# Cylindrical Ammo



## Slingster (Apr 13, 2016)

I have read a few posts about guys making cylindrical ammo and I am considering it as well. Normally I shoot 3/8 steel bearings, but the idea of making some cylinders out of 3/8 A36 rod sounds like it might be fun. I do not reuse ammo because I shoot it all over my farm and do not use a catch box. Last year I went through around 2000 of the 3/8" steel bearings. Where I get my bearings that only cost me about $36 shipped for 2000 of the 3/8", so price is not a concern. Mostly looking just to experiment and maybe use the cylinders for hunting small game on the farm.

How would it shoot vs bearings? I know the weight would be more, but are they accurate when you get out past 25 yards?

How long should I make them in relationship to their diameter?

If the price is similar to buying bearings, what is the main advantage?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Slingster


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

I use steel roller bearings of various sizes. I prefer cylinders to spheres by weight because of the edges presented on the top and bottom. It spins in the air and causes alot of damage when it hits.

Also it's easier to pinch in my opinion 
Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## Slingster (Apr 13, 2016)

Cylinders do seem like they would locate well in the pouch. I might make a few to try, but it seems like it might be too much time and effort to make them for as much as I shoot. Perhaps I should just make them for hunting small critters around the farm and keep using 3/8 steel balls for plinking.


----------



## Slingster (Apr 13, 2016)

I just ran the numbers and calculated that a 3/8" diameter by 3/8" long cylinder would weigh 82gr. vs 54gr. for a 3/8" steel ball. That is a pretty good increase in weight.


----------



## BushpotChef (Oct 7, 2017)

Ever tried a 9mm socket?...They work a treat !

Sent from my SM-J320W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

BushpotChef said:


> Ever tried a 9mm socket?...They work a treat !
> 
> Sent from my SM-J320W8 using Tapatalk


Fill with a hammer and some lead weights or melt them in to make it even heavier.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## BushpotChef (Oct 7, 2017)

Abenso said:


> BushpotChef said:
> 
> 
> > Ever tried a 9mm socket?...They work a treat !
> ...


I do that with a few fishing sinkers and boy do they THUMP lol.

Sent from my SM-J320W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

How about getting some pencil lead at the fishing store and just cut it with some shears or use a wood chisel alongside a ruler?

The aim point will be different of course but the accuracy should be fine. They might make a bit more noise flying through the air but at our closer ranges it should be fine.

winnie


----------



## wll (Oct 4, 2014)

Slingster said:


> I just ran the numbers and calculated that a 3/8" diameter by 3/8" long cylinder would weigh 82gr. vs 54gr. for a 3/8" steel ball. That is a pretty good increase in weight.


That sounds like a very effective piece of ammo !! ..

wll


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

Just got more of these. I use these instead of 1/4 for small ammo









Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## wll (Oct 4, 2014)

Abenso said:


> Just got more of these. I use these instead of 1/4 for small ammo
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What are size are those roller bearings ?

wll


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

wll said:


> Abenso said:
> 
> 
> > Just got more of these. I use these instead of 1/4 for small ammo
> ...


Roller bearings from am automotive wheel hub.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

Abenso said:


> wll said:
> 
> 
> > Abenso said:
> ...


These are from a ford explorer rear axle hub. These are good 3/8 replacements. 
I'm not sure of size or weight right now. My suggestion is to go to your mechanic and tell them that you will pay them 2 or 3 bucks for each press in wheel bearing they keep for you. Take em home and with some ingenuity you cam bust them open. Use some brake clean to rinse all the grease off and you've got ammo. I'm a mechanic so I have a shit load. I have like 15 lbs of bearings in a bucket at home









Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## wll (Oct 4, 2014)

The most deadly stuff I have made is this. It is a 5/16 square nut (1/2 x 1/2od) with a set screw to hold the two nuts together. I ordered enough to make 1000 pieces and spent two full days and made about 800 before my hands could not take it any longer ... it was tough. each one weighs in at ~260ish grains and destroys everything in its path when using looped 1745's or similar ... this is serious medicine ! With this set up I get ~185fps at a 35" draw, pulling a good 500-525% elongation factor. Like I said, this is a monster !!










Here it is in a pouch on my modified F-16 with looped 1745's from a few years ago !

wll


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

wll said:


> The most deadly stuff I have made is this. It is a 5/16 square nut (1/2 x 1/2od) with a set screw to hold the two nuts together. I ordered enough to make 1000 pieces and spent two full days and made about 800 before my hands could not take it any longer ... it was tough. each one weighs in at ~260ish grains and destroys everything in its path when using looped 1745's or similar ... this is serious medicine ! With this set up I get ~185fps at a 35" draw, pulling a good 500-525% elongation factor. Like I said, this is a monster !!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That looks pretty deadly. They sell cubes and other shapes like saucers and discs. Look up tumble media.

On a side note I dig your f16. I also have a modded f16 









Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## wll (Oct 4, 2014)

Abenso said:


> wll said:
> 
> 
> > The most deadly stuff I have made is this. It is a 5/16 square nut (1/2 x 1/2od) with a set screw to hold the two nuts together. I ordered enough to make 1000 pieces and spent two full days and made about 800 before my hands could not take it any longer ... it was tough. each one weighs in at ~260ish grains and destroys everything in its path when using looped 1745's or similar ... this is serious medicine ! With this set up I get ~185fps at a 35" draw, pulling a good 500-525% elongation factor. Like I said, this is a monster !!
> ...


Yes, the Daisy F-16 is an incredibly underestimated Sling, as it is adaptable to many ways of attachment on the forks as well as gypsy ties in the configuration of your choice. The wire is absolutely bullet proof and handles any elastic that you can pull back. I wrapped mine like I did to keep the profile thin, yet it is comfortable. For $4.97 at Walmart at the time I bought them, for a full size slingshot, they can't be beat !!! If you wish, the top of the handle can be drilled out and ammo kept in the handle with a rubber band on top, keeping the ammo in place.

An amazing product if you have the ingenuity to make very easy modifications.

wll


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

@wll
For mine I took the handle off completely and replaced it with two quarter inch metal plates which I bolted together around the forks and filled with Automotive silicone and wrap the whole thing with a radiator hose. I then wrap that with a paracord. It's Hefty and resilient
Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

I've been thinking about this cylinder stuff. What happens if the cylinder lands sideways? Spreading the forces out along the length of the cylinder could decrease penetration. Is it worth it?

winnie


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

Winnie said:


> I've been thinking about this cylinder stuff. What happens if the cylinder lands sideways? Spreading the forces out along the length of the cylinder could decrease penetration. Is it worth it?
> 
> winnie


I think it's the tumbling effect that causes all the damage, it doesn't just tumble and stop when it hits something it transfers energy in a number different ways causing all sorts of damage. You would need someone who knows about ballistics to give you a proper explanation I wouldn't know where to start.


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

It's about transfer of ballistic energy. Penetration isn't everything. A cylinder hitting sideways would transfer the same amount of energy as a ball of the same weight. It's a matter of surface area of contact I feel like. I'm no expert but I have a basic understanding. And have shot alot of cylinders and balls and prefer the cylinders by far for damage.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## Hobbit With A Slingshot (Mar 14, 2017)

I think we're overlooking the obvious answer to this question of the differing affects of cylinders vs. spheres: Send some of the roller bearings to Joerg (he's got a real nice slowmo camera now) and ask for a ballistic geletin video :king: Problem solved.


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

I understand the appeal of a cylinder in that if an edge hits first it concentrates a large amount of energy onto a very small spot and would increase the chances of penetration ( I'm not certain there is a lot of tumbling at our velocities).

Conversely, if it hits sideways the same amount of energy will be transferred but the area of contact will be much larger than a ball of the same weight. Because hunting with slingshots is often about blunt trauma it would seem that it would be most prudent to try to keep the area of contact as small as possible.

It still seems like pencil lead cut into your chosen length would be pretty good. You get round on one axis and plenty of sharp edges and points on both ends. It can be cut with shears or wire cutters or a wood chisel and can be purchased in a number of diameters.

winnie


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

The tumbling effect even at our velocities in my understanding means that when the cylinder flies through the air and strikes the target the tumble adds extra energy upon impact. The cylinder doesn't remain in a fixed position when it strikes end on or even side on, at least, that's my take on it. I think a slow motion camera and ballistic gel would prove my point but I stand to be corrected.


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm no physicist but I know that you cannot add extra energy on impact by having your ammo tumble. In fact, I suspect any tumbling might represent energy lost in flight. The whole purpose of rifling on guns is to prevent tumbling because it effects accuracy and velocity.

The energy delivered is dependent on mass and velocity so it is pretty well set. It is either fully or partially transferred upon impact. If the ammo goes through or glances off then the energy spent after impact is lost but if the target is hit solidly (and doesn't move) then all the energy is transferred. This is where surface area becomes important. The smaller the surface area upon impact the higher the probability of penetration.

If tumbling doesn't work for guns I suspect it doesn't work for slingshots either. If a cylinder had enough velocity and mass to penetrate and continue tumbling then that would be something but, alas, we aren't dealing with that kind of energy in slingshots.

I still propose that if someone wants to use bar-stock to cut for ammo then the best result will be found by trying to match the length of the bar to the diameter of the bar-stock. This will give you the closest thing to a ball but with sharp edges and points - if, for instance, you were to clip off chunks of pencil lead).

winnie


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

I think the link below is what we are looking for:

The Simple Physics That Makes Some Bullets Deadlier Than Others How higher speed, greater mass, and more surface area increase the damage that rounds can do to human bodies.

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physics-deadly-bullets-assault-rifles/

Projectile weapons work by transferring kinetic energy to a target, which ripples out as a shockwave through tissue as the bullet plows through the body, leaving a cavity in its wake. The amount of energy a bullet radiates into a target is determined by a simple formula taught in high school: It's the product of one half the projectile's mass times the square of the velocity. The energy delivered to the target increases geometrically along with increases in mass, and exponentially with increases in velocity. The larger a projectile's surface area, the greater its ability to transfer its energy to the target, instead of simply penetrating straight through.


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

If you want penetration you want the smallest surface area possible at impact. Transference of energy will be total (energy at impact) unless the projectile glances off or goes through the target. Increase the surface area of the projectile/target interface though and you get the same energy transferred but because it is spread over a larger area there is less damage. Put a hand on a friend and push away. Now put a pencil in your hand and push away with the same force.

I'm not certain how important any of this is considering slingshot velocities but the particulars are part of the calculus in determining what to shoot/hunt.

winnie


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

So according to the physics an oblong/cylinder type projectile's larger surface area and tumbling effect all adds up to a greater transfer of kinetic energy and will, in fact, cause far more trauma upon impact with a body. The physiics do not lie... :bowdown:


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

Winnie said:


> If you want penetration you want the smallest surface area possible at impact. Transference of energy will be total (energy at impact) unless the projectile glances off or goes through the target. Increase the surface area of the projectile/target interface though and you get the same energy transferred but because it is spread over a larger area there is less damage. Put a hand on a friend and push away. Now put a pencil in your hand and push away with the same force.
> 
> I'm not certain how important any of this is considering slingshot velocities but the particulars are part of the calculus in determining what to shoot/hunt.
> 
> winnie


You are wrong Winnie that bird has flown if you read the article properly. The velocity and tumbling effect makes a huge difference to the transfer of kinetic energy upon impact as does the increased surface area of the projectile. Oh and I cannot see how the phyisics would change from a rifle to a slingshot..


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

Ok, now it gets fun.

A projectile is flying through the air. How it got to flying is unimportant. Whether it is tumbling, spinning or doing the cha cha doesn't matter. It has a certain amount of kinetic energy. That kinetic energy has been imparted by the bands and when the pouch releases the projectile it has as much energy as it is ever going to get. It will lose a certain amount of energy due to friction but when it hits it will impart that energy to the target. If the projectile is spinning or tumbling that is fine. Whatever portion of the energy that is imparted to the projectile/cylinder to cause it to tumble will be released on contact but it is existing kinetic energy not some special energy created at the time of impact.

Now, when it comes to the release of energy, (damage to the prey) the only energy available - the existing kinetic energy - can have varying effects on the target depending on how concentrated the energy is on impact. If, for instance, the projectile is a cylinder and the end of the cylinder hits perfectly so that the round flat end lands flush then that energy will be distributed over a relatively small area. That is generally considered good and the possibility of penetration increases. If the same projectile is tumbling and it hits flush on the end of the cylinder first, like above, then there will be a bunch of energy released on impact, but not all the energy. Some of the energy transferred to the cylinder was transferred as tumbling. Now when the end of the cylinder hits it releases most of its energy but then it continues to tumble until the "free end" stops moving and at that point the rest of the energy is fully transferred. The total energy imparted to the cylinder by the bands (the velocity and tumble) is released on impact. If there is no tumble and the cylinder has the same energy imparted to it by the bands as the tumbling shot then the velocity will be slightly more since the same amount of energy is involved. Both the tumbling and non tumbling projectiles hit the target with the same exact energy.

Increasing the area of impact will not decrease the energy transferred it will just spread the energy around more and decrease the chance of a kill.

winnie


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

Winnie said:


> Ok, now it gets fun.
> 
> A projectile is flying through the air. How it got to flying is unimportant. Whether it is tumbling, spinning or doing the cha cha doesn't matter. It has a certain amount of kinetic energy. That kinetic energy has been imparted by the bands and when the pouch releases the projectile it has as much energy as it is ever going to get. It will lose a certain amount of energy due to friction but when it hits it will impart that energy to the target. If the projectile is spinning or tumbling that is fine. Whatever portion of the energy that is imparted to the projectile/cylinder to cause it to tumble will be released on contact but it is existing kinetic energy not some special energy created at the time of impact.
> 
> ...


Okay Winnie the Physics is wrong and you are right, you know better than the FBI. :banghead: https://www.thetrace...assault-rifles/ "This post has been updated to include information released by the FBI regarding the weapon used in the shooting."


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

SkullT, the physics are not wrong. I fear that you may have misread me and/or the article.

Look at the last sentence in the third paragraph:

"The larger a projectile's surface area, the greater its ability to transfer its energy to the target, instead of simply penetrating straight through."

The article is about bullet mass and velocity. Increase the mass, reduce the velocity and don't go "straight through". Or, increase the mass and velocity or, whatever. Just keep the projectile from going through. Tumbling, in this regard, has to do with the bullet tumbling within the body - hence not coming out. You want it to tumble, spin, fragment etc but remember we are talking about two things now; Bullets which, once penetrating you don't want to exit but stay and fully expend their energy, and; Slingshots which generally kill by blunt trauma. With a slingshot I hope to hit where I am aiming and hopefully I will get a bit of penetration too. I don't really want to shoot through either. Wasted energy. If the bullet stays in the target then all of the energy is transferred.

The article does not support what you say it does - that is: "The tumbling effect even at our velocities in my understanding means that when the cylinder flies through the air and strikes the target the tumble adds extra energy upon impact." There is only so much kinetic energy available. A cylinder will cause variations in blunt trauma and penetration/laceration depending how it hits but it will not create or add extra energy on impact. It's possible that if a cylinder has some reasonable length to it and it lands sideways it may perhaps spread the forces out a bit and result in something less than a kill. Make the cylinder big enough and it doesn't make any difference though, I suppose. The whole thing is probably just an interesting exercise. I have to admit a proper cylinder is going to penetrate better than a ball.

Now, about your last statement and emoji,

The facts are important if we are going to move beyond being civil. My point was about not adding "extra energy" (your term) and it still stands. Throw in the FBI, the Boy Scouts the YMCA or whatever, there still is no extra energy in a cylinder. The energy is simply distributed in different ways than a ball.

Dr. Winnie


----------



## 31610 (Aug 20, 2017)

Check out pills I got not sure how much rubber it will take to send them but I do no I would not want to be on receiving end


----------



## Ibojoe (Mar 13, 2016)

A good friend sent me some squares of half inch steel filled with lead Been testing them with some devistating results. I know it’s the combination of weight and sharp edges but these things seem to fly pretty good and hit like a ton of brick! It busted through this pressurized can with ease. We call em Philly specials


----------



## Toolshed (Aug 4, 2015)

Ooooohhhhhh man! Lead fueled interior with a non malleable exterior.


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

*Listen **Winnie**, you are talking nonsense.*

*I shot a squirrel a couple of weeks back with a 9mm round lead and it went clean through and I could hear the shot hitting the branches of the tree behind. The squirrel climbed a few meters further up the tree and dropped it was dead when it hit the ground.*

"The larger a projectile's surface area, the greater its ability to transfer its energy to the target, instead of simply penetrating straight through."

Had I cast the same lead as a cylinder with a greater surface area and whether it had been tumbling through the air before hitting the squirrel or started to tumbled upon impact that lead would have transferred all it's kinetic energy into the squirrel and not into the tree branches behind from a through and through. The impact would have not only been greater but the shock-wave and physical trauma would have been devastating and that's a fact. The physics in the article bear this out.

"The tumbling effect even at our velocities in my understanding means that when the cylinder flies through the air and strikes the target the tumble adds extra energy upon impact." There is only so much kinetic energy available.

Yes, there is only so much kinetic energy available but you would lose kinetic energy being transferred to the body with a smaller surface area upon impact, no tumbling or a through and through. The tumbling motion of a cylinder with a greater surface area not only causes huge physical trauma it transfers all the available kinetic energy to the body upon impact - FACT.

Now what don't you get?


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

shoot something bigger


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

I don't get it. Where does the EXTRA ENERGY that you spoke of come from? What about conservation of energy? It is a simple transfer of energy. Cylinders do it and balls do it - must by why it is a basic principal of physics. You have a know mass and a known velocity. When it hits something there will be a transfer of energy. All of the kinetic energy is spent when movement stops. If your tumbling cylinder hits end on and then tumbles it first transfers a bunch of energy and then as it tumbles and does whatever it does such as lacerate, penetrate, bruise, whatever, it will transfer energy until it comes to a rest. It is not extra energy. It is the same energy that a ball of the same mass and moving at the same speed. How it reacts when it hits the target is a matter of the shape of the projectile. You like cylinders. Cool. Those sharp edges penetrate better than a ball. They don't have any more energy though. They just spend it differently. Go back and read your posts. You very clearly said, and now defended, the notion that extra energy is released by the cylinder as it tumbles. Now look up the definition of Conservation of Energy. There is no extra energy. Can't happen. Read your post.


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

I have to agree. You cannot create extra energy. Personally I just always thought that the wider bar had a harder initial punch because of it wider surface area. It has nothing to do with amount of energy. Heck you could toss them at it and the math would be the same.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

Ibojoe said:


> A good friend sent me some squares of half inch steel filled with lead Been testing them with some devistating results. I know it's the combination of weight and sharp edges but these things seem to fly pretty good and hit like a ton of brick! It busted through this pressurized can with ease. We call em Philly specials


I've been trying to find a good place to find cubes!

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

Winnie said:


> shoot something bigger





Winnie said:


> shoot something bigger


Had I cast the same lead as a cylinder with a* greater surface area *and whether it had been tumbling through the air before hitting the squirrel or started to tumbled upon impact that lead would have transferred all it's kinetic energy into the squirrel and not into the tree branches behind from a through and through. The impact would have not only been greater but the shock-wave and physical trauma would have been devastating and that's a fact.

*"The rifle round, which is longer than a pistol projectile, likely also began tumbling after its point collided with his hip. That meant that the tip didn't just bore straight through him, but rather that the whole length of the projectile rotated over and over through Scalise's body, ripping a wider hole and distributing a bigger shock wave throughout his bones and tissue."*


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

Abenso said:


> I have to agree. You cannot create extra energy. Personally I just always thought that the wider bar had a harder initial punch because of it wider surface area. It has nothing to do with amount of energy. Heck you could toss them at it and the math would be the same.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


*Yes, *there is only so much kinetic energy available but you would lose kinetic energy being transferred to the body with a *smaller surface area upon impact, no tumbling or a through and through.* The *tumbling motion of a cylinder with a greater surface area* not only causes *huge physical trauma it transfers all the available kinetic energy to the body upon impact - **FACT*

*"The rifle round, which is longer than a pistol projectile, likely also began tumbling after its point collided with his hip. That meant that the tip didn't just bore straight through him, but rather that the whole length of the projectile rotated over and over through Scalise's body, ripping a wider hole and distributing a bigger shock wave throughout his bones and tissue."*


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

I feel like we're saying the same thing but the way your presenting it makes it sound wrong.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## 3danman (Mar 29, 2012)

Winnie said:


> SkullT, the physics are not wrong. I fear that you may have misread me and/or the article.
> 
> Look at the last sentence in the third paragraph:
> 
> ...


Your last point is correct but I'd like to clarify that cylinders and spheres, all else being equal, have the same energy only if they are of identical mass. I'm sure you know this but I wasn't sure if that was clear for others.


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

Winnie said:


> I don't get it. Where does the EXTRA ENERGY that you spoke of come from? What about conservation of energy? It is a simple transfer of energy. Cylinders do it and balls do it - must by why it is a basic principal of physics. You have a know mass and a known velocity. When it hits something there will be a transfer of energy. All of the kinetic energy is spent when movement stops. If your tumbling cylinder hits end on and then tumbles it first transfers a bunch of energy and then as it tumbles and does whatever it does such as lacerate, penetrate, bruise, whatever, it will transfer energy until it comes to a rest. It is not extra energy. It is the same energy that a ball of the same mass and moving at the same speed. How it reacts when it hits the target is a matter of the shape of the projectile. You like cylinders. Cool. Those sharp edges penetrate better than a ball. They don't have any more energy though. They just spend it differently. Go back and read your posts. You very clearly said, and now defended, the notion that extra energy is released by the cylinder as it tumbles. Now look up the definition of Conservation of Energy. There is no extra energy. Can't happen.
> 
> The Simple Physics That Makes Some Bullets Deadlier Than Others - the clue is in the title, Winnie


You are deliberately trying to take what I said out of context. There is no EXTRA energy but with a smaller surface area and no tumbling effect and the bullet boring clean through the body, energy that would have been transfer into the body is lost. So the EXTRA energy is, in fact, energy that would have been lost making the shot far more effective not to mention the rotation of the shot tearing a bigger hole.

FACT - a tumbling cylinder type projectile with a larger surface area does more damage than a projectile with a smaller surface area that bores straight through a body and rotating/tumbling projectile tares a bigger hole.


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

3danman said:


> Winnie said:
> 
> 
> > SkullT, the physics are not wrong. I fear that you may have misread me and/or the article.
> ...


I get what you say and I should have chosen my words more carfuly but I did say I was no pysicist but the exta energy is there in the form of energy that would have normally been lost.


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

The Simple Physics That Makes Some Bullets Deadlier Than Others - the clue is in the title, Winnie

You are deliberately trying to take what I said out of context. There is no EXTRA energy but with a smaller surface area and no tumbling effect and the bullet boring clean through the body, energy that would have been transfer into the body is lost. So the EXTRA energy is, in fact, energy that would have been lost making the shot far more effective not to mention the rotation of the shot tearing a bigger hole.

FACT - a tumbling cylinder type projectile with a larger surface area does more damage than a projectile with smaller surface area that bores straight through a body and a rotating/tumbling projectile tares a bigger hole.


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

Winnie Wrote:

Because hunting with slingshots is often about blunt trauma it would seem that it would be most prudent to try to keep the area of contact as small as possible. :banghead:

If tumbling doesn't work for guns I suspect it doesn't work for slingshots either. :banghead:

:bonk:


----------



## Hobbit With A Slingshot (Mar 14, 2017)

Okay, I'm not taking sides here, nor am I trying to attack anybody, I'd just like to try to clarify a couple things. *Feel free to ignore me if you want, I swear I won't mind. *

I'll be using underlining and bolding of the font to hopefully break my questions down here, as they are rather long. I am not using those tools with the intent to offend.

SkullT, do you agree that the tumbling motion of the bullets that were shot out of a gun begins after entering the body?

And are you saying that once they start tumbling inside the body, then they start causing the damage?

And to clarify: for your example, do you feel that a cylindrical slingshot projectile must be tumbling before it enters the game animal to continue to tumble inside of the animal (and thus cause massive internal damage), or do you feel that the cylindrical projectile will tumble once inside the game animal regardless of whether or not it was tumbling through the air before impact (similar to how the bullets from the firearms start tumbling only after they enter the body) and regardless of the orientation that it struck?

I think we can all agree that when a bullet tumbles inside of whatever it hits will cause more damage as compared to one of equal size and velocity that merely punches straight through without tumbling. In my eyes (emphasis on the word "my"), however, *the confusion here seems to be stemming from when and where the cylindrical slingshot projectile must start tumbling to cause more damage than a sphere of equal diameter and the same material.*


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

Personally i don't take tumbling into any consideration accept for variation of impact pattern. Which inevitably is wider with a cylinder. Which would increase blunt initial impact energy transfer. Which is what we want. Similar I suppose to the tumble of a bullet as opposed to a through and through. However with a slingshot it's about hydraulic shock not penetration so the desirable features of the ammunition are inherently different. Think bean bag gun vs. .22lr.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

*Hobbit with a slingshot writes:*

SkullT, do you agree that the tumbling motion of the bullets that were shot out of a gun begins after entering the body?

Yes, I agree.

And are you saying that once they start tumbling inside the body, then they start causing the damage?

Yes, when they start to rotate they tare a bigger hole in a body but they also transfer more kinetic energy directly into the body and cause a huge shock wave as no energy is lost by the bullet boring through the body in through and through.

And to clarify: for your example, do you feel that a cylindrical slingshot projectile must be tumbling before it enters the game animal to continue to tumble inside of the animal (and thus cause massive internal damage), or do you feel that the cylindrical projectile will tumble once inside the game animal regardless of whether or not it was tumbling through the air before impact (similar to how the bullets from the firearms start tumbling only after they enter the body) and regardless of the orientation that it struck?

No, the projectile does not have to be tumbling before it hits the animal but once it hits a cylindrical/oblong type projectile is likely to start tumbling upon impact when it hits bone. However, in the case of a slingshot I believe it is highly probable that a cylindrical/oblong type projectile will start tumbling shortly after it leaves the pouch making it even more effective upon impact and it doesn't matter what it hits as the rotation of the projectile is already in motion.

I think we can all agree that when a bullet tumbles inside of whatever it hits will cause more damage as compared to one of equal size and velocity that merely punches straight through without tumbling.

Yes, absolutely!

In my eyes (emphasis on the word "my"), however, *the confusion here seems to be stemming from when and where the cylindrical slingshot projectile must start tumbling to cause more damage than a sphere of equal diameter and the same material.*

No, because a cylindrical/oblong slingshot projectile has a greater surface area that comes into contact with a body. It's not the diameter but the projectiles surface area when rotating through the body that causes all the damage, it doesn't just bore through.


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

We have to begin this with an age old question: What weighs more, a ton of straw or a ton of bricks?

SkullT, So much of what you are saying is just plain conjecture and not founded in reality.

SkullT wrote "Yes, when they start to rotate they tare a bigger hole in a body but they also transfer more kinetic energy directly into the body and cause a huge shock wave as no energy is lost by the bullet boring through the body in through and through."

SkullT also wrote: "No, because a cylindrical/oblong slingshot projectile has a greater surface area that comes into contact with a body. It's not the diameter but the projectiles surface area when rotating through the body that causes all the damage, it doesn't just bore through."

You are coming off as an authority and yet there are so many flaws in what you say. Remember one of the basic principals of physics is: CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

IT IS ONLY POSSIBLE TO TRANSFER AS MUCH ENERGY AS THERE IS. YOU CANNOT TRANSFER MORE THAN THE MOVING PROJECTILE CARRIES WITH IT.

A tumbling cylinder transfers no more energy than a ball. It just transfers it differently. It will begin to shed energy as soon as it hits. As it begins to penetrate it will shed more. As it begins to tumble inside the target it will shed more yet until all of the energy is dissipated and transferred to the target.

Provided the projectile does not pass through the target then all of the energy has been transferred. OK, so what's the difference? Something with a larger cross section like a cylinder will tumble and cause a lot of damage but will also shed it's energy quickly. Hence it will not travel as far into the target. A lot of damage will occur but it will tend to be more shallow (more surface area means the forces are spread over a wider area so the penetration cannot be as deep). A ball will go deeper and will cause a larger or different blast "chamber" in the process. So long as it does not go through then it too will shed all of its energy, and in doing so will cause a lot of damage. It will be different damage than the cylinder but it will represent the same amount of energy absorbed by the target.

If a cylinder and a ball both weigh the same then the energy transferred is the SAME. It just manifests differently because of the shape of the ammo. Conservation of energy.

BTW, if you replace your term "energy" with "damage then much of what you say makes sense. Unfortunately for the sake of this argument, damage does not mean energy.

winne


----------



## Ordo (Feb 11, 2018)

Winnie said:


> If a cylinder and a ball both weigh the same then the energy transferred is the SAME. It just manifests differently because of the shape of the ammo. Conservation of energy.
> 
> winne


Nitpicking the cylindrical ammo will lose more energy during the fly due to lack of aerodynamics.


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

Winnie said:


> We have to begin this with an age old question: What weighs more, a ton of straw or a ton of bricks?
> 
> SkullT, So much of what you are saying is just plain conjecture and not founded in reality.
> 
> ...


Did you read the article? Did you even watch the videos? Have you ever had any experience with shooting different shaped projectiles at animals to see how effective they are at killing?

Winnie tell me something, you are not a man of faith by any chance?

Winnie Wrote:

Because hunting with slingshots is often about blunt trauma it would seem that it would be most prudent to try to keep the area of contact as small as possible. :banghead: *More blunt trauma from an "area of contact as small as possible." :banghead: *



If tumbling doesn't work for guns I suspect it doesn't work for slingshots either. :banghead: *No Winnie, tumbling does work for guns... "The rifle round, which is longer than a pistol projectile, likely also began tumbling after its point collided with his hip. That meant that the tip didn't just bore straight through him, but rather that the whole length of the projectile rotated over and over through Scalise's body, ripping a wider hole and distributing a bigger shock wave throughout his bones and tissue."*

*"ripping a wider hole and distributing a bigger shock wave throughout his bones and tissue."*

:bonk: :bonk:


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

*Surface area*

In the macabre world of terminal ballistics, the study of what happens when projectiles actually strike, much can be made of over-penetration: the phenomenon of bullets passing clean through their targets. That's a problem, because the force that continues to propel the bullet has essentially been wasted, not transferred to the target.

That problem is solved by making more of a bullet's surface area actually come in contact with its target. Rifle rounds have an elongated, oblong shape and so they often tumble. When they strike, the bullets rotate, and more of their surface hits the body.

:banghead:


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

Posted 12 minutes ago

SkullT wrote:

*"Surface area*

In the macabre world of terminal ballistics, the study of what happens when projectiles actually strike, much can be made of over-penetration: the phenomenon of bullets passing clean through their targets. That's a problem, because the force that continues to propel the bullet has essentially been wasted, not transferred to the target.

That problem is solved by making more of a bullet's surface area actually come in contact with its target. Rifle rounds have an elongated, oblong shape and so they often tumble. When they strike, the bullets rotate, and more of their surface hits the body.

:banghead: "

The projectile staying within the target has been referenced a half dozen times above.

A huge amount of research and testing has been done specifically to try to keep the bullet from going all the way through the target. It's what they are all trying for.

Bullets are elongated and oblong specifically so that they will not tumble. They are elongated and oblong so they will, with spinning, be aerodynamic (which is just the opposite of tumbling). Bullets tumble because they distort after striking the target. Make a bullet out of steel and it will pass straight through the target. Make a bullet soft or fragile then when it strikes the target it will distort on impact (mushrooming or fragmenting) which will do two things: Slow it down and increase it's surface area via distortion, which will in turn slow it down further shedding energy and causing damage as it does so.

The whole point of bullet design is to get the bullet to the target as fast as possible yet, and here's the problem, once it gets there you want it to slow down to a stop within the target which, generally, isn't that thick. So, you have to go from super aerodynamic to just plain blunt, or better yet, increase it's surface area profoundly and the bullet will stop quickly thereby transferring all it's energy. Tumbling, expanding, mushrooming, fragmenting, rolling, changing direction are all expressions of what the bullet is doing after it hits.

This conversation began as a tangent to the original question which was - Are there any advantages or disadvantages to shooting cylinders? Steel cylinders that are moving slow and which do not change shape on contact. I was wondering if a cylinder were to land flat sideways (remember we don't have any idea if it is tumbling in the air a little, or a lot, or not at all) would the increase in surface area of the side of the cylinder be sufficient to distribute the forces enough so that it might not kill our rat, rabbit etc. From that point we were taken in the direction of cylinders tumbling through bodies. I propose, though, that the indeterminate tumbling of a small, slow, steel cylinder is not a big part of slingshot shooting. Because slingshots are slow and close shooting I suspect that given the same mass the ball and cylinder will not behave all that differently provided the cylinder is not too long. I'd guess more lacerating and a bit less depth in a larger animal. I am, however, beginning to like the idea of using some wire cutters to cut 1/4" pieces of 1/4 pencil lead. All the sharp edges and points in something that is kind of close to round sounds effective.

winnie


Bullets tumbleQuote
MultiQuote


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

Winnie said:


> Posted 12 minutes ago
> 
> SkullT wrote:
> 
> ...


If I take my 9mm round lead and recast it as an oblong lead it will tumble through the air upon release from the pouch and because of its rotation more surface area will come into contact with the body as it ploughs through, *ripping a wider hole and distributing a bigger shock wave throughout **the body - FACT. * 

In the case of the squirrel I shot with a 9mm lead which resulted in a through and through had I shot it with an oblong lead it would have probably knocked its socks off.

Oh and if I could find a suitable oblong lead mould I would be shooting oblong leads instead of a 9mm round lead.

It's not rocket science Winnie but it is physics and to claim otherwise is just idiocy but you keep waffling on if it makes you feel better. :banghead:


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

Winnie Wrote:

Because hunting with slingshots is often about blunt trauma it would seem that it would be most prudent to try to keep the area of contact as small as possible. :banghead: *More blunt trauma from an "area of contact as small as possible." :banghead: *

*Winnie you have to be on drugs to even think the above is **remotely** true. :banghead: ..*


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

SkullT wrote:

"If I take my 9mm round lead and recast it as an oblong lead it will tumble through the air upon release from the pouch and because of its rotation more surface area will come into contact with the body as it ploughs through, *ripping a wider hole and distributing a bigger shock wave throughout **the body - FACT.*

In the case of the squirrel I shot with a 9mm lead which resulted in a through and through had I shot it with an oblong lead it would have probably knocked its socks off.

Oh and if I could find a suitable oblong lead mould I would be shooting oblong leads instead of a 9mm round lead.

It's not rocket science Winnie but it is physics and to claim otherwise is just idiocy but you keep waffling on if it makes you feel better. :banghead:

Okay SkullT, prove it. You just implied that I am an idiot and said my "waffling" makes me feel better. If at this point you feel justified in being rude then you are truly a remarkable person. I suspect at this point that your knowledge is based on ignorance and your continual adherence to your own very certain opinion of extra energy being released on impact by a cylinder is based on a contrived knowledge base Most of what you said is personal opinion backed up, by what I can tell, is some experience shooting through a small animal like a squirrel (which is exactly the type of shot that we are not talking about). Show me mathematically where all your extra energy comes from. I agree the "wound cavity" will be different than a ball but where does all this extra killing efficiency come from in a projectile that does not pass all the way through the body.

Two moving bodies of the same mass traveling at the same speed will have the same kinetic energy. One is a cylinder, and has a larger surface area then the other which is round.

If the cylinder hits sideways it may or may not penetrate depending on a number of factors but it will inflict X amount of energy into/onto the target. That energy, when transferred, will cause damage.

If a round ball is shot and hits the target with X amount of energy that energy, like the cylinder, will transfer to the target and will cause damage.

The target in both cases absorbed X amount of energy. The ball, with a better surface area to volume ratio will likely cause less initial or surface damage than a cylinder landing on it's side but because less energy was transferred initially it will likely travel deeper than the side landing cylinder which hit with higher a surface areal exposed.

The targets will demonstrate different manifestations of the energy transferred but the same energy is transferred. It doesn't just disappear because the projectile is round.

Go spend some time studying physics. And maybe a little etiquette too.

Like This


Quote
MultiQuote


----------



## SkullT (Jan 6, 2018)

Winnie said:


> SkullT wrote:
> 
> "If I take my 9mm round lead and recast it as an oblong lead it will tumble through the air upon release from the pouch and because of its rotation more surface area will come into contact with the body as it ploughs through, *ripping a wider hole and distributing a bigger shock wave throughout **the body - FACT.*
> 
> ...


Winnie you are tripping... :rofl:


----------



## wll (Oct 4, 2014)

????
????

wll


----------



## Abenso (Apr 28, 2017)

I like the way they fit in the pouch

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


----------



## ghost0311/8541 (Jan 6, 2013)

Screw a 1/2 socket to a board and smelt lead into it tap the board on something the lead will slide out this ammo is devastating to any thing it hits


----------



## ghost0311/8541 (Jan 6, 2013)

Here you go.


----------



## nike (Oct 26, 2013)

What a dazzling sight. :violin:


----------



## oldasa (Apr 6, 2018)

BushpotChef said:


> Ever tried a 9mm socket?...They work a treat !
> 
> Sent from my SM-J320W8 using Tapatalk


Where do I get some economical sockets?


----------



## BushpotChef (Oct 7, 2017)

oldasa said:


> BushpotChef said:
> 
> 
> > Ever tried a 9mm socket?...They work a treat !
> ...


Thrift stores is where I usually look, they can be tricky to find. But if you happen to have even one handy it's a good way to see if you like this type if ammo and see what kind of damage it does. This way if you end up making some from cut sections of rod you know what you're in for. Hope this helps!

Sent from my SM-J320W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## oldasa (Apr 6, 2018)

BushpotChef said:


> oldasa said:
> 
> 
> > BushpotChef said:
> ...


----------



## oldasa (Apr 6, 2018)

ghost0311/8541 said:


> Screw a 1/2 socket to a board and smelt lead into it tap the board on something the lead will slide out this ammo is devastating to any thing it hits


I amaze myself sometimes. LOL The down in dirty version would be a hexnut with a fishing spit shot pounded into the hole. Pounding both siides would create a rivet like lead plug in the center.


----------



## Buckskin Dave (Apr 4, 2018)

Abenso said:


> It's about transfer of ballistic energy. Penetration isn't everything. A cylinder hitting sideways would transfer the same amount of energy as a ball of the same weight. It's a matter of surface area of contact I feel like. I'm no expert but I have a basic understanding. And have shot alot of cylinders and balls and prefer the cylinders by far for damage.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk


Abenso is spot on. With slingshot kills on small game its blunt force trauma that does the job. Especially with squirrels. They have very tough skin. I have harvested many where the ball never penetrated and in some cases never broke the skin. But the squirrel was dead. Heavy bands, and 44 cal lead balls will do the job on any slingshot size game if you hold up your end.


----------



## MakoPat (Mar 12, 2018)

oldasa said:


> ghost0311/8541 said:
> 
> 
> > Screw a 1/2 socket to a board and smelt lead into it tap the board on something the lead will slide out this ammo is devastating to any thing it hits
> ...


In my teens that was my go to killer shot. Tons of the materials were in my dad's garage and I could swing a hammer.


----------

