lol...im not gettin banned anytime soon...i hope...*knock on wood* but that really was a pretty cool conversation...till we stopped talkin bout bows...lol...

lol, yeah yeah

am getting out of here before nething happens

my opinion:
Guns rule man

Gotta agree with ya there macbeth.

Originally Posted by MightyMacbeth

theres another thing..

If bows prove to be more powerfull and superior..then we would see soldiers still using them.. LOL, just imagine it

good point,but bows are too bulky for modern warriors, who rely heavily on stealth tactics, rather than just chargeing in and annihilating(or being annihilated by) the enemy.

oh its you again

welll, yeah but bows arent that heavy..
And thats mostly it, the modern gun is designed for the use of today

Well, there are quite a lot of diffrent bows today!

A related question, which has always fascinated me, is why did muskets eventually replace the fast loading bow? The 2 obvious answers are a) they could penetrate armour more effectively and b) the noise has a greater psychological effect on the enemy, especially one not used to firearms. However, the role of armour then gradually reduces because of its lack of protection and its needless weight, but then the bow becomes useful again!
It seems this is like one of those evolutionary problems which biologists try to model which oscillates then settles down to a steady state, so we should arrive at an optimum solution with a certain mixture of both muskets, bows and armour, but that didn’t happen. Armour largely disappeared, perhaps with the exception of helmets (and ignoring modern protection).
It seems to me that if either the French or the Allies at Waterloo were trained and equipped with quick firing bows, perhaps supported with some musketry, then they would have won easily. Imagine the sort of volley the French suffered at the hands of the English at Crecy or Agincourt, but on totally unprotected troops. Alternately, perhaps I am treating it too simplistically and ignoring the effect of other weapons such as artillery and grenade shrapnel present in the armoury of later centuries.
Another advantage of arrows is that the heads can be used to carry infectious material either by doping them with poison or simply placing them in the mud. It seems this would be most effective for hit and run type tactics such as that used by the Mongols intent on inflicting long-term wounds on the enemy. In contrast, modern bullets might be sterilised by the heat of firing, thereby minimising injury, although subsequent infection could still set in from dirty clothing etc.

Originally Posted by MightyMacbeth

theres another thing..

If bows prove to be more powerfull and superior..then we would see soldiers still using them.. LOL, just imagine it

probably not, my friend, because it takes too much time to make a superior bow, whereas guns are just <i> poured</i> off production lines. <i> and <i/> bullets usually kill quicker and cant be fired back at you. unfortunately.

Well, Handgun has more distances than Arrow and bow

Ah, no.

As for the question, I'd put my money on an archer at a decent distance over the bloke sporting his shiny 9mm.

Somebody may be able to tell me this, what would be condsidered the "effective" distance of a bow and arrow (generic long bow of some sort). Because, as much as people would like to think otherwise, a handgun is nothing more than a pop gun at more than 25m.

If we're taking bow and arrow technology and putting it in a head to head competition with modern firearm technology, there's no contest. The modern firearm will win. The stipulation that we're going to limit the modern firearms to handguns is somewhat silly.
1.) Handguns weren't intended for long range accuracy. That's what Rifles are for. The slug, barrell length and casing are designed to purposely give up range in exchange for a decreased size.
2.) The archer with a bow has to use both hands. We're not giving the handgunner the option of full use of both of his hands. If we were, he'd have an assault rifle (or a sniper gun for the longer ranges of course.)

But even opperating under the limitation that we're restricted to "handguns", the limitations are still easily overcome. For one thing, I modify down a relatively powerful rifle into a handgun form. Below is a picture of the Smith and Wesson .50 Magnum handgun. This is NOT the longest barrelled verion of it, but I had trouble finding a picture of that variant. Since it is about 14 inches long and is still classified as a "handgun" then that could be a working limit for how big we can make ahand rifle.

From there, we simply rid ourselves of these bullets:


... and replace them with something more like this:


With 14" to work with, I think we can easily come up with a handgun that will outrange or at least equal any bow. And since many handguns are fully automatic, we can throw that in as well, if we want.

Lets remember, what was the biggest advantage of firearms historically? Ease of training. A good archer takes years to train. Teaching someone how to shoot a gun of whatever type takes only a few days. Frankly, its much easier to become very, very good at firing a gun than it is to get very very good at firing a bow and arrow.