# How Fast?



## Tex-Shooter (Dec 17, 2009)

OK Here is the question, which one in the picture below is faster with a 44 caliper steel ball. 1) The Marksman with a pull weight of 26 pounds (standard bands). 2) The Trumark with a pull weight of 23 pounds (standard bands). 3) A victor 10 China knock off with a pull weight of 10 pounds (Tex Target bands).


----------



## smitty (Dec 17, 2009)

The Tex bands will be faster. Amount of pull weight has nothing to do with speed. How fast the rubber returns to original length determines speed of ammo, of course weight of ammo is part of the equation. Did I pass?


----------



## NightKnight (Dec 16, 2009)

I second smitty. The Tex-shooter Target bands will be the fastest.


----------



## statikpunk (Dec 24, 2009)

Ive shot through my chrony enough to know that any decent flat band will out shoot any standard tube band. Im going with the tex shooter without even batting an eye. 
im even gonna go a step further and say your getting around 140 fps with the first two and gonna guess at 180 to 200 with the flats...am I close??
if i knew your draw length i could refine my guesses better.


----------



## njenkins (Feb 3, 2010)

So true. Even as a greenhorn I noticed this shooting today as well. I shot my Hunter and Tex Hawk and zipped some lead balls into the target, then I grabbed my tubed QP and it sorta just lobbed them. And I tend to pull that back a bit further as well.

I'm sold on flatbands no doubt.

I guess if one was sold on tubes you could taper them, but you'd get better performance doing the same with bands as well.


----------



## Tex-Shooter (Dec 17, 2009)

OK Guys you got it. These speeds are not in stone, because of weather and other conditions. Here are about what they shoot with my draw length. Keep in mind that the flats are my Target set and are very light pull. The Marksman - 145 FPS and 4.07 FPE (foot pounds of energy) ------ The Trumark - 153FPS and 4.523FPE ------ The Victor 10 knock off 167 FPS and 5.389 FPE ----- My next question - In the early 60s, do you think that tubes could have caused the decline of hunting with slingshots because of lack of power? Remember that the first tubes were not a good as today’s tubes and the live gum rubber was. I had one of the first tube type slingshots and a Victor 20 at the same time and the Victor 20 would shoot quite a bit farther at the lake than the tube type slingshot. Tex


----------



## NightKnight (Dec 16, 2009)

Tex-Shooter said:


> My next question - In the early 60s, do you think that tubes could have caused the decline of hunting with slingshots because of lack of power? Remember that the first tubes were not a good as today's tubes and the live gum rubber was.


I could see that. It is sort-of natural to assume that a stronger pull would be faster, similar to a bow. So most people probably figured that the tubes were faster.


----------



## Melchior (Dec 27, 2009)

Yes, many people believe in the pull weiht = power dogma - which is like connecting engine noise to maximum speed.
The big question - Tex, maybe you know the answer? Why did the tubes put all the flatbands out of business? I see
tubes are much easier to mass produce, but when I compare the prices of, say, replacement bands of a Whamo and a 
"Pocket Rocket", I see the flatbands were not more expensive.


----------



## harpersgrace (Jan 28, 2010)

Not to disagree with you folks since I have a lot less knowledge on the subject than you guys but I would think that the changes in lifestyles and outlooks would have more to do with the decline than the advent of tubes after all flatbands were still out there they didn't simply disappear. The market changed, the demand changed, and we changed. Flat band slingshots were old school, tubes and aluminum frames were sleak and hi-tech just what the 60's were all about, the new and different.


----------



## Tex-Shooter (Dec 17, 2009)

Mel, a lot of people thought that pull weight meant more power back then; even after you would show them that the flats would shoot farther. Also there were a lot of exaggerations on speed. I even saw ads that claim that tubes would shoot 500 FPS back then. Chronographs were very expensive so not many new the truth. Today a lot of shooters have Chronographs so a company could not get away with that. However I still see things stated that are very dubious all the time. Today I have a lot of shooters that have bought my Express bands, call and ask why they are getting hand slapped so badly. Almost without exception it is because they are shooting too light of shot (trying for too fast of speed) and not using most of the energy that good fast heavier pull bands produce. Tex


----------



## statikpunk (Dec 24, 2009)

I think the decline of using slingshots as a serious hunting weapon happened because of the lack of good rubber, when tire companies went to the black stuff from the red stuff, Im sure it put a dampner on the use of slingshots. plus i think the invention of the good ol' red rider BB gun probably had something to do with it as well. since now most children could afford to have and actual "rifle" as far as the popularity of tubes, when they are (in most cases inferior) I think comes from availability. everyday hospitals use millions of miles of the stuff. so compared to sheet latex it is a much more accessible option for mass produced slingshots, plus you cant argue with their convenience and durability compared to flats. i also believe its because of availability now that we are seeing a resurgence in traditional slingshots. thanks to the internet we now all have access to good flatband material as well as a host of knowledge on how to use it.


----------



## NaturalFork (Jan 21, 2010)

I wish that slingshots with flatbands and fladband replacements were easier to obtain.


----------



## Tex-Shooter (Dec 17, 2009)

Look under vender advertisements. Tex-shooter


----------



## njenkins (Feb 3, 2010)

Yes Recurve. With the vendors that support the site, you've got these options.







A modified Saunders Hawk from Tex, that is a great shooter, or any sort of band system you could want from Tex or Flatband, just to name a couple. Fish sells his cattys as well. Most powerful commercially available.


----------



## longshot (Jan 14, 2010)

Tex-Shooter said:


> OK Guys you got it. These speeds are not in stone, because of weather and other conditions. Here are about what they shoot with my draw length. Keep in mind that the flats are my Target set and are very light pull. The Marksman - 145 FPS and 4.07 FPE (foot pounds of energy) ------ The Trumark - 153FPS and 4.523FPE ------ The Victor 10 knock off 167 FPS and 5.389 FPE ----- My next question - In the early 60s, do you think that tubes could have caused the decline of hunting with slingshots because of lack of power? Remember that the first tubes were not a good as today's tubes and the live gum rubber was. I had one of the first tube type slingshots and a Victor 20 at the same time and the Victor 20 would shoot quite a bit farther at the lake than the tube type slingshot. Tex


I am curious as to how you calculate the FPE of your slingshots Tex?


----------



## Tex-Shooter (Dec 17, 2009)

Here is a link for calculating energy. Tex http://www.airhog.com/convert.htm


----------



## Tex-Shooter (Dec 17, 2009)

When I approached the major slingshot companies about flat bands in 2000, only one replied and that was Saunders Archery. There were no Companies making flat band slingshots at that time that I know of, you had trouble even getting flat rubber. I meet with Charles Saunders and demonstrated to him the advantage of flats over tubes. He took the ball and ran with it, spending a lot of money in the process. *I give them credit for the resurgence of flats here in the USA.* There has been a bunch jump on this bandwagon since then. I think that now with the flats that the sport will continue to grow again. -- Tex


----------

