Bow and arrow
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
is out there a real and viable application of these basic and first foremost ranged weapon of human history by today standards?
besides... hunting and target shooting.
>>29805812
>needing it to be good for more than those
I love archery, but I won't pretend it's as useful as a gun outside those areas.
all that ghillie shit is going to get caught in his string and fuck his day up when he releases.
Also, this: >>29806417
My research suggests that bows/crossbows would be very handy come the zombie apocalypse.
Well, they're lightweight, quiet and don't produce muzzle signature or concussion, reliable, can be used for fishing and in super wet or muddy environments, they're not regulated by firearms laws, you can attach rope or incendiaries to arrows for various purposes, they use kinetic instead of chemical energy, they wont be detected by metal detectors, and they're fun
>>29806436
i chuckled for real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWnh83-TDxE
>>29806437
So useless?
No, I can't think of any tactical applicaiton to the atl-atl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX52cl-f6ZU
rope arrows
Where are you, Lars Andersen Guy?
Fire Arrows
>>29806444
they aren't lightweight compared to firearms which deliver the same energy
while they don't produce muzzle concussion, unless the string has silencers attached it still makes a very distinctive sound. Because the projectile is slower than the speed of sound this is actually a problem while hunting (unlike firearms due to the supersonic nature of most projectiles)
they're only reliable when the shooter is *extremely* well versed in their use. Much like a pump action shotgun, the design is not inherently unreliable, but due to people's lack of training, malfunctions are quite common (ie. improperly nocked arrow, incorrect release sending the arrow off course, snagging of obstructions (such as the ghillie suit in OP's pic) on the string during the firing sequence, etc.)
due to the nature of many bow strings, wet environments will elongate them and reduce the acceleration they can impart upon an arrow, throwing off the bow's sights significantly.
arrows with modified warheads (or otherwise altered weight, even very subtly) makes using your aiming pegs useless, and any warhead (or gauge of rope with securing device) big enough to be useful would massively reduce the range of the bow to the point that it would become far less capable of precise fire at range which is very important, as a small enough warhead to be fired by a bow would require great precision to hit a soft enough spot to accomplish its purpose.
Other more viable options than a bow also store potential energy mechanically rather than chemically. Large caliber air rifles with tanks capable of storing compressed air from hand pumps come to mind.
They are fun, but their limitations are nearly crippling.
In reality, a bow is a platform which imparts less energy than a handgun and fires less quickly than a single shot firearm if its draw weight is significant enough to make it useful as a weapon.
Go back to Crysis.
>>29805812
first foremost? Basic? have you seen a modern bow? i think you are confusing them with atlatls
>>29805812
I shot compound in competition, now i have a takedown recurve.
i enjoy it, compound is not much of a challenge, really if its within 60 yds or so its just as easy as a rifle, just slower followups.
>>29806417
If modern cartridge firearms are unavailable I'd say it would be more effective than a muzzle loader.
>>29807066
I think you are confusing atlatles with a sling.
>>29806886
> Not holy water arrows
>>29807075
Then you would be wrong.
>>29807096
I believe you're confusing slings with a rock
>>29807096
I think you confuse assalt sling with rock.
just pick rock.
throw rock.
>>29807066
Or a sling. Or hell, a thrown rock. Since that'd have come first.
>>29807166
The thread has already made these points, in a funnier way.
your post is bad and you should feel bad.
>>29805812
how about a sling man or a rock or just stuff you throw in other kinds of ways
>>29807043
breh, d u even shoot?
>>29807066
yeah first and foremost, people that dont know how to start a fucking fire, but know how to build and fire a bow, even if its a shitty one.
>>29807354
forgot the pic
>>29807043
>if its draw weight is significant enough to make it useful as a weapon.
if you cant draw your bow within half a second you are either weak or have too strong a bow
>>29807043
We've been killing humans with bows for hundreds if not thousands of years
Just because firearms exist doesn't make them any less effective as weapons
You can literally take down a hind with a bow and arrow.
>>29807043
Clearly you have never stalked and killed large game with a bow. Let's go hunt Pike County buckzillas, Elk, or razorbacks. Bows require more forethought than firearms, and make up for the lack of firepower and ease of use in their wide range of applications in both hunting/offensive and defensive capabilities.
>>29806444
Bows and crossbows doesn't use kinetic energy, they use potential energy/tension
>>29811275
Stored or Potential energy is released as Kinetic, boo. I think that's what he's sayin'
>>29805812
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
Stop what you're doing and watch this video, before you make any of the wrong decisions or buy into the hype that is modern archery. Lars Andersen has studied the actual historical texts that warrior archers learned from, and compiled a style created from accurate, practicality driven teachings. Modern archers will want to load you up with all kinds of compounds bows, sights, quivers, carbon fiber arrows, etc. These are all generic consumer products that will not actually help you grow as an archer, rather hinder you by building bad habits and reliance on them.
Seriously, don't fall into the modern myths of archery, the study is changing and Lars is leading the way, following him is following thousands of years of far more effective archers than we can hope to become today.
>>29811284
Maybe, but he was pointing that as an advantage of (cross)bows over firearms. Both use kinetic energy
>>29811288
the bait is so obvious
>>29811275
My mistake
>>29807043
Arrows don't kill primarily with energy but by blood loss (other than a brain shot obviously). As far as sound goes you won't hear them more than 50 ft away even in a completely silent environment and in most circumstances a human would not notice the sound a all.
>>29805812
>hey guise, what possible use could this weapon have, hehe, in [current year] besides the 2 of only 3 possible uses of any weapon (because for arbitrary reasons I wont explain I think those dont count)?
Fuck you.
>>29807043
Of fuck off with your stupid energy shit, faggot.
You always post the same shit about HURR DURR DAT DERE .22 LONG RIFLE HAS MUCH MOW ENAGIES DAN DA ARROW HABS.
You are a fucking nogunz, nobowz autist that doesn't know shit.
>>29813489
He's right though. An arrow will always have less energy than even a .22lr. The advantage the arrow has is outrageous sectional density compared to any bullet
>Think bows are silent
>Try to sneek breeki a sentry
>He fires randomly or calls out
>SHIIEET
>>29813984
This of course assumes you use commercially available bows. If you were to make your own or machine your own cams you could get much better velocity and efficient energy transfer. Compound bows are intentionally less efficient than they could be for ease of use
>>29813375
/thread
>>29813984
But it doesn't fucking matter.
This isn't the fucking 1980's, "stopping power" and "energy dump" was a fucking myth.
Penetration and tissue destruction is what kills.
Energy can help, but it is not everything.
That is why people kill elephants with 90lb compound bows and get about 40" of penetration in the densest muscle and bone and skin of any land animal on earth, and they kill them with one fuckin shot too.
Why?
BECAUSE FUCKING MOMENTUM, that's why.
More momentum = more penetration.
Penetration and destruction of vital organs is what kills.
Which is why big game rifles use heavy, flat nosed bullets to bore through that heavy muscle and bone, heavy bullets maintain their momentum.
In humans, 12" is the minimum penetration needed to kill.
In large animals, 30" inches of medium which is many times more dense than human tissue must be penetrated is the minimum.
You will never, ever get 30" inches of penetration on big game animal with a fucking 22 LR.
http://www.africahunting.com/threads/elephant-bow-hunt.8007/
>>29805812
They have some extremely narrow applications if you can find a good enough archer. They punch through water more effectively than bullets do, and they make for extremely quiet and flash free disposal methods if you can get close enough to the target. That said, a silenced rifle can take out somebody more reliably and from greater distance, along with having a greater rate of fire. A gun would almost always be more useful and require less training to use effectively.
>Muh suppressed but still loud ass rifle if it is in a conventional caliber.
>Assuming all registered suppressors will not be confiscated immediately
>>29814174
People DO NOT kill elephants with 40lb bows
And arrows can't even penetrate the shoulder bone of a deer
Where did you get your facts?
Arrows kill game by hemorrhagic shock and suffocation, if you are hunting correctly
>12" minimum for killing humans
My body isn't even 12" deep. My internal organs are not more than 3" inside my body if I had to guess
I don't even know what you're arguing for/against but these facts you spew are just blatantly retarded
Oh, .22lr for large game? Not likely
>>29811288
Stop with the pasta, Lars. No one cares about your 360 trick shots
>>29814618
>Not even reading the post you're criticizing.
Fuck off nogunznobowz.
>>29814618
Not OP but:
>People DO NOT kill elephants with 40lb bows
He never said that
>And arrows can't even penetrate the shoulder bone of a deer
Bullshit. Pass through on deer are extremely common, even when encountering bone. .22 probably wouldn't penetrate a deer shoulder anyway.
>Arrows kill game by hemorrhagic shock and suffocation
>suffocation
They also kill because of organ failure resulting from the penetration and destruction of internal organ tissue. Most bullets also kill their targets from shock and blood loss.
>My body isn't even 12" deep
12" of penetration is a good abstraction of what a projectile needs to achieve to consistently hit the vital organs from any angle. It is used by the FBI to determine what calibers are rated for carry by agents. The 12" standard seems excessive but is meant to simulate the worst possible scenario, such a shot that goes through the arms into body at a side angle or if the victim is wearing heavy clothing or if the projectile encounters bone. Heavy denim can provide up to 3 inches of equivalence of ballistics gel, and human skin can also provide up to 4 inches of equivalence in ballistics gel.
http://shootingthebull.net/blog/bullet-effectiveness-whats-the-big-deal-about-12-penetration-anyway/
>>29814174
Momentum is a function of energy tho. That's why I mentioned sectional density, which allows an arrow to penetrate very deep even though it has low energy relative to other projectile weapons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOM4IQjQtM4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiA16VS3vEw
What's the best way to carry arrows?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0j8TIhNCsc
>>29815940
Rectally
>>29815362
>he didn't say that
>>29814174
>That is why people kill elephants with 90lb compound bows
My mistake?
>suffocation
Yes. When bow hunting, you're aiming for the heart and lungs. The lungs collapse, fill with blood, whatever. They can't breathe.
>12" standard
Sounds good to me. Thanks for cited source
But that doesn't mean 12" is the
>minimum penetration needed to kill
MINIMUM penetration
NEEDED to kill
Nah man
>>29815362
Also, arrows do have quite a difficult time passing through the shoulder bone. When you hunt deer with a bow, you either take a shot whilst the deer is angled away from you, behind the shoulder blade, OR a broadside shot, after the deer has taken a step forward, moving the bone and exposing the heart and lungs
>>29815020
I hasgunz and hasbow
I bowhunt as well
Blow meeeeee
>>29816230
Ya, the "minimum penetration needed to kill" is based on ballistics gel tests. Contrary to popular believe, ballistics gel isn't meant to perfectly simulate human tissue. Rather it's meant to give a replicable medium that could be used to accurately compare terminal ballistics. That's why it seems a bit excessive
>>29807075
If that were the case then armies and people wouldn't have switched to muzzleloaders.
>>29816358
>ARFCOM faggot detected
>>29816460
I'd think a good part of that was training. English longbowmen could take years to train, while riflemen could be drummed up in a matter of weeks
Here's mine
SAS Rage
70lbs
Awesome bow, really flat trajectory with 100 grain field points.
Very compact too.
This is my war bow.
>>29815940
Whichever way you like to and can draw easily from.
>>29807132
Silly berry picker throws rock. Real man use real arms to pick up real big rock. Bash other hunters and bash their berry pickers breeding hole.
>>29813318
Confirmed for never shooting a bow before. Without deadeners on the string, a person could easily hear it 20 to 40 yards away.
>>29816258
If you're not getting shoulder bone penetration, then you're using the wrong bow-arrow-broadhead combination.
But you'd have to actually be a bowhunter and an archer to know that...
>>29816460
NOPE.jpg
Bows were clearly superior to guns until repeating weapons except in regards to two aspects, armor enetration and ease of use.
Bullets tear through armor and you can train any skrub with a gun in a week. Bows take years to learn (or at least old school bows do) and some upper body strength.
I maintain that a group of riflemen, backed a line of long-bowmen, would have been a devastating combo, even in Napoleonic times.
>>29818192
>I maintain that a group of riflemen, backed a line of long-bowmen, would have been a devastating combo, even in Napoleonic times.
You don't have to guess. Oda Nobunaga steamrolled his enemies using gun-equipped soldiers hiding behind rolling wooden shield walls.
>>29806859
Crying in a corner because he was blasted into obscurity by people who actually know things about archery.
>>29818192
Not only that but the report and smoke/smell of gunfire is highly demoralizing to enemy troops who haven't been desensitized to it. Then the invention of the bayonet in the 16th century is what allowed the firearm to begin to displace the sword, spear, pike etc. and made it the dominant force on the battlefield and even that took another 300 or so years.
>>29818192
>Training a rifleman in a week.
>>29805812
People will call me edgy, or what the fuck ever.
But these are weapons that were made to kill large animals and people.
They are just as good at it now as they have ever been.
Should the world go to shit, eventually ammo will be harder to come by and silence will be far more valuable than stopping power.
Being able to stalk and kill on your own as part of a group in near silence will be invaluable.
Arrows are easier to make than bullets, at least by hand and require less complex materials.
Prove me wrong.
>>29818747
They were made to kill large animals and people, back before people started making rifles and bullets to kill large animal and people. Cavemen killed large animals and people with pointed sticks and rocks. That doesn't mean pointed sticks and rocks are a good idea these days, even if you can make them work in a pinch.
>>29818857
I'm not saying they're better than guns.
It's much like comparing rifles and handguns for example.
They're just different weapons for different situations.
There will be times where the pointed rock will be the best option, know what I'm saying?
>>29814618
People don't kill elephants with 40# bows, no. He said 90# safari compounds. They also use 90+ # trad bows. Both with massively heavy arrows for momentum.
When you say arrows can't penetrate the shoulder blade of a deer, you're wrong. Plenty of video broad head tests where they do it on camera for you even. Not all arrows might be able to. If you personally were worried about it, shoot a quick compound in at least 60# with a high FOC 400+ grain arrow with a skinny single bevel fixed blade and don't take long shots.
