A different look at TEOTWAWKI

[bratch]

We can a myriad of TEOTWAKI threads on here but one I have never noticed is the use of a bow.

Modern bows are powerful and quiet. The arrows can be reused if found and not shot into damaging material. Seems to offer a lot of options.

Have you guys ever considered this?

[Kurt]

Only for enemy sentries and Zombies.

Any extra noise would just attrach more of their kind.

Seriously.....

;)

[Ian]

If you shoot a sentry with an arrow, the bow may be quiet, but I'll bet the sentry with an arrow in him will be making some noise...

[LaEscopeta]

Ditto what Ian said. I've read the U.S. Army Specail Forces expertimented with cross bows in Veitnam, and quickly abandoned them, because of the noise the target made.

[bratch]

I didn't mean to infer using a bow as a primary form of defense or offense.

I was imagining a scenario where the infrastructure had collapsed and everyone was fending for themself for food and all neccessities.

[loudernhel]

Yup. I think that's a good idea.

Also a quality air gun.

Both for quiet hunting, not self defense purposes.

[Blackburn]

If by "quality airgun" you mean a 3" bore pressurized air cannon charged off industrial sized co2 tanks firing a 5" long sharply pointed and barbed slug, then yes!

[kfranz]

A trap "hunts" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I'd spend the bow money on traps myself.

[birddog]

I've been a bow hunter as long as I've been a hunter and have killed lots of stuff -- even big stuff like deer and bear -- with the bow. That said, I have to be honest. In a SHTF or survival situation, I'll be cracking open the gun safe and gathering handfuls of brass.

The bow...For self defense? Forget it. It will eventually kill someone, sure. But broadheads kill by hemorrage, not by shock, and whoever you're shooting at is going to have plenty of time to do you harm before they bleed out. And in the meantime, you won't be able to re-load very fast. And, as has been mentioned above, your target is going to be alerting his friends by screaming in the meantime.

For hunting? Again, if I HAD to hunt for food, it will be the 30-06, not my compound bow that joins me in the woods. Why limit range, speed, and power when you have a gun available? I'd use a bow if I had to be sneaky about gathering some venison, but that would be the only reason.

[RyanM]

The bow...For self defense? Forget it. It will eventually kill someone, sure. But broadheads kill by hemorrage, not by shock, and whoever you're shooting at is going to have plenty of time to do you harm before they bleed out.

So bullets kill by this magical "shock," which liquifies internal organs, or overloads the central nervous system, or something like that? ;)

http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

"Projectiles incapacitate by damaging or destroying the central nervous system, or by causing lethal blood loss. To the extent the wound components cause or increase the effects of these two mechanisms, the likelihood of incapacitation increases. Because of the impracticality of training for head shots, this examination of handgun wounding relative to law enforcement use is focused upon torso wounds and the probable results."

"Physiologically, a determined adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed."

[Dave R]

As a firearms hunter who has never hunted with a bow, I still think a bow would be a valuable addition to the kit. If nothing else, its easier to make ammo (arrows) when the ammo, or the primers, or the powder run out. And arrows can be re-used multiple times.

Bow hunters--what's the effective range of a bow on deer-sized game? 50 yards? 35?

[bratch]

Dave my reasoning is the exact same as yours.

I already own a bow. I bought it because I enjoy shooting it, I can shoot it in my backyard and as long as I don't do anything stupid I can shoot the same aroow alot.

I have heard of deer at 40 yards being a pass through.

[birddog]

So bullets kill by this magical "shock," which liquifies internal organs, or overloads the central nervous system, or something like that?

No, not quite. ;) BUT, bullets do have the added advantage of shock. I'm not speaking from conjecture, but personal experience with shooting both rifles, shotguns, and compound bows at 150-200 pound animals. Of course you can't rely on shock, which is why most shots I take at deer are at the vitals. However, with a gun, I have the added option of CNS shots, and have shot many many deer with neck shots. With these shots, you get the nearly "magical" shock factor and the delightful sight of your big game animal folding up on the spot. This happening with the bow is fairly rare. I've had it happen once in twenty years of bowhunting.

I'm not saying the bow can't be a useful tool. Heck I love to shoot my bows, and am pretty sure I could secure supper with them any time it might become necessary. I'm just saying that a gun is more practical, in my opinion.

As for the above comment about arrows being easier to make than centerfire cartridges.... :uhoh: I can make a LOT of .357 and .44 rounds in an hour. Arrow making -- arrows durable enough to withstand the force of modenrt bows -- is not an easy proposition and you're not going to crank dozens of them out easily in a survival situation unless you have the specialized arrow-making tools. Lots of us re-load, but I'm willing to bet there are very few arrow-makers on this board. :D

Good thread.

[GEM]

Go read "Dies the Fire" or something like that by SM Stirling. That's the scenario. Electricity and guns don't work due to a change in physics.

As far as the real world, a guy where I live saw his car getting jacked. He ran out with his hunting bow and was promptly shot.

I also some dumb movie with such a scenario. Of course, if you get the chance you can use a bow.

In Deliverance, it saved John Voight from the purty mouth fate but was too late for poor Ned Beatty.

[Correia]

RyanM,

No offense, but you are thinking of handgun bullets. Rifle bullets do in fact produce a shock wave that causes permenant tissue damage. Yes, I've also read that web page, check again. That sentance is about pistol bullets. Pump up your velocity another 1,000 fps and you will see what I mean.

Have you seen a deer shot with a broad head? Have you seen a deer shot with something like a 30-06? With an actual rifle velocity cartridge, yes, you do get shock. In fact you pulp the area around the wound channel to the point that you throw the meat away because it is ruined. One advantage of the bow is that you tend to destroy less edible meat.

[usem]

Only 5% of the population hunts, for about 5% of the year. They have bag limits, seasons, limitations on taking females, using bait, using flashlights, etc. If they didn't, just that 5% will eliminate all the game in a year, even tho nobody needs to hunt for food. Multitply that times 50 with the dogs and cats starving, people losing wounded critters, no other food, etc, and the game will all be gone in a month or two. The fish and small stuff in another month or two. Even deer and antelope can be brained with a .22 rifle at any range that's feasible to hit them with an arrow. I can carry 1500 rds of .22's a lot easier than I can a bow and a dozen arrows.

[Bulldozer]

grow a nice garden, keep a few chickens.

live near a stream where you can fish.

further out and away from other folks, the better off you'd be.

[trickyasafox]

i think it'd be a great hunting option (already got one too!) and would save ammo for the 2 legged critters

[G-30]

Ahh, bows and arrows. I have hunted with both bows and rifles since I was able to hunt. And yes, arrows work differently than rifle bullets.

Bullets shot from a rifle travel on average 2800 fps. This causes Hydro static shock and tissue damage. When the bullet hits the animal is sends a shock wave (Hydro) threw the body by way of the water, blood and fat. This stops the heart and paralyzes the nervous system. Dead animal.

Arrows on the other hand work of off a Bilateral Pneumothorax meaning you puncture the lungs, and/or blood loss. This collapses the lungs causing Oxygen depleted blood. The brain starves of oxygen and collapse is quick. The heart still beats for a little while but the animal is unconscious. If shot in the heart the animal will be conscious longer. The brain still receives oxygenated blood. The body tries to conserve blood loss and the heart slows down it's volume, thus slowing down un-consciousness due to blood loss.

I have taken several elk (700 lbs animals) with my bow. Arrows traveling in and out of them at 40 + yards. Bows are very lethal, but if I had a choice for food and survival I would choose a rifle.

[birddog]

Well said, G-30, especially since you agree with me.

:evil:

[G-30]

Birddog, I just re-read your post. Yea, we pretty much agree. As far as sport hunting I chose my bow. I absolutley love hunting with bow and arrow.

As far as making arrows, I make them too out of raw shafts that I buy. I can make a doz. arrows in about an hour. I can shoot these arrows over and over. As long as I don't hit rocks :banghead: the arrows will last a long long time. One doz. arrows will last me a couple of years, and I shoot a lot.

Arrows are tough, I have killed a deer and two elk with the same arrow. The last elk I killed with the arrow broke it. But that is pretty good use out of one arrow. :)

My show off picture. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v169/BrokenHorn/Hunting/CroppedElkPic.jpg

[Dionysusigma]

I think Bulldozer's idea is best. If things get to be so bad that I run out of ammo and the situation's still at its worst, I'll build a hut and domesticate squirrels. Or something. :uhoh: :o

However, through the years I've owned quite a few bows, and have fired a crossbow or two. The best bow I ever had, and shot the most often, and got good with, consisted of nothing more than a sapling I chopped down myself, stripped, and strung up with bailing wire. Granted, I was nine years old at the time, but I was doing (what seemed to me) pretty decent shots with it--50 yards, two shots, one hay bale standing on end (and not those humongous round things either).

But for hunting? Or for defense? No way. Most likely for boredom if nothing else. Seed packets are what, $0.75 from Wal-Mart? Just get a few of those if you're gonna be hunkering down for a long time. :)

[JohnKSa]

When musket first began to replace bows, it wasn't for increased effectiveness. In fact the best bows of the day were more capable than the muskets were.

The muskets still won out.

There is a significant skill level difference required to shoot a bow well vs a musket, but that's still not why the muskets won.

A strong accurate arrow must be made by a skilled individual. Any idiot can cast a lead ball.

[RyanM]

Yeah, I was mostly thinking of handgun rounds since bow vs. rifle really isn't a very fair fight. But still, barring a CNS hit (through temporary or permanent cavitation), a hole from a broadhead doesn't kill that much slower than a hole from a firearm. A rifle just gives you a bigger margin of error for CNS hits, at the cost of extra noise.

[Double Naught Spy]

We can a myriad of TEOTWAKI threads on here but one I have never noticed is the use of a bow.

Well, this is a gun forum, so bows aren't going to be horrible high on the list of discussions.

If I was to consider using modern stringed instruments for something other than music, I would much prefer the crossbow over the long bow.

[Preacherman]

I wonder if one could rig up an arrowhead (or crossbow bolt) along the lines of a whale harpoon? The harpoons often carry an explosive charge in the head, so that once they've penetrated the whale, they explode inside, doing much more damage and hastening death. I'd imagine that a (very! :D ) small explosive charge inside a broadhead would have the same effect, and that fragments of the arrowhead would act like shrapnel in the chest cavity. What say the archers among us?

[Byron Quick]

If you shoot a sentry with an arrow, the bow may be quiet, but I'll bet the sentry with an arrow in him will be making some noise...

Yep.

Only 5% of the population hunts, for about 5% of the year. They have bag limits, seasons, limitations on taking females, using bait, using flashlights, etc. If they didn't, just that 5% will eliminate all the game in a year, even tho nobody needs to hunt for food. Multitply that times 50 with the dogs and cats starving, people losing wounded critters, no other food, etc, and the game will all be gone in a month or two. The fish and small stuff in another month or two. Even deer and antelope can be brained with a .22 rifle at any range that's feasible to hit them with an arrow. I can carry 1500 rds of .22's a lot easier than I can a bow and a dozen arrows.

There are some big problems with this.
1)A lot of the small game species would be impractical for meat hunting even with .22's. Obtaining enough doves or rabbits for more than just a couple of people would rapidly deplete your ammunition. People in a survival situation would begin trapping these species if they had time in a TEOTWAWKI situation.
2)Compare the population figures for deer with the success retes of the hunters. Consider how many hunters you know that have filled their quota on deer. I've hunted pretty hard the past ten years. I've filled mine once.
One year, hunting three to four times a week; I didn't get any. Oh yeah, the bait thingie. SC allows baiting. Got a pretty generous bag limit for deer. The state is overrun with the critters.
3)TEOTWAWKI scenarios would have causes that usually get rid of large percentages of the population. That opens up habitat. You could easily see an increase of population even with an increase in hunting.

[Otherguy Overby]

A different look at TEOTWAWKI
We can a myriad of TEOTWAKI threads on here but one I have never noticed is the use of a bow.

Modern bows are powerful and quiet. The arrows can be reused if found and not shot into damaging material. Seems to offer a lot of options.

Have you guys ever considered this?

Vin Suprynowicz wrote a novel:

http://www.libertybookshop.us/mall/The-Black-Arrow.htm

[Fenrik]

I've recently gotten into traditional archery. And While I'll probibly hunt with a bow instead of a firearm. I wouldn't count on one if the SHTF. If I bug in I've got plenty of guns n ammo. If I bug out I've got a guns and ammo and limited additional space/weight I can carry.

I considered getting a good takedown recurve and strapping it to my pack. However, after some thought I decided it wouldn't be worth the extra weight. I could always make a bow and some arrows later, though the time/effort would probibly be better spent trapping or fishing.

[SigPacker]

Exploding whale... (http://easylink.playstream.com/katu/seeit/020904exploding_whale.wvx?preclip=/katu/ads/no_preclip) Great way to feed people in a 1/4 mile radius...

Couldnt resist... :neener:

[GEM]

In the Stirling book, I mentioned , after TEOTWAWKI - dude, not deer and squirrel was the major game animal. The good guys had to fight off the cannibals.

Stirling postulates a giant die off of the population and then civilization might restart.

[benEzra]

If I was to consider using modern stringed instruments for something other than music, I would much prefer the crossbow over the long bow.
I'd actually prefer the longbow. Crossbows didn't fare too well vs. the longbow at the battle of Crecy. Longbows can store much more energy than a crossbow, due to fundamental physics and materials constraints, and have a considerably higher rate of fire.

[jeff-10]

In the Stirling book, I mentioned , after TEOTWAWKI - dude, not deer and squirrel was the major game animal. The good guys had to fight off the cannibals.

Dies the Fire is a great book. The sequel The Protector's War will be out soon. Here is a link to some sample chapters http://www.smstirling.com/. It is a THR nightmare though since guns no longer work. :evil:

[Byron Quick]

Dies the Fire is a great book. The sequel The Protector's War will be out soon. Here is a link to some sample chapters http://www.smstirling.com/. It is a THR nightmare though since guns no longer work.

In this type of scenario, you're darn tooting that bows have a place. Being by yourself or with a small group is a good way to wind up dead, though. Think instead of being with a unit that is large enough to employ combined arms: infantry armed with sword, shield, and pilum; archers, and cavalry.

As far as being out alone or in a small group with no weapon but a bow and maybe a sword...well, you'd better either be Conan or very, very good at stealth.

Preacherman,

I'm neither an expert fletcher nor an explosives expert but it would have to be a very powerful explosive to be within the weight tolerances as well as effective. Too heavy a point and the center of gravity of the arrow is compromised. Whether that could be changed by adding weight to the rear of the arrow is something I do not know. I suspect that it would make the arrow heavier than a bow could use. Maybe a bolt for a strong crossbow could be made like that.

[NeveraVictimAgain]

Please forgive the newcomer, but what does TEOTWAWKI stand for?

I got as far as The End Of The World and got stuck.

THANKS!
Dave

[Byron Quick]

The End Of The World As We Know It:D

Usually assumed to involve the fall of civilization and the governments thereof.

[epijunkie67]

Too heavy a point and the center of gravity of the arrow is compromised. Whether that could be changed by adding weight to the rear of the arrow is something I do not know.

I've actually considered this issue before and think I have a solution. Most good arrows nowdays are hollow tubes of metal. If you were to fill the entire arrow with an explosive it would remain balanced throughout its length. A lightweight nitrogen based explosive compound is certainly do-able. The broadhead would work as a detonation device, like a primer in a bullet, with a split second delay before setting off the explosive.

The delay allows the arrow to fully penetrate the target and explode inside. Calculating the delay should be easy, and may not be needed at all depending on how fast the "strike-activate-detonate" sequence occured. This system means the explosion occurs through the full lenght of the arrow so even if it was only half way through the target that's still one heck of a wound.

Yes, there is an increase in weight but it should be minimal. Net effect would be the arrow losing altitude a little faster and being a little slower since the impitus from the bow remains a constant force. Sort of like using the same amount of powder to push a 150 grain round versus a 180 grain round.

Overall the injury to the target would be extream to say the least.

[flatdog]

what does TEOTWAWKI stand for?

The end of the world as we know it. ;)

All the compound users better include a bow press in their inital loadout.

Those 24/7 traps are looking better all the time.


flatdog.

edit: Byron, I guess that's why they call you Quick ;)

[NMshooter]

You know Preacherman, I seem to recall a rather bad movie that had the hero armed with a compound bow with explosive tipped arrows.

Rambo III, that's it... :p

You might be able to make a leaf spring crossbow that could hurl grenades a respectable distance, but I have never tried it.

Accuracy might be a bit chancy too, though a streamer like on the RDG anti-tank hand grenade could help.

Black powder recoilless weapons and mortars are probably more useful, however.

[Burt Blade]

It has been said before. There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people.

A bow is a tool, as is a gun. If you learn the bow, and know its use, it is a handy tool for putting food on the table. If you have to hunt to live, and there is anyone trying to prevent you from hunting, or who might want to take your catch, the quiet bow has some real advantages. It also has some shortcomings. Mastering it requires you to master a part of yourself essential for survival. (Likewise, mastering the gun.)

If you have to make a weapon, the bow requires less in the way of tools, and the materials tend to be easier to glean from one's surroundings.

If you think that a total and enduring collapse of civilization is a real possibility, learning how to make and use muscle-powered weapons would be a wise investment. I make knives, mainly as a hobby not related to my profession. It is a heck of a skill to have if I am wrong about our long-term prospects for civilized behavior.

[Blackburn]

I read some more of the preview chapters of the 'Dies the fire' series, and all I can say is that all the people playing Dungeons and Dragons would have a rude awakening when the smart people started scavenging tanks of compressed air and other gasses and making absolutely lethal semi-automatic suit-of-armor-penetrating guns.