someone having both the accuracy and power to get a confirmed kill on medium game? You'll come over to my side when you experience what Thearos and I have told you.

"confirmed kill"  ;D


Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 11:11pm:

You'll come over to my side when you experience what Thearos and I have told you.

;D. Keep slinging you'll get there. Maybe?

Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 11:11pm:

Why should I? You've already brushed off arguments that don't fit your opinion rather than trying to refute them. What would a video of my lobbing accomplish that Jaegoor's hasn't? What's better proof than someone having both the accuracy and power to get a confirmed kill on medium game? You'll come over to my side when you experience what Thearos and I have told you.

Alright, no need to get nasty now.  :) EM is one of the most accurate I've ever seen, and most of the others are also flat-liners. I have lobbed before, You can't just assume ignorance on the other party for their disagreement with you. I didn't like it, so I went back to straight throwing.

This has been a really fast moving thread so I may have missed a few posts. What arguments haven't we refuted?

I apologize if that came off as nasty, that wasn't the intent. I never said anyone was inaccurate, nor was that implied. I'm saying that I know E_M will get to a point where he just isn't improving anymore. When he does, he'll remember this thread and start lobbing. It may still feel unnatural at first, but that will go away. And he'll start beating what he did when he slug for a flat trajectory. I've experienced it myself and seen it happen enough to others. Everyone who sticks around here long enough gets to a point where they post about feeling like they aren't getting better and then have this epiphany that all-out power is getting in the way of their accuracy and start recommending that the new slingers try throwing with something less than 100% power. I think the disconnect between you and me, Dan, is that we're using different definitions for lob and flat-line/whang/throw. But I'm not really getting the impression that it's the biggest gulf between E_M and me, even though we do have that problem too. It's that he hasn't seen the benefits of lobbing first hand yet. So I keep saying, "you'll get there and understand what I mean."

Understand this, I'm not mad nor have I ever been. I'm just really interested in this kind of topic, and I'm unfortunately used to eyes glazing over once these threads get to the fun parts. Which is also about the points were being replied to without being refuted. The posts that were replied to but not addressed were #70, #72, and #74. I'm assuming anything that wasn't replied to wasn't seen.

Yes, it's been a very good thread, largely due to Masia.'s civility and care. Much to ponder.

Mr Marauder is obviously very strong and accurate. Hence his slinging is high-performance at point-blank ranges, which are sufficient for target purposes. Masia's idea, that this actually represents a plateau, and there is a further stage of growth, is  radical and eye-opening. Mr Marauder is also combative and competitive, so refuses advice, as not applicable to him, and flat out wrong. Others might want to think about it.

"Whanging" describes not just the flat traj, but also the full on, 110% power all the time shots.

Which is how this all started: when I pointed out that modern competitors in the Baleares lobbed, when outside the point-blank envelope, with good reason, and without somehow "betraying the sling".

Quote:

second, I don't know what would lead you to believe that your accuracy and form will increase by "dialing it back." All of the video evidence that I have seen strongly suggests a direct correlation between strong hard slinging and an increase in accuracy. as well as achieving high levels of accuracy myself. all of the most accurate slingers I have seen, have NOT lobbed.

None of you seem to be factoring in the ammunition.

with regular, consistent, spherical or glande shaped ammunition then you can sling hard and expect a straight line trajectory. However if you're using picked up rocks or irregular shaped ammunition - you MUST dial it back to achieve accuracy.
Otherwise the spin imparted to the missile will always make it veer away from a straight line.

So that's one situation where a lob is preferable.

Another would be trying to hit a target you can't actually see, as it's either down in a ditch, or you are down in the ditch slinging upwards.

having done both - a lob is the only way to go.
And for the record - it's much easier to hit a target you can't see, if the target is in the ditch.

The point is that both styles of slinging have their use.
A true slinger understands this and is skilled enough to use the style and power required for any particular target situation :-)

Very good thread guys.

No harsh feelings. :)

Damn

Alright just to cap this off from the flat-lining side, I will reply to #70, #72, and #74. :)

#70 (page 5), you are correct, momentum is a large factor in the damage from a sling (or pretty much any BFT) wound. With this base, weight and speed are equal.


Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 8:36pm:

English_Marauder wrote on Nov 20th, 2013 at 8:34pm: In short, Masiakasaurus hasn't been out hunting much. speed equals death. ;) I challenge you to shoot a deer with a fast and straight .17 Hornet and another with an arcing .45-70 government. You'll come around to my way of thinking.

#70 and #72: The problem with this train of thought is using an analogy that is too extreme. Flat-lining rocks really aren't too far behind lobbing rocks, they are thrown faster, and they are thrown with equal accuracy (obviously this is slinger dependent, but if you show me an accurate lobber, I can also show you a flat-liner that has equal or greater accuracy).

A proper analogy here regarding bullet weights is more along the lines of lobbing being a BP .45 Colt, and flat-lining being a 10mm.

#74 "Jaegoor, who lobs, killed a deer with his slinging technique-- lobbing heavy stones."

#74, a very small deer, about the size of a dog. Paleoarts killed a turkey flat-lining with stones, and most of the historical slingstones and glans made for war found are of fairly light weight, best used with flat-lining or distance throwing (which is flat-lining on an angle, which seems like an oxymoron but it really does make sense if see the two styles on video).

As EM said, good work guys. This is, without a doubt, the most information ever compiled on lobbing and throwing. If some new guy asks about this again, lets just the post a link instead of repeating this whole ordeal.   ;)

Well, I explained the debate to my wife: lobbing or straight-shooting ? She said "Lobbing", and she's always right. End of.

Thearos wrote on Nov 27^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

Well, I explained the debate to my wife: lobbing or straight-shooting ? She said "Lobbing", and she's always right. End of.

Well, I guess that the fat lady has sung!  :-X

Just a joke thearos, don't take this personally. I couldn't help myself. I've never even seen your wife ;)


Back on subject, I think that straight-shooting with a stone of decent weight (~5oz) is better than lobbing with any weight stone.

Like I said before, even though velocity is more influential on KE, it is not all that you need. Look at the 5.56mm NATO, really REALLY fast, but it hits like a needle. 7.62x51mm, still fast, but slower than the 5.56. However, it has much more KE due to the extra weight and propellant in the cartridge.

Both weight and velocity must matter and be equally accounted in order to max KE out without losing range. Straight-shooting with really light stones might be fast, but then the lob might have more power. Both speed and weight are crucial

I don't think Thearos would have a problem with a joke about his joke. :)

Quote:

Like I said before, even though velocity is more influential on KE, it is not all that you need. Look at the 5.56mm NATO, really REALLY fast, but it hits like a needle. 7.62x51mm, still fast, but slower than the 5.56. However, it has much more KE due to the extra weight and propellant in the cartridge.

You're right about there being a difference between the rounds. (Although how big of a difference is a whole different debate.) But while in some loadings 7.62x39 will have more KE than one of 5.56 NATO that won't always be true. Even when 7.62x39 has less KE, there will still be times when it has more momentum and will do more damage.


Quote:

Both weight and velocity must matter and be equally accounted in order to max KE out without losing range. Straight-shooting with really light stones might be fast, but then the lob might have more power. Both speed and weight are crucial.

For all intents and purposes you're right again. But mathematically you're confusing KE with momentum. In KE velocity varies exponentially and mass varies linearly, so velocity is a much more important factor in the equation. To max out KE you need to sling the lightest, densest stone as fast as you can. To max out momentum you need to balance how heavy a stone you use with how fast you can sling it.

Grrrr

I wonder: when David slung Goliath: Did he throw it in, straight-shoot, or lobbing?

Straight-shot, at the edge of the envelope, so at a distance of 43m, just outside of heavy javelin range.

Which is better a 12gpp arrow or a 9 gpp arrow?  When I read this debate that is what I think off. If you look at a shot like Jaegoor's it really looks like the functional equivalent of shooting a 12 gpp arrow from a primitive bow.  Will it kill what it hits? Sure.  But I would guess as sling hunting becomes more popular, few hunters are going to want to sling with that type of rainbow trajectory.  Just as few archers do.

I think whats going to happen is slinging is going to diverge in the same way that archery has.  The target guys are going to use ever increasingly unrealistic throws from a historical point of view and the hunters are going to keep flat lining or close to it and switch to lighter, pointed ammo (3-5 ozs) and shorter slings.

Jaegoor's throwing style is actually really ingenious when you think about it.  He uses a heavy stone which maximizes tension even with a slow throw.  So he gets all the high cord tension benefits needed for an accurate shot but also gets all the accuracy benefits from a really controlled, slow throw. And with such heavy stones he still maintains quite a powerful impact. 

Hey masi,

Are you an engineer? I'm actually thinking about going into that field. Mechanical engineering more specifically. If you are an engineer, do you have any advice?

I'm an aerospace engineer. My advice is to get a tutor for the SAT or ACT if you can. If you can't, buy a practice book and study on your own. Pay the closest attention to the math portions, because a good score and a good understanding of the basics will help you a lot more than you realize now.

what do you think is a worthy ACT score for engineering?

I've not taken the real full-fledged ACT yet (this spring I will though).

I have taken a pre-test known as the ACT PLAN test in which I made a 26/32  (notice that it is out of 32 not 36 like the real test)

On the math portion of this test I scored the highest in my school  ;)
------

I'm pretty good at math but I'm worried about calculus, which I start this spring. From what I hear from people who have taken it, it is a difficult class.


And I failed to mention, I am in what is known as an "Early College Program". This means that I go to college and high school at the same time. When I'm 18, I will have an associate's degree and a high school diploma all for the price of $0.

So, I'm taking college level calculus.....

I'm worried that I will hit my limit if it is as hard as everyone claims it to be

I got a 24 on the math portion. Most people will say that you need at least a 25 on the math part. For the rest you just need to do well enough to get accepted into the college. If you only take the ACT then you can only really apply to an SEC school, not that it's a bad thing. Cal 1 is the hardest level, but it's not impossible.

I'm taking the SAT also. I did not do as well on the pre-SAT as I did on the ACT PLAN. I don't know my exact score on the pre-SAT though.

What is an SEC school?

Oh, just looked it up. Southeastern conference

Slinging: it ain't rocket science !

Now that I'm WAY too late to have any impact on the direction of this thread...and I've come to realize that all of my freshman level Physics have been completely obliterated from my brain...a practical comment.

A classic sign of an internet brawl is to pose a question without defining key terms, and then people argue about who is right when their definitions (or knowledge of physics  ;) ) differ.

I define a lob as a throw of similar (emphasis added) power at an angle.  The velocity is similar, and not identical, because with identical projectiles and conditions, two throws of equal power at different angles will often land in different places (not saying in every case, because there are exceptions).  So, I am intentionally adjusting my lob to hit the same target as the flat-trajectory throw at the same distance.  That is, I am with Liberty Dog on this one.

Here is the practical comment (you can dismiss everything above and below as pointless drivel):  When I was still young and crazy..13?...and had a good arm, I would throw everything and anything without intent to harm.  Stones, concrete, small chunks of wood, glass (have a scar to prove that one), acorns, and--the point of this comment--crab apples.  The two brothers with whom I laid mayhem to the peaceful woods got in a crab apple fight.  I know, two against one, not fair.  My idea:  Lob two or three high to get his attention, then zing him with a straight throw.  Brother number one readily agreed.  While Brother number two was watching the lobbed apples--with more time to get there--we both "whanged" more flat trajectory throws...and one hit brother number two in the face.

So, on a practical level, I voted that both have their place.  In warfare, it would seem difficult to hold one's shield (or devise a helmet?) that will protect well at both angles.  And my crab apple experience has convinced me, sample size not withstanding.

Went slinging, at a bench, 25m or so away. I thought this well within my point blank range, so let rip straight shots-- and missed a few times (stones flew over the bench). I then lobbed a heavier stone, on an arching traj, and hit, to my surprise, the exact point of aim (the right-hand cement backstay, protruding above the wooden slats). Best shot this year. 

Thearos, by posting that you hit an object at 25 meters by lobbing, does not further a debate about which method is superior. it almost sounds like your trying to stick a thorn in this subject.

I am not trying to down on you for being proud of a shot you made. good on you for achieving what you intended, but....

It is not the trajectory's fault that you did not hit the intended target, and switching and making a hit doesn't prove lobbing to be superior. when you shot high with the straight shot, why did you not just aim the rock lower? changing trajectory and weight, is not going to make you a better shot. you should be able to control where the rock hits lobbing or straight shooting. You should be focusing more on what your arm is doing and less on how powerful or not powerful your shot is. In my opinion of course  ;)

Just a little side note. A bench is not a small target, so if you want to get more accurate, take my word on this. 

I'm just pleased at a good shot (a fist-size protrusion of concrete at 25 m), with a careful lob.

EM, he's just trying to say that he made a good shot by lobbing. Some people can't hit anything with straight shots, some can't hit anything with a lob. I fall into the latter group.

Its about what you practice with.
Aim big, hit often. Aim small, hit less.

squirrelslinger wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 4:48pm:

Its about what you practice with. Aim big, hit often. Aim small, hit less.

Well, with that mindset your accuracy just won't improve. That's fine if your satisfied hitting large objects, but hitting something the size of a door all day isn't worth anything in my opinion.

Aim small, miss small. 

lol...
it works for me.
Simple logic.
You have a 6" target. 90% of your shots are within 10" of that target.
if you make the target 26" in diam instead of 6", but still aim at the origional 6", then logic says 90% of your shots should hit simply because the aiming point has not changed :)
I am not sure how one aims for something other than a point???

You are just giving yourself a false sense of accomplishment by making the target bigger. If you are missing the 6" target 90% of the time, then "logic" would tell you that your aim is off. Therefore you would have to adjust your throw to hit your intended target, not make the target bigger to satisfy inaccurate shooting. 


squirrelslinger wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 7:48pm:

I am not sure how one aims for something other than a point???

This makes no sense, as you just mentioned aiming for a large target in order to hit more.

I am trying to get across that it is unwise to be satisfied with a large target, if you are trying to get more accurate. I am advocating a smaller focal "point."

Getting back on track....... this was about trajectory vs accuracy, and not using a single shot at a bench(rather large target) as a pro lobbing argument.

I was shooting at a bench (there was nothing else suitable), and aiming at the fist-size end of one of the back-rests-- and hit is with a very precisely lobbeddd shot, as if I'd willed the shot there. Now there are people for whom this happens all the time, but I'm rather pleased when I achieve it.

Now all you need to do is "will" 5 more rocks in a row to hit that fist sized object.

Use the force young Thearos.

Thearos wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 4:28am:

and hit is with a very precisely lobbeddd shot

I really don't think precisely and lob belong in the same sentence. you might confuse new readers as to what is, and what really isn't practical. no one lobbing is achieving the high level of "CONSISTENT" accuracy shown by straight hard throwers.   

Unless you are shooting at something behind a wall or do not have a direct line of sight, Lobbing is inferior. and in these cases where a lob would be used accuracy is not applicable as you most likely could not see your target.

There is more than enough video evidence to suggest that shooting hard and straight will allow you to achieve a far higher level of accuracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3MFmiDVcA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEuVnZq2BMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ65qYFKcwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY7EOspW594
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj4_3ynNj8o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM9VK4xPajU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCM2PKlRcZw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwlZJ5IlN68
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-OcHibb4Lk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZxKffqGlGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCyeQ14N5hs&feature=c4-overview&list=UUk6vg6v6PM4xj8rjMX5dv1A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6jkEa57V8&feature=c4-overview&list=UUk6vg6v6PM4xj8rjMX5dv1A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvik360fU8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7oKRj-OUV4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HR2wuGKMnQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4wLmYFJ6iQ

etc..........

English_Marauder wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 9:13pm:

You are just giving yourself a false sense of accomplishment by making the target bigger. If you are missing the 6" target 90% of the time, then "logic" would tell you that your aim is off. Therefore you would have to adjust your throw to hit your intended target, not make the target bigger to satisfy inaccurate shooting.  squirrelslinger wrote on Dec 15th, 2013 at 7:48pm: I am not sure how one aims for something other than a point??? This makes no sense, as you just mentioned aiming for a large target in order to hit more. I am trying to get across that it is unwise to be satisfied with a large target, if you are trying to get more accurate. I am advocating a smaller focal "point."

EX- If I pick a point on the target to aim at... say the little black spot in the center...
That is my focal point. and to be honest, I don't give one whit whether you prefer flatlining(whanging) or lobbing.
Just hit the dang thing. Its part of your slinging style- whatever floats your boat.
In theory, flatlining is more accurate because there are less variables and those that are present are expressed less.

Hmm. We've been round this block already, Mr Marauder. It is the contention of a number of people, backed up with arguments and examples, that precision and lobbing do go together well. Take note beginners, or perhaps, post-beginners seeking to improve.

In the meantime, I'm still smiling about my nice lobbed shot. I did manage a few like that during the summer, but not so good--the latest one made my heart leap with fearful joy once it happened. Hence my post, about hitting a post.

Stirring the pot, Thearos? :P

Squirrel, there are too many variables to count in both. I'm all for throwing math into this, but even I find that part tedious to work through.

There's more than enough videos to show you can hit any target using any technique you want, but they do not show that one is better. Jaegoor's entire channel, C_A's overhand compilation, and at least half a dozen more show hits on target. Without looking, I know Jaegoor demonstrates multiple hits on target in succession in most of his videos. Whether or not either lobbing or flat lining are capable of being accurate isn't even debatable.

No, I don't mean to stir up emotions, i thought to write something which could be useful. And did I say I was pleased with my shot ?

Note that the top of the bench is a low target-- stomach hight rather than shoulder hight-- which might explain why my straight shots flew over the bench (alignment was OK).

I think what you proved Thearos is that you get good at what you practice at.  When I started slowing down my shots a bit, I couldn't hit squat. After awhile though I began hitting again.

I personally think that throwing as hard as you can is not the best way to go. There is a strong correlation in my mind between throwing very hard and being inconsistent when it comes to small targets. By hard, I'm not addressing velocity or KE but the amount of bodily effort your putting into your shot. I think in the future what your going to see is target throwers lowering their effort to about 40-60% and working on increasing their efficiency until they get to the point where they are relatively close to the amount of velocity that they were when throwing with a lot of effort.

By doing that, I think you're going to see some amazing accuracy from target slingers in the future.

Morphy wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 9:25pm:

what your going to see is target throwers lowering their effort to about 40-60% and working on increasing their efficiency until they get to the point where they are relatively close to the amount of velocity that they were when throwing with a lot of effort.

A sling is all about user input. I agree that increasing efficiency in a very import thing, but.... you can increase efficiency and accuracy without lowering input/effort. plus when you train at 70%- 80% you will strengthen your muscles better and be able to provide much more effort with ease.

power is nothing without accuracy,
accuracy in nothing without power,

together is the purpose of this WEAPON.   

I agree with Murphy

If the stone hits hard enough to disable, to kill the prey, to scare off the wolf or herd back the sheep, the sling has done its job-- to allow you to throw with an extension to your arm. Momentum, KE-- but we've been there.

Slinging lead is another matter, of course-- you want to put in maximum force to get the hypervelocity traj. with a projectile optimized to conserve speed.

Thearos, there is no point in throwing the rock if the intended target "wolf"/"prey" has ample enough time to evade the clumsy, slow  stone. I have hunted my entire life, bear, deer, duck, pheasant, wolf, coyote, rabbit, squirrel, and the list goes on. I can assure you that lobbing will in fact NOT get the job done in 90 % of situations. animals and humans reaction times are much to fast for the slow moving lob. 

"hold still Mr. wolf, just a moment longer......"  ::) 

I do wonder about that. The violent jerky movements of the "whanger" might be enough to scare off the prey, whereas the cool smooth lob might make the prey or wolf look up and just pause enough for the stone to smash home.

In other words, the jerky violent movements of the whanger will spell danger instantly for the prey, whereas the smooth movement of the lobber will attract the prey's attention, who will need the split second to figure out whether to run or not-- but will not be focussing on *the stone*.

Its very clear you are not a hunter. I do not wonder. I know. any movement will alert your prey. when using a sling chances are the animal has seen you the moment you start your movement. the faster you can complete the movement and the faster the rock reaches the quarry the better the chances are of the projectile not being dodged.

your remarks are clearly not made of experience.   

Although I'm not a hunter, i have a tiny experience in wild animals behaviour.
I think in the great majority of the cases they will see you if they can , and throwing 50% power or 100% power is NOT what is going to be the difference between alerting them or not.
It's the visual,auditory, and smell that gets them alerted.
If they see you moving slowly...they still get alerted. Carnivors sneak up slowly on their prey, so they are just as vigilant to sneaky slow movements.
And most animals can dodge even lightning fast attacks.
Animals are only IN THE NOW. All their senses work on full throttle like a battleships radar. They never are distracted by thinking what they will do tomorrow, if the ipad they ordered,gets there today..

I'm no hunter, my suggestion was just based on the one account I read (Jaegoor's, as it happens) of hitting a deer. I did once shoot at a squirrel, does that count ? I was glad when it escaped my stone (a "whanged" shot).

In any case, it's true that a lot of hunting might take place within short enough range that you'd want to whang straight at the prey.

Nonetheless, I still think that scaring off a wolf at 60m, or shooting into a bunch of birds at 50m, or driving your sheep back to the right at 30m, or shooting in a battleline at 80m, or at an intruder at 50m-- these are are realistic situations in which the sling was used in the past, and in which the lob  would come in handy.

jlasud wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 2:30pm:

throwing 50% power or 100% power is NOT what is going to be the difference between alerting them or not

Any little edge you can gain, the better your chances of success. after stalking up an explosive attack will gain you the advantage. a lot of movement is required to use a sling, therefore the faster everything is the better.

Thearos. this is correct. scaring off animals is definitely a good use of the lob. but I would disagree with all of the other examples. 

Wow, I left for 10 days and this is still going on. Good work holding down the fort EM.  :thumb:

Regarding hunting, I've spooked deer by turning my head too fast. Chances are, if you are slinging at game besides perhaps some small game, the animal will be moving. Lobbing may be useful when playing catch in the back yard, but it is not the right tool for hitting a moving target. This isn't Bocce Ball. This is the sling, a weapon used in war with reasonably sized rocks and glans by athletic warriors putting as much power behind their shots as possible, because if they can't stop the incoming force, they will die.


We've said this a lot, but flat-lining does not require 110% of your strength. Even when I am slinging down to 70% power with 6oz rocks, the trajectory is still really flat.
Watch the many videos that EM provided and you'll find that none of the shots look forced. The only time shots are usually all out are for distance throwing where that extra strength really does help.

Controlled flat-lining with 3-5oz rocks is really the peak of target slinging IMHO.

If lobbing and whanging both get shots on target, why is one superior to the other ? Especially in view of the fact than lobbing allows for fine control. 

If the grounds are some illusion that whanging better corresponds to the supposed warlikeness of the weapon, then one should bear in mind that lobbing is optimized for the delivery of heavy stones-- which conserve a lot of energy, and transmit a lot of it; and hence that lobbing hence makes the most of the sling as a means to deliver KE on target. 

I still say lobbing is the way to go when hunting.


Quote:

The deer is coming in from your side and slightly ahead, you're downwind and not moving, it doesn't see you. The deer is broadside the whole time. It stops, you wait for what seems like forever. Finally, it slowly turns it's head away from you and you lob. The deer jumps, but you still hit it. It bounds off with jerky hops and you wait just a moment before pursuing. When you go looking you find the deer made it only a short distance. Your stone landed in the kill zone. You knew it would, but you still wondered.

I've never stalked an animal, but I do know about sitting in deer blinds. I also know that a lob is not that much slower than flat lining and that both will alert a deer equally. Lobbing with a heavy stone will hit hardest and work best. What you just said, Dan, is that you normally sling in your point blank range. In the distance where you say you can get a flat trajectory with 70% power there is no difference between what Thearos and I call lobbing and what you call flat lining. None at all. Only at different distances, where you say that the extra strength helps, is there a any difference whatsoever. Which I've said before, as well. Lobbing is accounting for different degrees of bullet drop at range; flat lining is trying to sling harder when you aim farther away to get the same trajectory or close to it. Lobbing is accepting that a fraction less effort in the throw is more beneficial than overexertion at all distances. I know for a fact that using a consistent level of effort for every throw and using slightly less than everything you've got will further slinging improvement more than varying the amount of effort between throws will.

Dan wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

Wow, I left for 10 days and this is still going on. Good work holding down the fort EM.  :thumb: Regarding hunting, I've spooked deer by turning my head too fast. Chances are, if you are slinging at game besides perhaps some small game, the animal will be moving. Lobbing may be useful when playing catch in the back yard, but it is not the right tool for hitting a moving target. This isn't Bocce Ball. This is the sling, a weapon used in war with reasonably sized rocks and glans by athletic warriors putting as much power behind their shots as possible, because if they can't stop the incoming force, they will die. We've said this a lot, but flat-lining does not require 110% of your strength. Even when I am slinging down to 70% power with 6oz rocks, the trajectory is still really flat. Watch the many videos that EM provided and you'll find that none of the shots look forced. The only time shots are usually all out are for distance throwing where that extra strength really does help. Controlled flat-lining with 3-5oz rocks is really the peak of target slinging IMHO.

thanks Dan. finally reinforcements have arrived... ;D

I agree with this whole statement.


Thearos.


Thearos wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

If lobbing and whanging both get shots on target, why is one superior to the other ?

flat lined shots get there much faster, and when shooting at a live animal that fraction of time WILL mean the difference between a hit and a miss.


Masiakasaurus wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

I also know that a lob is not that much slower than flat lining and that both will alert a deer equally.

I have to disagree. I would say it is a lot slower. It is not a matter of which style will alert the deer. the deer will likely be alerted as soon as you start a motion to throw. it is how quickly this action can be completed, and how fast the stone can reach the animal, that will make the difference.

I have stalked and killed a wide variety of game, over many years, as I stated before. there are certain techniques that just wont be successful "consistently."   Lobbing a stone is one of them.


Masiakasaurus wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

. The deer is broadside the whole time. It stops, you wait for what seems like forever. Finally, it slowly turns it's head away from you and you lob. The deer jumps, but you still hit it.

from experience, I can tell you that nothing is certain when hunting. the deer may do this....... but not likely. the deer may run at any time due to smell or sound, or just catching you out of the corner of his eye.......the latter is most likely. another factor to note is that a lot of animals are easily fast enough to evade the lob even if it starts moving after you have released the stone. This is fact.



Thearos wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

If the grounds are some illusion that whanging better corresponds to the supposed warlikeness of the weapon, then one should bear in mind that lobbing is optimized for the delivery of heavy stones-- which conserve a lot of energy, and transmit a lot of it

Heavy stones were not the norm in warlike situations, as range is drastically reduced. and in close with lobbing, the enemy may evade or even catch your stone and throw it back at you twice as hard. wouldn't that be embarrassing :'(   

Merry x mass eve everyone. :) hope you are all in the best of health and cheer.

Mr Marauder writes

"Heavy stones were not the norm in warlike situations, as range is drastically reduced. and in close with lobbing, the enemy may evade or even catch your stone and throw it back at you twice as hard. wouldn't that be embarrassing"

I would say that heavy stones were the norm. The "hand-filling stone" is explicitly attested as used by warslingers; Balearic slingers are said to have shot stones weighing 400g; Greek images show us big round stones; the large "ammo dumps" at Maiden Castle are made up of thousands (40K in one case) of big pebbles. These are good for lobbing (in fact, need to be lobbed)-- and, beyond point blank range,  deliver energy through weight, smashing home.

Of course, Mr Marauder may have different views of what constitutes heavy; for me, 250 g is heavy, i.e. a stone bigger than an egg, or the size of a fist. I also note that Livy 38.20 mentions "moderate sized stones for slings", with no indication of what this means. Most people, for recreational slinging, shoot stones around 100g (and routinely overestimate the weight they shoot:
http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?action=print;num=1318319128)


Happy Christmas to all.

I fear I may have started this whole debate, and hope people will not mind if I summarize it like this (and I am not trying to close down debate). I see four big issues.

1. Accuracy.
Working at reasonable ranges for accuracy shooting (say 15-20m), we notice two things.

a. Some people shoot hard and straight and hit the target
b. Some people shoot a bit slower and on an arc and hit the target.

Examples of a: Mr Marauder. Yurek. Rockman.
Examples of b: Jaegoor. Bill Skinner (I think). Masia.

Now the debate is whether a or b is better. The lobbers think that b is better, because it allows more control, and that it is the more mature way of slinging. I tend to think this. The straight-shooters think that a is better, because it puts the shot straight at the target, and therefore that you should work on your skill until you can do that.

But another thought occurred to me-- that perhaps some people have the natural skill to straight-shoot without difficulty, but that many (I suspect) do not have the coordination. I have been slinging for over 30 years now, and must say that if I straight shoot, I consistently pull to the left. If I lob, I can place shots, and lobbing has helped me grow. I still try to concentrate and align and get my straight shots in order.

2. "Power".
Still at the same range (15-20m), I put forward three observations:
a. Straight shooters get their power from speed
b. Lobbers CAN get power from using heavier stones (which in fact are the optimal ammo for lobbing)
c. Heavier ammo retains speed better.

There's been a fair bit of debate here: I've argued that a heavy stone launched with a fair bit of speed does arrive with a pretty considerable terminal KE; Masia. has insisted on momentum as the important factor favouring the heavy stones (and I do not pretend to understand all of his maths); the "whangers' believe that the speed of their projectiles mean the fast stone has a LOT of KE.

3. "True nature of the sling"
This, I fear, is the area of greatest subjectivity and silliness, and I have contributed much to the silliness. But frankly, no one really has much experience in using the sling in war or in riots or in hunting or in herding. I would welcome evidence, from texts, ethnography or films, showing slings in use-- with an eye to this lobbing vs whanging problem.

4. Distance
Now once we get beyond the 30 m range, everyone shoots with an eye on drop. I don't think we have a lot of experience on accuracy shooting at these ranges (40, 50, 80, 100m)-- at that point, everyone just lets rip at different angles ("whanging at an angle"). Except that (Masia writes) we should perhaps be thinking more in terms of scaling our lobbing outwards.

Everyone here seems to be too attached to notions and words,but the real world is the way it is. As soon as you start putting things in boxes,categorizing,everything starts getting edgy.

Just like the feel of slinging vs A book full of equations, calculations etc about slinging.

FWIW, I use both.  When I hunt, and bear in mind that I haven't connected with anything, I am not throwing on a flat plane, in fact, most of my shots are at a steep upward angle.  Also, I use a Figure 8 style or Apache, which doesn't let me get the clay gland going as fast as I can get it with several rotations style throw. 

I think that this is a great debate, lots of good points put forth by both sides.  I also don't think either side will change the other's mind.  In the military the mission drives what kind of gear you take, I'll say that the situation drives what kind of throw you use.

There is a reason why archelogists find sling ammo ranging from 30 grams to 400 gram stones. The later can only be lobbed, while the 30gram has to be zippin' to do something.

Same reason why there are hammers from ~ 50grams  to 10.000 grams.
It would be hard to hammer in tiny nails in a Picture frame for ex, with a 10 kg sledgehammer.

Thearos wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:15pm:

But another thought occurred to me-- that perhaps some people have the natural skill to straight-shoot without difficulty, but that many (I suspect) do not have the coordination.

I agree, this may well be the case.....but not having the natural skill for a specific style of throw should not discourage the person from striving to achieve it. That does not mean... don't lob even if you want to lob..... it means don't give up on another method(straight shooting ) just because your not naturally throwing well.

It still stands that range is drastically reduced with the heavy stones.

I realize that there are historical references suggesting the use of heavy stones, but from what reading I have done and pictures I have observed of recovered sling stones/lead glands the majority are not in the heavy weight ranges you(Thearos) are speaking of.

side note: couldn't find pictures of sling stones from Maiden castle  :-?

I have said this already but I will say it again. If throwing over a wall where accuracy is not a factor then lobbing a large rock could be useful, but for any shooting that you have line of sight to your target the straight shot is IMO easily more effective. furthermore engaging an enemy at great distance is not possible with the "fist sized smasher." only a smaller sized projectile "whanged" on a high arc( this is not lobbing) will achieve this.      

I won't talk about lobbing and whanging, but about historical practice here.

Most sling bullets are light-- they zip. But the evidence unequivovally suggests that war-slinging mostly involves heavy stones (again, let's make sure we're taking about the same thing: 200-250g), fired at distance. They retain speed, and fly surprisingly far.

The thread I quoted has me gathering the evidence. The Balearic slingers are said to have shot 400g stones ("1 mna), which I do find problematic. For me, very strong evidence is the passage of Xen. Anabasis, discussed on this forum a few times: Iranian slingers, fighting with "hand-filling stones" (say the size of an egg), can outshoot bowmen with selfbows. This is written in 400 BC by an eyewitness-- in fact the commanding officer at the engagement. These are the guys whom the Rhodians then keep at bay with special ammo-- namely lead bullets. The distances are arguable (extreme distances, e.g. 200m for stone shooters, 350 for lead ? or tactical distances, e.g. 80-100m for stone, 150-200 for lead ?). But those Iranian guys are shooting hand-fillers, at significant range.

I will, nonetheless, note that Xen does say two things:

1. that the Persian slingers can outshoot self bows

2. that the Persian slings, because they shoot big hand-filling stones, only reach short distances-- which supports Mr Marauder; however, note that this is observed in relation to the Rhodians, who shoot lead twice as far.

The passage is Xenophon, ANabasis book 3, chapter 3.

Post by Thearos on Oct 11th, 2011 at 9:24am
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.

this supports straight shooting. here you say that the bullet inflicts damage due to speed. but also supports that the majority of sling ammo was not "fist sized smashers"


Thearos wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 4:18pm:

But the evidence unequivovally suggests that war-slinging mostly involves heavy stones (again, let's make sure we're taking about the same thing: 200-250g), fired at distance. They retain speed, and fly surprisingly far.

this is a fairly narrow range of weights you have suggested. I regularly flat line this weight range at 20+ yards. actually the rock that I hit the can with at 20 yards has been weighed and it is 205g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HR2wuGKMnQ

although I regularly use rocks of this weight, when I shoot for distance I will get double the distance out of a rock that is say 120g-150g and even better with 80g-100g.

Maybe the weight of the rock is not the issue but rather the physique of the thrower.

Thearos, you said it was referenced that the Balearic slingers used 400g stones. this does not hint at the trajectory and speed of the stone. Maybe they were built like tanks and had very strong, well trained muscles, that could indeed flat line rocks of this size?(not unbelievable as I flat line rocks up to about 260g,)

I will note however that I have a hard time seeing this size of rock(400g) being thrown in great numbers. or at any distance.

Maybe this is why Livy states that the Achaean slingers are better than the Balearics.....?"they ply their slings with a longer range, and with surer aim, and greater force than the Baleares; they can hurl their missiles through small rings placed at a considerable distance, and hit not only the heads of the enemy, but any part of the face at which they choose to aim."

Maybe it was due not only to the design of sling but the weight of rocks they used?

   

   

I also think that lead ammo is pretty rare and specialized ammo; most slinging happens with stones.

Your data is interesting. Let me explain my reasoning. I had a feeling that the 80-100g stone would lose velocity and hence distance quicker than the 200g stone, and hence that the 200g egg-sized "hand-filler" would fly further, and deliver more KE at the end, and hence thought that this is why big stones are shown in art (admittedly not fool-proof evidence), and hence why the Iranian slingers in Xenophon fight with these, and hence why the Maiden castle slingstones are pretty chunky (I think, but can't remember weights).

The combination of admittedly slender data about historical practice, and my own experience of the better speed retention of the heavy stones vs light stones, are what led me to think that the hand-packers would be the normal stone.

Against this, note the passage of Livy describing sling ammo as "mid-sized stones".

Your data about the 100 g stone flying further than the 200g forces me to rethink. I would reply one two fronts: 1. is this really right ? I need to see this for myself (the earlier poster, ibfist, seemed to think that light ammo suffers signfificant speed drop). It may be a question of "sweet spot" (e.g. a 25 g stone will lose speed, a 100g stone will be in the sweet spot and retain enough speed but be easy enough to sling to reach far distances) 2. it is possible that the "smasher", which we know was used, might be outperformed in terms of distance shooting by the 100g stone, but, at tactical range (say 80 m), do the job better by transmitting higher KE onto shields and helmets-- a result obtained by lobs.

Thinking out loud here. So I still think lobbing heavies is a historically realistic way of slinging. I will try this out.

well, I liked to use really, really heavy stones for a while.
you HAD to lob them.
I consider anything under the size of a large egg a flatlining stone.
Methinks, IMHO, that an egg-sized stone is really the epitome of slings. it weighs enough that it does some real damage, yet isn't too heavy, so it can be thrown long and hard.
Also there is PLENTY of historical evidence for its use.

Thearos wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 5:55pm:

It may be a question of "sweet spot" (e.g. a 25 g stone will lose speed, a 100g stone will be in the sweet spot and retain enough speed but be easy enough to sling to reach far distances)

This I would agree with. and I would add that the sweet spot for weight will change up or down with the length of sling and strength of its user.


Thearos wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 5:55pm:

I had a feeling that the 80-100g stone would lose velocity and hence distance quicker than the 200g stone, and hence that the 200g egg-sized "hand-filler" would fly further, and deliver more KE at the end

This would indeed be accurate if the initial velocities upon release were close to the same, but I find that when shedding even 30g from say 200g down to 170g, the initial release velocity is improved more than enough to overcome the rate at which velocity is lost, in flight.......the outcome being that the 170g stone flies farther. Keep in mind this is just what I have observed from doing my own slinging experiments.

I think that the 1 mina stones were used against heavy armored enemy.
Balearics fought against the romans, defending their Islands.

If your were to sling 50g lead or 100gram stones at roman heavy infantry(legionaries for ex.) It wouldn't have much effect. I know legionary equipment first hand.

BUT  1 mina (~430gram ) stones lobbed with their longest slings...That would put a heavy ass beating hail on them, wrecking their shields, beating them through armor, even through the shield, a big sucker could knock a roman dizzy. And scare the crap out of them , i have no doubts about that.
My personal exp. with  1 mina stones from a long sling... I can get them about 80m and when they hit, they hit like a sledgehammer.

And in a defensive situation,where you can stack them,and don't have to carry it around on campaign or something,it has it's clear merits.

Seeing the 1 mina stones hitting power, and knowing the legionary equipment, i vision them running home with wrecked shields, big dents in armor with black and blue bruises beneath, broken bones,and some laying flat after the first 3 volleys.
Which is pretty much what happened, the first time they tried to deploy on Balearic ground. They run (sailed) away.
They had to tie big skins between the sails or what, to protect themselves from incoming stones( probably  whanged shots from a distance. I bet they didn't get close enough to start receiving the beating from the 1 mina stones.
Thearos knows better,the history part at least ;)

Here's something else to add to the mix, javelins were one of the primary defenses against light infantry, other than other light infantry, that is.  How far can you throw a javelin?  I would assume that this would be without the running start the peltrasts used, as this would break the formation of heavy infantry.  Unless the whole front rank used it in a volley, in which case, the slingers would definately want to stay beyond that area if they could.   

If I were a slinger engaging a formation of heavy infantry, I would want to stay out of their range if possible while still hitting them with a heavy enough projectile that will cause harm or destroy their shields and armor.

I know this doesn't resolve anything but it might open up a few new thoughts and ideas about the tactics of slingers and the ammo that they used and how they threw them.

For thonged javelins probably 50-60 meters  maybe more for trained,good throwers.
I can throw one for ~45m with a thong.measured.
The roman pila,can be thrown effectively to max 20 m  in armor.
The pilum plumbata,even less,as it's damn heavy.
So all these couldn't reach slingers at 80-100m chucking fist sized rocks.

jlasud wrote on Dec 26^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

So all these couldn't reach slingers at 80-100m chucking fist sized rocks.

this is assuming that the enemy is holding position. 100 meters is not much ground to cover. I would assume that a group of slingers would be very nervous with only 100 meters between then and heavy infantry. If the javelin throwers were 20-30 meters out of range you could bet on them closing that distance quick to be able to utilize their weapons......rather than being pelted with stones.

Those slingers slinging those giant stones were warriors, their profession was war and I know I'd be as healthy as possible and sling as hard as I could if it meant defending my family.

I've flat-lined some pretty heavy stones before. This weekend I'll see if I can get out and make a new slinging video with unusually heavy ammo whilst flat-lining.

Note: Slinger's are supposed to be light peltists, they loose a lot of that advantage (offensively) if they are constantly lugging around stones.

I know there aren't that many "ancient" slings because organic materials tend to decompose fairly quickly, but excluding some Balearic slings, most slings around the world (Tut, Peruvian, Bedouin, Aztec, Apache), aren't made for 400g rocks, they are really designed for the more reasonable egg sized rocks which can be just as effective and can also be carried much more easily.

http://numismatics.org/collectionimages/19001949/1944/1944.100.16809.rev.width350.jpg

Here's a nice C2nd BCE coin showing a guy slinging, with two javelins stuck in the ground next to him-- I suggest as back-up weapons for the moment he's run out of ammo and the enemies are closing within javelin distance-- the slinger gets his two throws in before bugging out ?

Balearics are said to be carrying fire hardened wood tip javelins, or with small metal heads.. Source: forgot it..

Heavy infantry unsupported by cavalry,archers,slingers,ballistae,mangonels,onagers,auxiliary troops specialized in other kind of warfare,
they would have got into trouble pelted by hit and run attacks, by fast moving unit of slingers.. the romans usually had these

Thearos wrote on Dec 26^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:

http://numismatics.org/collectionimages/19001949/1944/1944.100.16809.rev.width350.jpg

The coin shows a similar sighting, when I use the mini-sling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiXyx9nTmZQ
But the man a coin, sling pouch is the head of the left side. Interesting.

what do I have to say to get this #$%@ back on track..........

Lobbing= underpowered, untrained, clumsy shooting.
lobbing= short distance only
lobbing= not consistently as accurate from what evidence I have seen.
lobbing= sport......
lobbing= not effective in 90% of situations=not as important to train using the lob.


flat-lining= victory ;D

side note: this post was accompanied by a number of pints.... :-X...and a few rounds of darts......will reread in the morning.........

lobbing=chucking BIG rocks at slow velocity,that hit like a ton of bricks
From a flat liner fan.

EM, you first statement was a sling is a war weapon.  jlasud is a Roman reenactor and has hands on experience with some of the more common weapons and tactics used during the times slingers were one of the more important light troops on the battlefield. He is also a good slinger.  So, he is one of the few people on the planet who can make a really informed guess and back it up with experience.   

+1 jilasud.
Which is more effective(amount of effort put in/damage done by stone)

Lobbing big rocks at a heavy infantry unit,has it merits.

Keep in mind, roman legionnaires battle equipment was about 25kg.
Now, if they didn't have auxiliary cavalry,and other covering,and accompanying light troops (which they often did)
There's no way they could ever chase, and catch a unit of slingers, pelting them with fist sized rocks.
Imagine ,how frustrating it would be,to take a beating from some poor ass slingers,running around in a tunic,a sidebag,while you have 25kg stuff on you, and your balls are swimming in sweat, and after the first few volleys, your unit's shields are wrecked. and after that,they'll hammer the armor on you,meanwhile some ,start getting lobbed in the head with fist sized rocks..

Of course, one on one fight,or for hunting,a lob would have poor chances to hit IMO.

jlasud wrote on Dec 28^th, 2013 at 3:41pm:

There's no way they could ever chase, and catch a unit of slingers, pelting them with fist sized rocks.

25kg is not that much weight.

I respect that Jlasud has a reenactment background. that being said I have a military background, and have done many exercises with a 38 kilogram setup on my back. You get used to the weight of your equipment and build strength to accommodate it. and can cover ground rather quickly, and efficiently.

I don't believe that with the distances I mentioned above 100 yards. that there is any way they couldn't catch them. unless of course they were within a fortification.

remember that these fist sized rocks must be transported with them. by mule and cart, or just by mule, or by man pulled cart, etc.........

any way you slice it, you have an immense amount of weight to pull around with enough fist sized rocks to have sustained throwing.

what I am getting to is that I don't believe that in an open battle you would of seen slingers engaging from 100 yards in, lobbing fist sized rocks. especially if they were accompanied with support ahead of them.

I believe it is more realistic from them to have engaged the enemy with slightly smaller ammunition, high trajectory, hard shots, at 200-300 yards and beyond.



          

I've often wondered about the distances of engagement-- whether they happened at 100m or 200 m.

There are accounts for the fourth century BC of heavies (or rather the fittest of heavies) running out to catch *javelineers*, the famous "ekdromoi" in the Spartan army (usually the soldiers in their 20s). That makes a distance of about 45 m, which is realistic for a dash; sometimes the heavies catch the javelineers and kill a few, usually the javelineers get away (and the trouble comes when the ekdromoi fall back and the javelin-men chase then back)

I'm not sure you'd catch up slingers, even at say 80m-- the problem is once you start running at them, they use the lights' usual defence against heavies-- they run off, too (I assume they dump their stones), and without the big shield and body armour to keep them down.

Lights against lights is another story-- I could see javelineers or archers easily working their way to start trading shots with slingers. Which is why you mix your skirmishing line, with archers, slingers, and javelin men.

Any size stone that can be lobbed without hurting oneself, can be flat-lined out to a fair distance. The difference is the effort put behind the throw.

There's no way, when faced with the possibility of being disemboweled by a blade, that any sane slinger would use anything less than all of his might against his enemy. While various size stones may have been used, the real difference between lobbing and flat-lining is the effort put into the throw. Lobbing intentionally tones down the power and arcs the shot for more 'control', while flat-lining is standard to strong slinging in a straight line. Either can be done with all variations of ammunition.

I really would like to see these ancient large sling stones you guys refer to. Most of the glans and sling stones I've seen could and would have been easily flat-lined in order to utilize the sling's full energy potential.

The sling was used to increase the velocity of thrown stone, right?
Then why would one reduce the velocity of said stone by putting less effort in ze throw?
Also, in war...
Much of the slings effect was psychological as well as physical.
a flat-lined stone, nailing your enemy, made you feel like I am winning!!! and your enemy feel like wow I should retreat.
a stone coming in at 180 FPS+ and hitting the man next to you in the chest.....
Might be enough to make him fall, definitly enough to make him stagger back.
Also a flat-line stone has signifigantly more range than a lobbed stone- IF you are reducing your effort instead of using a stone too large to flat-line.
I think dan summed it up nicely.

I guess that we are going to keep going on with this debate  :)
While I prefer straight-shooting, I think that lobbing would have merit. Like others have said, in a defensive position.

My argument against this is that just about everything you could do with a lob, you could do better with a powerful throw. Yeah, big stones can be lobbed to stop heavies, but you could use a little more force to better preserve your life as they close in.

At longer distances a lob is useless, so again powerful throws are better.

Lobbing is kinda pointless. Just throw the heavy stones hard. Maybe not hard enough to hurt yourself, but don't throw it like a panzy. You can throw a stone hard in every battle situation with more damage than a lob can produce.

However, I am a strong supporter of the egg-size stone as it can do everything well. Anything heavier or lighter is specialized. Light stones do not do much damage, but they can be thrown far (useless up close). Heavy stones are like shotgun slugs but only useful at close quarters. Then there is the medium jack of all trades stone that can do all of the above effectively. If you whang stones that are too light, then your damage output is less than a lobber. There must be a good balance that I feel is the egg-sized stone with a nice 70-80% power shot which does everything well and just about as good as specialized, situational ammunition.

A straight shooter with egg sizers will be more effective than either someone lobbing bricks or whanging marbles.

We might also ask: which one is more terrible enemy: lobber or straight shooter?
Which one do you prefer to fight against:
fight against the straight shooter
or
fight against the lobber?

Lobber.
I can see his stones coming(they are bigger, and easier to dodge because they are going slower).
I would prefer not to be hit by either, but a flat-liner has a better chance of hitting me- much harder to dodge.
Either one will inflict a LOT of damage, so which one is irrelevant.

At the battle of Najera, in 1367, Spanish slingers faced English bowmen (and were defeated). The source is the French chronicler Froissart. One of the English translations has the slingers throwing "heavy stones", but I checked the French, it only mentions stones (and also that the Spanish slingers could bash in helmets)

Les Espaignols et Castelloins avoient fondes dont ilz gettoient pierres et effondroient heaumes et bacinéz dont ilz mehainginerent maint homme...

Si portoient ces communaultéz a leur usage fondes dont ilz gettoient pierres, et ce les greva moult au commencement les Anglois...

In a reenactement battle in Hungary, i was the only slinger in a late roman line, fighting normans in full armor.
The romans chucked their plumbata's from a good 40m, while the normans raised the shields to protect themselves from the incoming,lobbed plumbatas.
Meanwhile,they had their feet to waist,exposed . :)
So i flatlined 4 tomatoes waist-leg height,and 3 out of four hit their legs.
And they just had boots and pants on them,while their upper body was fully protected.
I don't have to explain explain to you, what would happen if you got hit in the leg with a flat lined egg sized stone... You ain't gonna fight that day. Not on foot at least.
All this was possible because of the lobbed plumbatas,they got distracted,protected theselves from above,while being hit horizontally.

That's a huge tactic of ancient volley fire, i believe.
If a coordonatic attack would take place,with a group of lobbers,lobbing first,fist sized rocks,and soon after a hail of flat lined egg szied stones would follow, the effect on the enemy could easily be devastating.
I'm just trying to show, that a good tactician can turn every aspect of arms, weather,psichology,etc to his advantage.
Lobbed half bricks, flat lined egg sized stones...both have their pros and cons..and they be even combined in a battle setting, and if done properly,it can be devastating,i'm sure about that ;)

Some time ago there was a thread in which was mentioned how Roman tactic could work: auxiliaries, archers and slingers, would move forward, slingers in front would sling straight while archers, behind them would lob in arrows.  Then slingers would retreat while legionaires would attack while covered by the hail of arrows.  Sound like a good plan to me, though this would just be the job for "average" slingers with stones, not master slingers with lead ammo.

At any rate, if we're talking about engagements at significant range (say 80m at the minimum, perhaps much longer, like 150, 200m), everyone's shooting on the same traj-- whangers shoot upwards to get the arc, lobbers crank up the power; even the ammo probably converges (towards the upper end), i.e. aiming for the ammo that will fly a fair bit but also land with weight.

Lobbing and whanging really apply at distances < 40m, or perhaps even lower, at the distances where accuracy can really be measured or is realistic (Alina thought that hitting a small target at distances over 30m was incredibly difficult, and I agree).

I'd say about 70m would be a good distance to do the coordinated tandem trajectory attack,because egg sized stones can be delivered fairly flat with long slings,or arrows,from very powerful bows,at that distance, while fist sized rocks can be lobbed at such distance also.

Also,this distance is still safe from javelineers.

It's pretty clear to me that war-slinging-- say btw 70 to 200m is really a whole set of skills that we don't quite understand. Ammo choice, accuracy, type of fighting…

There was a thread earlier, wondering about how you would fight at 300-350m or more, if shooting lead: how do you even keep track of where the lead bullet lands ? Either shooting does not take place at those ranges, or ancient weaponized slinging involves all kinds of skills and capabilities-- sufficient coordination to land a lead bullet on a target at 200 or at 400m, deliberately, good eyesight to follow fall of shot, good computation of traj, etc.

Once ,i hit a tree,from 197m,uphill.(with a biconical lead)
It hit a tree in the first row ,in a forest, and i could estimate from 3 trees,which one it hit, as i also could hear it very clearly.
And i found the bullet ,as it bounced off the bark,hitting with a glancing shot, leaving a nice mark,about 2m,from the ground.

So I think a unit of slingers, slinging simultaniously, specialized to lead slinging, maybe could judge from the heard rattle on equipment, screams,also some visual,with people remaining behind from the advancing army...
At those distances,in those time, those were the first to fall, or by the ballista.
Hence the Thunderbolt...the scorpion..that's why the soldiers are said to be more offended by sling bullets,than all the arrows of the enemy,because it's like multiple snipers starting to pop men from unsuspected distance.

And if the target is an army of 60.000 ..those bullets might hit someone,even at 400m..from 500-1000 lead chuckers..a couple hundred bullets per volley could still land IMO. Of course, it would depend on terrain,visibility slinger unit's skill etc.
Now if just 50 bullets hit per 6 seconds an enemy,or his equipment,and  500 per minute that's like a bit slower machine gun's rate of fire.

And this is a conservative guestimated hit ratio.
From 1000. slingers we could estimate 10.000 shot's per minute.

jlasud wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:

And if the target is an army of 60.000 ..those bullets might hit someone,even at 400m..from 500-1000 lead chuckers..a couple hundred bullets per volley could still land IMO. Of course, it would depend on terrain,visibility slinger unit's skill etc. Now if just 50 bullets hit per 6 seconds an enemy,or his equipment,and  500 per minute that's like a bit slower machine gun's rate of fire. And this is a conservative guestimated hit ratio. From 1000. slingers we could estimate 10.000 shot's per minute.

That is a LOT of ammo.
an hour? 60,000 lead glans...

18 T of lead

@jlasud, 70 meters was the distance metioned for the bow/sling combo artack.  Lines 100 meters apart, archers and slingers move forward 30 meters and start doing their thing...

(quote)
(I'd say about 70m would be a good distance to do the coordinated tandem trajectory attack,because egg sized stones can be delivered fairly flat with long slings,or arrows,from very powerful bows,at that distance, while fist sized rocks can be lobbed at such distance also.

Also,this distance is still safe from javelineers.)

I take the liberty to direct (again) readers to a discussion initiated by erstwhile forum member Alina, in which she argues that much longbow archery did not take place, in battle, at ranges over 100m

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=20161

I would agree that reasonable primitive projectile range is within 150 yards.

This means that one can use large rocks in war slinging without falling short. However it also means being mobile is more important. Flat-lining is plenty for battle, the plethora of small lead glans and reasonably sized (egg size) rocks I evidence that even within lobbing ranges, flat lining was generally preferred.

Regardless, it is unlikely any of us will be in a massive real life ancient style peltist battle. The real debate is what is most pragmatic and powerful for todays slinger. I'm fairly certain we've circled all of those points regarding those several times by now... and we've then concluded that flat-lining is vastly superior for every purpose except lobbing rocks just over a wall or, in modern times, playing egg toss with one's mee-maw or nana in the backyard.  ;)

No, we have not. Let me restate the debate.

1. Accuracy.
Working at reasonable ranges for accuracy shooting (say 15-20m), we notice two things.

a. Some people shoot hard and straight and hit the target
b. Some people shoot a bit slower and on an arc and hit the target.

Examples of a: Mr Marauder. Yurek. Rockman.
Examples of b: Jaegoor. Bill Skinner (I think). Masia.

Now the debate is whether a or b is better. The lobbers think that b is better, because it allows more control, and that it is the more mature way of slinging. I tend to think this. The straight-shooters think that a is better, because it puts the shot straight at the target, and therefore that you should work on your skill until you can do that.

But another thought occurred to me-- that perhaps some people have the natural skill to straight-shoot without difficulty, but that many (I suspect) do not have the coordination. I have been slinging for over 30 years now, and must say that if I straight shoot, I consistently pull to the left. If I lob, I can place shots, and lobbing has helped me grow. I still try to concentrate and align and get my straight shots in order.

2. "Power".
Still at the same range (15-20m), I put forward three observations:
a. Straight shooters get their power from speed
b. Lobbers CAN get power from using heavier stones (which in fact are the optimal ammo for lobbing)
c. Heavier ammo retains speed better.

There's been a fair bit of debate here: I've argued that a heavy stone launched with a fair bit of speed does arrive with a pretty considerable terminal KE; Masia. has insisted on momentum as the important factor favouring the heavy stones (and I do not pretend to understand all of his maths); the "whangers' believe that the speed of their projectiles mean the fast stone has a LOT of KE.

3. "True nature of the sling"
This, I fear, is the area of greatest subjectivity and silliness, and I have contributed much to the silliness. But frankly, no one really has much experience in using the sling in war or in riots or in hunting or in herding. I would welcome evidence, from texts, ethnography or films, showing slings in use-- with an eye to this lobbing vs whanging problem.

4. Distance
Now once we get beyond the 30 m range, everyone shoots with an eye on drop. I don't think we have a lot of experience on accuracy shooting at these ranges (40, 50, 80, 100m)-- at that point, everyone just lets rip at different angles ("whanging at an angle"). Except that (Masia writes) we should perhaps be thinking more in terms of scaling our lobbing outwards.

if we omit hitting power from this discussion...
flat-lining is still more accurate in theory, because with less travel time, there is less chance for it to go off course due to wind, etc.
although, lobbing may be more accurate in practice due to human error and reaction time.
I side with the whangers(such a better term, it sounds awesome). 

In response to Thearos's post above:

1. Your problem with the shot going left should not be the gage of flat-lining as a whole, especially because it is easily fixed (pull your hand back further away from the target or just let go earlier). I respect your years of experience spent slinging, however I have taught a lot of people (around 20, enough to make assumptions) to sling and none have had problems with flat-lining and having it be "out of control" or had problems with it that couldn't be easily fixed with a little coaching.

2. I will make a video this week confirming this (hopefully tomorrow), but as a young athletic male, I can flat-line any stone a lobber would use with normal form (just wrist and a little elbow movement/non-pirouetting and no huge shoulder movements). Flat-lining and lobbing can be done with any weight stone, but lobbing only has power when using unusually heavy stones that could still be flat-lined even harder.

3. Relative. Aussie said the sling is a "Velocity Amplifier" (TSG), in order to utilize the full potential of this velocity amplification, one should be using dense egg sized rocks and slinging at 85% - 90% power in order to maintain as much control as is necessary and project significant velocity  (See Bow and Arrow analogy earlier in the debate). Is lobbing with a sling still slinging? Absolutely! Is it superior to flat-lining? As far as I have seen and learned from this discussion, No.

4. Shallower arcs make distance shooting more consistent. That's one of the reasons distance estimation is so important at long ranges. Because if your mental subconscious estimate is even a few yards shot, your shot will go very short. If lobbing still remains lobbing and you just keep increasing your throwing angle (up to 45 degrees), you are trying to drop the rock on top of the target as opposed to throwing it straight in. Try throwing a football (overhand) into a vertical trashcan, then try a horizontal (slightly angled upwards) and you can see why the direct horizontal throw is so much easier and more practical for slinging.

5. (Bonus!) One factor we haven't considered is the bounce-hit. Flat-lining will almost always produce a ricochet of the ground if your shot falls short. This is substantially less likely to happen with true lobbing.

If the shooters and lobbyists fighting with each other, which ones will win?

The lobbers, of course. ;)

the flat liners.
Lets get together and test this with tennis balls, shall we?
No water filled balls. It cancels the purpose of the test.

I can be a referee. :D

squirrelslinger wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 6:08pm:

the flat liners. Lets get together and test this with tennis balls, shall we? No water filled balls. It cancels the purpose of the test.

Tennis balls make everyone lobbers! :D

LOL.... nope
they don't.
Tennis balls make everyone flat-liners, because they fly 1 inch with a lob.

I've lobbed and flat-lined tennis balls before. However, because tennis balls are so light, they harness preponderance of their power from velocity. Which, as everyone can agree, is in favor of flat-lining.

Masi's point is that tennis balls maintain a short arcing trajectory because of their air resistance. However, at the point when you have to worry about tennis ball drop (around 30 yards), they have lost the bulk of their kinetic energy and are no longer a "danger" in "battle". So accurate flat-liners sub 30 yards would most likely crush the opposition, because light ammunition cancels out any benefit of lobbing except for "control", which only applies if one is significantly less accurate with flat-lining. However, with some practice, flat-lining is just as accurate if not more accurate than lobbing so even "control" is moot.

Dan said it.
Only pros for lobbing IMO is BIG stones,herding sheep,playing snowball ,scaring animals away.

Most accurate shooting we do,is the one we do at our usual speed,usual sling, and ammo.

To restate things,

1. at 30 m, you can whang a 100g stone
2. at 30 m, you can lob a 200g stone.

1 over-stresses the shot, 2. delivers a lot of punch and is easier to control, and hence to obtain accuracy. Mr Marauder's trick is that he's strong enough to whang 170+g stones, and skillful enough to keep them on target. Most people evolve towards 2.

If you want to fantasize what it would be like to fight with a sling at 30-40m, go ahead; it's not clear that it would be easier to dodge a 200g arcing shot, any easier than to dodge a javelin. Experience in reenacting, or shooting at targets

At longer distances, everyone lobs.

Thearos, the above comment about reasonable accuracy distances I find to be just another example of people speaking from their own experiences rather than what the sling is actually capable off.  I've had good accuracy out to 40-50 meters.  My only problem accuracy-wise has been that I do far more experimenting than practicing a given style so I never end up mastering a style before moving on.  40-50 meters is completely reasonable for the sling. Probably further with metal ammo.

As far as pulling left, that is user error my friend.  Since it's an inanimate object the sling cannot choose when or how to release. When you fix the problem in your technique or gear that is causing it, it will disappear.

With a long sling, egg sized stones can be slung ~60m fairly flat. Probably with around 10 degrees elevation.
Lobbing ,to me, means relatively low velocity, 30+ degree elevation shots.

You can play the distances up or down as you wish. But I'll be glad to see people hit things they aim for at 50 m.

Pirouette can be the flat to heavy ammo. Chain of the moped weighs 300g and motorcycle chain 800g :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X18epKtllNQ

Thearos wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 2:08pm:

To restate things, 1. at 30 m, you can whang a 100g stone 2. at 30 m, you can lob a 200g stone. 1 over-stresses the shot, 2. delivers a lot of punch and is easier to control, and hence to obtain accuracy. Mr Marauder's trick is that he's strong enough to whang 170+g stones, and skillful enough to keep them on target. Most people evolve towards 2. If you want to fantasize what it would be like to fight with a sling at 30-40m, go ahead; it's not clear that it would be easier to dodge a 200g arcing shot, any easier than to dodge a javelin. Experience in reenacting, or shooting at targets 5. At longer distances, everyone lobs.

"Sigh", why are you so defiant!  ::)    :P

1. This does not require over stressing! It really isn't that hard to sling flat if you have proper form. Flat-lining is like drawing a bow to full draw with a hunting weight arrow, lobbing is like short drawing with a war arrow, you just aren't utilizing the sling to its full potential.

It would take a healthier person to flat-line a 7.5 oz. stone but its definitely doable. I know I keep promising a video but the weather has really taken a turn for the worst lately (single digits and snow as of lately). As soon as I can, I will weigh and make a video flat lining such unnecessarily large rocks.

2. This isn't any easier to control. Most people find accuracy just as well flat-lining, including most of the best slingers I've seen. Most slingers that I've seen really go towards 1 (Look at the poll! Lobbers barely beat the people that kick rocks. ).
It simply isn't normal or natural to sling such large rocks and it really cuts down on the versatility of the sling if they only way you can get power is through the gravity of a large stone. That cuts out tennis ball, golf balls, most concrete glans, clay glans, lead glans, racquet balls, and any rock smaller than a clementine.

By the Rules of Dodging, It would be easier to dodge a large slow moving object than a fast reasonably sized one. I have experience being a teenage guy playing "Toss Rock" and "Catch Spear" (which is really a Staff if it makes you feel better). I know it is possible to dodge both, but that really isn't as relevant when you have 500 coming towards you every few seconds.

5. No they don't. That is arcing, or flat-lining on an angle. We've been over this numerous times. It is often utilized with much smaller ammunition and significant amounts of strength (to maximize KE at longer distance). Think of it as though you were slinging at a bird with an egg sized stone. You aren't going to try to drop the stone on top of the bird, you'll sling hard to get the stone there quickly so you don't have to lead too much. Now if the stone misses the bird and keeps going off into the distance, you have successfully arced a shot, with strength and finesse.  :)

You all realize that this is just saying the same thing over again, right? Even the rebuttals.

1. No, whanging is overdrawing at some distances. We've already been over this, too. Lobbing is having a consistent anchor regardless of distance and not being overbowed.

2. Yes it is.

5. Arcing? Eh, it could be whanging. Same amount of effort as a throw at shorter distance? Then it's a lob. But most distance throws are lobs.

You keep trying to make the argument into "gently tossed baseball vs .44 magnum" when it's not. Lobbing is a marginal reduction in effort for a massive increase in controllability. And it is maintaining a consistent level of effort thereafter regardless of the situation. The math says that there won't be a drop in terminal ballistics if you emphasize mass over velocity. In fact, there would probably be a gain. That's why bullets with a higher sectional density and the same powder charge consistently penetrate better than the lower SD, faster bullets regardless of caliber. That's why gridiron football linemen are big instead of fast. That's why a standard pressure .45 will always trump a 9mm +P in single shot stops (87% for .45 to 83% for 9mm +P). And that's why I know I'm right.

I'm not defiant. I'm correct.

And, more simply, the question's not settled: back-slapping by the wanglers does not amount to winning an argument.

Haha, yes I do. Saying the right answers over and over again doesn't make them wrong though, same goes vice versa for the lobbers too.   ;)

1. We have been over this. But you said that flat-lining was overdrawing with flight arrows, I said it was full draw with normal weight arrows and I stand by my position. Over drawing would be like stressing the bow a little more to get more out of it. You can flat-line the with the same power at any distance and add a little angle as you get further out. Pretty much every projectile (even bullets at short range) travel on some kind of parabola. It isn't the eventual necessary existence of the arc that is in question, it's the method of throwing in relation to the ammunition weight.


2. I am mostly basing this on personal experience. I have lobbed a few hundred shots and it feels unnatural, I can still be decently accurate, but not as accurate as I can be flat-lining. Everything else regarding this I've already said before.

5. We went over this too, its "whanging on an angle" if you'd like. It would be long distance lobbing if you kept using the 7oz rocks, maintained a similar amount of power behind the throw (around 65%), and just increased the angle as the target gets further out.


They aren't too far apart in power, but my argument is that if the lobbers advantage is in ammunition weight, a healthy flat-liner could throw a same-weight stone much harder. This would make regular flat-lining like a 9mm, with lobbing being a .38 and flat-lining heavy stones being a .357. Mass trumps velocity in stopping power, yes. However a good flat-liner can match both, so its not really a plus to the lobbing side.



Alright, I think we've said everything that we can say in the great flat-lining/lobbing debate of 2013/2014. This has been a really fun debate and I believe very informative for everyone. However, it has seemed that we have reached a standstill regarding what we can discuss (we've gone in circles a few times here). This information is here for anyone who wants to view it and we can let each slinger decide which is best for them and if anyone asks about it we can just refer them to this thread instead of doing all of this over again.  ;)

Dan wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:13pm:

You can flat-line the with the same power at any distance and add a little angle as you get further out.

Which, by my definition, is lobbing.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Dan, EM, Theros and Masi all have a different definition of lobbing.  Each needs to clearly state what you consider lobbing and what you consider throwing.

And how you throw is important, too.  At least a couple of people on here seem to consider all lobbing to be underhand, similar to throwing a softball.

Wow 18 pages. :o

I had a great idea for a debate.

Maybe I should come up with another?

Something that clearly divides the members like trad archery vs modern archery (go trad) on an archery forum.

hmmmmmm.... :-?

wow I missed a lot during my move....... ;D

All I can say now is..... good job Dan...... at reasserting the truth.

Good lord, underhand ? Never.

Lobbing is shooting with an awareness of drop.

Thearos wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:12pm:

Lobbing is shooting with an awareness of drop

No.... lobbing is a cancer that plagues slingers who do not have the patience to learn how to flat line....... ;)

Thearos wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:12pm:

Good lord, underhand ? Never. Lobbing is shooting with an awareness of drop.

Right, cause any flat-liner is completely ignorant of the effects of gravity...  ::)


I've only seen lobbing used with helicopter and Balearic styles. Greek and Fig.8 usually feel better it moderate-light ammunition and underhand puts a top-spin on the ammo so it maintains a (flat) ground-hugging trajectory.

This is what I see as lobbing: Slow rotations, slow release, moderately heavy to unreasonably heavy ammo, high arching parabola, decreased energy in the throw (40-65%), very controlled, used with helicopter and Balearic, capable of accuracy and transferring momentum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQJv0LJqd9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJa7FhVjSHI


And these would be flat lining: fast, yet completely controllable, accurate, utilizes full power potential of the sling, used with any weight ammunition, very strong (usually 70-90% for target throwing but this may increase if throwing for distance), used with any style, preferred by most slingers, awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ65qYFKcwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCM2PKlRcZw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwlZJ5IlN68
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3MFmiDVcA

The issues here are partly that no one knows how to measure the power put in the lob (75% of full on whang is what lobbers feel, whangers put it much lower, probably because when they lob, they do it with self-loathing), and one of distances, namely that whangers operate at point blank ranges, shooting straight within their "natural drop" (from shoulder hight shot to shoulder hight arrival point).

For instance, when I warm up and shoot at a cliff face at 10m, of course I whang (to the point that stones bounce back at me)-- there's not enough distance to develop the lob.

Shorter: the longer the distance, the harder the lob (until we get to universal lob distances, i.e. shooting long).

Whangers rely on speed to overcome drop-- hence the shooting at point-blank distances. Anything longer, they are, in fact, lobbing at a shallow angle (which obviously increases with distance).

Sorry, Dan, Jaegoor is not lobbing.  He is not throwing at his full power but the rocks are shattering when they hit his metal center.  Do you spar at full strength every time you practice?  One Baleric guy was sort of lobbing but one was not. 

And your whangers are not throwing at full strength either but they are putting more of their upper body into the movement, which translates into more power.

So, what we have here is basically two different types of throwing, one that uses mostly arm power versus one that uses all the upper body.

Upper body will be more powerful simply because you use more muscles in the throw.  Upper body will be more difficult to learn because it uses more muscles in the throw. 

Notice that you, EM, and your other whangers all are very athletic, at least two of you practice martial arts on a regular basis, And I will guess that all of your whangers probably do also.  And the way you throw is perfect for hitting a Roman in the head and having the glande take it off.

Throwing with just the arm has advantages, too.  First, it's better if you want to try to hunt with the sling, less movement means less chance of spooking game.  As for war, someone with better computer skills needs to look up the videos made by Tint.  His rate of fire was awesome.  He was averaging around 10-12 accurate throws per minute, he sometimes exceeded that.

Bill Skinner wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 10:29am:

Sorry, Dan, Jaegoor is not lobbing.  He is not throwing at his full power but the rocks are shattering when they hit his metal center.

I must disagree. I believe Jaegoor to be lobbing. maybe it is the type of rock that he is using.... that allows it to shatter easy.... sandstone?

I use a lot of granite and it wont break no matter how hard you throw it, or how big the stone is.



Bill Skinner wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 10:29am:

Upper body will be more powerful simply because you use more muscles in the throw.  Upper body will be more difficult to learn because it uses more muscles in the throw.

This I would agree with.


Bill Skinner wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 10:29am:

Notice that you, EM, and your other whangers all are very athletic, at least two of you practice martial arts on a regular basis, And I will guess that all of your whangers probably do also.

also in agreement. I grew up practicing wrestling, kick boxing, and ju-jitsu extensively.... maybe bill you are on to something? more athletic people are more naturally comfortable using the whole upper body.

I still believe strongly that flat- lining (as a style of throwing) has many more advantages practically, historically, and for target slinging.

If you learn to flat-line well.....(this might take some time for some) the advantages will be noticeable, and profound, and after learning this the odd time a lob would be useful it will be a breeze ;)       

Thearos, every projectile flies with an arc, even a bullet shot at close range has a slight arc to it. Flat-lining at distance can't just be "lobbing with a low arc" because then lobbing at distance would be "flat-lining with a high arc", and the terms would be interchangeable  :-? .

Bill's upper body/arm is much more divisive. If you view the videos in different windows, there is clearly a difference. To truly make distance, some muscle is required, so you must use the flat-lining form. However, gravity also comes into play so you must aim higher which, dare I say it, is an element of lobbing (however you can go back to my previous posts and see that I really think of it more as "whanging on an angle" because of the intent behind the throw). So distance really has to employ elements of both (kind of), however we can argue about which is better sub 50 yards until the cows come home.  :)

Bill Skinner, I definitely agree with most of what you said, but I really did think Jaegoor was lobbing there. I think Thearos may have even posted that video earlier as reference to what lobbing is. No, I don't spar full power, and neither do the people I spar, because of the high chances of injury. However, when slinging at a target, the target should be able to take the hits, and it certainly isn't going to hurt you back.

I may have joked around about lobbing being weak, but even an 8oz rock that's hand thrown will have some power behind it, and according to Masi's equation it has even more momentum than flat-lining. However, the breaking of rocks also isn't a good judge of power. I'm sure you and any guy who grew up in the country spent many boyhood hours breaking small rocks against bigger rocks by hand (via hand throwing).   

What do you consider lobbing then?

I also agree that Jaegoor is lobbing-- and the shattering of the stones indicates the power that goes into the lob.

I personally don't think that lobbing is "arm only". The whole body participates no matter what you do.

There is some rotation of the upper body at the hips in every type of throw, the whangers look more like a major league baseball pitcher throwing the ball.  The whole upper body finishes leaning into the throw along with a step to help increase the forward movement of the body.

Lobbers tend to stay more erect, they step into the throw and rotate at the hips, so saying arm throwing is not entirely correct.  Look at Dans' slinging video of the Baleric slingers, look at the difference between the guy that throws five times and the younger guy that only throws once.  The second guy is whanging.

EM, Jaegoor throws granite.  He deliberately dials the power back to avoid beating his target and ammo to pieces.  Find his video of him throwing at a melon to get an idea of his full strength throws.

I guess our granite here in Canada is top quality then..... ::)

I think Bill's right, wanglers are like baseball pitchers. Lobbers are like throwers of footballs.

Check it out
Lower velocity with bigger ammo wins against lighter ammo higher velocity
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_de3HJvO-N8
Now obviously the advantage goes to the ammo.
What the results would be if they both used the same ball. I bet if they did have the same ammo the baseball pitcher would win

Tomas wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:58am:

Check it out Lower velocity with bigger ammo wins against lighter ammo higher velocity http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_de3HJvO-N8 Now obviously the advantage goes to the ammo. What the results would be if they both used the same ball. I bet if they did have the same ammo the baseball pitcher would win

Yep, because momentum. It's the best predictor of the force that an object can exert.

Many of my stones in the video have a weight of 250 g and more. Therefore, one can see them in the film good. I best shoot stones with a weight of from 180 to 200 g. One does not see these stones in a video flying any more.
The power does not come from the arm. She comes from the hip. A hard one hit from the arm is not healthy. Many Balearic Slingers have big problems with the shoulder and the elbow. Their method is not healthy. A Sling never transfers the whole strength. Therefore, it also makes no sense her to give more strength than she can transfer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OZhw-Azydg 240g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7KiQScrJAw 200g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ_yuq3rGA 230g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA9qx-jFmFc 200g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHj5NUdw-8I 180 -200g

Tomas wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:58am:

Check it out Lower velocity with bigger ammo wins against lighter ammo higher velocity http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_de3HJvO-N8 Now obviously the advantage goes to the ammo. What the results would be if they both used the same ball. I bet if they did have the same ammo the baseball pitcher would win

The issue regarding the power/momentum/ammunition weight has been discussed many times. And that advantage would go to lobbers if flat-liners were incapable of throwing heavy rocks, however that simply isn't true. Flat-lining provides great power with light and heavy ammo, lobbing only provides power with heavy ammo.

I can guarantee that myself, EM, and most flat liners could flat-line any heavy stone that a lobber would normally lob with standard form (non-pirouetting). So a big rock going moderately fast may beat a small rock going really fast, but a big rock going really fast (flat-lined) could beat both. Therefore, flat-lining ("Strong Slinging") wins again. However, lobbing can't be too weak because it uses heavy ammo, there is a guarantee of a transference of momentum via the weight of the stone.

Whanger: I hit hard
Lobber: I hit hard too.
Maths wiz: if you whang a light stone (a) and lob a heavy stone (b), the heavy stone generates more force when it hits
Whanger: yes, but I can whang (b)
Lobber: Then you could lob b+1, even heavier.
Whanger: I'm happy as I am.
Lobber: Me too
Whanger: Yeah but could you hunt that way ?
Lobber: Maybe.
Whanger Yeah but could you fight that way ?
Lobber: Sure.
Whanger: Better to whang.
Lobber: Why ?
Whanger: It generates more force.
Lobber: No, it doesn't necessarily.

lobber: I cant learn to flat-line so I will argue that lobbing is better. that will make me sleep at night...
flat-liner: just have patience....stop arguing and develop your skill....
lobber: maybe I'm not strong enough to flat-line?
flat-liner: get stronger, to obtain proper form.
lobber: lobbing is accurate right? I mean I saw 1 or two videos where the guy hits something.....yeah it must be...
flat-liner: the videos proving flat-linings accuracy vastly outnumber the videos that show accurate lobbing.remember consistency is accuracy.
lobber: thats not true because I say it isn't.
flat-liner: good luck becoming an advanced highly accurate slinger.
lobber: I will surly need it. 

Actually, the most attractive thing about lobbing is its consistency, as compared to all over the place whanging. If done right, it really is THE ZONE.

Mr Marauder writes:

"flat-liner: the videos proving flat-linings accuracy vastly outnumber the videos that show accurate lobbing.remember consistency is accuracy.
lobber: thats not true because I say it isn't."

-- That's actually the rub. Some of the Balearic vids show whangers missing with their strong shots. It also has to to with a lot of quite experienced slingers lately coming to discover lobbing as a good, mature way of slinging. It's not much slower than whanging, and generates great power, retains consistency because it stays relaxed, and hence creates the space for control and accuracy.

My prediction is that each slinger, once they've been in the game for 5+ years, as their body gets used to it, will move to lobbing. Except for noobs; and then the debates will start again.

For listeners who have just joined our program:

Lobbing means you want to be accurate, so shoot a mite slower; since you shoot that bit slower, shoot heavier (both to keep energy, and because it gives heft to your shot); since you shoot slower and heavier, give mind to drop.

Whanging means letting her rip at the target. Some guys have a lot of talent for it. But I must admit that my slinging (since boyhood) has always evolved towards lobbing, whenever I've been doing it intensely (say for a few years).

To a previous post, if you can lob b+1 I still guarantee I could flat line it harder. When you get to b+20 (somewhere over 2lbs, we've all tried to throw those giant stones that we shouldn't) you can't bend you elbow anymore and apache or pirouette is the only option, and even lobbers wouldn't be able to accurately throw or use clean form anymore.

"Whanging" is really just strong slinging (75-100% power), its less relaxed, though not less accurate. Lobbing is relaxed slinging with heavy ammo. If both styles are using the same ammunition (even if it is heavy) strong slinging (flat-lining) will generate more force than relaxed slinging (lobbing). Every. Time.


Thearos wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 1:22pm:

Mr Marauder writes: "flat-liner: the videos proving flat-linings accuracy vastly outnumber the videos that show accurate lobbing.remember consistency is accuracy. lobber: thats not true because I say it isn't." -- That's actually the rub. Some of the Balearic vids show whangers missing with their strong shots. It also has to to with a lot of quite experienced slingers lately coming to discover lobbing as a good, mature way of slinging. It's not much slower than whanging, and generates great power, retains consistency because it stays relaxed, and hence creates the space for control and accuracy. My prediction is that each slinger, once they've been in the game for 5+ years, as their body gets used to it, will move to lobbing. Except for noobs; and then the debates will start again.

Everybody misses at some time. I repeatedly show videos of accurate flat-lining yet you continue to assume that whangers always throw all, over the place, erratically "all over the place". Nothing could be further from the truth, yet you keep reiterating your "inaccuracy" point, despite the evidence which shows flat-lining to be more accurate than lobbing. It is more relaxed, I'll give you that. However, I still have yet to see an example of a superior lobber, and I still feel relaxed and at peace when I'm flat-lining.

While EM, is new to the game, he is still one of the best slingers I've seen (don't let it go to your head EM  ;) ). Yurek, Camo-sling aka Smabber and I have all been slinging 5+ years, yet we still are all apparently ignorant and immature despite our strong and accurate slinging. The Balearic Sling World Champion, Luis Pons Livermore, who has been slinging quite actively most of his life and is one of the best slingers on the planet, continues to flat-line with authority. Your argument here is invalid.

Also, controlled flat-lining is a "mite" slower, lobbing is way slower for increased control, which doesn't really help that much. Flat-lining also gives mind to drop, just at further distances and with shallower arcs.

Lobbing: Very relaxed slinging with heavy stones.
Flat-lining: Strong, yet controlled, slinging with any weight stone and any style. The vast majority of slingers evolve towards this style. (more than double the amount of lobbers, see poll above)

Thearos wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

Actually, the most attractive thing about lobbing is its consistency, as compared to all over the place whanging. If done right, it really is THE ZONE.

I will say it again, the proof just isn't there.


Thearos wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 1:22pm:

-- That's actually the rub. Some of the Balearic vids show whangers missing with their strong shots. It also has to to with a lot of quite experienced slingers lately coming to discover lobbing as a good, mature way of slinging. It's not much slower than whanging, and generates great power, retains consistency because it stays relaxed, and hence creates the space for control and accuracy.

also highly inaccurate as the champion Balearic slinger is a flit liner. "livermore"


Thearos wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 1:22pm:

My prediction is that each slinger, once they've been in the game for 5+ years, as their body gets used to it, will move to lobbing. Except for noobs; and then the debates will start again.

this Thearos proves to me that you do not understand the human body very well. The longer you practice a physical sport the more your muscles develop, and strengthen allowing you to add more, and more power into whatever it is you are doing. running, jumping, slinging, etc.... 

lobbers(which are far and few between) have no proof to support their claims of superior control and better accuracy. this is a fact.

there are only a few thing in slinging that a person can improve, accuracy, power, and distance....

flat- lining produces all of these.... 

lobbing may only only produce power at short range with unconventionally heavy ammo. consistent accuracy will not develop, and distance will not develop.

Thearos, where are your videos to show us your unequaled accuracy and crushing power? your great wisdom? your more mature prestigious way of slinging. Please......... this is a weapon....learn to use it as such, and stop trying convince the majority...  The men arguing for flat-lining have proven these concepts in videos. many videos.   
 

Dan wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:

While EM, is new to the game, he is still one of the best slingers I've seen (don't let it go to your head EM  Wink

thanks Dan. I never stop training for improvement. 8-)
faster
harder
farther
more accurate

English_Marauder wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 2:33pm:

The men arguing for flat-lining have proven these concepts in videos. many videos.

Videos have proven that you can sling and that you can hit the target. Nothing else. Same for lobbing.

Here's my definition of lobbing, again:
[list bull-blackball]

Not using 100% effort, because speed and too much effort will erode form.

Not changing the amount of effort between throws for any reason, because consistency is key for good form.


You want to go for distance, aim higher. Don't throw harder. I am convinced that 90% of the time that Dan is doing what I call lobbing and only does what I call whanging when he's going for huge distances.

Projectile momentum vs KE was brought up because you said that you'd choose a lighter stone to get a flatter trajectory if you were going to try to sling for a very long distance. There is no advantage to throwing a lighter stone to get a flatter trajectory if you'll just practice enough to instinctually account for bullet drop. (But I concede that we lobbers misunderstood your statement. I remember you correcting us.) That's why Thearos is saying that lobbing is accounting for drop and whanging is just letting it rip.

Then there was a lot of guessing about how much the projectile's mass would affect  the velocities we achieve with our throws that was never adequately resolved. To my definition of lobbing, it's irrelevant since you aren't trying to say that ultra-light stones are necessary for whanging. That part only matters if we get back to arguing about the best weight of projectile to choose.

A slinger with great form can get great results from whanging away at a range that works for them. That's you. But lobbing can produce better form because the throw is more smooth and can produce better accuracy at all ranges because of more consistency. Saying, "The longer you practice a physical sport the more your muscles develop, and strengthen allowing you to add more, and more power into whatever it is you are doing," misrepresents the argument. Thearos and I are talking about a smaller percentage of effort. We aren't saying that people will be putting less total effort into the throw. Ex: If you start by throwing with 100% effort, get stronger over time, and then decide to sling at your new 80% then you could actually be putting more total effort into the throw. No one said that you'd get weaker by exercising.

English_Marauder wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 1:07pm:

flat-liner: remember consistency is accuracy. lobber: thats not true because I say it isn't.

You hit the nail on the head here, but the roles are reversed.

English_Marauder wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 2:33pm:

Please......... this is a weapon....learn to use it as such

We have, we're just trying to get the rest of you to catch up. If you want accuracy at all ranges, all weather, all terrain, and you want it to be instinctive then you'll train for lobbing.

I do not understand this quarrel.

:-/ :'(

Masiakasaurus wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 4:02pm:

Videos have proven that you can sling and that you can hit the target. Nothing else. Same for lobbing.

the videos show that the vast majority of advanced accurate slingers are flat-liners. nothing else

Masiakasaurus wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 4:02pm:

You want to go for distance, aim higher. Don't throw harder. I am convinced that 90% of the time that Dan is doing what I call lobbing and only does what I call whanging when he's going for huge distances.

I would disagree. Dans trajectory is very flat and his ammo is moving very quick.


Masiakasaurus wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 4:02pm:

You hit the nail on the head here, but the roles are reversed.

Lobbing is not consistent, the videos of many people show this. for every lobbing video that shows 2 hits I can find a flat-lining one that shows 4(just an example)


Masiakasaurus wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 4:02pm:

We have, we're just trying to get the rest of you to catch up. If you want accuracy at all ranges, all weather, all terrain, and you want it to be instinctive then you'll train for lobbing.

Lobbing has no significant range. aiming higher only works to a 45 degree angle then you have to put more power behind it.

I have trained in rain, snow, +25 degrees Celsius to -30 degrees Celsius. and I still hold no true value to lobbing.

My kids were watching tv the other night and I overheard this scene....made me laugh ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po3HbErxC-c

I can scarcely believe what I'm reading here. Let us, perhaps, recall some facts. I am not writing for Mr Marauder, who is perhaps over excited, but for all. I also should state that I am not a great slinger-- but have been doing it for a long time.

Slinging is very difficult. When most people start, they can barely shoot without cord tangle, or land a shot within a 45 degree quadrant in front of them. Hence beginners' liking for distance shoots.

Slinging accurately is very difficult. The reason is that pouch release is difficult to control, especially when shooting at full power. If the pouch opens very slightly too soon or too late, the shot flies wide. Alina, on this forum, used to shoot for hours on end, month after month, and found accuracy difficult at 40 m. A lot of people have posted to say similar things.

Now Mr Marauder is extremely accurate and strong, and charismatic. His vids show him at work: powerful accurate straight shots. His charisma is such that suddenly, a lot of people come out of the woodwork claiming to whang like that. Forgive me, but I doubt it.

A while ago, a lot of people started posting about lobbing. The point here was to regain the necessary control in order to get release right. Hence slower shots (with heavier ammo). Slower shots meant more drop; hence the need to compensate. That's all lobbing is. A lot of people found that this way of shooting is accurate.

Now when you learn to sling, and aim for accuracy, you can start by whanging, until you master the whang, or slow down, until you master the lob. Then you can dial up the power, or stay there (at 75%) and aim for distances.

That's all there is to it.

EM, you're not actually refuting my points. You're just saying, "no it's not," "use it like a real weapon," and "I'm not convinced" in different ways. Like I've said before, lobbing can be fast.
[edit]
Maybe the source of confusion is that Jaegoor has two modes, keep the target useable and batter it to hell. Regardless, he uses the same effort at all ranges against the same target. No matter how far away he is, Jaegoor is equally as accurate at the same power level. That fits my criteria for lobbing.

Bill Skinner wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:40pm:

EM, Jaegoor throws granite.  He deliberately dials the power back to avoid beating his target and ammo to pieces.  Find his video of him throwing at a melon to get an idea of his full strength throws.

[/edit]
Like I've said before:

Masiakasaurus wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 6:52pm:

You keep trying to make the argument into "gently tossed baseball vs .44 magnum" when it's not. Lobbing is a marginal reduction in effort for a massive increase in controllability. And it is maintaining a consistent level of effort thereafter regardless of the situation.

I think I've been consistent in my stance throughout.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

Dan wrote on Nov 26th, 2013 at 2:40pm: Masi's argument does not end the debate, because straight throwers are equally as capable of throwing near comparable weight rocks at a much greater velocity (I even went out in the freezing rain and slung to confirm this before typing this). Imagine double or triple the distance to your target. How would you change the way you sling so that the stone gets to the same spot on the target? If you didn't use 100% of you strength before and you don't now, but instead aim higher then you do what Thearos and I call lobbing. If you already were using 100% and can only aim higher, if you throw harder at longer distance, or if you use a lighter stone for distance then you don't. You might not realize this because you might be slinging at your point blank range. Dan wrote on Nov 26th, 2013 at 2:40pm: I have lobbed before, I've seen lobbing (posted about it earlier) and the more I do it, the more I'm sure it is not the best way to use a sling. I imagine that's what a gap shooter thinks when trying to learn instinctive archery and vice versa. It's because you aren't used to the technique, not because lobbing is in any way deficient. In regards to the OP, not using absolutely 100% of your strength increases your potential for accurate slinging and increasing the weight of your stones will yield better terminal ballistics than trying to sling faster.

(^My first response from when we got away from "which weight is better.")

Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 10:37am:

You're thinking of lobbing wrong. Lobbing is aiming high and making the stone drop. If you want to translate it to archery, lobbing is a normal and comfortable shot that's going to arc more with more distance and whanging is overdrawing the bow for distance shots and using Turkish flight arrows.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 12:55am:

To continue the archery metaphor, you don't -or shouldn't- use all your strength to pull back the bow. If it takes all you've got to draw your bow to anchor then you're overbowed and it will negatively effect your technique. Nor should you try to get more power with a floating anchor point that changes based on target distance. Same for the difference between lobbing versus whanging in slinging. If you aren't using absolutely everything you've got and you aren't changing the strength with which you sling, you're lobbing. Changing the force with which you sling changes the speed of the sling's rotation and changes release timing. The better way to aim at targets at different distances is to learn to adjust your aim instinctively rather than adjust your power just like instinctive shooting in archery.

(^From when we were still talking about weight. I still emphasized consistency at different ranges.)

What I'm getting out of this is that both you and Dan dial back way too much when you try lobbing and are not actually doing what Thearos and I are telling you to try. It's possible that you both have longer point blank ranges, but it's more probable that you're just defining the cutoff for what is arc to be very high. Dan, I am almost sure, does what I call lobbing when he "flat-lines at distance."

Masiakasaurus wrote on Nov 26^th, 2013 at 10:59am:

Dan said lobbing was like half drawing and whanging was getting to anchor, I said that lobbing is getting to anchor and whanging is either using Turkish flight arrows (too light to be effective) and/or overdrawing. Because I keep saying that lobbing has already maximized the potential of the weapon. The exception would be at point blank range -however long or short that is- where a lobbed stone would have to fly very high but not very far or it would have to be so underthrown as to barely impact the target.

You do whang, I think. And it seems as if your objection is to lobbing is just that "lobbing is for sissies and I will not look like a sissy."

Masiakasaurus wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:09pm:

You do whang, I think. And it seems as if your objection is to lobbing is just that "lobbing is for sissies and I will not look like a sissy."

No, you have me all wrong. At the most basic level what I am trying to say is.....there is no benefit of "dialing it back" even if it is marginal......their is no proven benefits in relation to control, power and distance. when you develop as a slinger, it is only reasonable to learn to throw
harder/faster/longer/more accurately.... I believe lobbing is a form of throwing that does not develop the slinger(hand eye coordination, strength...etc) and does not harness the full potential of the weapon. I for the record do not believe anyone to be a "sissy" for lobbing....IMO lobbing is simply not a good representation of how the weapon is supposed to work.

Masi the only reason I have not been refuting in detail is, at this point there is not much I can say that hasn't already been said. I will clearly not convince you or Thearos that flat-lining is a better way to practice. You mentioned earlier in this debate that I would reach a plateau in accuracy flat-lining..... I have not yet...... BUT even if I did right now I would still be far more accurate consistently than any lobber I have seen. I truly believe that lobbers are in a rut and you will have to discover your own way out.

And I see all out whanging as continuously moving to a heavier weight (either lifting weights or archery, take your pick) before you're ready. The best technique will never develop if you're overdoing it even if you do see gains.

Hallo Jaegoor,

Man hat hier zwei Parteien. Die eine ("whangers") behauptet, die beste Art, zu scheudern, sei, mit voller, 100%, Kraft und geradlinig auf das Ziel zu schleudern. Die andere ("lobbers") behauptet, dass es besser ist, mit weniger Kraft, aber besserer Kontrolle zu schiessen; aber da der Schuss schneller sinkt, so muss man auf einer Kurve schiessen.

Die Whanger glauben also, dass immer mit maximaler Kraft geradlinig zu schleudern der einzige Weg ist, dass man so besser lerne und übe, und so könne die beste Leistung erreichen.

Ich, und andere, wie der Masia., glauben das einfach nicht, und geben Argumente dafür.

Aber sicherlich hattest du das schon gut verstanden-- und erstaunst nur, warum solche Leidenschaft aus beiden Seiten ? Bin auch nicht sicher. Mag sein, dass die Whanger glauber, dass auf einer Kurve zu schiessen eine Mangel an Virilität verrät.

Mr Marauder says:

"there is no benefit of "dialing it back" even if it is marginal"

My own experience is that whanging leads to lots of wide shots (3 out of 4 shots are misses at 25 m on a big target), even if the shots are in the general quadrant, and reducing the power a bit leads to better control (3 out of 4 shots are on target at 25 m on big target, often well centred shots).

Looking, not at showreels of best shots, nor at the offerings of the very skilful Mr Marauder or Yurek, but regular joes practising or trying out the sling, I see similar experiences.

What do you think, folks ?

As you all have noticed, I am a member of the flat-lining faction. However, there is a point where there is "too much" effort. If you tear the tendons in your shoulder, and throw yourself to the ground on every shot, you should probably bring it down a notch. Not to the extent of making your slinging look like an egg toss (I'm sorry lobbers, but it really does), but just to have strong controlled slinging at 80-95% power (such as the flat-lining shown in the videos I've shown in previous posts).

Masi, if your definition of flat-lining is 100% power, then pretty much nobody flat-lines. However there is still a distinct difference between this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQJv0LJqd9Y and this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEuVnZq2BMA (distances are about the same, ammo is about the same, accuracy is similar, trajectory is far different- no visible arc in the second video).

Most wouldn't say that the latter slinger is "out of control" or "throwing crazy shots because of the immense amount of power in each throw", nor would they say that it is a "show reel of best shots" because they are consecutively filmed.

What I'm getting at is it seems you are making flat-lining something it isn't in order to make lobbing more appealing. Which is why I feel the need to defend real flat-lining (a legitimate method of slinging accurately, yet also with authority) as has been seen in the many videos I posted.

That's why using the same amount of power at all ranges is and has been part of my definition for lobbing. I'd also say that 100% effort is the maximum you can do without being likely to hurt yourself. More than that exceeds what the human body was designed to regularly endure and therefore exceeds 100% effort.

I expect that there are far more whangers as compared to lobbers despite what the poll suggests.

Sling, swan, lob

---

Hallo Thearos. Vielen Dank für Deine Übersetzung. Ja ich habe schon verstanden worum es geht. Doch denn Streit selbst verstehe ich nicht. Beide Parteien haben Recht. Nur stehen sie auf dem Weg des schleuderns an verschiedenen Positionen. Leider übersetzt der Computer nur sehr schlecht die Diskussion. Aber ich möchte ein paar Worte dazu sagen.
Jedes schießen auf der Erde folgt denn Gesetzen der Ballistik. Verwende ich leichte Geschosse ist die Flugbahn flacher. Aber gerade ist eine Flugbahn nie. Das erkannten schon Menschen vor uns. Englische Bogenschützen verwendeten sehr schwere Pfeile. Warum taten sie das? Weil Kraft gleich Masse mal Beschleunigung ist. Ihre Pfeile erreichten ihre höchste Wirkung im Fallen. Das ist bei der Schleuder ganz genauso. Jedoch es gibt auch Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen Bogen und Schleuder , welche nicht so schnell zu erkennen sind. Ich kann zwar mit voll Power schießen. Aber kann die Schleuder diese Kraft auch aufnehmen und übertragen? Nein das kann sie nicht, oder nur bedingt.
Ich denke dass die Schleuderfunde aus Haithabu bekannt sind. Man fand einen mehrfach geschlitzten Lederbrief. Spannend daran, man fand das selbe Modell in Schleswig (ca. 200 Jahre später als Haithabu) und man fand das selbe Modell auch in Norwegen. Bei allen drei Briefen war eine Beschädigung am Lederbrief zu finden. Ich selbst habe viele Jahre mit diesem Modell geschossen. Immer voll Power. Und es gab sehr häufig die gleiche Beschädigung wie bei den archäologischen Befunden. Immer an der Seite des Schusslaufes kam es zu einem Abriss am Lederbrief. Ein befreundeter Ingenieur  erklärte mir, dass die auftretenden Kräfte an dieser Stelle einfach zu groß sind. Ich fand eine Lösung für dieses Problem. Eine einfache Perle aus Knochen oder Horn war in der Lage die schädliche Energie zu kompensieren. Ein weiteres Zeichen ist. Zuviel Power beim Schleudern schadet der Gesundheit. Bei einem früher und bei anderen später. Selbiges gilt auch für andere Sportarten. . Sehr viele spanische Schützen leiden an Schmerzen. Hauptsächlich im Hand, Ellenbogen und Schulter Bereich. Ich habe auch Luis Livermoore darüber klagen gehört in Spanien. Und Lui trainiert sehr viel in einem Fitness Studio. Lui ist wirklich ein großartiger Slinger. Doch Gewinner des internationalen Turnieres war er nicht. Das war Juano Caballero. Ehre dem Ehre gebürt sage ich. Iljasud und Yurek sind beide ebenfalls sehr Kraftvolle Slinger. Ihre Ergebnisse in Spanien sind bekannt. Sie fehlten ebenso oft wie viele Spanier welche voll Power schießen. Die Kunst im Schleudern liegt an der richtigen Zusammenarbeit zwischen Technik und Ausrüstung. Was nützt Dir volle Power wenn man nicht trifft. Meine Erfahrung zeigt, dass sich die Kraft mit der Zeit von selbst verbessert. Doch das eigentliche Augenmerk sollte immer das Ziel sein. Immer volle Power gibt mir auch keine Gelegenheit meine eigene Technik zu verbessern.  Bin ich aber in der Lage meine Technik zu verbessern, wird auch meine Kraft sich mit der Zeit verbessern. Einen Bogensportler fängt auch nicht mit einem 100lbs Bogen an. Sein Zuggewicht wird deutlich geringer sein. Bei einem Bogen ist es recht leicht das Material zu verbessern. Niemand kommt auf die Idee einen 100lbs Bogen mit Pfeilen mit einen Spine Wert von 20 zu schießen.
Es gibt also einen Optimalwert zwischen aufgewendeter Kraft, Munition/Gewicht)und  Schleudermodell.

Jaegoor, I think the computer has done well at translating the argument.

Jaegoor wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 7:04am:

Englische Bogenschützen verwendeten sehr schwere Pfeile. Warum taten sie das? Weil Kraft gleich Masse mal Beschleunigung ist. Ihre Pfeile erreichten ihre höchste Wirkung im Fallen. Das ist bei der Schleuder ganz genauso. Jedoch es gibt auch Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen Bogen und Schleuder , welche nicht so schnell zu erkennen sind. Ich kann zwar mit voll Power schießen. Aber kann die Schleuder diese Kraft auch aufnehmen und übertragen? Nein das kann sie nicht, oder nur bedingt.

That's exactly what I have said in other threads about the relationship between force, momentum, and kinetic energy and what I've said about slings being inefficient. You obviously know what's going on.

Jaegoor wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 7:04am:

Ja ich habe schon verstanden worum es geht. Doch denn Streit selbst verstehe ich nicht. Beide Parteien haben Recht.

Bill also said that both ways of throwing can be useful. Why do you think that if many Spanish slingers suffer from pain? I think that Luis Livermoore hurting himself favor lobbing.

Sling inefficiency-- another interesting topic

If your sling cracks when you throw, you may not be throwing with full force but you aren't lobbing, either.

I'm going to try to revive this thread, hopefully to the vexation of some persons ;)

I'm curious what your thoughts are, Jauke, regarding throwing full power, vs not full power with your different sling designs that you've been discussing (I'd even say as far as advertising)

  Back in 2013 I originally voted for throwing.  These days I think both flatlining and lobbing have their place.

Three things.

IronGoober, you've vexed me because now I have to read through a 21 page thread that I didn't know existed.  ;)

"Vexation" is a fantastic word.  This needs to be worked into common speech again (assuming it was at one point).

And I voted both.  Like Rat Man said, I think both definitely have their place.  Do you want to attack from the front, or from above?  :)

Both. And I'm not reading through 21 pages :D

Just read most of these 20+ pages at 3am. It seems I need to reasses my life choices.

Much of this thread was people talking past each other. No good discussion can take place when people are using differing definitions. That and there was some definite sh*t stirring going on by persons unnamed lol. Funny thread though.

Before we revive this topic perhaps we should come to an agreement on what is meant by lobbing vs. flatlining.

To me lobbing is a considerable arc at lower distances.Flatlining would be lower trajectory at those same distances. Flatlining does NOT mean all out balls to the wall throws as you would in raw distance slinging. This was one of the false assumptions being made and it distracts from the issue.

As was brought up multiple times in this thread erroneously, lobbing has NOTHING to do with how hard a stone is hitting. Yes we can all find a way to throw a massive stone slow and it’s going to hit like a truck, still lobbing.. This is a speed issue and I have no idea why so much emphasis was put on impact when that has nothing to do with whether a shot is lobbed or flatlined. The question here is speed and how much or little trajectory is going on and if there’s any benefit from one way or the other.

The lobbers in this threads main point was that you can be more accurate with it than flatlining. They kept wanting to say you lose accuracy throwing 100% which might be true but is aside from the point since flatlining does not require 100% of your power. Never has.

To me it really comes down to just a few things- One, if power is the question, do both sides have enough power to kill? Yes, good moving on, nothing else needs be said about power.

Two, does slow throwing, high arcing at short distance throws (lobbing) offer an advantage in accuracy over slinging at say 75- 80% of full power? I’ve seen no proof of that. We’ve seen excellent slingers of both varieties.

Three, if lobbing doesn’t offer a provable definitive benefit does flatlining offer any? I would say yes, a few that are objectively provable. For example on a moving target it’s easier to hit if you don’t have to lead as far. Less arc so less potential for missing in elevation. And in hunting less time for an animal to react and move. Believe it or not I’ve had many a squirrel dodge out of the way of a stone that was flying towards it. It happens, so something to keep in mind.

Anyways those are just some points that came to mind. My opinion is that within a certain range you can be just as accurate throwing with less arc vs more arc. I’ve seen good examples of both. But one thing is for sure this thread didn’t change many minds. The best thing it offers is some very subtle and not so subtle trolling. Well done gents, 10/10.  ;D

Clearly there is a definition problem when lobs and flat shots are both on the same continuum. The other problem is all of the highschool-level physics is a major distraction. Oversimplification, followed by red herrings about wind resistance and aerodynamics conversations that have nothing to do with the question.

Here’s my suggested compromise: You’ve got two hands. Most of us own two slings... how about both at the same time? (We DEFINITELY need a debate about whether long slings or short slings or one of each will be best for this ;D)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery#MRSI

This sounds even more challenging than the nail challenge!

... and to satisfy Morphy’s love for subtle trolling, I suggest that we honor the original thread by naming this new online challenge “the lobber-whanger-cornhole challenge”

Any takers?

It depends how hard you want to hit something. Hit a bird full strength 30 feet up a tree and you won't be eating it afterwards, it will probably explode.

But if you're trying to save yourself from a pack of stray dogs, then full strength is the way to go.

Back in the day, I was just struck by Balearic dudes shooting slower and in arcs; and I was annoyed by the wangers saying that their way was the true way to sling. Besides, as a slinger I like a good windup.

Thearos wrote on Nov 1^st, 2020 at 3:48am:

I was annoyed by the wangers saying that their way was the true way to sling.

I'm with you, when slinging for fun I want to throw as hard as I can. I'm not very experienced with target shooting though, there must a be a good reason they do it.

When I straightline I shoot with my back turned to the target ("Makron style", as this community unanimously agreed to call it), and a sudden explosive unwinding of the body towards target. The extra-long acceleration path gets good accuracy but strains my elbow (already left delicate by fencing).

When I lob (shoot heavy and controlled), that spares my joints but requires a lot of precise style and timing in order to avoid slack / lag.

The whole debate about delivery of energy was in reply to people saying that it was not "real slinging" in historical terms.

Flatlining, lobbing?
What the hock does any of that mean?

It's funny I understand both but defining is a little difficult. Flatlining is throwing hard and in line with the ground. A lob is more of an arc I would say. As if you're throwing over something like a fence. A lob has a much higher point of release.

point of release depends on the actual throwing style.

For ,lobbing underhand is easily the best.

Great for heavier stones and clearing obstacles - like barricades or castle walls.

Like most things - it's horses for courses.

use the style and method that fits the situation.

One reason it pays to learn and practice with lots of different styles and not just get locked into helicopter or balearic sidearm or fig 8 for that matter.

Each throwing style has it's pros and cons - so why limit yourself to just one ?

By that definition I prefer flatlining but I am only able to do that with small dense projectiles. It just feels so much nicer but it is impossible to do with larger projectiles.

Your servant, carefully dropping a stone on target (technique much improved after tutorials with Aussie, God rest his soul).

---

I am starting to get a love again for ''whanging'' which means lighter projectiles for me ~75g
Archery is taking more of my focus lately, and the slow speed of heavy stones have become an unpleasing sight in comparison to the fast flight of arrows. So I have turned to making my clay glandes around 75g and now they are ''bullets'' flying as fast/faster then arrows. Which I like.

The upsides of being able to carry twice the usual amount I can and being able to make my slings more petite are also nice

Reading a little bit back in this thread. I think shattering of stone is not a good indication of power level. Stones thrown against steel are prone to shatter, even  a hand throw can shatter a stone. It very much depends on the type of stone and the back stop. Stones slung against firm steel backstop should pulverize and not shatter, then you can say they are powerful shots.

So even weak throws against a steel plate tied to a wooden backstop can make it seem powerful than it is, because the power required to shatter is not very high and the noise of a stone hitting steel is very loud.

I think you are right that it comes down to personal preference and opinion J.
I have days when I am extremely accurate and consistent with “whangers”, and others where a relaxed toss is going to hit the mark... but rarely both on the same day. That means both are possible depending on how you want to sling and what the goal is. The whole debate on both sides is anecdotal, and I could argue for and against both sides on different days from personal experience.

I think it was Paul Harrell who said, “If you’re only half right, you’re 100% wrong.”

I don't like reading so much nonsense anymore.  Power.  Power.  Power.  An average shooter is able to sling kill without much problem.  Don't break all stones.  Even on did not steal.  Shoot lime or sandstone and you have crumbs afterwards.  Even concrete breaks.  But there are types of granite that do not break.  I prefer a reddish granite from Norway.  Here you can find this stone at the Baltic Sea and North Sea.  I drive 300 km for it.  I shoot a lot.  I need stones.  last a long time.  This granite does not exist in the Balearic Islands.  I might break two of them a year.  Luis didn't manage to break these stones either.  We tried several times.  Just stop talking about power.  Show your skills with the sling.

Oh Jaegoor... you always say the same thing about being tired of silly and meaningless debates. You even make big announcements about going back to play in your own sandbox... but you still come back again and respond to the nonsense.

What’s the purpose of announcing how tired of it you are? That just draws more attention to it. I’m starting to think you enjoy complaining because it’s an opportunity to point out how much of an expert you are.

Oh yeah, I keep saying it over and over.  Nothing new is coming either.  Always the same talk.  But where are the results?  Where are the super slingers with endless power.  I do not see her.  Do you.  What I do in my sandpit is my business.  I'm sure I shoot more there than most of the people here.  Does that make me an expert?  It certainly doesn't make me worse.  And I certainly don't have to hide.

It’s ok if people are wrong, and it’s ok if they have strong opinions about things that aren’t important to you. This is the Internet. Complaining about it doesn’t make a difference or make it better.

You don’t have to hide, and I don’t think anyone wants you to, but we already know that you think your ways are the best.   That’s ok. You have developed your ideas by testing them over many years, and you can support your opinions with skills.  There’s nothing wrong with confidence as long as it doesn’t become arrogance, but you should give other people a chance to figure things out for themselves too.  Other people may have different conclusions from different experiences, and that doesn’t always mean you are right and they are wrong. They might be wrong, or you might be... but it could also mean that the two sides are talking about completely different things.

On the subject of power, there are a lot of different interpretations of what it means.

I think “power” really means “kinetic energy” most of the time. Power in does not mean more kinetic energy out, which is a point you have made many times Jaegoor. I agree 100%

People feel like they are throwing with more “power” because they put more effort in, but if the motion is inefficient, the projectile energy is not greater than a skilled throw that appears to require less effort.

“Power” may also mean the effect of the projectile on the target. The effect of a lightweight bullet moving fast is different from the effect of a heavy slower projectile with the same kinetic energy. The effect also depends on the target, the shape of the bullet, the angle of the collision... und so weiter.
This has all been discussed before. My only point is that we should clarify what we are arguing over before we start to debate.

Lobbing or whanging is determind by the size of my projectile, the size of my projectile against determines what type of sling I use.

For 250g rocks I naturally use a more controlled and moderate lob and a beefy sling for stabilityb

But if I use 75g biconicals (pic below), than my sling of choice is lighter and more aerodynamic, and whanging just makes sense. These things fly like a laser when you put your power in them. Whatever you're throwing at will have no time to dodge, lest see the projectile in flight.

---

Oh good. A non-controversial thread.

Nice ammo by the way J. I bought several clay rollers from CA. I plan on getting them out soon and putting them through their paces. Is that how you made that one?

It’s not controversial as long as you understand that I’m always right Morphy ;D

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2021 at 7:44pm:

It’s not controversial as long as you understand that I’m always right Morphy ;D

Out of the many thousands of posts I've made, with let's face it, at least half being in sarcasm or apathy, I can't be bothered to reread this whole thread and see why the title brings such a visceral reaction. But if you tell me you are part of said reaction I will take your word on it my good man and admit you are right on whatever dumpster fire this thread is.  :)

I would have to go back and look to see if I ever even took a side.  I don't think I did.  [update: I read back 3 pages and no... I never took a side]. 

I think I agree with Jaegoor that this is a rather silly and pointless argument on both sides overall.  The very idea of "sides" is even silly, since how hard you throw is a continuum.  It appears to be a bunch of people arguing back and forth without actually being clear on what anybody is really arguing about.

What visceral reaction are you referring to? A specific one? or the general tone of the thread?

 

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2021 at 10:37pm:

I would have to go back and look to see if I ever even took a side.  I don't think I did.  [update: I read back 3 pages and no... I never took a side].  I think I agree with Jaegoor that this is a rather silly and pointless argument on both sides overall.  The very idea of "sides" is even silly, since how hard you throw is a continuum.  It appears to be a bunch of people arguing back and forth without actually being clear on what anybody is really arguing about. What visceral reaction are you referring to? A specific one? or the general tone of the thread?

I honestly can't remember lol. Obviously not a strong enough reaction to bother rereading it. Certain subjects definitely ring a bell though so it's either this thread or one like it.

It really depends what my end goal is.

It's usually only one of three goals, smashing a big rock into something with a satisfying noise and chips flying all over the place and wanton destruction in mind. In which case I throw as hard as I can.

Or hitting something specific and smaller than a car, in which case I throw the same, but with both eyes open.

Lastly on rare occasions when I'm seriously trying to teach the kids or in the front yard where it matter where the projectile ends up I throw a bit softer.

Because of COVID I haven't been able to sling for a while. Since I started this thread a while ago, I did find a way of shooting flat  by putting in a lot of power, but it stresses my elbow a lot, esp. if this ammo is heavy. I prefer to lob, but the problem is how to avoid slack in the release, which is bad form and wastes energy. 

Thearos wrote on Jan 4^th, 2021 at 5:49am:

Because of COVID I haven't been able to sling for a while. Since I started this thread a while ago, I did find a way of shooting flat  by putting in a lot of power, but it stresses my elbow a lot, esp. if the ammo with heavy. I prefer to lob, but the problem is how to avoid slack in the release, which is bad form and wastes energy.

If you throw using the kung-fu meteor hammer style, you can use light ammo and get a flat shot at high velocities without straining the joints, because the velocity comes from a rapidly decreasing radius of rotation during the throw... a little like a compound sling.


...also, you will look ridiculous and won't have any accuracy :whistle:

Since I moved this summer and have a bigger back yard, I adopted a routine that lets me develop both.  I have a hanging target in the middle of the yard and from the edge closest to the house, I shoot tennis balls at the target.  Since I miss a lot, they scatter at the back area of the yard.

I used to collect them all at the back and shoot at the target again.  That's a lot of collecting.

Now I have a tupperware tub at my original firing line and sling the balls underhanded trying to drop them into the tub.  Since they collect and don't scatter, I'm all set for the next round of direct firing.

The strange thing is that I drop them into the tub at a longer distance with plunging fire much more often than I hit the closer target with direct fire.  Go figure.

Sir Missalot wrote on Jan 8^th, 2021 at 4:21pm:

I used to collect them all at the back and shoot at the target again.  That's a lot of collecting.

We solved that here by having someone stand in front of the target to catch the balls and throw them back.

https://youtu.be/j6Cpm2LBdWs

Kilisi I was just looking at your vertical style and was reminded of this ancient Greek guy:

---

For me, I lob when warming up and when going for maximum close-range accuracy, but other than that, it's better to train power and accuracy together in my opinion. Little effort is needed to throw full power with good form. For long range, I'd call it flat-lining into the sky.

People feel like they are throwing with more “power” because they put more effort in, but if the motion is inefficient, the projectile energy is not greater than a skilled throw that appears to require less effort.

So for me this is what I term efficiency and a highly efficient throw is one of the big keys to accuracy in my opinion. At least with the figure-8. As is slow, higher torque motion vs faster, lower torque.


My only point is that we should clarify what we are arguing over before we start to debate.

Cmon man...you know we like to get a thread warmed up before deciding what we are arguing about.

On an unrelated note Ive posted a lot today. And since I have absolutely no shame, I will continue to do so until people die and give me something to do. That being said if I am posting a lot that means people in my city are generally having a decent day. So in a way...my posting...saves lives...ish.
You may all take a turn staring in awestruck wonder at my magnificence.

Morphy wrote on Jan 28^th, 2021 at 5:26pm:

People feel like they are throwing with more “power” because they put more effort in, but if the motion is inefficient, the projectile energy is not greater than a skilled throw that appears to require less effort. So for me this is what I term efficiency and a highly efficient throw is one of the big keys to accuracy in my opinion. At least with the figure-8. As is slow, higher torque motion vs faster, lower torque.

Absolutely. Tennis balls don't fly that far so I can get the same range by putting my body into the shot with power as I can by restricting myself to only using my arm.

So... I’ve been practicing two styles a lot in the last couple months with tennis balls... my best is Byzantine. It’s a whole-body motion similar to a baseball pitch, and it flies flat and hits hard. Using a 2’x3’ target with a 12” bullseye  (slightly smaller than Balearic)  at ~10m, I am hitting 8/10 times and hit a bullseye about 1/10 shots

The second style is Balearic sidearm without a power stroke... meaning the rotation speed of the windup is the same as the throw. After the Byzantine it feels super weird to throw so casually.  It’s a lob for sure. My form needs a lot of work, but I am hitting 6/10 and probably 1/20 are bullseyes. With practice I think my stats will improve to as good or better than Byzantine.

Same sling. Same ammo. Same target. Same distance. I’m getting reasonably accurate with both a lob and a “whanger” style even if I alternate between them.

For short range accuracy...Which is better?  Which ever one you practice the most. That’s my theory.

I agree. But I still like whangin'. Plus it's fun to say.

IronGoober wrote on Jan 28^th, 2021 at 8:11pm:

I agree. But I still like whangin'. Plus it's fun to say.

Exactly!  That’s why I am trying to get good at both ;D

SerKraus wrote on Jan 28^th, 2021 at 7:01pm:

Morphy wrote on Jan 28th, 2021 at 5:26pm: People feel like they are throwing with more “power” because they put more effort in, but if the motion is inefficient, the projectile energy is not greater than a skilled throw that appears to require less effort. So for me this is what I term efficiency and a highly efficient throw is one of the big keys to accuracy in my opinion. At least with the figure-8. As is slow, higher torque motion vs faster, lower torque. Absolutely. Tennis balls don't fly that far so I can get the same range by putting my body into the shot with power as I can by restricting myself to only using my arm.

You bet and "I" bet it took you a fraction of the time to figure that out as it did me. I think I was 20 years into this game before beginning to understand what was going on.  Makes a huge difference though in your ability to fine tune shot placement. Correct ammo weight in proportion to your sling and throw does as well. The difference for me anyways in accuracy between something like tennis balls or golf balls vs my preferred 4.5 oz ammo is night and day.

   This lobbing vs throwing question sort of reminds me of another one sometimes asked here:  Which is more important, power or accuracy?  The answer is the same to both questions.  You need both.

Morphy wrote on Jan 29^th, 2021 at 2:03pm:

SerKraus wrote on Jan 28th, 2021 at 7:01pm: Morphy wrote on Jan 28th, 2021 at 5:26pm: People feel like they are throwing with more “power” because they put more effort in, but if the motion is inefficient, the projectile energy is not greater than a skilled throw that appears to require less effort. So for me this is what I term efficiency and a highly efficient throw is one of the big keys to accuracy in my opinion. At least with the figure-8. As is slow, higher torque motion vs faster, lower torque. Absolutely. Tennis balls don't fly that far so I can get the same range by putting my body into the shot with power as I can by restricting myself to only using my arm. You bet and "I" bet it took you a fraction of the time to figure that out as it did me. I think I was 20 years into this game before beginning to understand what was going on.  Makes a huge difference though in your ability to fine tune shot placement. Correct ammo weight in proportion to your sling and throw does as well. The difference for me anyways in accuracy between something like tennis balls or golf balls vs my preferred 4.5 oz ammo is night and day.

Tennis balls have limits for long-distance shots, but the fact that they catch so much wind acually makes them good for trick shots where you put some english on the ball... which I, um, totally do on purpose every time, because... yeah...  that ball was definitely heading straight for the bullseye until it curved off at the last second.  That's exactly what I wanted it do to.  yeah. :)

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Jan 29^th, 2021 at 3:07pm:

Morphy wrote on Jan 29th, 2021 at 2:03pm: SerKraus wrote on Jan 28th, 2021 at 7:01pm: Morphy wrote on Jan 28th, 2021 at 5:26pm: People feel like they are throwing with more “power” because they put more effort in, but if the motion is inefficient, the projectile energy is not greater than a skilled throw that appears to require less effort. So for me this is what I term efficiency and a highly efficient throw is one of the big keys to accuracy in my opinion. At least with the figure-8. As is slow, higher torque motion vs faster, lower torque. Absolutely. Tennis balls don't fly that far so I can get the same range by putting my body into the shot with power as I can by restricting myself to only using my arm. You bet and "I" bet it took you a fraction of the time to figure that out as it did me. I think I was 20 years into this game before beginning to understand what was going on.  Makes a huge difference though in your ability to fine tune shot placement. Correct ammo weight in proportion to your sling and throw does as well. The difference for me anyways in accuracy between something like tennis balls or golf balls vs my preferred 4.5 oz ammo is night and day. Tennis balls have limits for long-distance shots, but the fact that they catch so much wind acually makes them good for trick shots where you put some english on the ball... which I, um, totally do on purpose every time, because... yeah...  that ball was definitely heading straight for the bullseye until it curved off at the last second.  That's exactly what I wanted it do to.  yeah. :)

Whiffle balls do too. At one time I was making spherical glandes that would fly out  and then steeply arc upwards with correct or rather incorrect palm position.

As far as you missing I am not understanding what's going on. You are naming the target after the throw right? I don't think I've ever missed a target with a sling...

Yeah. Of course. Every target is always named Candace. I’m not sure what’s going wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTCwUJZZWI0&t=1m30s