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?
Of all the weapons in the vast Soviet arsenal nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947, more commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov.
It’s the world’s most popular assault rifle, a weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple nine pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood, it doesn’t break, jam, or overheat. It will shoot whether it’s covered in mud or filled with sand.
It’s so easy even a child can use it, and they do.
The Soviets put the gun on a coin, Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people’s greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure; no one was lining up to buy their cars.
~ Lord of War
100% firearms. They are so easy that literally (sadly) toddlers have used them and killed with them. A bow takes some practice and skill, almost all basic guns you can use and hit close by targets with, after like 5 minutes of practice.
Plus a gun doesn’t require draw strength
It still requires strength to chamber a round. The firearm was already loaded with any kid that’s accidentally used it.
It is a lot less though than a bow.
People say that aiming with bows is easier? What kind of world do they live in?
I’ve shot a decent amount of bows and guns, and guns are far easier to shoot. The difference is that because guns are easier to shoot, there’s a greater expectation of accuracy. Shooting a bow at 30 meters and hitting your target is considered accurate, shooting a gun at 30 meters is considered nothing.
That being said, I still like archery more. There’s just something very personal about the experience of pulling the bowstring and manually making the arrow fly
Yeah, I haven’t shot many guns, but it’s way easier. It’s fun, maybe because it feels really intuitive, but I find bow shooting almost meditative as you try to repeat your actions and feel your body line up with your bow
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.
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.
I never had much trouble with it. No harder than a slingshot.
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
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.
The act of using a prepped weapon? The gun for sure.
The complexity of the mechanical nature and upkeep? Bow far simpler.
If you were to just hand a prepped weapon to someone and tell them to shoot a target the gun user would be far more likely to succeed first.
If you expected someone to figure out how to prep a weapon (stringing the bow vs loading a mag) I think people would intuitively understand how to prepare the bow for use, but the specific motions and buttons for guns might stump some people.
Now I really want to find a bunch of people who have somehow never seen or heard of either and see which one they intuitively understand easier.
Aiming a bow is pretty easy, and it doesn’t require that much strength
(Obviously I’m not talking about a medieval British longbow)
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.
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.
Yes, but question was which is easier to shoot.
Don’t forget shattering your forearm if you screw up with a 🏹
Not if you use the vambraces Sir Bernard gives you
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.
Gun is far easier to hit your target with. Crossbow is compareable with much lower range but a bow, wether it be long, recurve or compound is quite hard.
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
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
There’s a reason guns were called the great equalizer.
“God may have created man, but Sam Colt made them equal.”
–Unknown
guns are much easier to aim and use. technically a bow is quieter, but guns can be made to be fairly quiet and are generally much less bulky than bows. generally speaking, guns are point and click. bows are dependent on how you hold the bow, how you hold the arrow, and the form with which you release the arrow (letting the bow move the right way and amount is involved). on top of that even the quietest configuration of a gun will have more power per size than a bow because gunpowder is very energy dense and the barrel of a gun is a great way of focusing that energy into a projectile.
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.
