# are 9.5mm steel moving at 200fps good enough for hunting?



## gamekeeper john

Just wondering what people think about 9.5mm steel for hunting? in my opinion they're not good enough,

When i first started hunting a few years ago i purchased a large bag of 9.5mm steel ammo off ebay, at the time i was using a natural catapult with barnett tubes (the red ones) i was out shooting all the time and hit many of rabbits and pigeons and other live game animals, only to find that most of them would get away even if a head shot was landed, now a few years on i have done several tests with barnet bands and found out that depending on the temperature they shoot 9.5mm steel inbetween 220fps - 260fps, maybe they are ok for small birds and rats with head shots but for larger game such as rabbits, pheasants and crows i think a heavier shot is a must,

I see it posted all the time "200fps is enough to take any game" maybe so with a heavy 12mm lead ball, or a 14mm steel or even bigger, the point i am trying to get at is people will shoot a 8mm or 9mm steel through the chrony and get 200fps and think the catapult will take rabbits & pheasants easy, when realy theres more of a chance you will injure the animal and it will suffer,

In my opinion and from my experience out in the field hunting a 9.5mm steel at 200fps just isn't good enough for game animals,

To be honest nearly every band set out there will get 200fps or very near with a 9.5mm steel,

I think a hunting catapult should launch a 12mm lead at least 200fps+,

all opinions welcome







-- gamekeeper john


----------



## mckee

16mm lead only has to travel about 180 fps to take rabbit


----------



## mckee

possibly even smaller ammo


----------



## gamekeeper john

mckee said:


> 16mm lead only has to travel about 180 fps to take rabbit


yeah i agree mate but 16mm lead are about 10 x as heavy as a 9.5mm steel lol


----------



## marcus sr

lol and you can go bowling with it after !!


----------



## slingshot_sniper

I don't hunt John as you know but I like shooting cans with lead now and even 9.2 mm lead 5g give a nice wallop but 11 mm lead destroys them


----------



## shot in the foot

Ive took rabbits with 8mm steel balls, with a set of ZDP's (Dan), fast bands, i still use them sometimes, as long as you head shot, jeff


----------



## marcus sr

ive taken pigeon and rabbit with 11mm lead,for the last 2 months or so using 1745 2 strands per side,got the job done,wether it was going at 200fps i couldnt say,i know it worked for me


----------



## Charles

As I have said before, I MUCH prefer heavier ammo. I would prefer not to hunt with anything smaller than 11 mm lead. On the other hand, I do not like using lead around water ... in fact it is illegal to do so in many places, including British Columbia. I do not have access to larger steel. As a compromise, I will shoot stones ... I should weigh a sample just to see. I will use 3/8 inch steel (9.5 mm) for bull frogs around water. But bull frogs are quite soft game. In my opinion, that lighter steel is really not appropriate for rabbits ... but that is based on my "feelings" rather than on experience.

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## gamekeeper john

thanks for the replies guy's, it looks like 9.5mm are capable of taking most game but to garuntee a quick clean kill a bigger size is better?


----------



## bj000

a marble weighs more than 3/8 steel


----------



## tubeman

I was told that lead hits with 40% more energy than steel, given equal diameters


----------



## gamekeeper john

bj000 said:


> a marble weighs more than 3/8 steel


i didn't know that, marbles are s**t lol, unbalanced and shatter on impact lol


----------



## keef

I just posted a squirrel kill with 9.5 mm steel...I shot it with very fast bands drawn butterfly , and it did the job without trouble. I've had pigeons in the last few weeks with this set up too.

To be honest, I prefer 10mm lead, but as i target shoot with the steel, I feel I'm just slightly more accurate with it

This set up shoots the balls VERY fast though I dont have a chrony to test the speed

Keith


----------



## gamekeeper john

keef said:


> I just posted a squirrel kill with 9.5 mm steel...I shot it with very fast bands drawn butterfly , and it did the job without trouble. I've had pigeons in the last few weeks with this set up too.
> 
> To be honest, I prefer 10mm lead, but as i target shoot with the steel, I feel I'm just slightly more accurate with it
> 
> This set up shoots the balls VERY fast though I dont have a chrony to test the speed
> 
> Keith


thanks mate, what bands are u using? i made a butterfly band set out of theraband gold tapered from 30mm to 15mm and was getting about 350fps with a 9mm steel


----------



## whipcrackdeadbunny

I've taken rabbit, pigeon and squizzer with the single band (9.5) set you see on my hunting vid. Head and chest shots have no problems for any of them, but squirrels are the ones that have gotten away most; the Chinese hunters (like Dannypc2phone, kungfuslingshot) take down pheasant all the time ... always head and neck shots. As a personal note, I believe the squizzers take most pounding, because of the skin, it's very thick.











It's hard for me to find out if it's still the same, but I used to talk to Danny, quite a bit; he said he always used 9.5's and he was the reason I was happy to start using them.

Head and neck.


----------



## keef

John
I am using TBG 30-31cm long and tapered from 26mm- 18mm.. A little less than your extreme taper, but as I'm hunting I wanted a longer band life.

I have been using TBBlack on my other catty, tapered 25mm- 15mm..Double band 30cm long, and i think they are a bit faster..Took a pigeon with a neck shot last week and it was VERY conclusive!!.LOL

Keith


----------



## Jacktrevally

BJ000, the marbles of 16mm I've bought weighs as much as a 3\8 steel.

Unfortunately, we don't get steel balls greater than 6.5mm easily on sale locally.

So locals use 9mm lead with double squares, a body shot on those wild guinea fowls will not take then down. If they could speak they'll tell you the 'F' word. I've to admit that 3x4mm square are slow.


----------



## bj000

i weighed a bunch of 1/2 inch marbles and they are all different, but close to around 5.5 grams.. 3/8th steel is 3.5 grams.


----------



## Jacktrevally

Are you sure they are 1\2inch marble?

5.5grams is equivalent to a 9.5mm lead ball!?!?

http://melchiormenzel.de/info_ammo.html


----------



## Northerner

*Weight in grains*
.440" lead (LEE mold) = 135
.375" lead (LEE mold) = 77
.320" lead (Hornady buckshot) = 49
3/8" steel (TruMark) = 56
5/16" steel (TruMark) = 32
1/4" steel (TruMark) = 16
.177 BBs (Crosman) = 5 
5/8" marbles (dollar store) = 88
1/2" marbles (TruMark) = 39


----------



## Nico

mckee said:


> 16mm lead only has to travel about 180 fps to take rabbit


I wasnt going to reply to this thread because I have wanted a break but since this is an area I have a lot of experience with I will give my input.

Most of the time when the English Black squares fire 16 mm lead balls they are only traveling at 140 fps but the weight gives more energy. Yet many a pheasant and rabbit has fallen to the square elastic 16 mm lead combo.

Take my chained wire coathanger slingshot, it fires a 277 grain (18) gram pebble at 155 fps thats 14 foot pounds or 97 + PSI that was enough energy to stop a rabbit with a _Solid Shot_ to the ribs and it caved in the ribs and did serious internal damage.

I think that the whole velocity thing is not properly studied or matched to actual small game kills, so can 9.5 mm steel kill small game?

I think it can with a lot speed and head shots, but for ME its always heavy ammo I dont want to take any chances as I am no dead eye.

Of note my pop once killed a rabbit with a head shot using 3/8 steel ball so it can be done. But not by me.

Nico


----------



## josephlys

How bout shooting 1/2'' steel hexnuts that weigh 8g.


----------



## bj000

Jacktrevally said:


> Are you sure they are 1\2inch marble?
> 
> 5.5grams is equivalent to a 9.5mm lead ball!?!?
> 
> http://melchiormenze.../info_ammo.html


steel ball, marble equal to steel ball 3/8th.
you know what i did today? I wrapped up 4 balls of 3/8 steel in tin foil.. i have not shot one yet. what do you think of that?


----------



## Jacktrevally

My prefered for hunting in the days were smooth oval basalt pebble, 8mm Hex nut filled with lead and tear drop shape lead. Compared to what I had in those days they went slow but did kill partridges.


----------



## josephlys

When ones you say 8mm hexnut are you referring to the thread size or actual width/diameter. When I say 1/2'' hex nut I'm referring to width(W). So which is it, I get confused when people describe hexnuts. LOL


----------



## Jacktrevally

Thread size, if you multiply by 1.5 you get W. These cwere grade 4.9 nuts, I now have 8.8 and 10.9 grade which are even harder, but don't hunt anymore. May be, I'll start again.


----------



## shot in the foot

You can kill game as big as rabbit with 177cal pellet shot out of a 8lb of presure with a air rifle, my son shoot 8mm and 10mm lead balls with his catapult, and he takes a lot of game with them,
i use 12mm now but still like to shoot the 8mm steel balls, i find rats are harder to kill with small ammo than a rabbit,


----------



## tubeman

shot in the foot said:


> You can kill game as big as rabbit with 177cal pellet shot out of a 8lb of presure with a air rifle, my son shoot 8mm and 10mm lead balls with his catapult, and he takes a lot of game with them,
> i use 12mm now but still like to shoot the 8mm steel balls, i find rats are harder to kill with small ammo than a rabbit,


I had a friend who shot rabbits from his bedroom window. He used a .177 Diana Match air rifle that only put out 6ft/lb but always took headshots


----------



## Nico

josephlys said:


> When ones you say 8mm hexnut are you referring to the thread size or actual width/diameter. When I say 1/2'' hex nut I'm referring to width(W). So which is it, I get confused when people describe hexnuts. LOL


When I say I shoot 1/2 inch hexnuts I mean the inner diameter (thread size) so you can see its a large heavy hexnut approx 18 grams 
(277 grain) perfect for smallgame hunting, plenty of knockdown.

Nico


----------



## josephlys

Man and I thought my nuts were big, LOL







. Anyway I'm using 1/2''(W) 8g hexnuts, I'll try these on pigeons and if they can cleanly take out pigeons I'll consider making them my primary pidgeon ammo. They are way cheaper than lead and it won't hurt my feelings too much when I lose them.


----------



## bj000

i mentioned that i wrapped up 4 3/8th steel in tin foil to make a tight ball.. has anyone tried this before for hunting? I imagine the balls will rip out of the tin foil on contact, making a more serious blow, but i could be wrong.


----------



## Jacktrevally

Seriously BJ000, what are you planning to kill with that set up? You might be surprise to see thst this can clog up and stay as a whole!

Keep it simple, single ammo for pouch griping and accuracy! Afterall, you can get used to that!


----------



## bj000

Jacktrevally said:


> Seriously BJ000, what are you planning to kill with that set up? You might be surprise to see thst this can clog up and stay as a whole!
> 
> Keep it simple, single ammo for pouch griping and accuracy! Afterall, you can get used to that!


i didn't plan on them scattering . only want them to break on impact.. I was hoping to get rabbit with them, since i doubt 3/8th steel will take one down. I have not been able to find any lead balls, or bigger steel locally and paypal is a pain in the ass to move funds from my bank account( it takes weeks). I have been trying to find an alternative for hunting.. I am going to try some hexnuts too..


----------



## Jacktrevally

Seriously man, can you grip and centre 4 balls in a pouch efficiently?! You want them to stay as a whole!!!!!

Take 4 x 3\8, all the 4 together have energies as a single big mass, as they split on impact the energy is LESS on each ball if they were to be propel singularly; Since the velocity is lower than a single steel ball propel on its own!

This is all excuses! You don't need lead balls or hex nuts to kill! I've been using rocks for years!

I lived in Canada for 3 months before and the amount of lead ball you can get in a fishing store is what I would be looking for!


----------



## bj000

Jacktrevally said:


> Seriously man, can you grip and centre 4 balls in a pouch efficiently?! You want them to stay as a whole!!!!!
> 
> Take 4 x 3\8, all the 4 together have energies as a single big mass, as they split on impact the energy is LESS on each ball if they were to be propel singularly; Since the velocity is lower than a single steel ball propel on its own!
> 
> This is all excuses! You don't need lead balls or hex nuts to kill! I've been using rocks for years!
> 
> I lived in Canada for 3 months before and the amount of lead ball you can get in a fishing store is what I would be looking for!


 first of all, you are right but the 4 balls are tight together and i have no problem holding them in the pouch at all.
I have thought about rocks but i need a bigger pouch, so I made a big rock pouch a few mins ago.
i have some cow breast leather that is very beautiful but not too thick, so i rubber cemented two layers together and I will see how that works out for me, shooting rocks.

I just thought the 4 balls was a good idea, but i guess not lol.


----------



## Jacktrevally

Try it but the foil does cushion the impact!

Allow me to share:

When I was hunting, we didn't have access to steel balls, they were very rare to find in roller bearings.

Instead I used hex nut fill with lead. You might say this is complicated! Not at all and you don't need even a fire to melt the lead!

I had a soldering iron, bought a roll of soldering wires which were not 100% lead but lighter than lead. I would lay the nuts on a piece of tile or wooden board and fill that with soldering wire melted from the soldering iron!

Easy to do in a flat, even though I had a garden I did that indoors! The soldering wire has flux inside so no need to worry about these!

Now if you have a solid wood, drill 12mm holes by 10mm deep and fill that with solder! No need of an expensive mould! Now if you have a bigger soldering iron like an axe type you can hammer lead sheets thin enough to melt tgat from the soldering iron!


----------



## Jacktrevally

This is what I was talking about, this is a 500W but the normal pen type is more than enough for soldering wire

http://76.my/Malaysia/ax[email protected]1.jpg


----------



## philly

John, I've used it for Doves and Starlings at 200FPS and never had a problem with solid body hits, squirrels are out of the question however, they are very tough little buggers. My last took 3 shots of .457" lead to finally get it done. IMHO almost all small game can be, and probably has been, taken with smaller steel but is absolutely necessary to have a head shot on anything with fur. Personally, I use lead,.310. .395 and .457" for my hunting, each picked for specific targets.Head shots will kill them all but I am not good enough to make that shot every time so I use heavier lead .457 for fur, and I am thinking of going larger.
Philly
.


----------



## keef

BJ

Buy a ball sinker mold for fishing weights and cast your own...You only need to nip over to the scrap yard and buy $20 worth of roofing lead scraps, and you will be able to cast yourself 1000 10mm balls, well capeable of killing a rabbit

All you need is a camping stove and an old aluminium suacepan and you are away...Easy

When you have trimmed them up, roll them around fast in a big bowl of slightly damp sand and hey presto, the shine will come off!

A great project for a day off work, and nowhere near as complicated as you think.

They hit Damned hard, and will do the job

Keith


----------



## -SRS-45-

What about 11.1mm steel at 203fps?

My setup gives me about 203fps with 11.1mm on a cold day.

It's either that or 9.5mm lead which gets about 213fps on a cold day, but I prefer steel just for my own personal reasons.

11.1mm lead gives me about 191fps on a cold day. but again I would prefer steel.


----------



## mckee

Nico said:


> 16mm lead only has to travel about 180 fps to take rabbit


I wasnt going to reply to this thread because I have wanted a break but since this is an area I have a lot of experience with I will give my input.

Most of the time when the English Black squares fire 16 mm lead balls they are only traveling at 140 fps but the weight gives more energy. Yet many a pheasant and rabbit has fallen to the square elastic 16 mm lead combo.

Take my chained wire coathanger slingshot, it fires a 277 grain (18) gram pebble at 155 fps thats 14 foot pounds or 97 + PSI that was enough energy to stop a rabbit with a _Solid Shot_ to the ribs and it caved in the ribs and did serious internal damage.

I think that the whole velocity thing is not properly studied or matched to actual small game kills, so can 9.5 mm steel kill small game?

I think it can with a lot speed and head shots, but for ME its always heavy ammo I dont want to take any chances as I am no dead eye.

Of note my pop once killed a rabbit with a head shot using 3/8 steel ball so it can be done. But not by me.

Nico
[/quote]
i had a feeling you was going to reply to that i learned it from you







you have a good input on the hunting section


----------



## bj000

keef said:


> BJ
> 
> Buy a ball sinker mold for fishing weights and cast your own...You only need to nip over to the scrap yard and buy $20 worth of roofing lead scraps, and you will be able to cast yourself 1000 10mm balls, well capeable of killing a rabbit
> 
> All you need is a camping stove and an old aluminium suacepan and you are away...Easy
> 
> When you have trimmed them up, roll them around fast in a big bowl of slightly damp sand and hey presto, the shine will come off!
> 
> A great project for a day off work, and nowhere near as complicated as you think.
> 
> They hit Damned hard, and will do the job
> 
> Keith


yeah i will have to move some money into the paypal account soon then so i can purchase a mold. i asked a plumber friend of mine to keep his eyes open for lead.


----------



## smallholder1

i think lead is better it carries momentum but here is a collared dove shot at 20-25 yards with 8mm steel with one of your catapults nearly took it's wing of so plenty of power


----------



## bootneck

I prefer bigger shot purely because it gives me a larger margin for error instead of hitting something in the chest and it running away with a broken rib i prefer if i hit them in the chest that they just die,
yes its important to be able to take head shot but it doesnt aways happen that way, so for me i feel much better knowing something i shot isnt damaged in its warren/nest but dead,

plus big shot isnt affected so much by small twigs that might get in the way of my shot, since i do like to hunt in the woods.
With small shot I'd be pressed to always get head shots, chest is pretty much instant, especially on squirrels whose heads are great at deflecting shot, but whack them in the chest and there almost always dead the moment they hit the ground.

So for me personally large stones or 16mm lead give the ability to hunt more humanely and make more game retrievable than would be the case with small shot. That's me though, if you can get head shots most times then more power to you, If like me you like a big fat margin for error aswell as always striving to be humane and accurate then thats good too.

No-one can be right or wrong on these things as long as if you are using small shot, you ARE a good enough shot, and if you use big shot you don't use the large margin for error as an excuse to not practice or keep at a good level of huntable accuratcy then it's a case of what works best for you.

It's all about personal responsability in the end.


----------



## Charles

Yep, good stuff ... that is my point of view exactly.

Cheers ....... Charles


----------



## Xidoo

smallholder1 said:


> i think lead is better it carries momentum but here is a collared dove shot at 20-25 yards with 8mm steel with one of your catapults nearly took it's wing of so plenty of power


Nice shot, I just tried to take down one of these, but I used surgical tubes and taconite. I must state that I hit it, but it did not go down. I know that I hit it since I heard the impact and three feathers came out of the dove. This is the third time that I have shot these kind of doves and not taken it down. It is frustrating when you know that you made the shot, but the prey does not come down.

I just do not understand, I have taken feral pegeons and other doves with surgical tubes and taconite. Bad luck, I guess... saludos







.


----------



## Charles

Xidoo said:


> Nice shot, I just tried to take down one of these, but I used surgical tubes and taconite. I must state that I hit it, but it did not go down. I know that I hit it since I heard the impact and three feathers came out of the dove. This is the third time that I have shot these kind of doves and not taken it down. It is frustrating when you know that you made the shot, but the prey does not come down.
> 
> I just do not understand, I have taken feral pegeons and other doves with surgical tubes and taconite. Bad luck, I guess... saludos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Could be the tubes are a bit underpowered for the weight of your projectile. There is a sort of efficiency curve for bands of a given power ... projectiles in a given range will move with good speed, but too heavy and their speed drops off dramatically. I am guessing that you need heavier bands (maybe double the tubes) or lighter ammo. Properly projected, taconite should be good.

Let us know when you figure it out.

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## smallholder1

did not know what taconite was just looked it up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TaconitePellet.JPG


----------



## philly

bootneck said:


> I prefer bigger shot purely because it gives me a larger margin for error instead of hitting something in the chest and it running away with a broken rib i prefer if i hit them in the chest that they just die,
> yes its important to be able to take head shot but it doesnt aways happen that way, so for me i feel much better knowing something i shot isnt damaged in its warren/nest but dead,
> 
> plus big shot isnt affected so much by small twigs that might get in the way of my shot, since i do like to hunt in the woods.
> With small shot I'd be pressed to always get head shots, chest is pretty much instant, especially on squirrels whose heads are great at deflecting shot, but whack them in the chest and there almost always dead the moment they hit the ground.
> 
> So for me personally large stones or 16mm lead give the ability to hunt more humanely and make more game retrievable than would be the case with small shot. That's me though, if you can get head shots most times then more power to you, If like me you like a big fat margin for error aswell as always striving to be humane and accurate then thats good too.
> 
> No-one can be right or wrong on these things as long as if you are using small shot, you ARE a good enough shot, and if you use big shot you don't use the large margin for error as an excuse to not practice or keep at a good level of huntable accuratcy then it's a case of what works best for you.
> 
> It's all about personal responsability in the end.


Very well put Bootneck.
Philly


----------



## gamekeeper john

philly said:


> I prefer bigger shot purely because it gives me a larger margin for error instead of hitting something in the chest and it running away with a broken rib i prefer if i hit them in the chest that they just die,
> yes its important to be able to take head shot but it doesnt aways happen that way, so for me i feel much better knowing something i shot isnt damaged in its warren/nest but dead,
> 
> plus big shot isnt affected so much by small twigs that might get in the way of my shot, since i do like to hunt in the woods.
> With small shot I'd be pressed to always get head shots, chest is pretty much instant, especially on squirrels whose heads are great at deflecting shot, but whack them in the chest and there almost always dead the moment they hit the ground.
> 
> So for me personally large stones or 16mm lead give the ability to hunt more humanely and make more game retrievable than would be the case with small shot. That's me though, if you can get head shots most times then more power to you, If like me you like a big fat margin for error aswell as always striving to be humane and accurate then thats good too.
> 
> No-one can be right or wrong on these things as long as if you are using small shot, you ARE a good enough shot, and if you use big shot you don't use the large margin for error as an excuse to not practice or keep at a good level of huntable accuratcy then it's a case of what works best for you.
> 
> It's all about personal responsability in the end.


Very well put Bootneck.
Philly
[/quote]

i totally agree, a bigger heavier projectile garuntee's a kill even if not landed in the head, were as a 9.5mm steel must be landed in the exact right spot, so does this mean that people who are hunting with 9.5mm steel wrisk the chance of injuring the animal? from this thread we all now know that you can kill game animals with a 9.5mm steel but you wrisk the chance of the animal suffering if the shot is not 100% accurate !!! john


----------



## phoghat

*FIRST QUESTION *to ask yourself is what is the energy of the projectile?
If you know the weight (in grains) of your ammo ( to convert weight and to calculate energy):

From the wonderful people at Pyramid Air ( an airgun site) http://www.pyramydair.com/

Here's a calculator that will do it all for you http://www.pyramydair.com/widgets/

It's pretty self explanatory and easy to use. If you have a chrony, wheigh your projectile ( grams, ounces or what have you) convert it to grains using the above widget and plug the numbers into the same widget. If you are generating at least 14 ft-lbs, I believe that would be sufficient for small game and pests. Of course YMMV.
On the subject of steel vs lead shot ammo, I personally think it doesn't much matter. General opinion says steel penetrates and lead expands, however at catapult velocities, lead isn't going to deform at all, and steel *DOES *weigh less than lead, so I go with lead all the time.


----------



## phoghat

Tried to paste the widget in here, doesn't seem to work.


----------



## Northerner

Wow, 14 fpe is needed for humane smallgame hunting? That means I have to push 3/8" lead at over 280 fps. I'll have to rig up some heavier bands to see if I can even shoot them accurately.

1 gram = 15.43 grains

Energy = (Velocity squared x mass) divided by 450240

Note: Energy is in ft-lbs, velocity is in fps, and mass is in grains

Cheers,
Northerner


----------



## Charles

Hmmmm ... I would caution that energy is not everything. I am inclined to think that momentum is very important. And momentum increases linearly with the mass of the projectile and the velocity.

momentum = mass x velocity

As Nico has observed (quite rightly in my opinion) if you can SEVERELY dent a tin can (not aluminum) that is probably enough for most small game.

Cheers ........ Charles


----------



## Jacktrevally

Don't get me wrong on this! I think what I'm going to say is going to enter a big debate but lets go for it!

MY OPINION: since I've joined the forum everyone talking about kinetic energy and momemtum. Doing calculation is fine but what does it means?

I've done a short course on ballistic when I did armour plate design about 10yrs ago. The important things to remember is penetration kills but shock is very important as well, it is as equally lethal!

Both energies and momentum has to be interpreted correctly to understand.

Now if you compare a lead bulket and a steel bullet they are both lethal within their charasteristic!

Ok, if I say to you.... 12ftlb of energy can kill a rabbit but is 20ftlb more lethal?!?!?

Too much to say about this!!!


----------



## bootneck

12ft will kill the same as 20, only difference is my larger ammo will break the ribs on both sides of a squirrel and crush/split the heart, with small it just runs away


----------



## Charles

Again, let's go back to experience. Many on this forum have taken a lot of game with stones and with slingshots that did not use Theraband gold! I have taken a few rabbits, quite a few grouse, doves, and quail, and even a couple of ferral cats with that sort of "primitive" equipment (cats are VERY hard to kill ... they were killing my chickens). I shot a lot of bull frogs too, but they are pretty soft game. I have even taken the odd duck with a head shot. In my experience, a good chunk of stone will get the job done in most cases ... a small stone might be moving faster, but that big stone is going to kill the beast. As Bootneck points out, when you smash the rib cage, the party is over ... no penetration required. Did any of my slingshots deliver 14 foot pounds of energy??? Not by a loooong shot.

Just ask yourself this ... Do you think Rufus Hussey ever made a slingshot that delivered 14 foot pounds of energy? Forget it!!! Do you think old Rufus was lying when he talked about killing rabbits with his slingshots?

Ammo that is heavy enough and fast enough to crush the side of a real tin can is going to take small game, as long as you get a good head or chest shot. And if you do not hit it well in the head or chest, you are probably not going to kill it no matter what you are shooting.

Cheers ........ Charles


----------



## atom

Charles said:


> Again, let's go back to experience. Many on this forum have taken a lot of game with stones and with slingshots that did not use Theraband gold! I have taken a few rabbits, quite a few grouse, doves, and quail, and even a couple of ferral cats with that sort of "primitive" equipment (cats are VERY hard to kill ... they were killing my chickens). I shot a lot of bull frogs too, but they are pretty soft game. I have even taken the odd duck with a head shot. In my experience, a good chunk of stone will get the job done in most cases ... a small stone might be moving faster, but that big stone is going to kill the beast. As Bootneck points out, when you smash the rib cage, the party is over ... no penetration required. Did any of my slingshots deliver 14 foot pounds of energy??? Not by a loooong shot.
> 
> Just ask yourself this ... Do you think Rufus Hussey ever made a slingshot that delivered 14 foot pounds of energy? Forget it!!! Do you think old Rufus was lying when he talked about killing rabbits with his slingshots?
> 
> Ammo that is heavy enough and fast enough to crush the side of a real tin can is going to take small game, as long as you get a good head or chest shot. And if you do not hit it well in the head or chest, you are probably not going to kill it no matter what you are shooting.
> 
> Cheers ........ Charles


perfectly said charles


----------



## bj000

i started collecting rocks on the way to and from work , the past few days. I am also trying to glue two layers of leather together to make a rock pouch then i will make a powerful hunting bandset for it.


----------



## marcus sr

i was having this very convo with a fellow forum member,newbies coming into slingshots ,especially the ones concerned with game are being blinded with science and numbers,,now ill apologise for the following,these numbers altho interesting mean naff all to me,yeah ill read the threads about em,yeah ill express an interest but alot of people forget,before this forum or others like it came about touting flat band this,thera that,tubes this,tubes that,we use to get it done as youths with a natural and square rubber,performance wise compared to whats available now it was ****,no two ways about it.then we upgraded to black widows and you know what? they also got the job done,theres not a fella on here from back in the day that hasnt i dare say taken game.as for mr hussey,id be surprised if his gum rubber was gettin 135-140 fps ,seeing as were on numbers.im in total agreement by the way charles,its the ammo,ive used rocks,bearings,wheel nuts,etc same as a lot of the old school on here and it got the job done period,to my mind if your firing 8-9mm steel thru ouble theraband,that like firing a pea out of a cannon.

just my 2 pence worth

Marcus sr


----------



## atom

marcus sr said:


> i was having this very convo with a fellow forum member,newbies coming into slingshots ,especially the ones concerned with game are being blinded with science and numbers,,now ill apologise for the following,these numbers altho interesting mean naff all to me,yeah ill read the threads about em,yeah ill express an interest but alot of people forget,before this forum or others like it came about touting flat band this,thera that,tubes this,tubes that,we use to get it done as youths with a natural and square rubber,performance wise compared to whats available now it was ****,no two ways about it.then we upgraded to black widows and you know what? they also got the job done,theres not a fella on here from back in the day that hasnt i dare say taken game.as for mr hussey,id be surprised if his gum rubber was gettin 135-140 fps ,seeing as were on numbers.im in total agreement by the way charles,its the ammo,ive used rocks,bearings,wheel nuts,etc same as a lot of the old school on here and it got the job done period,to my mind if your firing 8-9mm steel thru ouble theraband,that like firing a pea out of a cannon.
> 
> just my 2 pence worth
> 
> Marcus sr


----------



## phoghat

"12ft will kill the same as 20" Sure, If you place your shot correctly
"Again, let's go back to experience. Many on this forum have taken a lot of game with stones " Pretty much the way we *all *started. But the fact remains that stone isn't as dense as lead or even steel, so you've got to use some pretty big rocks.
"Ammo that is heavy enough and fast enough to crush the side of a real tin can is going to take small game" Absolutely,but, to do that you still have to pay attention to Sir Isaac's laws.
"I would caution that energy is not everything. I am inclined to think that momentum is very important" Energy and momentum are directly related. They are not apples and oranges. What should concern us is the transfer of tghat momentum to the target.
Big Rock = Smaller steel ball = much smaller lead ball.
You're talking to the guy who's Gramps gave him a Quarter/crow when I sat in the field. Shot rocks then with a crappalicious slingshot shooting the smoothest,roundest rocks he could find (made enough for the pinball machine at the sweet shop)


----------



## Jacktrevally

My point guys was not to stir trouble with my question!

My point was to make people understand that we see numbers and those numbers are mis-interpreted or not well understood.

I think phoghat realised what I was talking! First time I read on the forum that both are related and the relation is force. Thumb-up Phoghat.

This made me react when I read Charles reply saying Momentum is important!

Yes it is important but energy is related to it.

My question was what does 14 and 20 ftlb means to you? And when you read "I've generated 'x' amount of Joules": This is an indication of 'power' generated by a particular mass at a particular speed. When this hits another mass, it all comes to momentum and transfer of momentum.

In my opinion what is important and make sense is the RATE OF CHANGE OF MOMENTUM, which equals to Mr Issac Newton equation as FORCE. therefore it is half right to say that energy is indicative of the killing power!

Don't get fool by numbers. Sorry about that little riddle question but I did not want to give the answer straight away. I wanted to make you guys think and Phoghat sussed it out.

That's what is interesting on a forum, when we are all in discussion not when someone comes with a huge explanation and most don't understand what is going on.

Gradually we will get there.

So my next question is

A lead ball of the same weight as a steel ball hits a target what is expected from both?

i.e steel 9g,lead 9g

different diameters due to different densities, How about speed. Any guess which will travel faster? Now work out the energies and you'll see where Im comming to.

I'll chip in the rate of change of momentum.


----------



## Charles

Yep, mass and energy are related ... no one ever denied that. But when it comes to the suitability of a slingshot projectile to do a job on small game, I still claim that momentum is a more important measure than energy. Just one simple example will help explain what I mean. Compare the energy of a 50 gr (steel) ball moving at 250 fps to that of a 250 gr (lead) ball moving at 150 fps. Sure, the lighter projectile will have 55% of the energy of the heavier projectile. But interestingly, it will have only 33% of the linear momentum. That seems to march along with the long term observations of many that heavier slingshot ammo is a much better killer than lighter slingshot ammo.

As you move to smaller projectiles in a hunting situation, generally one switches from reliance on blunt force trauma to penetration as your killing mode. Very small projectiles moving fast are good for penetration, but not good for blunt force trauma. If I want to use a pellet gun for hunting, I am relying on its ability to penetrate the animal, rather than on blunt trauma. With a slingshot, it is usually the opposite ... we rely on blunt trauma rather than penetration.

My comments about using stones and lower power bands was in response to the suggestion that 14 foot pounds of energy are required for consistent kills ... That flies in the face of the experience of most everyone on this forum.

Now, just as a little evidence that energy is not the whole story, consider cosmic "rays" ... actuallly sub-atomic particles. We are bombarded by these all the time, most of which are protons. They can have energies as high as 10 to the 20th power eV, or even higher ... which is almost 12 foot pounds. I am not too worried about getting smacked by a proton moving at a high rate of speed, even if the total energy is 12 foot pounds. But getting hit by a .50 caliber lead ball moving fast enough to generate 12 foot pounds is a whole different matter!

Cheers ....... Charles


----------



## Jacktrevally

Again you lost me!?!?

So, 2 ammo having the same momentum has the same kiling power?


----------



## smallholder1

someone once explained to me that the difference between .177 and .22 airguns doing the same energy [in uk 12ftp] is the .177 is like being hit with a whippy stick,hurts and stings and a red mark,the .22 is like a baseball bat,hurts, may knock you over and bruises,i think the same can apply to catapult ammo.


----------



## bootneck

I've always thought if it pretty much as the difference between being stabbed in the chest with a knitting needle or being hit in the chest with a sledge hammer, in both cases you'll likely die, with a knitting needle you can still run off and then die, with the hammer your going to drop, in the case of hunting, the one that drops and doesnt make it's escape before dying, is a retreivable kill.

Again for me it just means the head, neck and chest are good targets, instead of just the head, and like i've said before twigs and bits of long grass won't deflect my shot, also if you get you're range wrong it's easyer to correct it for the next shot when you can see where the shot's going, for me personally big shot works much better, and stones are great for the fact they are almost like using hollow point bullets, exept there already 'expanded'.

If you think of a hollow point bullet, it doesnt change it's weight when it expands but give's alot more surface area, which is maybe why 15-20 gram stones seem to stop game so quick.

Like I've said before, if you prefer fast shot and head shots and have the skill to use it then thats fine and what suits you, For me, i get much quicker kills,very few 'runner's' and more opertunities with large heavy shot.

If i did'nt shoot instinctively but aimed it might be different, as then I would have to take tradjectory into account much more, where as shooting instinctively it's not such an issue because you can 'feel' where the shots going to go much better.


----------



## bootneck

This remeinds me of the 9mm vs 45 cal pistol debates you see on gun forums.


----------



## gamekeeper john

someone set a poll up asking what ammo and bands they have taken game with? then i'm sure we would get a understanding of what most popular ammo and band set is for hunting and what gets the job done, just an idea


----------



## gamekeeper john

i think the overall point is ; yes u can kill game with a 9mm steel but a heavier lead ammo will garuntee the kill were as u wrist the change of letting it escape with the 9mm steel?
and as i posted in the begining of this thread i have hit game in the head before with 9mm steel travelling well over 200 fps and they have got away,
i'm going to the pet shop 2 get a rabbit, put it in me garden and shoot at it through the chrony (joking) hahaha -- john


----------



## Jacktrevally

Talking about experience is something but scientif evidence is even more as a standing!


----------



## gamekeeper john

Jacktrevally said:


> Talking about experience is something but scientif evidence is even more as a standing!


yeah i understand that but its a fact that 9mm steel at 200fps doesnt always kill, i'v prooven it?
anyway there isn't no scientific evidence about what kills game, as anybody ever shot through the chrony and hit a rabbit?
its all based on what people think is enough power, john


----------



## Jacktrevally

Well, not all have these views anyway!

There are a lot of reading to be done about bullet in firearms and that doesn't talk about killing rabbits but human being and big game.

Don't get me wrong the scientific side has been covered online and on this forum and if you read ZDP-189 blog you can understand where I'm comming!


----------



## marcus sr

ive dropped a roosting pigeon with a shot under the tail with an acorn before ,using a black widow,yes it had to be finished but isnt that still classed as getting the job done?i could be well out though???


----------



## Jacktrevally

Take a marble say 16mm, and a soft plasticine ball of about 16mm to get the same weight and fire that at the same speed.

Same weight, same speed! So same momentum and energy you may say!

Now a simple common sense question choose what of the above if you had a choice to make to get hit with!

I choose the plasticine ball! lol


----------



## marcus sr

Jacktrevally said:


> Take a marble say 16mm, and a plasticine ball of about 16mm and fire that at the same speed.
> 
> Same weight, same speed! So same momentum and energy you may say!
> 
> Now a simple common sense question choose what of the above if you had a choice to make to get hit with!
> 
> I choose the plasticine ball! lol


i totally agree mate,id choose the plasticine,but isnt the subject about stopping game?


----------



## Jacktrevally

It is Marcus, my point being that what phoghat wanted to say earlier.

The rate of change of momentum is the key thing! This has been ignored since the beginning. We can all say a 9mm steel has more energy, or 12mm has more momentum... etc but the transfer of momentum is very important and shouldn't be ignored!


----------



## Charles

Jacktrevally said:


> Again you lost me!?!?
> 
> So, 2 ammo having the same momentum has the same kiling power?


Of course not ... that is not what I said. A 10 pound ball moving at .2 inches a second has the same momentum as a 200 grain ball moving at 250 feet per second. Put the 10 pound ball on a pendulum and measure how much deflection you need to get .2 inches per second velocity. Put a rabbit in a position to get bonked in the head with it. The result will be that the rabbit will just run off after getting tapped. Now try hitting the rabbit in the head with a 200 grain ball moving at 250 fps, and that is a dead bunny.

The numbers do not mean squat out of context. My contention is that for slingshot sized ammo, moving at slingshot velocities, linear momentum is a better measure of the likelihood of a kill than is kinetic energy. When you move into a different context, it is a new ballgame. You cannot blindly rely on numerical calculations.

Cheers ........ Charles


----------



## Jacktrevally

I got lost again, as if I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong)

You are giving an example where energy is the key point then come to say that momentum is a better measure!?


----------



## ZDP-189

I'm no veteran hunter, but I think the principle is you combine a deadly accurate weapon, excessive energy and proficiency. I'm not sure I'd rate 9.5mm at 200fps as excessive energy, but I expect a well placed shot will at least stun a pigeon.



shot in the foot said:


> Ive took rabbits with 8mm steel balls, with a set of ZDP's (Dan), fast bands, i still use them sometimes, as long as you head shot, jeff


Thanks again Jeff for your kind words. I know you have taken bucket loads of small game with Fastbands.

I always point out to people less familiar with my bands, that they are designed for repeatably precise shooting, not maximum blunt force trauma. If you draw the Fastbands semi butterfly with an 8-9 gram ball, that should be plenty for a well placed shot on small foul. The draw weight is designed to be just under the point at which the fork hand starts to shake. It gives max accuracy, but not optimal thump. If you can, I'd recommend a heavier shot and heavier band. Not so heavy a draw that it becomes inaccurate, but heavier.


----------



## Charles

Jacktrevally said:


> I got lost again, as if I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> You are giving an example where energy is the key point then come to say that momentum is a better measure!?


Perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse.









I previously gave you an example in which energy did not matter ... recall the cosmic ray proton example. And I have given you an example in which momentum did not matter. And I said that, out of context, simple numerical calculations do not mean squat. And I gave it as my opinion that in the range of projectile weights and velocities for most slingshots, I believe that linear momentum is a better measure of likelihood of recovering game than is kinetic energy.

My message is very simple: there is no magic in the numbers or in the formulas. There is no calculation that is going to tell you what is "best" for killing game. In general, faster is better than slower, and heavier is better than lighter ... but fast and heavy conflict with each other. The best way to find out what is effective in the field is to go out and try it yourself and ask the opinions of folks who hunt with slingshots. If you check on this forum, I think you will find that most hunters prefer heavier ammo, even if it is slower. Of course there are limits beyond which you are wasting your time.... (like this discussion!)









Cheers ........ Charles


----------



## gamekeeper john

Charles said:


> I got lost again, as if I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> You are giving an example where energy is the key point then come to say that momentum is a better measure!?


Perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse.









I previously gave you an example in which energy did not matter ... recall the cosmic ray proton example. And I have given you an example in which momentum did not matter. And I said that, out of context, simple numerical calculations do not mean squat. And I gave it as my opinion that in the range of projectile weights and velocities for most slingshots, I believe that linear momentum is a better measure of likelihood of recovering game than is kinetic energy.

My message is very simple: there is no magic in the numbers or in the formulas. There is no calculation that is going to tell you what is "best" for killing game. In general, faster is better than slower, and heavier is better than lighter ... but fast and heavy conflict with each other. The best way to find out what is effective in the field is to go out and try it yourself and ask the opinions of folks who hunt with slingshots. If you check on this forum, I think you will find that most hunters prefer heavier ammo, even if it is slower. Of course there are limits beyond which you are wasting your time.... (like this discussion!)









Cheers ........ Charles
[/quote]

i agree, the only way to realy find out is to shoot lol


----------



## -SRS-45-

gamekeeper john said:


> I got lost again, as if I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> You are giving an example where energy is the key point then come to say that momentum is a better measure!?


Perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse.









I previously gave you an example in which energy did not matter ... recall the cosmic ray proton example. And I have given you an example in which momentum did not matter. And I said that, out of context, simple numerical calculations do not mean squat. And I gave it as my opinion that in the range of projectile weights and velocities for most slingshots, I believe that linear momentum is a better measure of likelihood of recovering game than is kinetic energy.

My message is very simple: there is no magic in the numbers or in the formulas. There is no calculation that is going to tell you what is "best" for killing game. In general, faster is better than slower, and heavier is better than lighter ... but fast and heavy conflict with each other. The best way to find out what is effective in the field is to go out and try it yourself and ask the opinions of folks who hunt with slingshots. If you check on this forum, I think you will find that most hunters prefer heavier ammo, even if it is slower. Of course there are limits beyond which you are wasting your time.... (like this discussion!)









Cheers ........ Charles
[/quote]

i agree, the only way to realy find out is to shoot lol
[/quote]

yep, I usually shoot dtb butterfly with 9.5mm steel.... its fast, I today shot 12mm steel which was slower. The evidence is my shed that stands about 19meters away. 9.5mm steel does nothing.... now I have massive indents in my shed wall.







I'm converted, no more handslap and awesome impact power!


----------



## -SRS-45-

Though I have to admit the similar weight lead and steel debate is pretty interesting. I get faster speeds from lead weighing the same, I'm guessing because theres slightly less wind resistance, but at these powers the larger projectile would cause a larger impact radius so I'm guessing the steel would be better, as the spread of damage is wider, hopefully meaning you are going to connect with something that will put it down easier..?


----------



## phoghat

"Take a marble say 16mm, and a plasticine ball of about 16mm and fire that at the same speed."
By plasticine, I take it you mean modelling clay ? Modelling clay with the same density as the glass marble ????
I don't think so.
The facts remain:
Whether or not you say momentum is more important than kinetic energy, is a circular argument.
Momentum is directly related and in many ways the same as kinetic energy !
A Big *anything*, if it has sufficient mass, and is accelerated to a sufficient speed is good. Smaller and the *same mass* at the same speed is* going to have the same effect !* and is just as good.
Nowhere have I said that you need a certain amount of Ft-Lbs of energy to do the job, it is easier, though, to do the job with something bigger and heavier than smaller and lighter.


----------



## -SRS-45-

-SRS-45- said:


> "Take a marble say 16mm, and a plasticine ball of about 16mm and fire that at the same speed."
> By plasticine, I take it you mean modelling clay ? Modelling clay with the same density as the glass marble ????
> I don't think so.
> The facts remain:
> Whether or not you say momentum is more important than kinetic energy, is a circular argument.
> Momentum is directly related and in many ways the same as kinetic energy !
> A Big *anything*, if it has sufficient mass, and is accelerated to a sufficient speed is good. Smaller and the *same mass* at the same speed is* going to have the same effect !* and is just as good.
> Nowhere have I said that you need a certain amount of Ft-Lbs of energy to do the job, it is easier, though, to do the job with something bigger and heavier than smaller and lighter.


yeah I think that pretty much is the same as I am thinking. larger = bigger impact radius, and as someone else said what a hunter is in for with a sling is trauma not penetration so larger should gemerally = better.


----------



## Charles

phoghat said:


> The facts remain:
> Whether or not you say momentum is more important than kinetic energy, is a circular argument.
> Momentum is directly related and in many ways the same as kinetic energy !


I said that when it comes to slingshots, linear momentum is probably a better guide to killing power than is kinetic energy. Linear momentum and kinetic energy are related to each other, but they are definitely NOT "the same". They are even measured in different units.

Here is a little example to help you see how different they are. For now, just forget about the units. Consider a particle of mass 10.

For velocity of 10, kin. en. = 1000, and lin. mom. = 100
For velocity of 1, kin. en. = 10, and lin. mom. = 10
For velocity of 0.1, kin. en. = 0.1, and lin. mom. = 1

So, numerically, for the same particle the kinetic energy may be greater than the linear momentum, equal to the linear momentum or less than the linear momentum ... depends on the velocity. But again, the units of kinetic energy and the units of momentum are very different.

Kinetic energy falls off very rapidly as velocity decreases; linear momentum does not drop as rapidly as velocity decreases. Conceptually, concentrating on kinetic energy greatly emphasizes velocity over mass; while concentrating on linear momentum treats velocity and mass as equally important.

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## bj000

Charles is my new physics teacher.
He is the Walter White of slingshots.
He knows a lot about everything
without sounding like a bigshot.


----------



## -SRS-45-

bj000 said:


> Charles is my new physics teacher.
> He is the Walter White of slingshots.
> He knows a lot about everything
> without sounding like a bigshot.


and the awesome beard ranks above any phd


----------



## bj000

-SRS-45- said:


> Charles is my new physics teacher.
> He is the Walter White of slingshots.
> He knows a lot about everything
> without sounding like a bigshot.


but the awesome beard ranks above any phd








[/quote]

i think the beard represents the degrees of his intelligence. each inch of beard is a year of stuff i do not know.


----------



## -SRS-45-

bj000 said:


> Charles is my new physics teacher.
> He is the Walter White of slingshots.
> He knows a lot about everything
> without sounding like a bigshot.


but the awesome beard ranks above any phd








[/quote]

i think the beard represents the degrees of his intelligence. each inch of beard is a year of stuff i do not know.
[/quote]
lol that would explain my scraggly goatie


----------



## Jacktrevally

phoghat said:


> "Take a marble say 16mm, and a plasticine ball of about 16mm and fire that at the same speed."
> By plasticine, I take it you mean modelling clay ? Modelling clay with the same density as the glass marble ????
> I don't think so.
> The facts remain:
> Whether or not you say momentum is more important than kinetic energy, is a circular argument.
> Momentum is directly related and in many ways the same as kinetic energy !
> A Big *anything*, if it has sufficient mass, and is accelerated to a sufficient speed is good. Smaller and the *same mass* at the same speed is* going to have the same effect !* and is just as good.
> Nowhere have I said that you need a certain amount of Ft-Lbs of energy to do the job, it is easier, though, to do the job with something bigger and heavier than smaller and lighter.


Yeah, different densities but I would guess about the same, that is why I said 'about' to get the same weight.

My point was to show that the energy in the two cases was the same but when the energy transfered as a force to the target did not ave similar consequences.


----------



## Jacktrevally

Charles said:


> I got lost again, as if I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> You are giving an example where energy is the key point then come to say that momentum is a better measure!?


Perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse.









I previously gave you an example in which energy did not matter ... recall the cosmic ray proton example. And I have given you an example in which momentum did not matter. And I said that, out of context, simple numerical calculations do not mean squat. And I gave it as my opinion that in the range of projectile weights and velocities for most slingshots, I believe that linear momentum is a better measure of likelihood of recovering game than is kinetic energy.

My message is very simple: there is no magic in the numbers or in the formulas. There is no calculation that is going to tell you what is "best" for killing game. In general, faster is better than slower, and heavier is better than lighter ... but fast and heavy conflict with each other. The best way to find out what is effective in the field is to go out and try it yourself and ask the opinions of folks who hunt with slingshots. If you check on this forum, I think you will find that most hunters prefer heavier ammo, even if it is slower. Of course there are limits beyond which you are wasting your time.... (like this discussion!)









Cheers ........ Charles
[/quote]

Point noted. As from this now, I will refrain from wasting my time giving scientific explanation.

I'm aware that the general public don't like scientific explanation as I've noticed on other forums as well where this can generate a mixed opinion.

-As from now on I'll follow your advive. I.e ask opinion of folks who have tried it and believe what they tell me and refrain from trying to understand the scientific principle behind.

ta ta


----------



## Charles

Jacktrevally said:


> I got lost again, as if I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> You are giving an example where energy is the key point then come to say that momentum is a better measure!?


Perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse.









I previously gave you an example in which energy did not matter ... recall the cosmic ray proton example. And I have given you an example in which momentum did not matter. And I said that, out of context, simple numerical calculations do not mean squat. And I gave it as my opinion that in the range of projectile weights and velocities for most slingshots, I believe that linear momentum is a better measure of likelihood of recovering game than is kinetic energy.

My message is very simple: there is no magic in the numbers or in the formulas. There is no calculation that is going to tell you what is "best" for killing game. In general, faster is better than slower, and heavier is better than lighter ... but fast and heavy conflict with each other. The best way to find out what is effective in the field is to go out and try it yourself and ask the opinions of folks who hunt with slingshots. If you check on this forum, I think you will find that most hunters prefer heavier ammo, even if it is slower. Of course there are limits beyond which you are wasting your time.... (like this discussion!)









Cheers ........ Charles
[/quote]

Point noted. As from this now, I will refrain from wasting my time giving scientific explanation.

I'm aware that the general public don't like scientific explanation as I've noticed on other forums as well where this can generate a mixed opinion.

-As from now on I'll follow your advive. I.e ask opinion of folks who have tried it and believe what they tell me and refrain from trying to understand the scientific principle behind.

ta ta
[/quote]

Trying to impose an overly simplistic mathematical model on a very complex physical situation is always ill advised. It is usually best to begin with empirical observations. I think you will find that an honest endeavor to understand, rather than dictate inappropriate formulas, is generally well received.

Of course one of the serious problems with interchanges via a forum such as this is that the normal cultural signals indicating good will are not always communicated correctly. From your comments I gather you have experienced that phenomenon elsewhere. Perhaps we should all strive to do better.









Cheers ... Charles


----------



## bootneck

All i know myself is that i used to shoot fast and light and again going back to large or small margin for error and shooting through thick vegitation.

When i shot with fast light bands head shots were normally instant dead (squirrels being the exeption as glancing shots would just ricochete of the skull, only solid hits worked) but a hit anywhere else was normally unrecoverable, if i did find them, the shot was normally a pass through (exept sqirrels) but with very little traumer and only stopped them quickly if the shot had broken a wing (so i could run up and finish by hand) or hit the spine on the way out, but most managed to get away either injured or sometimes they seemed fine (im sure they werent).

With heavy slow shot (stones and 16mm lead) there was normally some penatration, showing massive shock deep into the body , bleeding throught the eyes, nose and mouth, and the lungs burst and hearts split open normally with cuts from the ribs, as an example the 16mm lead on my last pidgeon went in through the backside and exited through the back of the neck. But again the main difference was the massive shock, tons of internal bleeding and bruising and bleeding through the eye's mouth and nose.

Anything passing through is wasted energy, and anything able to run away on adrenaline and nerves is wasted food, im sure the rush of blood evident from the bleeding through the eye's ect. is as good as a head shot, aswell that rush of blood is also going to seriously damage the brain.

Im no scientist but regardless of number's thats my observations and what works for me, plus if you have to shoot through vegitation I would give heavy shot a serious look as it doesnt seem to be deflected by sticks and brambles half as much.

Here's an experiment, put a target 10 or 15 meters out, now at 1 to two meters in front of that put some live twigs stood up firmly in the ground now shoot through one of the sticks into your target, try with a 9.5mm steel ball, then do the same with a 20 gram stone or similer in lead. Also when you do this remember in real life the shot may hit a few sticks before it gets to the target or some may be thicker.

Of course it doesnt really matter for people that hunt open area's but if your rabbits and birds like to hide in thick cover then it does make a difference, of course i am aware that my ammo is on the extreme end of size (16mm lead) although i personally wouldnt hunt with anything less than 50 cal (which is still very good)


----------



## hickymick

So bigger hits harder..But how much bigger do you need to cause enough shock on a rabbit to kill it? If you go on size of quarry to size of ammo the impact of 10mm lead on a rabbit or a squirrel is more than enough to kill it ? Will bigger ammo will kill it more :hmm: ?


----------



## Charles

hickymick said:


> So bigger hits harder..But how much bigger do you need to cause enough shock on a rabbit to kill it? If you go on size of quarry to size of ammo the impact of 10mm lead on a rabbit or a squirrel is more than enough to kill it ? Will bigger ammo will kill it more :hmm: ?


If you can propel 10-12mm lead at 53-61 meters per second (175-200 feet per second) then you have adequate energy to get a clean kill on a rabbit or a squirrel. Your problem then is a question of skill ... can you hit the animal in the proper spot? For the most part, slingshots kill by blunt force trauma, rather than by penetration. Heavier ammo is more likely to cause very severe trauma.

Cheers ... Charles


----------

