"The people of Claddage in Ireland in the mid-twentieth century still competed with the sling, saying that to be a good shot one had to 'strike a shilling as far away as it could be seen' (Echols, 1950: 228")

Sounds about right.
If you're not good with a sling, you're never going to hit a 0.92" dia. coin at 100y? If you're skilled, then one could put the shots in the general area and get the hit after a few hundred or thousand throws, after all, no conditions are mentioned (in this excerpt anyway).

Or...
There's thick fog in Claddage.

Archaic Arms wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 6:32pm:

'strike a shilling as far away as it could be seen'

I love this as a concept.  But I think your stated distance of 100 yards is too far.  The closest thing I have readily available to .92" is a quarter (US), which is .96" (according to Google).  There's no way I'm seeing that at 100 yards.  At least not unless there's a backing behind it that makes it very distinct.

That could be an interesting challenge to all.  Put a coin that's of a close size to .92" (2.3 cm) in a natural environment.  How far can you back away and still distinguish it?

Just speaking for myself, I'm totally in agreement with you that a hit on such a small target as far away as I can see would be as much luck as slinging skill.  And that's with the knowledge that in the coin challenge, I got three hits in one session.

Archaic Arms wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 6:32pm:

0.92" dia. coin at 100y+?

sub MOA accuracy :P

I'd say 30m but it is a range that a hand thrower could hit it :-/. The background color is important also
There is no a set distance or a set amount of throws. reminds me of "sling at a hair and not miss." or "hit any part of the face" is there a magic number that everyone agreed upon?

https://web.archive.org/web/20111015232438/http://slinging.org/index.php?page=the-way-of-the-sling---jesus-vega
Quote:

Slingers joined a society or union, and acquired the title of "foner" (slinger) if they passed the following test: fire nine shots hitting each of the crossbars of a traditional gate.

this one includes target and how many tries but not distance


Quote:

But when larger rats would not let smaller rats win once in a while (Panksepp estimated around 30% of the time), the smaller rats would stop playing with them. They no longer wanted to play when it was impossible for them to win, they were fine with losing most of the time, as long as there was a chance they could win.

when playing against another 30% win rate is okay but when competing with yourself or nature I think it can go below 1% and be satisfactory for humans

returned from the range
30m I can see it
60m yes but I think it's a stretch
80m I know where it is by its bigger surroundings and I need glasses to distinguish it
100m I used 6x rangefinder to spot it
at 100m airguns would have trouble hitting especially if you do it with ironsights

P.S.: I used a  ~1" square grey stone with red dirt behind it and the sun on my 8:00

Also I remember years ago reading about english slingers that they didn't miss birds more than a couple of meters at 100m

Sarosh wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 9:11am:

30m I can see it 60m yes but I think it's a stretch 80m I know where it is by its bigger surroundings and I need glasses to distinguish it

That's a good data point.  I'm going to try this as well as soon as I remember to do when I have the time and am outside.

did again the  experiment this time with a coin very similar in size and color to a shilling.
material copper nickel
size 22.5mmØ
I also used a white and a light blue color plastic caps
white is 28.5mmØ
blue is 31mmØ
below there are pictures and the results

I used a laser rangefinder for the distances.
white>coin>blue
@70m there is a hint of a coin with glasses
@56m is the longest I'd shoot with glasses
@25m I can see it with the eye that has astigmatism without glasses

I was in the shadow the sun was on my 11:00

so I'd say they were shooting 30-70m and more probably 50m+-5m
Try it yourself I'd like to know what results others get.

---

Sarosh,  I like the way your mind works. :)

You hear something you're not sure about, so you just put it to the test.

This is excellent data.

Awesome. I didn't know there are slingers in Ireland during the XXe century.
Another country in Europe ?

Well done Sarosh! Certainly a step forward in solving this.

It was cloudy and rainy today, but I went up onto a hill today and wedged a 10 pence coin (silvery and close to shilling-size) into a crack on a flat bench over looking the escarpment. I walked back from the bench until I could hardly see the coin (which was silhouetted by the white sky behind). With the distance measured on Google earth, I found it was about 50y. The coin was shiny so I think if it was tarnished or darker, I would have seen it better.
I will go back on a sunny day and place it in front of a dark background with the sun behind me; this should make it a lot more visible.
As it stands, I think around 50 or 60y is about the practical visible limit, (which fits well with what you found).
Exciting stuff...

joe_meadmaker wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 7:12pm:

But I think your stated distance of 100 yards is too far.

You're definitely right. After testing this in the field, one would need that thing to be shining like a beacon in order to see it...

It's occurred to me that this could be a good, simple ranking system. Stick a stake in the ground that is split at the top to grip a sub-1" dia. coin (US quarter or UK 10p, valid), and set it at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50y. Each increment is different rank, and video proof of hitting it at the given distance, awards you that rank.
What I like about it is that it's not only a very compact and simple setup, but it's historically inspired and a comprehensive display of skill.
Anyone at all interested?

TOMBELAINE wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 1:31pm:

Awesome. I didn't know there are slingers in Ireland during the XXe century. Another country in Europe ?

I know slinging was occasionally a past-time for rural boys in some parts of England (during the same period), but haven't yet heard of anything organised like a competition.

IronGoober wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 1:05pm:

Sarosh,  I like the way your mind works.

Thanks! that's a great compliment!


Archaic Arms wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 2:27pm:

Each increment is different rank, and video proof of hitting it at the given distance, awards you that rank.

that would be interesting to see, all you need is to hit it once while filming, doesnt matter how many tries.

Sarosh wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 4:38pm:

all you need is to hit it once while filming, doesnt matter how many tries.

Agreed. Like the nail challenge! It's essentially a trick-shot, but dumb luck won't get you very far.
I think to be ranked at the further distances, you have to complete the closer ones, then it's less likely to be a fluke.

I think Jaegoor is ranked at 10m or 20m already.

That chart is awesome Sarosh.  I love the idea of trying different colors too.  I'll try to put one together soon.


@Archaic Arms - In the setup of the contest you've described, do you think hitting the stake itself would disqualify a hit?  If not, I imagine a camera would need to be pretty close to confirm the coin is actually being hit too.  Just curious if you were envisioning the coin being knocked off without contacting the stake or not.

joe_meadmaker wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 10:41pm:

I imagine a camera would need to be pretty close to confirm the coin is actually being hit too.

we forgot something, for most cases I'd say beyond 20m 4k won't be enough to capture hitting the coin well enough so the camera has to be behind the coin or have multiple cameras. once again filming complicates things.

joe_meadmaker wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 10:41pm:

@Archaic Arms - In the setup of the contest you've described, do you think hitting the stake itself would disqualify a hit?  If not, I imagine a camera would need to be pretty close to confirm the coin is actually being hit too.  Just curious if you were envisioning the coin being knocked off without contacting the stake or not.

I'm thinking that if the projectile hits within the circumference of the coin, then it counts. Lets say the projectile hits the top of the stake where the coin is attached, if the projectile would have hit the coin (imagine the coin floating in mid-air) then it counts.

There would also have to be a rule regarding projectile size e.g. no bigger than a tennis ball, for example.

Sarosh wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 1:35am:

we forgot something, for most cases I'd say beyond 20m 4k won't be enough to capture hitting the coin well enough so the camera has to be behind the coin or have multiple cameras. once again filming complicates things.

There are three ways this can be overcome.

1st:
Put camera downrange and hope for the best, with risk of seeing something similar to this (followed by permanent darkness):https://youtu.be/rKhcPr1yjEs?t=9
2nd:
Put camera downrange with protection e.g plexiglass or something in that vein
3rd: (and much better solution)
Film through a binocular, monocular, rangefinder, or anything that zooms in objects at a distance. This should work very well as these are not extended ranges, so even a cheap monocular should suffice.

A 4th option could be to put the camera downrange behind a tree or other large obstruction, and turned at an angle so it's facing the target.  If there's a barrier in front of your camera, it won't get hit.  The only problem with this is the barrier will also block the slinger from being in the recording.  So only the actual target hit will be on camera.

Archaic Arms wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 2:08pm:

joe_meadmaker wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 7:12pm: But I think your stated distance of 100 yards is too far.  You're definitely right. After testing this in the field, one would need that thing to be shining like a beacon in order to see it...

Well I'll be damned. Went up on the hill today to do give coin spotting another go, and I put the 10p coin one of the banks of the iron-age hillfort (so it had a dark soil back ground). I walked as far away as I possibly could from it, turned around, and still saw it very clearly. That was at a distance of 125yds (using google earth).
Now I need to find a longer range to see at what distance it actually disappears...

Sorry for the size, but if it's shrunk you won't be able to see the coin.

---

i see it's cloudy, is the sun at your 12:00? was the coin in the shadow or it could reflect the sky?do I need to change glasses? lol

Sarosh wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 3:06pm:

i see it's cloudy, is the sun at your 12:00? was the coin in the shadow or it could reflect the sky?do I need to change glasses? lol

Yes I think the sun was a bit to the left of the brightest part of the sky. The coin was propped up so that it was facing me almost square on (it may have been very slightly tilted back). I have a few more photos.

One taken a bit closer...

---

Well… you can see “something shiny” but if you didn’t already know that coin was there, you wouldn’t be able to identify the target… especially if there are other reflective objects in the environment.

There seems to be a specific need in this case for a more pedantic definition of “see”.

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Nov 12^th, 2021 at 11:24am:

Well… you can see “something shiny” but if you didn’t already know that coin was there, you wouldn’t be able to identify the target… especially if there are other reflective objects in the environment. There seems to be a specific need in this case for a more pedantic definition of “see”.

one definition would be if I can point it to you and you can recognize it and you didn't know I put it there then you can "see" it. Another definition would be yes if you can see it is a coin and not a pebble, but it will be difficult/almost no if you can focus on it but you are not sure what it is. no is if I point it to you and you cannot see it.

there is a curious case when for example you can clearly see a fence but if I tell you to focus on the 50th railing then there is a distance between railings which you can clearly see 50th railing but not focus on it.

If you look up the resolving power of the human eye, it is  about 20 arcsec (from the diffraction limit and the size of the aperture of the human eye, i.e. pupil.) but it is less in actuality due to eye aberrations.  But if we assume 20 arcsec, that's about 2.8e-4° or 9.7e-5 radians.  Using the approximation sin(theta)=theta (i.e. object radius/distance = theta), you can calculate the size of the object that one should be able to see.

So for a 1" coin, --> r=1.27cm, solve for distance, ~13092cm, or 130m.  That is a best case scenario if you had absolutely perfect eyes. It will be much less than that in practice, depending on your eyes, likely 1/2 or a 1/3 of that.

For something that is shiny and that diffusely reflects light, you will be able to make it out just from the reflection, but you won't actually be able to resolve it (i.e make out the shape). You'll only be limited in distance by how low of light intensity you can detect (as the light intensity will fall off 1/r^2). I think that is what you were detecting was the diffusely scattered light from the coin.

Sarosh wrote on Nov 12^th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

here is a curious case when for example you can clearly see a fence but if I tell you to focus on the 50th railing then there is a distance between railings which you can clearly see 50th railing but not focus on it.

This is called "resolution" in optics. You can see something is there, but you can't resolve it (the fence post).

That is what we should use as the definition, is can you resolve the coin. It the scientifically accepted definition when talking astronomy, microscopy, etc.

IronGoober wrote on Nov 12^th, 2021 at 12:24pm:

So for a 1" coin, --> r=1.27cm, solve for distance, ~13092cm, or 130m.  That is a best case scenario if you had absolutely perfect eyes. It will be much less than that in practice, depending on your eyes, likely 1/2 or a 1/3 of that.

40m seems like a sufficient challenge especially considering that the modern competitive definition of a “good shot” is a 50cm Diana at 20m.

Also… what metal was a shilling made from at the time? Copper? If so, then unless it’s polished, you can’t rely on the shiny factor. A nice layer of oxidation would dull the surface.

IronGoober wrote on Nov 12^th, 2021 at 12:24pm:

20 arcsec

that gives us the theoretical limit of accuracy for slingers
so shooting a hair and not miss is an expression unless you are doing it from 1m, because no human eye can see a hair beyond that (?)
I used hair width =0.01cm

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Nov 12^th, 2021 at 3:18pm:

what metal was a shilling made from at the time

copper-nickel and it has silver color

Sarosh wrote on Nov 12^th, 2021 at 3:51pm:

IronGoober wrote on Nov 12th, 2021 at 12:24pm: 20 arcsec that gives us the theoretical limit of accuracy for slingers so shooting a hair and not miss is an expression unless you are doing it from 1m, because no human eye can see a hair beyond that (?) I used hair width =0.01cm

It’s possible that the Benjamite tribe may have had particularly thick hair… so 2-3m? 🤣

It’s pretty clearly a hyperbolic figure of speech.  The term is usually used in the opposite way… “don’t harm a single hair on their head” but you have to consider the size of the ammo too. A fist-sized stone would hit a hair at a longer distance without violating the statement even if it were literal because the ammo size matters more than the thickness of the hair.