Clearly I haven’t shot anything irl ever and don’t know much about weapons either. Oh and relax, I’m not planning on shooting anyone.

Question comes after videogames, which can sometimes have both weapon types used interchangeably and/or behaving in a similar way.

I would personally believe guns are easier, and that the only advantage a bow would ever have is that they’re not as noisy. But I hear people say aiming with a bow is easier. I guess the type of bow and gun used would also weigh on the matter?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    42 months ago

    Having hunted with a bow for years; a rifle is 100X easier to use, with range and accuracy an order of magnitude better.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        42 months ago

        We have an insane number of deer around here and with a rifle it’s not exactly hunting when I can step out my back door and fill all my tags with a mag dump. Bow hunting is more sporting and makes me better.

        I use a rifle for elk and moose (and boar), but using a bow on those is borderline insane, and there’s not as many of those around.

      • bluGill
        link
        fedilink
        22 months ago

        I consider bows more fun. If I want food on the table the gun is better. However the legal bow season is often much longer and that makes the bow more likely to put food on the table if you can hunt everyday. (hunting is in large part waiting for the animal to come by)

  • HubertManne
    link
    fedilink
    32 months ago

    I have little experience but have fired each and your instincts are right. gun much easier. now because my experience is low maybe large kickback firearms are worse than bows but I went regularly to an archery range but only for like some months and I can say I never got that good with hitting close to a bullseye but with a rifle it was not hard to get better than that the first session. Your example though is video games so im not sure if run and gun might be different. I mean when you are not moving and aiming the sites work pretty well (presumably if calibrated right but I have never done that and assumed whoever did it did a good job) but like if your running around shooting things then I dunno maybe the bow could be better but I doubt it.

  • djsoren19
    link
    fedilink
    English
    142 months ago

    Absolutely a gun. The thing they don’t tell you about bows is that you have to be the one to draw back the bowstring, and you need to exert enough force on that bowstring that your stored potential energy sends an arrow flying. If you’re physically weak, good fucking luck. Yeah, maybe if you’re strong enough or use a compound bow to reduce the amount of strain aiming is easy, but in my experience, it’s pretty rough getting to a point where you can conveniently draw, aim, and fire a bow.

    Meanwhile, a .22 rifle barely has enough kick for a child to feel. A shotgun or any higher calibre rifle might give a teenager a bit of a sore shoulder. Movies exaggerate it a little bit, but it really isn’t that much harder than “point and click.” The answer is gun by a mile.

    Source: I had a lot of ranged weapons training in the Scouts. If I had to choose one, I’d go with hatchets.

  • Majorllama
    link
    fedilink
    192 months ago

    The act of using a prepped weapon? The gun for sure.

    The complexity of the mechanical nature and upkeep? Bow far simpler.

    If you were to just hand a prepped weapon to someone and tell them to shoot a target the gun user would be far more likely to succeed first.

    If you expected someone to figure out how to prep a weapon (stringing the bow vs loading a mag) I think people would intuitively understand how to prepare the bow for use, but the specific motions and buttons for guns might stump some people.

    Now I really want to find a bunch of people who have somehow never seen or heard of either and see which one they intuitively understand easier.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I’ve shot both and guns are much easier to both shoot and aim. A single action revolver is a lot easier to shoot than most people think. It takes barely any pressure on the trigger, so aiming is a lot more accurate. The bigger the gun, the easier it is to aim (and the more accurate it will be, especially if the barrel is rifled). Also rapid fire is much easier than a bow. There’s a reason there are no mass murderers using bows.

    That being said, bows are way easier to make. You can make a decent enough bow and arrows with a dead chicken, a sharp rock, and a few nice sticks. Making a gun requires some pretty complex knowledge of both metalwork and chemistry. You also need a source of immense heat, so building at least a small forge is required.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    32 months ago

    Modern guns a extremely precisely engineered devices that are incredibly easy to use, for better or worse. I know modern sporting bows are also but it’s no contest in my opinion.

    I’ve shot both, bows as a complete amateur and relatively competent with a rifle. There is no question that a modern gun is way easier to pick up as an amateur and hit what you want to hit and I cannot possibly believe there are anything other than extremely niche uses where a bow is superior.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    232 months ago

    100% firearms. Easier to aim and keep on target and easier for people of any strength,size or handicap to use moderately well with minimal training. The only place bows are really better is that they are functionally more simple.

    A complete novice can pick up a gun and with minimal coaching be on target after a short time. To get close to the same proficiency and accuracy with a how would take exponentially more time and practice.

  • monsterpiece42
    link
    fedilink
    32 months ago

    Bows are simpler logistically. Nock an arrow, pull, aim, release (“fire”). Guns have more steps up front typically but also make the round-to-round process simpler.

    Both have sights that are comparable in complexity.

    Form is similarly important for both.

    Skill curve is similar for both at the higher end. I think bows are a little more intuitive for beginner through novice (subjective of course).

    Size can vary wildly for both.

    Bows need more physicality typically, so they’re a little harder in that way.

    Feel free to follow with questions if you like. I have some hobby experience with bows and have trained professionally (military) with firearms.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      42 months ago

      An untrained bowman will have a hard time to hit a stationary target 7m away. A revolver will hit most of the time and even without any training you will find it easy enough to load the weapon. Maintaining a bow is not much easier than a revolver.

      • monsterpiece42
        link
        fedilink
        22 months ago

        Having been new on both weapons and also having trained people that were brand new on both weapons, I will say that most beginners cannot hit something that far away with anything. What I meant by “intuitive” is that if you miss with a bow, you can see exactly where the arrow went and if it’s too low you can be like “I need to shoot a little higher”. Sometimes it is harder when you’re firing ammunition because they tend to disappear.

        Loading either weapon isn’t necessarily complicated, but it is more intuitive on a bow. For revolver you will need to pull the release, rotate the assembly out, remove old rounds, insert new rounds and reverse disassembly. For a bow, you just put an arrow in and pull it back because the previous arrow is already gone. For some firearms, loading correctly can be fairly tricky if you don’t know what you’re doing. For example, if you load an M16 and don’t remember to shake the rounds to the back of the magazine, it can jam the weapon.

  • FuglyDuck
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12 months ago

    fire arms.

    Hands down.

    Lets just put it this way. you don’t hear about toddlers accidentally killing their parents because they got into the parent’s bows and arrows.

  • unknown1234_5
    link
    fedilink
    32 months ago

    guns are much easier to aim and use. technically a bow is quieter, but guns can be made to be fairly quiet and are generally much less bulky than bows. generally speaking, guns are point and click. bows are dependent on how you hold the bow, how you hold the arrow, and the form with which you release the arrow (letting the bow move the right way and amount is involved). on top of that even the quietest configuration of a gun will have more power per size than a bow because gunpowder is very energy dense and the barrel of a gun is a great way of focusing that energy into a projectile.

  • southsamurai
    link
    fedilink
    52 months ago

    Define easier

    In terms of making the danger dot go, guns are miles easier to initially fire. But easy only in that sense, that pulling a trigger takes less force to achieve.

    Bows are definitely harder to pull.

    However, even a simple firearm isn’t as intuitive as a bow to make ready to shoot.

    A gun, even the simplest ones, take more steps to go from paperweight to boom stick. A bow, you can just look at and tell there’s essentially three steps: put pointy part away from you, other end on string; pull string; let go.

    A gun, you have to determine what size bullet and how much propellant, load a bullet and propellant, close the gun or otherwise ensure that the bullet comes out the danger end; then engage the trigger. And even that assumes the bullet and powder don’t need anything like a percussion cap, a flint or whatever.

    If it’s a more advanced firearm, you’ll be dealing with some kind of safety mechanism, loading a magazine or revolver with the correct rounds, and how to open whatever mechanism allows you to load the rounds.

    So, guns take more non intuitive thinking to make work, and are thus harder.

    I’d say they’re roughly equally hard to shoot well, but that guns are slightly easier to shoot and hit something. Both take a lot of practice to keep tight groupings of the animation ammunition in the target. But you can kinda trust the speed of a bullet to hit what you’re generally pointing at, at close range. An arrow, it tales a little more effort to figure out how to do that. It isn’t a huge gap, but it is there.

    It’s different learning curves, basically.

    Type of device does matter some; an old school long bow is going to be a little easier for a total noob to put arrows into a target with than a fancy modern bow. And you definitely have a different set of body mechanics between long guns and handguns, as well as between rifles and shotguns. There’s nuances between revolvers and “semi auto” in handguns, bolt action vs semiautomatic in rifles and shotguns, etc.

    But, on average, if I was wanting to get someone to the point they could have a decent chance of hunting something the size of a deer, I’m going to put a rifle in their hands. They’ll, with instruction, be able to get clean kills faster than with a bow. Even with iron sights, I’ve seen kids keep sub six inch groups after a few days of practice with appropriately sized rifles, at hunting ranges. An adult should be able to be ready to roll at least that fast

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    72 months ago

    A firearm, easily. I’ve fired both and bows require much more strength even if it’s a compound bow. On top of that aiming an arrow is much less intuitive than using even iron sights on a gun. Not to mention you can get rounds off much faster on a bolt action gun than a bow. Additionally I think you’re probably more likely to hurt yourself with a bow by smacking your arm than with a gun, assuming you get basic training for both

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    172 months ago

    Guns. The advent of firearms revolutionized warfare to the extent that no other military arms mattered, and no other training mattered.

    Before firearms were adopted, it would take a good ten to twenty years to raise a standing army, and retinues would still need a few months of training to not be slaughtered within the first battle. With firearms you just need a week or two and any peasant with two arms became an effective soldier.

    Contrasting this, bowmen weren’t peasants. They did not return to their family when there wasn’t war. They were trained from around the age of seven to around the age of 15, and after this would be a professional soldier until they retired or died; training every single day (except Sundays or Saturdays depending on religion). They were paid to be bowmen, nothing else. Even if a peasant could use a bow, say if they were a hunter, they would never qualify for military service. Its that big of a difference in skill.

    As to their differences in effect, range and force.

    The weakest powder musket equals a ~80lbs draw war bow. Both can pierce plate armor on a good day, but the former can do so from a longer distance and again with decades less training. As guns get more advanced, their range and penetration increases massively, whereas most archers will be unable to draw a 120lbs or higher bow, meaning there is a maximum distance and effectiveness of bows that is almost comically lower than weapons.

    To keep with freedom units, a deadly long range bow shot tops out at around a quarter mile with a high draw weight long bow. That’s about the absolute max, assuming the victim is wearing no armor. The current record for a sniper with a gun is around 1.5 miles, with the target wearing body armor.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      That’s not really true, early firearm existed alongside bows for centuries before they became dominant.