Lead ball vs arrow

[Homesteader]

(Looks like I've got a title theme going on here...)

I was out stump shooting and generally messing around with one of my bows and some frufru arrows when it occurred to me that I got quite a few more arrows off in a given time than I do shots when I'm out with my smoke poles. The distances for good hits are sorta close to the same, considering smoothbore anyway.

I know that arrows pretty much just "stab from a distance" and that a good size round ball does a lot of damage, but it seems they both have trade offs and are similar in some ways. Both are clearly deadly.

Any thoughts as to why the tribes switched so quickly? Any knowledge of the use of bows & arrows persisting? Do those of you who use both, like me, have any observations? Just tickled my brain all day and thought I'd ask the forum for opinions.

 

[Carbon 6]

Ishi last of the Yahi, made it to 1916.
Firearms require almost no training compared to a bow. I can make you an effective rifleman in minutes where you would be useless with a bow. In warfare, speed is everything.

When hunting I treat my muzzleloader like a bow, That way I increase my effectiveness.

An arrow in the arm likely will not take a rifleman out of the fight, but a musket ball to the arm disable a bowyer for life, if he doesn't die.

A rifle will penetrate armor a bow won't.
Bows are great, but rifles won history.

 

[Logcutter]

I was once into traditional bow hunting. I hunted mainly with a 55 pound recurve and cedar arrows with bear razorhead broadheads. I killed 5 deer with that bow. And I hit two more, good solid hits that I thought were right where they should be, and never recovered the bucks even after days of searching. I quit bow hunting and took up hunting with a flintlock muzzle loader. I have shot many many deer with my flintlocks. I get at least three deer tags a year and fill them all. I have never shot at a deer with the flintlock that I did not kill. The farthest one ever ran was 60 yards or so. If you choose your shots, be patient till your sure you can make a killing shot. Then there is no comparison at all. The rifle is a much more effective tool for taking game. I do not shoot at deer with the fl past 65 paces or so. I couldn't shoot a deer with my bow past 30 paces. Bows are fun, but for hunting give me the 490 PRB every time.

 

[Carbon 6]

Age takes less of a toll on my musketry than it does my archery.

 

[Sidney Smith]

I tried bow hunting when I was younger. As was said it takes a long time to become skillful with a bow. I'm left handed and left eye dominant, but for some reason I could not pull a bow with a draw weight suitable for deer hunting with my left shoulder, but I could pull a bow with my right shoulder. Why that was I have no idea. I hunted with a right handed bow that I bought off a guy I worked with, but with my dominant left eye, it was very awkward. I then got into muzzleloaders, which fortunately I could buy a left handed flintlock, and could easily shoot it using my left shoulder. Plus practice was nowhere near as intense as with a bow. I never bow hunted again.

 

[Carbon 6]

I tried bow hunting when I was younger. As was said it takes a long time to become skillful with a bow. I'm left handed and left eye dominant, but for some reason I could not pull a bow with a draw weight suitable for deer hunting with my left shoulder, but I could pull a right handed bow. Why that was I have no idea. I hunted with a right handed bow that I bought off a guy I worked with, but with my dominant left eye, it was very awkward. I then got into muzzleloaders, which fortunately I could buy a left handed flintlock, and could easily shoot it using my left shoulder. Plus practice was nowhere near as intense as with a bow. I never bow hunted again.

You needed an eye patch. Go with whatever feels comfortable and forget the rest.
I've shot bow left handed with a dominant right eye no problem then I switched, then I leaned that I could change my dominance. I've killed a lot of critters with a bow, both right and left handed.

 

[Griz44Mag]

Age takes less of a toll on my musketry than it does my archery.

Amen to that.
I gave up the bow about 10 years ago due to trembles at high tension.
I can sit for hours with my butt on a barrel and my barrel on sticks.

 

[Sparkitoff]

I think the bow range is limited and the immediate stopping of the game is inconsistent. A ball from a rifled or smooth barrel has longer range overall with accuracy and often stops a mammal right now right there. However, I could shoot my bow faster than a musket. So if the enemy was limited to a few I might be able to hold them at 50-yards with the bow until I ran out of arrows but one shot with the musket and they'd be on me before the reload was completed.

 

[Griz44Mag]

I think the bow range is limited and the immediate stopping of the game is inconsistent. A ball from a rifled or smooth barrel has longer range overall with accuracy and often stops a mammal right now right there. However, I could shoot my bow faster than a musket. So if the enemy was limited to a few I might be able to hold them at 50-yards with the bow until I ran out of arrows but one shot with the musket and they'd be on me before the reload was completed.

Thankfully the animals I hunt don't try to eat me. In some parts of the country they do.
If it's 2 legged critters I have to tend to, well, I do carry something for that...

 

[Robby]

Ben Franklin wanted to create a regiment of longbow men during the Revolutionary War. I think the logistics and training would have been the major determent, but A light mobile group of men so armed would have been a very good asset in that war, thinking like artillery and mortar shot, silent ambushes, all the while working and coordinating with troops of the line and riflemen.
Robby

 

[Carbon 6]

Imagine an onslaught of arrows darkening the sky from above launched from behind the colonial lines.
The Red coats would need to change name to the brown shorts.

I think it would have been a very effective tactic if properly employed.

 

[Howard Pippin]

I was once into traditional bow hunting. I hunted mainly with a 55 pound recurve and cedar arrows with bear razorhead broadheads. I killed 5 deer with that bow. And I hit two more, good solid hits that I thought were right where they should be, and never recovered the bucks even after days of searching. I quit bow hunting and took up hunting with a flintlock muzzle loader. I have shot many many deer with my flintlocks. I get at least three deer tags a year and fill them all. I have never shot at a deer with the flintlock that I did not kill. The farthest one ever ran was 60 yards or so. If you choose your shots, be patient till your sure you can make a killing shot. Then there is no comparison at all. The rifle is a much more effective tool for taking game. I do not shoot at deer with the fl past 65 paces or so. I couldn't shoot a deer with my bow past 30 paces. Bows are fun, but for hunting give me the 490 PRB every time.

Morning log cutter. You are absolutely right, as I have hunted with both and still do, but my effective archery range is 20 yards and that had better be broadside standing. You can see I don't get many shots. I too lost one antelope, two deer and one elk before I figured out I was a close range shooter. I still archery hunt only because archery season is a month earlier in Montana. I've never lost a deer or antelope with my muzzleloaders, and I agree 65 yards is far enough. It's not that tough getting that close and I can shoot laying down if needed. My first bow hunting was in 1967 and I have been an archery hunter safety Instructor for The last 30 years. I wish I would've known, what I know about it now, when I was 30 years old.
Squint

 

[azmntman]

I hunt with both and both are deadly when used as designed. Sure a PRB can kill out to 100 yd and often produce DRT result. A properly placed SHARP arrow could also kill at that range (and some can shoot that well!, NOT me I'm 35-40 yds or closer), they kill by hemorrhage. Get ready to track some with an arrow but a properly placed arrow and a guy that can be still 30 min after the hit wont have a very tough time finding the game, often within 30 yds. The patience is critical. An arrow doesnt "hurt" a bull elk, thy feel a poke and wonder if a foe snuck up on em, they will wonder off, feel weak, lay down and wait to be packaged. Same bull hit same spot with "that hunter' who whoops and hollars and does a jig....could be a mile?

 

[tenngun]

Imagine an onslaught of arrows darkening the sky from above launched from behind the colonial lines.
The Red coats would need to change name to the brown shorts.

I think it would have been a very effective tactic if properly employed.

I think it was at Themopolee that the Persian said they could darken the sky with arrows, and the Spartans said ‘good, we can then fight in the shade’

 

[tenngun]

One thing to think about is military logistics. I can hold a bag of a hundred rounds in my hand. Ahundred arrows? The Mongols and Parthiains had big pack stings just to carry an armies arrows. A hunter can recover a shot arrow, but on a battlefield your shot is lost. One man could pour an armies worth of ball in the time an arrow smith would arm one man.

 

[running horse]

When guns where in short supply in a new area there was also the shock and awe aspect. When everyone fought for a millennia with a bow, then someone shows up and you hear a loud boom and your buddy falls over it effects moral. Not to mention the superstitions of a given group. They saw the effect it had on them when guns first arrived as we pushed them West they pushed others and the gun slowly worked it's way across the country.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

It should be noted that the gun and the longbow as well as the Mongolian Horse Bow and the Japanese Yumi all existed for quite a long time along with guns, artillery first and then man portable guns.

The man portable gun really didn't come into its own until the first basic flintlock mechanism appeared. Until then it was a slow waning of the use of archers. Quite frankly, in the 18th century, I'd much rather stand with an 80 pound longbow at 150 yards facing three ranks of men firing LLP King's muskets at me, than to be with the guys shooting the muskets facing and equal number of longbowmen at 150 yards shooting at me.

Now if I was the government and was paying for training of the soldiers and equipment..., I'd probably opt for the muskets.

LD

 

[Stumpkiller]

I shoot traditional archery (bow hunt with recurves/no sights/wood arrows) and also hunt with a smoothbore no-rear-sight flintlock.

I try to keep inside 25 yards with the bow (even though I shoot stumps out much further and used to shoot NFAA to 80 yards) but with the smoothbore I'll go 60 yards. With a rifled m/l past 100 yards. And even up close there is SO much less movement to point and pull the trigger than raise a bow, draw and release.

I set myself a goal of taking a buck on foot still-hunting with a bow; and I eventually did. I will say even a flintlock smoothbore muzzleloader is maybe 5X easier (IMHO)

 

[hanshi]

I haven't used a bow since the 1960s. Those who grew up in a culture where bows were the standard - Mongols, Indians, English longbowmen - were usually quite deadly with arrows. They had a high rate of fire and were effective warriors. I've killed deer at 100 yards, or a bit more, with flintlock rifles but would never even think of trying that with a bow. Muskets had a high rate of fire in the hands of well trained soldiers. Still, they can't approach the rof from a skilled bowman.

 

[Homesteader]

Great observations here, and I thank you. For my part, I only ever took one deer with an arrow. I didn't have to track him far. These days I've gotta say I find bow hunting for squirrel to be one of the most fun things I can do outside with my clothes on. (But I feel the same about using my smoke poles.)

Do y'all think the Tribes realized they were giving up their independence by going with firearms?