could ancient bows out-kill modern handguns? - Page 3




View Poll Results :are guns more powerful than bows and arrows?
yes 12 28.57%
no 6 14.29%
depending on circumstances, bows yes, guns yes 24 57.14%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
December 23rd, 2005  
Insomniac
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
While some ancient bows were very impressive, they are most certainly not capable of doing what guns can do. The English Longbow and the Mongolian Recurve Bow and many others were terrifyingly deadly, but nothing to compare to a high powered rifle or a fully automatic weapon.
ye but they arent handguns you idiot! but good point
December 28th, 2005  
Damien435
 
 
Well, an arrow could be lobbed over an obstruction where as the curve in the flight path of the bullet is far to gradual to allow for such a thing.
December 28th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
lol bulldog pwnd is derived from pwned which is derived from owned Which according to wikpedia....

"Owned is an internet slang word used commonly in gaming circles to assert apparent superiority over others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owned
--
January 30th, 2006  
LeEnfield
 
 
Damien435.... Have you ever seen a Vickers Machine gun hose down the back slope of a hill by firing over the the top of it.
January 30th, 2006  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulesLee
lol guns are superior..
even muskets that need reloading.......

during the japanese invasion of 7 year war in korea......

it was those long time reload muskets vs bows and arrows......

those muskets .. well pwnd the koreans..
It depends.

In the hands of a well trained archer, a longbow is a far superior weapon against most troops, than a muzzle loaded musket.

The advantages were, in the hands of an expert, a longbow could fire almost 5 times as fast, and it was highly accurate.

The disadvantages were, longbows couldn't penetrate plate armour and it needed years of training to become an expert.

While it took only a few hours to train a man to fire a musket, and a musket ball could penetrate plate armour.
January 31st, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Bows have their uses. Like it has been said. Anyone can be trained in a very short time to use a handgun. A bowman on the other hand takes much longer. Not to mention the fact that it does take a long time to make an arrow that will fly true and will not shatter upon impact. The actual bow itself is subject to weather whereas a handgun would not be.

Unlike a handgun if it rains your bow is rendered in effective due to a wet string.

If you run out of arrows (Let us say you carry 100) then you will have to stop and make more.

If you run out of bullets (let us say 100) you will have to have more made.

Bow and arrows take up much more space and weight than a handgun with the same amount of ammunition.

You can fire a handgun in one hand showing very little of your body. With a bow you can not.

As for lobbing arrows over a hill, if you can not see your enemy how accurate do you think you will be? No more so than with a handgun I imagine, your chances of hitting them increase is all.

Most handguns have an accurate range to a point target of at least 25 meters. Many will go accurate to 50 meters with a good marksman. A bow has farther range, but then again can be more affected by wind than a single round from a handgun.

Lastly, a handgun is effective from pointblank range (i.e. you can see he has some food stuck in his teeth and his breath smells bad) a bow is not.
January 31st, 2006  
AFSteliga
 
 
It all depends on the situation. Of course, modern firearms outdo bows and arrows in many aspects (distance, stopping capacity, reload times, etc...), but ammunition is harder to come by if you were say...under siege.

However, I'd still take a C7 assault rifle over a bow anyday.

BTW: pwnd is a misspelling of owned used in online games. I'm not sure of the origins, but that's pretty much all it is.
January 31st, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCdt Steliga
It all depends on the situation. Of course, modern firearms outdo bows and arrows in many aspects (distance, stopping capacity, reload times, etc...), but ammunition is harder to come by if you were say...under siege.

However, I'd still take a C7 assault rifle over a bow anyday.

BTW: pwnd is a misspelling of owned used in online games. I'm not sure of the origins, but that's pretty much all it is.
If you were undersiege you would still need to be able to procure wood and fletchings and other sundry items to make an arrow that will not only fly well but penetrate the target. The making of a good bow and arrows is not something you can just go and do. It is an art in itself.
February 1st, 2006  
Damien435
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Damien435.... Have you ever seen a Vickers Machine gun hose down the back slope of a hill by firing over the the top of it.
Is that a trick question?
February 21st, 2006  
Obvious
 
 
Well Muskets take quite a while to load. A TRAINED MAN can fire 3 rounds in a minute!! And thats incredibly slow in a battle field. Muskets were not known for it accuracy either. With a bow you can fire faster. And you could reuse the arrows. An arrow can do more damage than a bullet, and more painful to take out.