could ancient bows out-kill modern handguns? - Page 4




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

 
--
 
February 21st, 2006  
armlesscadet
 
 
It all depends on the circumstances if you ask me. If it is more of a long range battle then a trained bowman will easily overpower the handguns but lets say you were in a more confined building type of battlefield then the hand gun will overpower the bow with its ability to fire faster and without having to pull back a string everytime.
February 22nd, 2006  
Ted
 
 
Ask any legionair about the Silent kiss of Death and he'll tell you what he prefers. I heard someone who was telling about the usage of cross-bows during the troubles in Ireland. The shooter was ex-legionair nad very good at what he did.
I reckon it is not so much about power but about how handy it is. SOmetimes it is a bow and often a hand gun.
March 2nd, 2006  
Insomniac
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
damn right!!!!!!
and if your arrow hits the enemt and doesnt kill, you have a bl**dy long thing sticking out of your arm giving you splinters and it could also sever muscles with its broad head, wheras a bullet would simply go through, not fully sever. but still, very good arguments on both sides and a damn good debate! w00t!

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat
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.
yes they could penetrate plate armor, they were very powerful, dependingon construction materials etc etc like if you make a bow out of a 6 foot yew sapling compared to a 100-year-old redwood, you end up with a very dangerous weapon
--
March 3rd, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
I love these generalisations about weapons.

Which handgun and which bow, it makes a difference. A .22 short does not have a range exceeding that of a 150 lb draw compound bow. Unless of course you have a tail wind and fire it from the open cockpit of an F-15 just as it re-enters the earth's outer atmosphere and you aim it at the earth.
I think bulldogg is on to something !!

Each had and still has it's uses.

Using the best bow you can get vs the best handgun you can get I would pick the handgun over the bow anyday.

See my previous post for various reasons why. One way or the other, if you run out of ammo you are pretty much out of luck.
March 4th, 2006  
zander_0633
 
 
HEy Hey!~ Did you all know that a bullet cannot penetrate a sandbag, an arrow can? So if you are under siege and the enemy is behind the sandbags, shoot them with arrows!
March 6th, 2006  
Chief Bones
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
Time and place, each weapon has its place. Just ask any of the vets from Vietnam who worked with the Montagnard and their deadly little crossbows.
This one is a no-shitter. Those little guys were some of the deadliest fighters I've ever seen. They could take a man down at ranges and under conditions you have to see to believe. Some of the arrows were no longer than your forearm and could stop a full grown man dead in his tracks with little or no sound (very spooky). They could be used under conditions where a bulky rifle was a hindrance ... having said that ... I would rather have a long gun where jungle growth isn't a problem ... after all ... on an open battlefield with little or no over grown jungle foliage, crossbows lose their advantage.

SO - DEPENDING ON THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE BATTLE IS TO BE FOUGHT, A CROSBOW CAN DEFINITELY BE DEADLIER THAN A GUN (or vice versa).
March 6th, 2006  
zander_0633
 
 
I totally Agree!
March 7th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zander_0633
HEy Hey!~ Did you all know that a bullet cannot penetrate a sandbag, an arrow can? So if you are under siege and the enemy is behind the sandbags, shoot them with arrows!
Did you know that a 50lb pull compound bow with a broad head or field point arrowhead will not penetrate 3ft of styrofoam at 15 yards but a bullet from .22+ caliber handgun will penetrate it fully at 50 yards? *ponders*

Depends on the size of the bullet and weapon firing it as well as the range. Pull of the bow, flight path and fletchings, as well as the type of arrow head on the arrow. Not to mention how thick the sandbag is or the range at which each of these are fired.

I know I would not want to stand there with a sandbag as my only protection against someone firing a .44 magnum at me.
March 7th, 2006  
zander_0633
 
 
well, certain weapons are diffrent!
March 9th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zander_0633
well, certain weapons are diffrent!
We have a winner !!