Lead ball vs arrow

[Black Hand]

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

Ya gotta go with the latest fashion or be left behind. It was a matter of "keeping up with the Jones'"...if your (unfriendly) neighbors have the latest in firepower, you need to even the odds.

 

[Rat]

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...

I just took, and passed my "Washington Bear Identification Certification" test so that I can hunt black bear in our grizzly recovery areas. Have to take it every year. But that is why I prefer large caliber rifles and muskets, with healthy powder charges. The animals I hunt don't try and eat me, but the ones that do might think I'm hunting them, and try to eat me.

 

[Rat]

I'm into traditional archery, but only bow-hunt every couple-three years or less, and usually only deer when I do. (sometimes turkey) I do shoot often, because it's so good for the body, heart and soul, eye and hand/body coordination, and range estimation. However, I think a musket out-ranges a bow, period. (in hunting situations, military applications are a whole other story) There are exceptions, but the bow has a much greater pronounced trajectory, and that makes range estimation more critical. Another thing, there's more movement with shooting the bow, which can spook game, and game will also "jump the string", meaning they will duck or jump at the sound of the arrow being released. Very little movement pulling a trigger, and a ball flies much faster than an arrow. The bow is a good weapon in experienced hands, and I believe many stuck with the bow, and preferred it even after the introduction of the musket, but I think the musket does give one more "practical" range, and kills more quickly.

The bows used "back in the day", (same as the bows I shoot) were also not well suited to being left strung for long periods of time. Muskets can be left loaded for....wait for it....long periods of time.

After rifles became common, and the trade with Indians for deer hides was going strong, it would not make sense to harvest deer with a bow and limit your shots to close range, when a rifle would take a deer easy at 100 yards, and the Natives and Long hunters alike could shoot well out to 200 yards. I think that was probably the period that Native people switched to the gun, or rifle, more-quickly. The earlier "switch" probably occurred due to the British and French supplying them with muskets for military purposes. But even back then, there was a Indian/Native demand for fowlers, for hunting.

However, even in the late 1800's many tribes at war with the white man were not using guns exclusively. I know the Apache relied on the bow up until the very end. In fact, you will see many pics of Indians with a bow and arrow quiver on their backs, but armed with a rifle.

 

[Griz44Mag]

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

Think about how terrifying that would have been. Unlike the Spartans with their shields locked into an arrow proof umbrella, the "modern" British soldiers would have been 100% at the mercy of the falling arrows. They did not even have headgear that would slow an arrow down. The wounded would be much more numerous that the dead, thus removing 5 men from the line for every one injured. That would have been pure brilliance!

 

[DaveC]

Ol' Ben Franklin thought the bow and arrow would be a good weapon for its high rate of fire, and the availability of lumber for arrows and bows as opposed to the stands of arms, powder, and shot that had yet to arrive in sufficient quantity from co-belligerent France and to a much, much lesser degree Spain.

It might be noted, that his recommendation was simply never acknowledged. The Continental Army would be a European-style army with muskets (and some rifles), with all the uniforms, silly headgear, flags, fifes and drums, draconian discipline, linear tactics, etc. Apparently it could simply not be contemplated to wage war after the 50 or so years in which the flintlock superseded the pike, the matchlock, and any other alternative projectile weapon. Such weapons were relegated to "sauvages."

Farther up post it has been mentioned that it requires substantial training and skill to use a bow and arrow. English longbowmen of yore had to practice a lot to attain efficiency. I'd wager most militia musters were long on drill and short on marksmanship. The musket was certainly vastly more expensive if easier to use than a bow. It has been stated in some quarters that a musket ball was more immediately incapacitating if it hit a vital area than a typical arrow. Recall that the arrowheads in use, while sharp and fearsome, often used bits of metal like brass and iron that was a bit easier to work with than say, steel.

In the Hispanic Southwest, presidial dragoons often wore a heavy leather jerkin or "cuera" body armor and carried leathern "adarga" targe shields. The basic idea is an acknowledgement that the Indian foe would loose several arrows before an escopeta could be reloaded. On foot, spears and shields would fend off a rushing attack while the "tropa ligera" would complete reloading their muskets and/or pistols. Incidentally, the Lepai-Nde/ Lipan Apaches copied such hide armor, although they must have reserved it for particular types of battle.

The original conqustadors who fought in Central Mexico adopted the cotton armor of their Triple Alliance/Mexica/Aztec adversaries and Tlaxcaltec allies, but it must be remembered that the clumsy harquebus was not the primary projectile weapon that they used in the early 1500s... It was the crossbow. In fact, the "de-skilling" of archers into ordinary peasants in uniform equipped with less complex-to-use weapons likely began with the crossbow (and pike) before the musket became commonplace.

 

[Vern]

From a little research, it appears that the typical "self" bow of the North American Indians had a draw of about 30-60lbs, no pulleys, composites, sights, special optics, mechanical releases, laser range-finders, etc. They also weren't using modern 3, 4 or mechanical blade arrows with space-age shafts. Not to mention camouflage clothing, face masks, GPS, trail cameras, or other electronic gadgets.
A little looking around shows that their stone arrowheads compared well to 2-edged steel broadheads for penetration. And another site has this Lars Andersen guy doing some truly incredible stuff with a bow.

There are some videos of guys that can pull off 3-5 shots per minute with a muzzleloader.