# Two Marbles Two Rocks Two 3/8 Steel In The Pouch



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Yep and one target two ammos hitting the single target simultaniously. Shooting with low power to control the ammos. This is no trick shot this is real. With the right power these shots in my opinion can be controlled and devistating to the target.

Thats all.


----------



## Btoon84 (Nov 22, 2011)

That's awesome. Impressive is an understatement. How are you orienting the ammo in the pouch?


----------



## M.J (Nov 1, 2010)

Neat. Good shooting.

If devastating the target is the point, though, why not just use 1/2" steel or .44 lead or cutoffs of rebar or something?


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Still figuring out the technique here so the use of low power and a gentle release is the way to go now so this shooting has produced close hits on ammo that is larger and the smaller tend to seperate more so it is possible with the proper delivery and release to hit two cans with one shot. This is something I have thought on but realy the first good go is what this video shows. There is potential here for some wow shots. Perhaps someone else can do something with this like create a better pouch for this.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Btoon84 said:


> That's awesome. Impressive is an understatement. How are you orienting the ammo in the pouch?


Side by side and only try this slow and low power and with a slingshot you dont like and wear a glove and eye protection and use non lethal ammo like rolled up aluminum or dry beans or even gum balls.


----------



## batangx (Jan 27, 2012)

WOW...If the ammo is side by side how difficult is it to turn the pouch and grip it? I mean holy cow thats amazing!! I don't think i'll even attempt that! LOL


----------



## ceedub (Apr 22, 2013)

STOP WASTING BEER, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SHOOT A DIFFERENT TARGET!


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Well, a really good shooter would shoot two pieces of ammo to hit two different targets ... like the fellow in the following video. His two-pieces-of-ammo-for-two-targets begins at about 3:20. For some really amazing shooting, be sure to go back to the beginning of this clip.






Note he shoots with no fork. Amazingly enough, he does not twist the pouch. And it appears he is an aimer.

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

I dont make any claims of myself and netither do I compete with other fellow shooters and those who compare themselves among themselves are not wise.

Thank You Charles I realize I have a long way to go and I take your commets under advisement and will try to do better and be a really good shoot and take two cans out with one shot wait its coming and just for you. If I should fail I will post my failure.

I will only suggest that my knowledge of bareback is limited to the videos I have made.


----------



## ZorroSlinger (Dec 12, 2012)

Hmmm .... I've seen this before. Looked at it again. The dankung/asian style, many do a *flip. *An alternate way to ensure pouch/ammo clears hand/forks? That's what I see him doing. Also he does like a 3/4 butterfly. Torsten a full butterfly shooter, I believe also does flip technique. Looks like he mixes up shooting method too. When he has to be dead accurate with hitting small target, aiming with both eyes open while in motion pulling band, and upon release, the pouch hand pulling further back.

He also using more instinctive method, such as aerial shooting examples. To me it appears he is looking at target and using a pointing motion. In some ways, to me, has similarities to Dgui.

Very entertaining watching this again. I wish in USA more interest like this from media ... a positive image of slingshot sport!

P.S. I think Dgui is doing pretty good!  Many of us are amazed with his catapulting feats! Jeeez ... shooting irregular shaped rocks with that degree of accuracy? Rufus was primarily a rock shooter, and those where bigger, I think!



Charles said:


> Well, a really good shooter would shoot two pieces of ammo to hit two different targets ... like the fellow in the following video. His two-pieces-of-ammo-for-two-targets begins at about 3:20. For some really amazing shooting, be sure to go back to the beginning of this clip.
> 
> Note he shoots with no fork. Amazingly enough, he does not twist the pouch. And it appears he is an aimer.
> 
> Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

Charles said:


> Well, a really good shooter would shoot two pieces of ammo to hit two different targets ... like the fellow in the following video. His two-pieces-of-ammo-for-two-targets begins at about 3:20. For some really amazing shooting, be sure to go back to the beginning of this clip.
> 
> Cheers ..... Charles


Maybe, I will not dismiss the impressive skills this man has, fantastic shooter/showman ... BUT the two tiny balls "simultaneous hits" is a TRICK CAREFULLY PREPARED, just place apart 1 or 2 cm one of the balls an he will FAIL one ball ALWAYS, there is some physics that even the best shooter in the world can't control ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Arturito said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > Well, a really good shooter would shoot two pieces of ammo to hit two different targets ... like the fellow in the following video. His two-pieces-of-ammo-for-two-targets begins at about 3:20. For some really amazing shooting, be sure to go back to the beginning of this clip.
> ...


I would be interested to know your view of what principles of physics you think are violated. Certainly if we put several projectiles in the slingshot pouch, we will get a spread in the ammo down range. That is, after all, the principle of the shotgun. I willingly grant you that he will have had to practice this many, many times to know just how far apart to place the cans in the one case and how far apart to place the balls in the other case. But there is no "trick" in that! We admonish folks all the time to practice ... practice lighting a match, or cutting a card. A shot to cut a card must be "CAREFULLY PREPARED" in your words. That does not make it any the less impressive. I see no evidence that the shots on the video were faked.

Cheers .... Charles

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

You better watch close and see that the two cola cans are a fake shot. See when they are struck and then rolling one can has been just cliped and no large tear. This one is fake it just is so goahead and take another look.


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

Charles said:


> Arturito said:
> 
> 
> > Charles said:
> ...


No it's not a fake, the balls separation are "statistically measured" to grant the hit (that is what was CAREFULLY PREPARED), it is evident that this man will never hit at that distance same balls with 1 meter separation, to prove it REALLY he must show more than 1 shot at different separations, 2 balls (2:2) are very different as a shotgun (N:2, where N>>2), and no doubt this require a lot of practice, the only way to determine "statistically" the correct position of the balls, anyway I've never dismiss his fantastic skills ... impressive ... physics principle is "entropy" with lend to an "uncertainty degree" ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

dgui said:


> You better watch close and see that the two cola cans are a fake shot. See when they are struck and then rolling one can has been just cliped and no large tear. This one is fake it just is so goahead and take another look.


 :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:


----------



## Quercusuber (Nov 10, 2011)

Dgui, your videos are always IMPRESSIVE!!!!

What a shooting master you are!!!!! And that "Bareback Express" is just a small jewel of shooting art 

Cheers ...Q


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Arturito said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > Arturito said:
> ...


No one suggested he could separate the targets to an arbitrary distance. As I said ... no doubt he practiced this many times to determine just what the separation should be. That does not make this any the less impressive. His being able to hit the two targets is certainly no violation of the principle of entropy!

As to statistical variation ... well, there is clearly enough individual variation in all of our shooting to make it a mere matter of probability that we will hit a match or cut a card on any give shot. Of course the big "trick" or skill is in reducing that variation in order to raise the probability to as high a degree as possible.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

I see problems with the authentisity of the soda can shots.






100%


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

dgui said:


> I see problems with the authentisity of the soda can shots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


mmmm ... maybe, I saw a tiny hole at the left can while rolling and falling, like it was hit by a bb pellet not the ammo he showed about 3/8 and the floor view shown a big hole ?? maybe it was made when the can shocked the floor ?? nothing clear to me ... at least suspicious ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

And do you also think he faked the hit on the two steel balls?

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Fake Fake Fake Fake Fake. If he is willing to Fake on one portion then he is also willing to Fake on the other.

I think Arturo is right when he says you must reduce the probability of the shot going wrong though he said it better than me.

With the right designed pouch you can send 2 ammos to hit 2 different targets likely much of the time with plenty of use but it also may have a disadvantage like having a slingshot sighted in for 33 feet due to the variables of travel and separation. I thought it was fine sending 2 ammos together for impact.


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

Charles said:


> And do you also think he faked the hit on the two steel balls?
> 
> Cheers ..... Charles


really I don't know ... for a "world top shot star" like him I don't believe that the sponsors couldn't employ a better high speed camera to show undeniable evidence like Jeorg does in his videos where you can watch clearly the ammo hitting ... it's not fair with him ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

dgui said:


> Fake Fake Fake Fake Fake. If he is willing to Fake on one portion then he is also willing to Fake on the other.
> 
> I think Arturo is right when he says you must reduce the probability of the shot going wrong though he said it better than me.
> 
> With the right designed pouch you can send 2 ammos to hit 2 different targets likely much of the time with plenty of use but it also may have a disadvantage like having a slingshot sighted in for 33 feet due to the variables of travel and separation. I thought it was fine sending 2 ammos together for impact.


So, which of his other shots do you think were faked as well?

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## Jaximus (Jun 1, 2013)

The Chinese guy's can shot doesn't look faked to me. He got a solid hit on the right can and just clipped the left can. I really don't see what's so unbelievable about that. The shot afterward of the two cans laying on the ground, those don't even appear to be the same two cans that he was shooting at. That doesn't mean he faked the shot. The editor probably had about 20 or 30 hours of footage from a bunch of different cameras. He wanted a shot of two soda cans laying on the ground and just browsed footage until he found the shot he wanted. Those could have even been two cans hit in a different take of the same "two balls, two cans" shot. At best it's a continuity error. It doesn't mean the shot was fake.

Also, like Charles was saying, just because he has to set the cans up at a defined range and a certain distance apart doesn't make the fact that he hit them any less impressive. Look at the setups we have to use to light matches. You can't exactly just toss a match on a table, step 33 feet away and light it. There's a certain technique just to prepare the shot.

And as far as high-speed cameras; they're horrifically expensive. This looks to be a pretty low budget show. I doubt the cost of a high-speed camera could be justified for them. Joerg shoots projectiles in every video, so it makes more sense for him to have one. Also, he has basically no production expenses and he makes quite a lot of money off of his videos. Even still, he uses a very low-quality high-speed camera, because the good ones are upwards of $70,000.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Jax since the can on the left was clipped the why fake the end result as two blow out hits. this tells me he could not repeat the shot. Two 80 dollar camers can show both shots from his point of view and the cans being hit. If I done 5his some of you fellows would have no trouble calling my shooting a fake.

Just a small dog pointing out the facts as they are.


----------



## Jaximus (Jun 1, 2013)

Darrell, the guy that made (or didn't make) the shot isn't the guy that edited the video. You'll also notice that the can on the right rolled several meters away from the bench and the other can after it was hit, but in the close-up of the two cans on the ground they're only a couple feet apart. In all likelihood that was a shot taken after he knocked the 5 cans off the bench from 7 meters. The show was over. The slingshot guy had gone home. The cameramen were shooting another program. The editor was sitting in his editing bay and thought, "Gee, I sure would like to show two cans laying on the ground after this double-can shot." Then, he browsed through all the available footage until he came across the shot you claim proves this video was faked. He looked at the shot, saw two cans on the ground, thought, "That'll work," and shoved the shot in there. That's how editing for a TV show works. Nobody is going to call for a reshoot because a cameraman didn't think to get a shot of the two cans on the ground like the editor wanted. It's the editor's job to find something that will pass.


----------



## amm1266 (Mar 27, 2013)

... Just sayin' I can't do it ... in my eyes he did it even if the left can was just NICKED ... you could see some spray as it rolled off bench ... a nick is a hit ... I don't care what was shown later ... just sayin'

Charles how long you been growing that???


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

amm1266 said:


> Charles how long you been growing that???


47+ years ... used to trim it, but don't do that any more ... Sorry for the hijack! :hijack:

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## M.J (Nov 1, 2010)

Charles said:


> amm1266 said:
> 
> 
> > Charles how long you been growing that???
> ...


I think it's welcome at this point.

As long as nobody asks you if it's a fake beard!


----------



## amm1266 (Mar 27, 2013)

sorry for the hijack ... 43 yrs here stopped cutting it in March ...

thanks Charles for the video very interesting ...


----------



## Yago (Mar 29, 2013)

Realy awesome videos

:bowdown:


----------

