I was just wondering does anyone else practice their aim with indirect shots. I have always and practice that way more than straight shots. My straight shots are good, but my indirect are starting to really kick ass. I like that kind of practice because I can work on distance and aim at the same time. I usually sling at a floating barrel. At 50 metres my shots almost always land within half a metre of the target,100 metres within one metre, and within  1.5 metres at 150-200 metres. They seem like they come down with crazy power at that range. They pick up spped on the arc down and cut into the water with almost no splash. (with six ounce football shaped rocks)

I've got a friend that practices that way almost exclusively.  We all stink at it.

I've heard Canada geese are really tasty, albeit a bit greasy. Here in the Chesapeake bay, they used to be a big food item, sort of like crabs, in a way. Ducks and geese were commonly hunted here, by men in skiffs with shotguns that would put an 8 guage to shame. I've heard many stories about men hunting ducks on a moonless night, slowly paddling towards them in the skiff, then firing the gun, having the muzzle blast  illuminate the entire scene for a second of a couple of dozen ducks or geese being shot at once, and then tipping the boat with the force of the recoil. They would use bags of pine straw packed against the back of the boat to soften the recoil from blasting the stern of the boat out. I've slung at geese at my university, but only half honestly. I mean, what would I do with a 10 pound goose if I hit it? I'm not that hungry, and besides, I have no way of preparing it, and there are too many people around to sneak it off, and I'm pretty sure hunting on university ground is illegal, slightly more so than my bringing a weapon on school grounds. right?

I have skipped rocks across the salt river.  Sidearm style is best for this.

I find that they do have massive power with that kind of arc.

Matthias

The numbers that you great software delivers are very interesting. As 61m/s is the velocity to get a range of 400 in the vacuum and as you compute a range of 250m for a starting velocity of 60m/s, that means we have a lost of 150/400=37%. For higher ranges one needs even higher starting velocities but the air drag is also higher. So I guess that to reach a range of 400m/s one probably needs a starting velocity of the magnitude 100m/s. And that is nearly 1/3 of the velocity for the slowest gun bullets!

What is the starting velocity you actually compute for a range 400m/s ?

I would also be interested in what starting velocities I use for my target shooting. My ranges are rather very modest. If I would use my styles for range I would get something between 50 and 100m. So I’m interested in the corresponding starting velocities for ranges of 50m, 75m and 100m when using bullets of the type you already used in you computation (density=2500kg/m^3, 120g, but round instead of ellipsoid).

(What I didn’t understand is that you speek of „a 120g golf ball size stone". I have a golf ball with a weight of 45g. Are there golf balls with different densities ?...)

Thanks a lot in advance !

Looking awesome Matthias!!  Let us know when the software is complete!

Chris

Wow Matthias!
Absolutly great work! I have recently pick up a new style I call hyper aceleration. This is nothing more than using the wrist to twirl the sling really fast a couple of times before release. After I calmed down the wild shot's caused by this style. I found that my short shot's,
(under fifty yards) had much greater power. This was indicated to me by the fact that may clay glands that used to indent and bounce of my arrow rest target now penitrate and some times go though. I never thought about increased distance. You now have me very excited. This weekend I head to my distance practice grounds. Armed with a 120 gram golf balls
thanks matthias