# Fastest Tubes?



## PrideProducts (Jan 4, 2012)

hey you guys....
i am starting to get into lopped chinese tubes
and was wondering what are the fastest with 11mm ammo or around that size
also was wondering which are your favourites and why
thanks for the help
chunk


----------



## DracoUltima (Jun 14, 2011)

1842 is generally the go-to tube size for me. I get over 230 fps from most ammo with an 1842 bandset. (18 is the inner diameter in mm , 42 is the overall diameter in mm) I personally don't like shoot to shoot anything bigger than 10 mm (which STILL gets 200+ fps) but I don't think that going 1 mm bigger will make much of a difference. Oh, one more thing to add, Theraband is more efficient and more accurate, however, it can be quite a hassle to change bands on a slingshot. Looped tubes take seconds to change (literally) and are less efficient. Basically, for the same amount of draw weight, flatbands will be faster. Hope I could help a little!


----------



## AJW (Apr 24, 2011)

Look up postings by Henry in Panama. He has done tons of research on tubes, matching each of them with the appropriate ammo and lots of info on lengths to use for your draw. You'll find all the information you need there, including speed you can expect.


----------



## PrideProducts (Jan 4, 2012)

DracoUltima said:


> 1842 is generally the go-to tube size for me. I get over 230 fps from most ammo with an 1842 bandset. (18 is the inner diameter in mm , 42 is the overall diameter in mm) I personally don't like shoot to shoot anything bigger than 10 mm (which STILL gets 200+ fps) but I don't think that going 1 mm bigger will make much of a difference. Oh, one more thing to add, Theraband is more efficient and more accurate, however, it can be quite a hassle to change bands on a slingshot. Looped tubes take seconds to change (literally) and are less efficient. Basically, for the same amount of draw weight, flatbands will be faster. Hope I could help a little!


thanks for the help have you tried 1745
i am wanting to hunt eventually with tubes and want to kill the animal humainly
i am fairly good with TBG and enjoy shoting latex


----------



## PrideProducts (Jan 4, 2012)

AJW said:


> Look up posting by Henry in Panama. He has done tons of research on tubes, matching each of them with the appropriate ammo and lots of info on lengths to use for your draw. You'll find all the information you need there, including speed you can expect.


ok thanks for the help


----------



## pop shot (Sep 29, 2011)

Looped 1745 works well, but I find it heavy to shoot repeatedly/practice for hunting. 1842 is plenty punchy for 11mm. Easier pull, just a tad less power than 1745. Plenty power for pigeons and mongooses


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

the chunkapult man said:


> hey you guys....
> i am starting to get into lopped chinese tubes
> and was wondering what are the fastest with 11mm ammo or around that size
> also was wondering which are your favourites and why
> ...


The fastest Chinese tubes are 2040. They are not the most powerful, though. I found that 2040 outperforms 1842 until you reach about 170 grains of projectile weight. A set of 4 strand 2040 with 11mm lead ammo produced 184 fps for 9.47 lbs/ft of energy at 32 inches draw.. 1842s came in at 177 fps and 8.76 lb/ft of energy. For any ammo weight less than 170 grains, 2040 tubes will produce more speed and energy than 1842. All that said, I have settled on 1842s for my shooting because there have been some quality problems with 2040 and 1842 lasts longer. I cut my tubes to 14 inches and get a bit more than 6.5 inches of loop. At my draw length (about 36 inches) I get consistent 200+ fps with 11mm lead. I have not run any tests on 1745 aside from the early pull weights and velocity measurements with the Dankung OEM tubes.

I have recorded velocities as high as 365 fps** with 2040 (light ammo) and seen power levels of 26 lb/ft with 1842. My 34 year old son put a 12.6 mm lead ball through the green husk, hull and meat of a coconut. There is definitely hunting power available from Chinese tubes.

Here is a link to the series of tests I made.

http://slingshotforu...-chinese-tubes/

**AJW witnessed this.


----------



## PrideProducts (Jan 4, 2012)

pop shot said:


> Looped 1745 works well, but I find it heavy to shoot repeatedly/practice for hunting. 1842 is plenty punchy for 11mm. Easier pull, just a tad less power than 1745. Plenty power for pigeons and mongooses


thank you for the information
I M very grateful


----------



## PrideProducts (Jan 4, 2012)

Henry in Panama said:


> hey you guys....
> i am starting to get into lopped chinese tubes
> and was wondering what are the fastest with 11mm ammo or around that size
> also was wondering which are your favourites and why
> ...


The fastest Chinese tubes are 2040. They are not the most powerful, though. I found that 2040 outperforms 1842 until you reach about 170 grains of projectile weight. A set of 4 strand 2040 with 11mm lead ammo produced 184 fps for 9.47 lbs/ft of energy at 32 inches draw.. 1842s came in at 177 fps and 8.76 lb/ft of energy. For any ammo weight less than 170 grains, 2040 tubes will produce more speed and energy than 1842. All that said, I have settled on 1842s for my shooting because there have been some quality problems with 2040 and 1842 lasts longer. I cut my tubes to 14 inches and get a bit more than 6.5 inches of loop. At my draw length (about 36 inches) I get consistent 200+ fps with 11mm lead. I have not run any tests on 1745 aside from the early pull weights and velocity measurements with the Dankung OEM tubes.

I have recorded velocities as high as 365 fps** with 2040 (light ammo) and seen power levels of 26 lb/ft with 1842. My 34 year old son put a 12.6 mm lead ball through the green husk, hull and meat of a coconut. There is definitely hunting power available from Chinese tubes.

Here is a link to the series of tests I made.

http://slingshotforu...-chinese-tubes/

**AJW witnessed this.
[/quote]hi henry
thank you for the infomation
i will have a good look at your findings now i am on my computer (i was on my ipod before)
one more question when you saya set of 4 strands does that mean 4 on each side or 2 on each side???


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

the chunkapult man said:


> hi henry
> thank you for the infomation
> i will have a good look at your findings now i am on my computer (i was on my ipod before)
> one more question when you saya set of 4 strands does that mean 4 on each side or 2 on each side???


When I say it, it means 2 per side, or standard looped configuration.


----------



## PrideProducts (Jan 4, 2012)

Henry in Panama said:


> hi henry
> thank you for the infomation
> i will have a good look at your findings now i am on my computer (i was on my ipod before)
> one more question when you saya set of 4 strands does that mean 4 on each side or 2 on each side???


When I say it, it means 2 per side, or standard looped configuration.
[/quote]ok thank you


----------



## M.J (Nov 1, 2010)

DracoUltima said:


> Oh, one more thing to add, Theraband is more efficient and more accurate


It's only more effecient if you taper it, in which case longevity suffers in direct proportion to the amount of taper.
And Thera or any flat band is not more inheirently accurate than tubes, which I did my best to prove at this past Summer Nationals.


----------



## PrideProducts (Jan 4, 2012)

M_J said:


> Oh, one more thing to add, Theraband is more efficient and more accurate


It's only more effecient if you taper it, in which case longevity suffers in direct proportion to the amount of taper.
And Thera or any flat band is not more inheirently accurate than tubes, which I did my best to prove at this past Summer Nationals.
[/quote]i think tubes are the way forward as they last longer and i also think they are as acurate as flats
but everyone have there own preferences and opinions


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

M_J said:


> Oh, one more thing to add, Theraband is more efficient and more accurate


It's only more effecient if you taper it, in which case longevity suffers in direct proportion to the amount of taper.
And Thera or any flat band is not more inheirently accurate than tubes, which I did my best to prove at this past Summer Nationals.
[/quote]

And those of us who have discovered the joy of tubing truly appreciate your successful attempt to humble the flatheads.


----------



## pop shot (Sep 29, 2011)

I love shooting tubes. I rarely shoot flats anymore.


----------



## DracoUltima (Jun 14, 2011)

Oh sorry everyone! It's just that I find my flatbands to be much more accurate. Any sort of tubing for me (fixed, looped, etc. ) tends to be..... inaccurate. I can always (most of the time) hit a can at 30 feet with flatbands. With tubular bands, they tend to have random flyers that miss by like a foot roughly a third of the time. Perhaps it's just me but if you guys are doing great with tubes, then that's good for you! I personally prefer flats over tubes but yeah, everyone has their own preferences.


----------



## pop shot (Sep 29, 2011)

I used to feel the same way, then one day it just clicked.


----------



## PrideProducts (Jan 4, 2012)

everyone has there own opinions
i think tubes pull smoothere and feel nicer
but are not as fast


----------



## wombat (Jun 10, 2011)

DracoUltima said:


> Oh sorry everyone! It's just that I find my flatbands to be much more accurate. Any sort of tubing for me (fixed, looped, etc. ) tends to be..... inaccurate. I can always (most of the time) hit a can at 30 feet with flatbands. With tubular bands, they tend to have random flyers that miss by like a foot roughly a third of the time. Perhaps it's just me but if you guys are doing great with tubes, then that's good for you! I personally prefer flats over tubes but yeah, everyone has their own preferences.


I started with TBG yellow tubes and blamed the inconsistancy on my shooting, then got some flat bands in a trade and haven't looked back.


----------



## NaturalFork (Jan 21, 2010)

Listen to Henry. He has done all the leg work. I trust his findings.


----------



## newconvert (Dec 12, 2011)

Henry in Panama said:


> hey you guys....
> i am starting to get into lopped chinese tubes
> and was wondering what are the fastest with 11mm ammo or around that size
> also was wondering which are your favourites and why
> ...


The fastest Chinese tubes are 2040. They are not the most powerful, though. I found that 2040 outperforms 1842 until you reach about 170 grains of projectile weight. A set of 4 strand 2040 with 11mm lead ammo produced 184 fps for 9.47 lbs/ft of energy at 32 inches draw.. 1842s came in at 177 fps and 8.76 lb/ft of energy. For any ammo weight less than 170 grains, 2040 tubes will produce more speed and energy than 1842. All that said, I have settled on 1842s for my shooting because there have been some quality problems with 2040 and 1842 lasts longer. I cut my tubes to 14 inches and get a bit more than 6.5 inches of loop. At my draw length (about 36 inches) I get consistent 200+ fps with 11mm lead. I have not run any tests on 1745 aside from the early pull weights and velocity measurements with the Dankung OEM tubes.

I have recorded velocities as high as 365 fps** with 2040 (light ammo) and seen power levels of 26 lb/ft with 1842. My 34 year old son put a 12.6 mm lead ball through the green husk, hull and meat of a coconut. There is definitely hunting power available from Chinese tubes.

Here is a link to the series of tests I made.

http://slingshotforu...-chinese-tubes/

**AJW witnessed this.
[/quote]hey Henry, have you ever chronied 2050?


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

newconvert said:


> hey Henry, have you ever chronied 2050?


No, but I may order 2050 and 1745 next time I order from Dankung.

Edit: Dankung does not list 2050, so I guess not.


----------



## timdix (Oct 1, 2010)

Fastest tubes?...too many variables,so much is dependent on the strength of the operator.
For me,using mid sized ammo(that would include 11mm steel) looped 1842 gives highest velocities. I find 1745 loops just a tad too tough to get max elongation. However in pseudo taper,1745 easily blows any looped set I've tried out of the water(for lighter/mid weight ammo).
One thing I would add is that tubes perform so much better when they're well broken in. Once they start to turn from black to a dark grey you'll see crazy fast speeds with 1745 butterfly pseudo tapers 320fps+ with 3/8. Brand new perhaps at least 10% less however.
To be honest I don't believe there is much difference in speeds between straight cut TB and appropriately sized tubes.Too often we don't compare apples with apples.


----------



## PrideProducts (Jan 4, 2012)

the fa


timdix said:


> Fastest tubes?...too many variables,so much is dependent on the strength of the operator.
> For me,using mid sized ammo(that would include 11mm steel) looped 1842 gives highest velocities. I find 1745 loops just a tad too tough to get max elongation. However in pseudo taper,1745 easily blows any looped set I've tried out of the water(for lighter/mid weight ammo).
> One thing I would add is that tubes perform so much better when they're well broken in. Once they start to turn from black to a dark grey you'll see crazy fast speeds with 1745 butterfly pseudo tapers 320fps+ with 3/8. Brand new perhaps at least 10% less however.
> To be honest I don't believe there is much difference in speeds between straight cut TB and appropriately sized tubes.Too often we don't compare apples with apples.


the fastest tubing doesn't rely on the strenth of the shooter at the end of the day the bands or tubes are still fastest when maxed out


----------



## pgandy (Aug 15, 2011)

Henry is the authority, and like Timdix states, too many variables. As for me, for target practice I like 1745 singles as they have zip and I get more shots before fatigue sets in and I believe some of the longest band life due to single bands. It also requires more effort to pull than 1842, keeping me in better shape. Lately I’ve been more shooting double 2040 mainly for the exercise and PT. I can handle them but worry about over taxing the finger joints. It’s a more powerful set up than above. More recently I’ve gone to 1842 doubles as a more advanced set up for PT. One problem with the double 2040 and 1842 band sets is life/cost as they use twice as much rubber and only last as long as the weakest band. The life expectancy is less. I can’t put figures around it yet but have started counting shots. I use pseudo tapered bands on the foregoing except the 1842 thanks to Henry. For economy I’ve yet to beat a full loop of single 1842. I estimate about 1000 shots with this set up. As the rubber usually breaks at the pouch I make the set a 2” longer than minimum and as the band breaks I keep retying. It’s plenty good for target shooting. The counts that I’ve made so far for band life is 608 with black 1745 single, about the estimated shots with single 1842 full loop bands before the first break. 142 with the double 2040 natural colour, and 177 on the present set and still counting.


----------



## pgandy (Aug 15, 2011)

Henry in Panama said:


> hey Henry, have you ever chronied 2050?


No, but I may order 2050 and 1745 next time I order from Dankung.

Edit: Dankung does not list 2050, so I guess not.
[/quote]

I recently received 2050 from Dankung. I had a factory set with a full loop that did better and looked promising so I latched onto tubing from Dankung to make a pseudo tapered set. They did worse than the factory with .50" lead and I wasn't impressed enough to continue. The price was about double that of 1842 and 1745 tubing.

My single pseudo tapered 1745 did better, not to mention double 2040 and 1745.


----------



## timdix (Oct 1, 2010)

Chunkapult man...we might be on a different wavelength but draw weight is a definite factor in this equation. An example:the fastest tubes/tube set up for 11mm steel will be quite different for Jorg Sprave as opposed to a 10 year old boy due to the difference in what each can comfortably pull. 
Using other people's data sets is useful but there is no real substitute to performing one experimentation to optimise the precise amount of rubber for optimum efficiency.


----------



## pgandy (Aug 15, 2011)

pgandy said:


> My single pseudo tapered 1745 did better, not to mention double 2040 and 1745.


That should be:
My single pseudo tapered 1745 did better, not to mention double 2040 and 1842.


----------

