Clearly I haven’t shot anything irl ever and don’t know much about weapons either. Oh and relax, I’m not planning on shooting anyone.
Question comes after videogames, which can sometimes have both weapon types used interchangeably and/or behaving in a similar way.
I would personally believe guns are easier, and that the only advantage a bow would ever have is that they’re not as noisy. But I hear people say aiming with a bow is easier. I guess the type of bow and gun used would also weigh on the matter?
deleted by creator
100% firearms. Easier to aim and keep on target and easier for people of any strength,size or handicap to use moderately well with minimal training. The only place bows are really better is that they are functionally more simple.
A complete novice can pick up a gun and with minimal coaching be on target after a short time. To get close to the same proficiency and accuracy with a how would take exponentially more time and practice.
Technically bows are also generally more quiet, but that’s a very small point most of the time.
Don’t forget shattering your forearm if you screw up with a 🏹
Not if you use the vambraces Sir Bernard gives you
Bows are actually incredibly hard to use. When you see a “draw weight” of the bow, this is the force you need to exert to pull it back to its full draw. 40-50lbs is considered normal, I believe, while the English Longbow - famous for its use in the Hundred Years’ War - had a draw weigh of at least 80 pounds, with some scholars suggesting even 50% greater numbers than that. Imagine lifting a weight that heavy each time you wanted to loose an arrow!
Bows, then, require extended training to use properly. Not just strength training, although professional archers were jacked, but in how to properly employ the weapon. The dominance of early firearms had much to do with not just their absolute performance - at times, they were actually outperformed by bows in absolute terms - but by that their effective use could be broken down into simple actions which could be easily drilled into new recruits.
If we’re talking about modern guns, this effect is much exaggerated. Guns can take some getting use to, sure, and modern bows have added features for ease of use. But guns are, honestly, shockingly easy to use for what they can accomplish.
Indeed, longbowmen can be identified as their skeletons are significantly deformed over years of training.
They don’t always need to do a full draw for every shot though, especially at shorter ranges. E. G. In this video by Lars Anderson he does some very quick short range shots and doesn’t look like he does a full draw for them: https://youtu.be/BEG-ly9tQGk
That said, firing a gun still seems like it would take way less skill and training, except maybe something with a lot of kick like an AWP and deagle? 😅
Low draw means low power and penetration. For speed shooting or distracting/stunning a target, that would be helpful, but you’re not gonna kill someone unless it’s a very lucky shot. There’s a reason war bows were such high draw weight, and it wasn’t for piercing plate. More power means more energy retained over distance and more energy delivered to the target. If you’re needing to speed shoot in close quarters in a self defense scenario, you’re probably better off using the bow as a club or stabbing them with an arrow directly. Archers usually carried other weapons for that reason.
Looool. Lars Anderson is such a meme joke with my archery friends cause he’s clearly drawing incredibly light draws at super close range. It’s like the equivalent of being showy with a rubber band slingshot. I’m sure a darts player can hit the same targets.
Full disclaimer, I haven’t shot a real gun, just an air pistol and it did feel more intuitive and a little easier to get more accurate shots in comparison to all the tiny, preflight checks I need when I’ve drawn a compound bow.
There’s also the point of needing to draw actual weight (40lbs+ is ideal for hitting targets 60-70 yards away) for effective shots that would make archery more tedious to get into if someone’s not very physically active.
I’m sure both hobbies have their tedium, it’s just a matter of what one finds more interesting to master.
Beyond just being able to draw a bow, being able to draw it well enough to have a chance of shooting at all repeatably takes a lot of training - it’s not just lifting a 50+lb weight, pulling it towards you with one and and pushing it away with the other while keeping your arms stable requires a lot of strength in muscles the people don’t tend to use.
Source: former colleague is an international competition level archer - the sheer amount of core strength and coordination and balance you need to be a good archer is wild
Bows are not “incredibly hard to use”. There’s a reason 8 year old cub scouts get to shoot them and manage to hit a target. Weaker draw bows, obviously.
However, for an adult man a 40 pound draw on a compound bow is pretty easy. That’s also the bottom end of draw strength for hunting. In fact, most teens could pull it back. Typical is about a 60 pound draw.
Now aiming takes a bit of practice with a bow or a gun or a rifle. Also, if you’re using a compound bow or a traditional bow.
All of them are not too difficult to learn, but accuracy wise you can learn to be accurate with guns and rifles faster than with bows. Bullets have a much flatter trajectory than slower moving arrows, so if you aim at something you think is 30 yards away, but it’s really just ten yards further out with a bow, you’ll miss. A bullet has almost no change in trajectory over such a small change of distance. Rifles also seem more intuitive to aim.
As a former 8 year old Cub Scout, bows are incredibly hard to use. I was an excellent marksman with a rifle.
Bows take years to learn and a lifetime to master. Crossbows were a military revolution simply because they were easy to learn. In that sense, crossbows and firearms are very similar, but depending on your range you’ve got more dropoff in accuracy with xbows due to gravity.
Anyone can pick up a bow and fling a few arrows downrange with minimal coaching but becoming proficient takes longer with archery than with a rifle. IMO, shotguns are even easier: cover the bird with the muzzle and slap that trigger. Dinner is served.
As anecdotal evidence: If you get skunked during rifle season you’re a chump, bow hunters EXPECT to get skunked
A firearm, easily. I’ve fired both and bows require much more strength even if it’s a compound bow. On top of that aiming an arrow is much less intuitive than using even iron sights on a gun. Not to mention you can get rounds off much faster on a bolt action gun than a bow. Additionally I think you’re probably more likely to hurt yourself with a bow by smacking your arm than with a gun, assuming you get basic training for both
Bows are simpler logistically. Nock an arrow, pull, aim, release (“fire”). Guns have more steps up front typically but also make the round-to-round process simpler.
Both have sights that are comparable in complexity.
Form is similarly important for both.
Skill curve is similar for both at the higher end. I think bows are a little more intuitive for beginner through novice (subjective of course).
Size can vary wildly for both.
Bows need more physicality typically, so they’re a little harder in that way.
Feel free to follow with questions if you like. I have some hobby experience with bows and have trained professionally (military) with firearms.
An untrained bowman will have a hard time to hit a stationary target 7m away. A revolver will hit most of the time and even without any training you will find it easy enough to load the weapon. Maintaining a bow is not much easier than a revolver.
Having been new on both weapons and also having trained people that were brand new on both weapons, I will say that most beginners cannot hit something that far away with anything. What I meant by “intuitive” is that if you miss with a bow, you can see exactly where the arrow went and if it’s too low you can be like “I need to shoot a little higher”. Sometimes it is harder when you’re firing ammunition because they tend to disappear.
Loading either weapon isn’t necessarily complicated, but it is more intuitive on a bow. For revolver you will need to pull the release, rotate the assembly out, remove old rounds, insert new rounds and reverse disassembly. For a bow, you just put an arrow in and pull it back because the previous arrow is already gone. For some firearms, loading correctly can be fairly tricky if you don’t know what you’re doing. For example, if you load an M16 and don’t remember to shake the rounds to the back of the magazine, it can jam the weapon.
Ask yourself a question, have you ever heard of a toddler accidentally shooting someone with a bow? Firing a gun is so easy that you have to keep them away from babies or the babies are likely to kill themselves.
Yes, you can take on a broad interpretation on what I meant by “easy”, but what I’m asking here is which one makes hitting a desired (not random) target easier.
Guns. The advent of firearms revolutionized warfare to the extent that no other military arms mattered, and no other training mattered.
Before firearms were adopted, it would take a good ten to twenty years to raise a standing army, and retinues would still need a few months of training to not be slaughtered within the first battle. With firearms you just need a week or two and any peasant with two arms became an effective soldier.
Contrasting this, bowmen weren’t peasants. They did not return to their family when there wasn’t war. They were trained from around the age of seven to around the age of 15, and after this would be a professional soldier until they retired or died; training every single day (except Sundays or Saturdays depending on religion). They were paid to be bowmen, nothing else. Even if a peasant could use a bow, say if they were a hunter, they would never qualify for military service. Its that big of a difference in skill.
As to their differences in effect, range and force.
The weakest powder musket equals a ~80lbs draw war bow. Both can pierce plate armor on a good day, but the former can do so from a longer distance and again with decades less training. As guns get more advanced, their range and penetration increases massively, whereas most archers will be unable to draw a 120lbs or higher bow, meaning there is a maximum distance and effectiveness of bows that is almost comically lower than weapons.
To keep with freedom units, a deadly long range bow shot tops out at around a quarter mile with a high draw weight long bow. That’s about the absolute max, assuming the victim is wearing no armor. The current record for a sniper with a gun is around 1.5 miles, with the target wearing body armor.
That’s not really true, early firearm existed alongside bows for centuries before they became dominant.
There’s a reason guns were called the great equalizer.
“God may have created man, but Sam Colt made them equal.”
–Unknown
I shoot as a hobby and I’ve dabbled with archery
Bows take strength to use and are also harder to be consistent with. The way you nock the arrow on the string, keeping constant pull while aiming and inconsistencies in the arrows all play a part. Guns have similar stuff too but not nearly as bad as long as you have good fundementals. For a well sighted rifle it’s pretty much point and shoot out to say 300 yards
Ballistics are a big deal with ranged weapons. Arrows don’t go very far or very fast so you really need to know how the arrow will arc and account for that as you aim. The farther the shot the more wind, drop etc will have to be factored into your aim.
I’m going to make up a number but let’s say 50 yards would be a tough shot for a bow. For a rifle that is no problem and most rifle bullets’ paths won’t start to arc or get blown by wind significantly until it has travelled several hundred yards.
I find that long range shooting with a bolt action “feels” roughly the same as shooting archery. You really need to focus and make sure you’re doing everything right for good results.
I’ve shot both, but don’t consider myself an expert by any means. For pure “ease”, I would say a firearm. If you can rest the gun on a table or tripod, even more so. Smaller firearms, like handguns, would be a “little” more difficult to aim.
Bows, on the other hand, would depend on the type. Recurve bows will usually have a lighter draw weight and harder to aim since you’re holding back the entire weight of the bow the entire time. Compound bows are my preferred type. You can more easily work a heavier draw because the bow kinda “locks” into place at full draw, requiring MUCH less effort to keep it there. My compound bow has a sight on it and I found shooting it a much more enjoyable and consistent experience than that of my wife’s recurve.
I got kinda rambling about it, but for pure “ease”, a firearm is my choice. I find a bow to be a more satisfying experience, however.
Having hunted with a bow for years; a rifle is 100X easier to use, with range and accuracy an order of magnitude better.
Why the bow preference then?
I think most places have a longer hunting season for bows
We have an insane number of deer around here and with a rifle it’s not exactly hunting when I can step out my back door and fill all my tags with a mag dump. Bow hunting is more sporting and makes me better.
I use a rifle for elk and moose (and boar), but using a bow on those is borderline insane, and there’s not as many of those around.
I consider bows more fun. If I want food on the table the gun is better. However the legal bow season is often much longer and that makes the bow more likely to put food on the table if you can hunt everyday. (hunting is in large part waiting for the animal to come by)
Both are pretty easy, imo. But a gun is way easier to actually hit what you’re aiming at with.
I’ve shot both and guns are much easier to both shoot and aim. A single action revolver is a lot easier to shoot than most people think. It takes barely any pressure on the trigger, so aiming is a lot more accurate. The bigger the gun, the easier it is to aim (and the more accurate it will be, especially if the barrel is rifled). Also rapid fire is much easier than a bow. There’s a reason there are no mass murderers using bows.
That being said, bows are way easier to make. You can make a decent enough bow and arrows with a dead chicken, a sharp rock, and a few nice sticks. Making a gun requires some pretty complex knowledge of both metalwork and chemistry. You also need a source of immense heat, so building at least a small forge is required.
