Bunch of slack jawed faggots decided it was easier to use guns.

It seems to me that the sling has many advantages over the bow that were attributed to firearms. Easier to train and easier to maintain. If your sling breaks you just fashion a new one. A good bow could take weeks and weeks of bending and curing. Not to mention archery is highly skill dependent. As long as there are small rocks around, a slinger will not run out of ammunition, an archer is going to have 30 - 60 shots max.


Slings with metal bullets were known to have extreme velocity and penetrating power, I'd guess they just couldn't get through plate armor. That reasoning hasn't been valid for a few hundred years now.


As far as modern weapons go, a sling is perfect for concealed carry, and both silent and accurate. You could literally keep the whole thing in your pocket, and even if you were stopped by the cops it is unlikely they would recognize it as a weapon, you could say it was lingerie. You don't even need to carry ammunition if there are rocks around, which there always are in urban areas with degrading cement.

I'm not saying you would just whip it out during a close confrontation, but if the guy runs off with your wallet you could nail him in the backside at 50 yards.

>>18154 A sling only really takes a few seconds to get up to speed, maybe 5-10 at the most if you're really trying to hurl the thing... the accuracy issue is a real concern, but with training presumably it dissipates.

Worst comes to worse, you can hit someone over the side of the head with it. The centripetal force generated on a medium sized stone in a leather mace is not to be discounted. In extremity, the rocks can also be thrown.

Also, all slingers would have carried daggers of some sort. So a sling isn't a game changer like a gun, it's part of a balanced fighting style.