In the 1e "Oriental Adventures" book there was the pellet bow, which was similar to what you're describing. I can't get to that book at the moment, but as I recall its damage was about 1d4. I may be remembering that incorrectly, though.
I'd give it the range of a shortbow, myself. I homebrew the damage for slings to 1d6, myself. I just finished reading an article about slings and the lead bullet ammunition the Romans used against their enemies. According to the testing they hit with the force of a .44 Magnum handgun.
Right. I've read about those, but have never seen them used by ancient weapons enthusiasts.
The same force as a .44? That seems...extremely unlikely.
From what I read, a sling bullet has an initial velocity, if you're being very generous, of 90fp. A bullet from a .44 mag travels around 1450fps. I don't doubt that getting beaned with a lead golf ball (or apple, if they're using a sLing staff) would cause some serious and horrific damage. But I doubt it could, say, punch through a car door, a human abdomen, and another car door.
As for the weapon itself, I think a range improvement to 60ft would be appropriate. A sling is more compact and easier to carry around when not in use. Not much of a benefit, but then, neither is an extra 10ft of range.
Beyond that, they're both primitiv, slow to fire projectile weapons that can use impromptu ammunition. Mechanically, there's almost no difference.
The same force as a .44? That seems...extremely unlikely.
I found it a little hard to go along with, too. They were known to kill horses with just one bullet, so there's still some heft behind them. I was just reporting what the article said. It was a National Geographic article if I recall, so I gave it a little credence. But I hope I don't find out just how hard they hit. I made a sling as a kid and accidentally hit one our cows with it and brought her to her knees. Needless to say my slinging days were over and so was my sitting for a couple of hours.
Note that a heavier bullet needs less velocity to equal the same amount of force, but obviously won't have the penetration ability of a smaller bullet at a higher velocity
Oh, for sure. The article I read pointed out how an arrow, which has a much higher initial rate of acceleration, etc. also slows down much faster, due to it's shape and weight distribution
There's a bit in "A Song of Ice and Fire" where Tyrion pokes fun at some slingers. Why bother with all the work of a sling when you can achieve the same thing with a bow, and at such a greater range?
...but that was before he saw them in action, where those lead balls literally dismembered people on contact.
I read about this guy who made his own sling staff, too. He said he was hucking stones the size of his fist out into the bay with fairly consistent accuracy.
An arrow wI'll do ya' in, sure. But a 1lb rock to the face just...seems a lot worse. I'm sure it was more detrimental to your buddy's morale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'd give it the range of a shortbow, myself. I homebrew the damage for slings to 1d6, myself. I just finished reading an article about slings and the lead bullet ammunition the Romans used against their enemies. According to the testing they hit with the force of a .44 Magnum handgun.
AND
The same force as a .44? That seems...extremely unlikely.
From what I read, a sling bullet has an initial velocity, if you're being very generous, of 90fp. A bullet from a .44 mag travels around 1450fps. I don't doubt that getting beaned with a lead golf ball (or apple, if they're using a sLing staff) would cause some serious and horrific damage. But I doubt it could, say, punch through a car door, a human abdomen, and another car door.
I think I found the same article, but in the Daily Mail instead of National Geographic. Not the most trustworthy source, but . . .
I found it a little hard to go along with, too. They were known to kill horses with just one bullet, so there's still some heft behind them. I was just reporting what the article said. It was a National Geographic article if I recall, so I gave it a little credence. But I hope I don't find out just how hard they hit. I made a sling as a kid and accidentally hit one our cows with it and brought her to her knees. Needless to say my slinging days were over and so was my sitting for a couple of hours.
Baseball fastball: 95–105 mph (152.9–169.14 km/h) (officially). A sling can probably exceed this -- otherwise people would have just thrown sling bullets instead of going to the trouble to learn how to use a sling. But even if they only go 100 mph = 160 km/h as stated in the article, this is 147 fps = 44.4 m/s, so noticeably better than the 90 fps posted above.
Note that a heavier bullet needs less velocity to equal the same amount of force, but obviously won't have the penetration ability of a smaller bullet at a higher velocity
That said, the force of a .44 seems a little high
Keep in mind that a hand-held firearm can't generate so much force that you can't take the recoil. I also wonder whether the article really meant energy or momentum by "force". Keep in mind that for constant mass, momentum goes up linearly with velocity, but energy goes up with the square of velocity.
Even so, the article said the sling bullets weigh 1 oz = 30 g and were slung at 100 mph = 160 km/h = 147 fps = 44.4 m/s. This gives a momentum of 1.33 kg*m/s and an energy of 59 kg*m^2/s^2 = 59 J. Magnum .44 bullets(*) weigh from 16 g to 22 g and are fired at 1180 fps = 360 m/s to 1475 fps = 450 m/s; taking the weakest example in the list, the momentum is 5.76 kg*m/s, and the energy is 2074 kg*m^2/s^2 = 2074 J. So the Magnum .44 has the sling bullets beat by a factor of 4.33 even in momentum, and by a factor of 35.1 in energy, and packed into a smaller area of impact. So to get up to the same momentum as a Magnum .44 bullet, a sling bullet would need to be fired 4.33 times faster (that might be pushing it), and to get up to the same energy, it would need to be fired 5.93 times faster (that really seems to be pushing it).
(*)Edit: Caution: The Wikipedia article doesn't come out with the same energy values as I do.
Yeah, all that adds up. I can't recall the exact numbers from that article with any task confidence. They might have been referring to acceleration or something. The long bow had a value three times greater than a sling, but lost energy/momentum/force/whatever faster
I think modern firearms are pretty good at dispersing force and all that. The article I read referenced the limitations of the human body. While track and weight-lifting records have continued to be beaten and set and beaten again, the fast pitch has shown very little improvement, just because there's only so much torque the human arm can generate/withstand.
On a somewhat related note, I remember reading that the strike of a mantis shrimp accelerates at the same speed as a .22 rifle, and that a human could throw a baseball into orbit with that same force. Not sure how accurate any of that is, though.
To bring things back to the pellet bow...from what I can see, it seems like more of a variant of the slingshot, rather than the sling. Designed for hunting small game.
Back in the early days of D&D, clerics were fornbidden from using "edged weapons" which apparently included arrows and bolts. So we saw on equipment lists the "stone prod" or "stone bow", which was a double-stringed crossbow designed to shoot clay or lead pellets.
In game terms, I'd make it identical to a light crossbow, doing bludgeoning damage instead of piercing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |