Talk:Sling (weapon)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Links[edit]

Hello, I'd like to see added to this page the following links: http://funditor.110mb.com/sling2.html as How To Make Your Own Sling and http://funditor.110mb.com/KeyChain_Sling.html as Keychain Sling, a How-to

Both of these sites provide further information on slings and have been embraced by many in the slinging community (As moderator on slinging.org, I know this well!). They will, in many cases, be celebrated by the Wikipedia reader who finds them. Therefore, I ask: Does anyone object to their inclusion in the external links section? CanDo 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. I think this is a good idea.[reply]

The site has Google ads (and you've canvassed numerous other pages petitioning it's inclusion). Please do not add it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ellipsoidal projectiles[edit]

Re: "The reason why the almond shape was favoured is not clear: it is possible that there is some aerodynamic advantage, but it seems equally likely that there is some more prosaic reason such as the shape being easy to extract from a mould or that it will rest in a sling cradle with little danger of rolling out."

An ellipsoidal projectile will 'roll out' of the sling in much the same way an American football is thrown by a competent quarterback - the sling spins the bullet, enhancing range and accuracy. As a side-benefit, the bullet would hit point-first, maximizing the force of the striking surface. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ochre24 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2006 October 18 (UTC)

The problem of rolling out refers to a bullet that is resting in a sling cradle. A cradle is typically diamond shaped and will wrap around a bullet such that a long elipsoid is unlikely to come out but a sphere could roll out of one of the open ends.
Just what happens when an ellipsoidal projectile is thrown has been much discussed on the slinging.org forum. Some experimenters certainly reported spinning, but could not confirm that it spins in the way you suggest -- ie point first. Personally, I find it hard to see how that would happen. Gaius Cornelius 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From personal experience, the spin imparted to a projectile is determined by the orientation of the sling, which in turn is (mostly) controlled by the slinger. Proper technique allows one to impart a football spin to a projectile with good repeatability; improper technique allows the sling to twist and the projectile may spin any which way. --Swwright 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An oblong projectile makes a whrrrr!-ing sound as it hurtles through the air, especially when a sidearm throw is used. The sound emphasizes the great speed of the sling bullet, and would confer some psychological impact on the intended human target. These stones are really going to clobber you! CarlDrews (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armour penetration[edit]

RE: "Ancient authors seemed to believe, incorrectly, that sling-bullets could penetrate armour... ... it seems likely that the authors were indicating that slings could cause injury through armour by a percussive effect rather than by penetration."

Citation needed, indeed.

A lead projectile, shaped like an American football (spinning - using the same physics), hurled with great force (multiplied by the action of the sling), hitting a bronze helmet or breastplate, *would* penetrate said armor, and easily. I believe that there was confirmation of this on a cable television program (on either the Military Channel or History Channel). Early firearms, using round shot with only slightly-higher flight speeds, could penetrate iron and steel aromor.

Discussion? Confirmation? Mythbusting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ochre24 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2006 October 18 (UTC)

The ancients certainly did belive those things about lead sling-bullets although I don't have a citation to hand. I don't know of any ancient evidence that sling bullets actually did go through armour. Sling wounds are rarely mentioned, Julius Ceasar tells of a badly wounded centurion hit in the face although that was not through armour. I have seen lead sling-bullets failing to make much impact on reproduction shields, although I appreciate that that is a bit different to armour. If there has been some experimental archeology, then I would be very interested to hear about it although that is unlikely to settle the issue - compare with the argument that rage over the longbow! There are some figures for velocities of comparable weapons in "The Balistics of the Sling", I don't have my copy to hand, but from what I can recall even the earliest firearms achived much higher velocities than the sling. Gaius Cornelius 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found the reference I had in mind: Thom Richardson, Ballistic Testing of Historical Weapons Royal Armouries Yearbook, Volume 3 1998, p50-52. Various sling and bullet combinations achieved about 30 m/s and were completely resisted by a 2mm plate. A medieval handgun with a 50gr charge which produced a velocity of 180 m/s and was the least effective of all the guns tried. An arquebus with a 50gr charge produced a velocity of 378 m/s and easily penetrated two 2mm plates clamped together, the same weapon with a 90gr charge achieved 520 m/s and just failed to penetrate a 6mm steel plate. Gaius Cornelius 20:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-inserted the "citation needed" on it being incorrect that a sling could penetrate armour as no citation is present (despite this discussion) and the examples given are insufficient to support a claim that slings can't penetrate armour. "Armour" is a vague term and could mean anything from hardened leathers or thin hammered bronze to the more modern armours of the time of the authors (like the roman lorica); variation in quality of metals might well allow some armours to be penetrated. Looking at bronze armour, the plates in achaean armour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendra_panoply) were ~1mm thick, which is bronze and half the thickness of the plates tested in the above mentioned study. Virgil's writing (quoted in that section) is recounting a much earlier tale, and it's entirely possible that slings at that time could penetrate the available armours. I haven't seen testing, but 30 m/s is quite slow for a sling; I believe you can hit twice that speed (4 times the energy); indeed, the world record distance would require a launch velocity of nearly 70 m/s ignoring the effects of air resistance, so the initial velocity was likely well over 70 m/s. --Synaptophysin (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should move "Kestros" info to its own page[edit]

The section on the "Kestros" here has more info than on the actual Kestros page. All we really need is a brief mention of it, and "Kestros" needs a lot of the info that can only be found here. If somebody's better at cutting and pasting than I am . . .

It really belongs, I think, in a catapult article. It's not really a sling as such.

Kortoso (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the same as the Swiss arrow? A little adult attention to that article wouldn't hurt. Kortoso (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melting projectiles[edit]

A citation has been called for, concerning this sentence: "In the latter case we may imagine that they were impressed by the degree of deformation suffered by lead sling-bullet after hitting a hard target." I have found several sources of information concerning this, two of antiquity and one modern. I will give the citations and then ask how best to add them, because I am rather new here...

Lucretius, in his "On the Nature of Things", says (in William Ellery Leonard's translation): "A leaden ball, hurtling through length of space, / Even melts." Virgil also says something about this in the Aeneid (John Dryden's translation): "Him when he spied from far, the Tuscan king / Laid by the lance, and took him to the sling, / Thrice whirl'd the thong around his head, and threw: / The heated lead half melted as it flew; / It pierc'd his hollow temples and his brain; / The youth came tumbling down, and spurn'd the plain." These two translations are available at The Internet Classics Archive (http://classics.mit.edu/index.html).

The modern source is a member of an internet forum devoted to slinging. I know him only as "AjlouniBoy" which is his username at Slinging.org. He has himself slung an lead fishing weight against a concrete block; the impact seriously deformed the projectile and generated enough heat to be noticeable. His message on this subject is at http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1130967387.

So, how do I get this information into the article? Just start writing? Add footnotes? Thanks in advance for your advice and assistance! --Swwright 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swwright: Thanks for your contribution. Wikipedia encourages users to be bold. So, do please go ahead and have a go. Experienced editors will be pleased to help out with any problems you may have. Footnotes can be a bit complex, you probably will need some help with that. Gaius Cornelius 18:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement, Gaius Cornelius. Bold it is, then! I added three footnotes about lead glandes melting in flight, citing Lucretius and Virgil and a modern slinger of my acquaintance, and a new "Footnotes" section. I also removed the {{fact}} tag. --Swwright 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing image: David_gegen_Goliath.jpg[edit]

Well, here we go again. This is the second time I have tried to deal with this. A brief recounting of the first time: I could not see the image, so I linked in a different image. Gaius Cornelius reverted my edit, and we eventually determined that the image was still there (in the Commons) but for some unknown reason my PC would not display it. Gaius Cornelius was right to revert my change.

Now, I see a red link File:David gegen Goliath.jpg where the picture ought to be. I looked in the Commons, and did not find the image. A Google search of the Commons turned up a page that stated the image does not exist, but might once have existed, and gave a link to the deletion log: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:David_gegen_Goliath.jpg

I have placed a message about this in the talk page of Scriberius, who uploaded that image to the Commons.

There is another copy of the image, located here at the English Wikipedia. It is Image:DavidAndGoliath.jpg and I think it looks about the same as David_gegen_Goliath.jpg (I compared the two back when David_gegen_Goliath.jpg still existed):

File:DavidAndGoliath.jpg

Should the above image be linked into the article, to replace the now-deleted image? Or should we wait until Scriberius tells us whether he can restore the old image? — SWWrightTalk 07:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have admin rights. Also, there is no souce given on en so it will not live too long here. Someone needs to scan a picture which is old enough for pd-old... Scriberius 11:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image I linked to, above, has been on the English Wikipedia site for three years, so I figure it will stay.
It would be nice to know where the image came from, however. Scriberius, you originally uploaded this image, if I recall. Do you know the original source? Did you scan it from a book, or did you find it already in digital form? Thanks! — SWWrightTalk 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Scriberius responded in his talk page, and (if I understood him correctly) he uploaded the image from the English Wikipedia to the Commons. So the one shown above is the original digital form. I guess I need to find out who uploaded it and ask them where they got it... — SWWrightTalk 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Information[edit]

In the section on construction, the text says that braided cords improve the design of a sling because they resist twisting, while later in that section, it mentions that braided cords improve the design by not stretching.

Theoretically, a braided cord would be more likely to stretch than a twisted cord simply by the nature of how a braid is made.

Can anybody take a look over that (the entire section could use a good reworking, really, as it seems very informal and conversational)? ~ Caejis (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re-write[edit]

This passage sounds like a dialogue and needs a knowledgeable re-write: An archer can easily shoot from behind protection or fortification — including downwards from the top of a wall — whereas a slinger must expose his person to the missiles of the enemy - not true, an experienced slinger could easily arc his stone over any intervening object. An arrow is more likely to penetrate armours or shields due to its sharp point, but a sling could do damage to relatively soft armor (such as quilted cloth) by percussive force without the need to break the surface of the armor itself. It has been said that to achieve range and accuracy with a sling required a long period of training. However, this is probably no more the case than for the bow, and when the target was a mass formation great accuracy was probably not so essential. This is incorrect - accuracy with a sling is usually only acquired after several years of use - accuracy with a bow can be achieved in a matter of days. — Robert Greer

I certainly agree that some expert input, not to mention some cited sources would be very welcome here. I guess that the point about fortification is that a slinger needs to move his entire body to sling - at least this is true if the sling is to be used to maximum effect. As a re-enactor, I have had a go at slinging; I am certainly no expert, but would think that it is difficult to sling out of a narrow window or between crenelations and very difficult to aim for a particular target under some circumstances. Also, while it is faily easy to imagine an archer to lean out to take a downward shot from a window or crenelation, it is difficult to imagine how a slinger would shoot effectively at such an angle. In any case, there are certainly plenty of ancient illustrations of archers shooting from fortifications, but I don't recall seeing any of slingers. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ditto[edit]

Ditto this caption, "A Tibetan girl slings a small rock towards a herd of goats." Why would what appears to be a shepherdess be stonging her own goats? — Robert Greer (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think this highlights something that is missing from the article: the sling as a tool. The reason why a stone would be thrown towards - but not actually at - goats is to heard them. It is my understanding that this is main reason why communities of herders produce famously good slingers. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any sources, perhaps something like that should be worked in somewhere? That little bit is actually quite interesting, in regards to the usage of slings. --Caejis (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Removed paragraph[edit]

I've removed the following paragraph, since it reads like it was written by about 3 different editors having a disagreement. I would have tried to tidy it up, but without the citations of any of their arguments, its difficult to see what their point was. 82.69.37.32 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, some modern historians have posited that unlike archers, it was probably difficult to deploy slingers in very close formation because each man requires a significant space in the line of battle and slingers cannot easily be deployed in multiple ranks. Historian Arther Ferrill has attempted to contradict this proposition by pointing out that the underhand technique (see "How to Sling" section below) would have allowed a slinger to swing his sling within a space not much larger than one needed by an archer or a comparable missile-armed warrior, and the debate remains largely unresolved to this day.
There is an overhand slinging technique called 'figure 8' that allows for an accurate and powerful sling throw in a limited space. With a relatively short sling and ideal ammunition fig 8 is good for 300 metres plus. Given that most slingers engaged in battle would have been very experienced in a variety of throwing styles it is extremely likely and possible that slingers were deployed in ranks and while needing a little more room than an archer would not have required so much as to make it impractical.
Underhand sling styles tend to be fairly low powered and relatively inaccurate.
An archer can easily shoot from behind protection or fortification — including downwards from the top of a wall — whereas a slinger must expose his person to the missiles of the enemy - not true, an experienced slinger could easily arc his stone over any intervening object. An arrow is more likely to penetrate armours or shields due to its sharp point, but a sling could do damage to relatively soft armor (such as quilted cloth) by percussive force without the need to break the surface of the armor itself. It has been said that to achieve range and accuracy with a sling required a long period of training. However, this is probably no more the case than for the bow, and when the target was a mass formation great accuracy was probably not so essential. This is incorrect - accuracy with a sling is usually only acquired after several years of use - accuracy with a bow can be achieved in a matter of days.
Except that now the article is quite one-sided. There is no explanation why slings were mostly extinct in the Middle Ages. What was wrong with them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceplm (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sling range[edit]

How far can a slinged stone go?

According the article "In general, a sling bullet lobbed in a high trajectory can achieve ranges approaching 600m". A recent experimental study in the Journal of Archaeological Science suggests skilled Quechua-speaking herders in Puno, Peru using adjacent cobbles could not do more than 130m. New experimental data on the distance of sling projectiles

The statement in the article comes from a paper that is online The Sling in Medieval Europe

Reports of estimated range of the sling varies in recent literature. This may stem from the inability of historians to find individuals who can properly demonstrate the sling. The bow, crossbow and firearm, if operated correctly, will produce the same effect the weapon had hundreds of years ago. However, the sling requires tremendous skill, and only people who have had extensive training can claim to match the ability of ancient slingers. Existing literature quotes ranges as little as 150m to as much as 500m (Demmin, 1964; Hogg, 1968; Korfmann, 1973; Wise, 1976; Connolly, 1981; Ferrill, 1985; Richardson, 1998b). Larry Bray set the Guinness World Record for a stone cast with a sling in 1981, achieving an impressive range of 437m (Norris, 1985). In retrospect, Mr. Bray believes he could have surpassed 600m mark with a better sling and lead projectiles (Bray, Personal Communication, March 21st, 2004). Presumably, professional slingers of antiquity who trained from childhood and relied on the weapon in battle could achieve even greater distances, perhaps approaching 700m.

I am confused since the sources conflict. The text needs to be changed but I am not sure how. --LittleHow (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the citation that says ancient users of slings could launch projectiles 600m is accurate? I'd imagine if the modern world record holder using a modern sling achieved a distance of only 437m back then they couldn't have done much better. --98.201.59.125 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the statistical data reported in New experimental data on the distance of sling projectiles, I do not believe its data should be used for the Wikipedia article except with very careful qualifications. The "New Experimental Data" article did indicate a maximum range of 130m for the Quechua-speaking herders but the data only tells us what the Peruvian herders could do with quickly grabbed stones from the area of the field test. We learn that they tend to grab ellipsoid or elongated projectiles (which somewhat matches with the shape of historic sling bullets) and instinctively tried to be consistent in their stone choices but we know nothing of the weight of the projectiles, how the herders would do with carefully selected sling stones, whether there was any kind of atmospheric variables (altitude, air density, wind, or even if the herders understood the best trajectory or were instinctively sticking to angles that had proven accurate for them in the past). It is hard to compare that to the experiences of ancient and medieval slingers. The authors show a sincere effort to arrive at a statistical sample but simultaneously fail to control for many variables that could have a profound effect on range. Kevin Fastolf (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"60 degrees distance"[edit]

Does anyone have any idea what is meant during Sling Methods when the phrase "60 degrees distance" is used? If so, that person should clarify what is said.

--Heero Kirashami (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

I haven't looked at this article in years. In the intervening years the article has gone from giving roughly comparable weight to the military stave-sling and the David-style sling, as described in the Bible, to devoting almost all its text to the style of sling described in the Bible.

I strongly suspect that the military sling was of greater importance. Geo Swan (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclic slinging disputed[edit]

This was removed from the article:


What's clear is that this method was described in the fictional novel The Clan of the Cave Bear:


What's less clear is whether this method has ever been performed outside of fiction. The folks on the slinging.org forum don't know of any real person who has been able to do it.

If this text is ever put back in the article, it needs a huge {{dubious}} tag on it, unless it has reliable sources. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Way too much opinion and hearsay in this article. It's better to have less material, IMHO. Kortoso (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Possible source for slings in celtic britian[edit]

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/reinvention/issues/volume7issue2/swan/

©Geni (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sling (weapon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further[edit]

[1]: a lot of information comparing early bows, early guns, early crossbows and sling; "Near Eastern armies began supplying their slingers with uniform projectiles, made from baked-clay or carved stone, by the end of the 7th millennium B.C... Slingers could achieve faster “muzzle” velocities than archers,...during the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire in the 15th century, an observer recorded that an Andean slinger could shatter Spanish swords or kill a horse in a single hit...max range is estimated could've been between 50m and 500m, while for crossbows is 350-500m, longbows 275-400m, early composite bow (2nd millennium B.C.) 100-275m" 185.18.60.242 (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do slings actually work[edit]

I can't believe it is as simple as described in the article.

"The sling essentially works as a extension of a human arm. By increasing the length, it allows stones to be thrown much farther and harder than they could be by hand."

I am hoping to pique the interest of someone with a physics/engineering background, in the hopes that a more accurate description of operation can be found.

For a start I believe the effective radius of the sling is decreased during the moments immediately before release, increasing projectile energy.

I would prefer to remain anonymous and simply seed a discussion as this is not really my area of expertise. I hope this isn't too much looked down upon 49.225.148.211 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The effective radius of the sling is decreased a fraction of a second before the release, yes. But even at this decreased effective radius, it's still significantly greater than the effective radius of the human arm itself. 199.192.11.5 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sling_(weapon)&oldid=1212638744"