Slingshots – the next generation???

R

Ron

Location
Chattanooga
This is a prototype of an adaptor for a slingshot. The goal for the project was accuracy, improved sighting picture, shoulder mount, repeatability, adaptable to a Swamp Fox type slingshot (i.e. Sidewinder) REQUIRING NO MODS TO THE POLE, and a trigger release.

Assessment:
Hunabku and I have done quite a bit of testing on the unit. We took just the trigger unit without the pistol grip and trigger guard on a wilderness climb and Hunabku hit a challenging entry shot at about 65’ in three tries. He wasn’t acclimated to the sighting and power characteristics, so he had to adapt on the ‘fly’. He actually hit the target limb on the second shot.

Then we both did some shooting in my yard, about 55’ shots to begin with and later Hunabku hit a 68’ shot five times in a row. By hit, I mean through the crotch, not just over the limb somewhere. He actually has had more experience with it than I.

The unit met all of my expectations and goals, and on top of everything else it’s fun to use.
 
Ron,

that's a neat idea, just... aren't you worried that with the head of the big shot facing that way round in case of failure of the rubber bands you're going to get it straight in the eye?

The way we instruct using the Big Shot is to always use it with the head facing away from you and to always wear eye protection. Watching the vid I was thinking there is really the potential for injuring your eyes and/ or face.

Apart from that... keep at it! Surely with a bit of trial and error you could have it facing the other way round and still aim accurately?

Regards,

Mark.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ron,

that's a neat idea, just... aren't you worried that with the head of the big shot facing that way round in case of failure of the rubber bands you're going to get it straight in the eye?

The way we instruct using the Big Shot is to always use it with the head facing away from you and to always wear eye protection. Watching the vid I was thinking there is really the potential for injuring your eyes and/ or face.

Apart from that... keep at it! Surely with a bit of trial and error you could have it facing the other way round and still aim accurately?

Regards,

Mark.

[/ QUOTE ]
Certainly a valid concern, and I did a lot of debating about the configuration before I started designing. Even though I've never heard of a failure that would result in a 'toward the face' response, it is still a real possibility and I'll likely make a model with the tubing 'on the bottom'.

There is a significant problem with the tubing on the bottom however, but I think the safety trumps the problem.

The tubing slants from the head in toward the pole to the release finger. With the tubing on top, there is actually some trajectory compensation and sighting is enhanced.

If the tubing is on the bottom, the trajectory is lowered due to the slant. That means you would have to aim so high that the end of the pole would obsure the target limb.

But, again, the inherent safer low position pretty much trumps a non-safety issue.

I will make a bottom configuration and give 'er at try - it may work better than I anticipate - this version did.

Thanks for the thoughts!!!!!
 
I've been shooting the BS with the rubbers under for years with decent accuracy. Everytime I replace the rubbers I have to site it in again. this isn't hard because the throwline acts like a tracer to the target.

A very clever setup.
 
Very inventive!!! I'd like to give it a shot!


<font color="green">The TreeHouse</font>
dude.gif


*****************************************************
 
I'm still considering the real vs perceived safety issues. E.g. spearguns have used an 'over' configuration for years and years and still use that configuration. The diver swims with it cocked and some have two and even three sets of tubing.

While I will not deny there is some inherent safety in the under configuration, I also cannot recall ever hearing of a tubing failure from the end of the pole back toward the person. I personally have had a tubing failure on a BS and it was from the pouch connection and hence flies away from the person. Several others I know have had similar failures.

There seems to always be some danger in everything we do. I suspect we have about as much or more risk of being injured in a vehicle accident than from a tubing failure.

After considering the issues, at this point, I believe that by inspection before each use, the chances of a failure that would cause injury would be extremely low.

But having said all that, I will likely design a 'under' type for comparison.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still considering the real vs perceived safety issues. E.g. spearguns have used an 'over' configuration for years and years and still use that configuration. The diver swims with it cocked and some have two and even three sets of tubing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not all that valid of a comparison because the water will damp most of the energy released by a broken tube. Air is not quite as viscous!
 
[ QUOTE ]
That's not all that valid of a comparison because the water will damp most of the energy released by a broken tube. Air is not quite as viscous!

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that they have proven safe and reliable. It's true that if the tubing broke at the end of the pole it could be a potential problem. But getting in a car presents well documented potential problems and we still don't wear safety glasses and a crash helmet even though we know there's a risk of becoming involved in an accident.

I guess what I'm saying is there is some risk in just about everything we do. I'm not saying everyone should be comfortable with the tubing over the pole, nor that everyone should be comfortable with a shoulder mount with the tubing under the pole.

By perceived safety issue, I was referring to "what if's" in relation to reality. I.e. how many times has a BS or equivalent been fired compared to how many times a tubing has broken and come back toward the user. I'd just be guessing but I'd say that's a very unlikely failure mode, especially if one is willing to inspect before use.

This isn't a product that's gonna be available, well, not from me anyway. But, I'm comfortable using it because I know I will inspect it before each use and will replace the rubber tubing regularly.
 
Ron, I think this is a really great idea and you did a really great job. Please keep pursuing this.

I have a suggestion for the protection of the shooter from band breakage. The trigger device is angled along the back edge (edge closest to shooter's face). If a plexiglass or polycarbonate plate was attached to this with a superimposed crosshair reticle, it would not only protect the user but enhance repeatability with a siting aid.

Cool, eh?

Dave
 
Thanks DSMc!!!

I have considered a protective plate but hadn't thought about it serving double duty as an aiming aid - now that's a clever idea you got there. I'm gonna have to give that some thought!
 
[ QUOTE ]
The way we instruct using the Big Shot is to always use it with the head facing away from you and to always wear eye protection. Watching the vid I was thinking there is really the potential for injuring your eyes and/ or face.


[/ QUOTE ]



I agree.


[ QUOTE ]
...how many times has a BS or equivalent been fired compared to how many times a tubing has broken and come back toward the user.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have had the tubing break both at the bag and at the metal frame. It has happened on several occassions (I don't remember how many instances at each location) and I have never been hurt. But, I always hold the BS with the frame down.


[ QUOTE ]
Even though I've never heard of a failure that would result in a 'toward the face' response...

[/ QUOTE ]

The danger is not just from the possibility of the breaking of the rubber tubing. There have been instances of people putting a BS head (the metal frame) on a wooden stick, aiming the BS with the frame up, and the stick breaking just below where the BS head was mounted. The frame came back towards the shooter and caused an injury.

Also, with the frame up the string has to be loaded over the top of the pole, increasing the chance that the string can become entangled in the tubing and/or the metal frame. Early in my use of the BS I watched someone load and shoot the BS with the frame up and the string threaded over the frame and down along the pole to the pouch. The weight went out about twenty feet, became entangled in the frame or tubing, and snapped back and hit the user square in one lens of his safety glasses. He had a cut on his eyebrow from the frame of the glasses, but his eye was uninjured.

In your video the user pulls the string to take out some of the slack, but it seems that it is just a matter of time before something gets caught.

Even if you never market or distribute your device, by setting it up to be used with the frame up you may unintentionally encourage improper use of the original devise.


Great idea, but I think Mark is right in saying that the frame should be pointed down.

Have you tried the two-handed method for aiming the BS?
 
A version with the tubing on the under side is in the works. It is unlikely that I'll post anything about it to avoid any further misunderstanding or implication of original equipment use.

I also removed the pics and video in this thread to eliminate any misunderstanding or confusion that may have encouraged improper use of original equipment. Sorry about that.
 
Ron:
Sorry you took the video off, glad I got to see it in time. New to the board here, but is there anything on the market in a gun style??
The speargun style idea will probably work (which over the last two days I've been racking my brain on this idea being I use to spearfish off of Jersey), but still the same consideration to eye safety. I like the plexi-glass shield which I was already incorporating. Most of the time when the bands would break while spearfishing, would be during cocking,and yes the water does dampen the reaction to them allot. That is why they tell you to NOT shoot them out of the water with the lanyard attached to the spear, or the spear will be heading back at you.
Actually seen a video of someone dumb enough to try this???
drinking.gif


I'm trying to incorporate the (2-3) band method to get the added power to match the BS. This will also be controlled by the type and length of bands used. I will post some pics when I get around to building a proto type model, which will probably be when the weather gets colder, it's too nice to be working in the shop.

Any input would be great.....
 
Sawyer9302,

Check your PM. I'm reluctant to post technical criteria because as pointed out it can encourage misuse of the BS and similar gear. But I think I can share some things that may be useful to you.
 
Ron, Don't drop your ideas, keep after this. Most of what we use in the tree industry today has been adapted from its original use. There are many products that if used improperly or without proper training are incredibly dangerous. You will have to do R &amp; D to prove that you have a viable solution when safety issues come into the equation.

If you need applicants for field testing, just pm me.

Dave
 
Thanks Dave, I do appreciate that. I think going to an underside model will aleviate some of the safety concerns and concerns about encouraging misuse of BS type gear, but the underside model has it's own set of safety issues to address.

Sawyer's post got me re-considering the multi-tube configuration that I had put on the 'back-burner' long enough to develop the more conventional version. A multi-tube version would allow a shorter pole to be used and reduce cocking force, but there are some other problems that come with that configuration. We'll see....

Thanks, again for the encouragement, I'll keep after it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom