[kannonfyre]

This goes out to all bow users out there:

If using the bow as a survival tool to hunt game, what draw weight or poundage is best for bringing down game weighing about 120lbs? Let's assume that shot placement is accurate and that effective broadheads are used.

Additionally, if a riot breaks out in an area where guns are totally unavailable, how effective is a good bow and a decent supply of arrows for warding off looters and criminal trespassers? In this instance, what type of bow, type of arrowhead and what draw weight would be recommended?

Assume also that crossbows are banned and therefore cannot be considered.

[Bruz]

Man, you got to move!

Most hunting compund bows are between 60 and 70 pounds...with proper arrow placement 40 pounds would handle the job. Many skilled hunters use 50 to 60 pounds.

So bow weight of 40 to 70 pounds, same arrows and broadheads used for hunting, and any good quality compound bow should hold off the masses for a while...

[zahc]

Buy a gun.


Seriously.



Ok, I'd say a recurve. I can't shoot a compound fast. And i'd assume ("riot") that there would be a lot of BG's at decently close range. So gimme a shotgun....ok, recurve with good hip quiver over a compound.


Also, for 120pound game. With good shot placement and broadheads it doesn't matter what poundage. Of course more is better but I've seen kid's and ladies' dead deer they killed with 35 pound compounds, and they reported quick deaths. The best poundage is the one you shoot most accurately.

[Sir Galahad]

A 50 pound recurve. The bow killed plenty of people from the Neolithic to 1600. The nice thing about a bow is that an arrow will, unless it strikes bone, go right through the guy and then through his buddy behind him. If the broadhead is sharp, they'll bleed out pretty fast. A bow is a weapon that when people see arrows going through people and lodging in skulls, it has a tremendous psychological effect that causes an instinctive fear to arise. During the Indian Wars, t was the bow that scared the bejeezus out of many folks. Any razor sharp broadhead will kill quickly, but you have to tune them from your bow and arrow size/weight. This takes practice. You have to find a range. Chances are, I'll bet bowhunting is illegal in your locale, so you won't find broadheads. Have you, by chance, looked into the Cold Steel Boar Spear? A good spearman can take out any who approach him if he trains with the spear enough. It's just like bayonet drill in some ways. You can both thrust and slash with it, as well as parry. The spear shaft and butt can deliver a less-lethal blow. And most places won't ban spears because it looks silly to do so. It also can be claimed as "religious paraphenalia" in some cases (as an some swords) and also "cultural items". It's not a weapon! This is the stang where we make offerings to Wodan! :D Just rist the proper Runes into the shaft and it becomes a religious symbol. Of course, you probably don't have religious freedom there, either, so that might be a wasted effort.

You should give more thought to moving to the U.S. Life is too short to live as a thrall.

[david_reeves]

50 - 60LB Recurve (faster follow up shots than a compound for your average archer) and a broadhead with at least a 1 3/4" cutting radius with a good solid center construction. I have used a similar setup to prove a point to a neighbor of mine who works for the local PD and feels invincible in his vest. He came up with an "old vest" with a shockplate that we used. You may not get a complete "switch off" result but the person acting as your arrow stop will have other things on his mind to worry about.

Here's the result of the test.

at 35 Yards (slightly longer than your preferred bow shot, but not long by any standard.

125 Gr. Thunderhead
Browining 60lb Recurve

Went through the shockplate, both sides of the vest AND the 3/4" plywood that was "wearing the vest" and on into the Black Hole Arrow stop.

Needless to say, the results will vary from vest to vest (this one was a spectralite IIA vest WITH SHOCKPLATE (not ceramic)

With a compound bow (PSE Nova at 70lbs) and 100gr Thunderhead Broadheads the results were just as nasty, BUT the shot was made at 50 Yards.

My neighbor now has lost a liitle bit of the "puffy chest invincible attitude"

I also pointed out to him that the vest does not effectively coved other vulnerable areas (Head, Legs, Lower Abdomen :what: , arms) that just might be hit by your average idiot that he may encounter in a shooting fight (God forbid). Hopefully it will turn out much better that I was able to put the thought into his head than it being placed there during and incident.

He says he's going to come up with another vest and he wants to video the test so he can show some of the other officers what happened. Hopefully he will have a digital video camera and I can post a clip or a link to the clip here someday.

Dave

[Penforhire]

Ever see a sling properly used? Not as intimidating as a bow but perhaps easier to train for and more concealable/portable.

[Sir Galahad]

David, be cautious about letting that cop videotape an arrow slicing through a vest. All we need is a ban on "armor-piercing arrows", "assault" bows, and the question of why anybody "needs" broadheads to begin with.:rolleyes:

[JShirley]

Yeah. Gotta watch out for those drive-by bowings.

[david_reeves]

Now, Now, Now,
We all know that no self respecting street hood would even be seen driving down the street with a bow hanging out the window.

The one that I would worry about would be pedaling down the street on his tenspeed :D

Dave

[Soap]

A bow as little as 35 lbs can bring down a deer with surprising regularity provided shot placement is good. For me, "survival archery" doesn't include L.A. riot sort of stuff. Just leave your stuff to be looted. I would rather my wife and I be alive than worry my big screen. I would grab the emergency equipment, a few photo albums, family history books, and my box of letters/cards then get the heck out. Also, you really can't engage a mere trespasser with any sort of deadly force so that is out of the question.

Survival archery is to provide food IMHO. Evasion is better than fighting with my recurve.

[zahc]

"Just leave your stuff to be looted"

I agree with that to an extent, but attitudes like that are why looting happens.

[Soap]

zahc- I agree with that to an extent as well. Most of the stuff will be slashed and burned before I move out. Well...I probably will leave the books intact since the dang looters probably wouldn't steal those anyway.

[Byron Quick]

Also, you really can't engage a mere trespasser with any sort of deadly force so that is out of the question.

Depends on where you live and where they are trespassing.

I live in Georgia. If they trespass into my dwelling they are nothing but a memory and a Darwin award.


kannonfyre,

You are very concerned with protecting yourself: Earth to kannonfyre...the single most effective action you can take to ensure your survival and the survival of your family is to get the hell out of Dodge and move to a place where you can both legally defend yourself and your family as well as purchase weapons legally for that defense.

Exactly what part of the preceding... don't you understand?

[Sir Galahad]

Byron, thank you. That needed to be said.

[kannonfyre]

.....just haul a## and move my life over to the parts of the USA where the 2A is alive and kicking. I suspect that my situation is quite similar to those in the more leftist states of the US when other THR'ers ask them to pack up and leave.

My question to Byron, Sir Galahad and others is: Why haven't all gun loving people in NY, CA, DC, MD and other places moved to Vermont, Alabama and other states already? What's holding them back? Why aren't all the freedom loving Brits still remaining in the UK? Why haven't they hauled butt in a mass exodus? (Do ya REALLY want an EXTRA 2 - 3 million+ immigrants competing with you for your jobs in your home states??)

I suspect the same reasons keeping the abovementioned people where they are and also the fetters that keep me bound to my homeland.

Also, moving is not that easy when:

1)you have to forfeit your accumulated state retained retirement savings. :fire:
2)When I am uncertain of finding employment stateside. (I have tried finding a job in the US after college and was unsuccessful.)
3)I have aged parents to look after who are not keen on moving with me.
4)Other personal reasons.

Having said all of that, I will SERIOUSLY consider relocating if conditions are ripe. (i.e. I amass enough liquid assets to move stateside, I am offerred a posting or job there, the care of my parents ceases to be an issue or I have a legitimate INS justifieable reason for) being in the US.)

Untill then.......quit tell'n me to haul a## outa my country!! :banghead: I'll do so in my own time and will buy a beer for all THR'ers who live with a 5 mile radius of my potential address. :)

[Byron Quick]

kannonfyre,

None of the people's republics here in the US are anywhere near as extreme as your locale...not even New York City. If the conditions in those states were anywhere near your conditions, you would see that "mass exodus" in record time.

I understand...and respect...having to care for aged parents. Filial responsibility is an important virtue.

I understand economics, but from the record of your posts here...you seem to be very concerned about civil unrest on a fairly massive scale as well as crime. Tell me something: exactly what benefits will you receive from your retirement or your job if you are killed in a riot or by a burglar because you did not have effective means of defense?

Oh, one thing I haven't notice you addressing is architecture...maybe you have. But in your situation, with the restrictions against active defense that you labor under...I would be looking at passive defense of my home. If they can't get to you then it becomes more difficult to harm you.

[kannonfyre]

Mr Quick,

Over here, riots are not an issue. (the gov'mint uses well drilled riot police and heavily armed gurkha mercernaries to quell riots so we'll not had a riot in 25 years) Also, if one does not visit the nightclub district and not loiter around the red light area, drunken violence can be avoided. The problem arises from youth gang attacks and that is why I train extensively in self defense and equip myself discreetly and as far as possible, legally.

I HAVE taken architecture in consideration. The home I live in with my folks is well built and designed. The front door is blast resistant, the backdoor is solid hardwood, all windows are reinforced with tasteful brass grilles, compound walls are topped with broken glass and there is a legal edged or impact weapon in every room. Besides, local law allows lethal force for nightime breakins/reasonable force for daytime breakins so national burglary rates are quite low. One only needs to worry once one leaves the "castle".

[Byron Quick]

You know if youth gangs are such a problem...I'm surprised your government hasn't used the "Q ship" strategy on them. Basically, take your heavily armed police or gurkhas, disguise them as soft targets, troll for gang member attacks, and then kill them.

[Bruz]

Why haven't all gun loving people in NY, CA, DC, MD and other places moved

The truth of the matter is the laws really do not restrict me here in California...if all laws regarding firearms were repealed I can not think of one gun I would run out and buy. I have already talked to the local Police Cheif and just need to fill out the proper papers to get my concealed weapons license, and there is no limit to the size knife I carry unless it is concealed.

The point we are trying to make is that we are concerned for your safety (based on your posts), and the best self defense weapon is your brain. Other than taking care of your parents there should be no reason to stay there and risk your faimilies safety. Perhaps we are misunderstanding your living conditions, or maybe you enjoy living on the edge! :scrutiny:

[Sir Galahad]

Kannonfyre, I AM from California. I moved. Jobs? The place I work has a Frenchman, an Australian, and a Czech and the Frenchman only has a work visa. We've also had a Brazilian, an Argentine, and a Swede. They all found work. You know, if you have military experience, the U.S. military takes in guys from some countries and helps them get citizenship.

[goon]

Exactly what weapons are legal where you are?
The thing is, we are so accustomed to having guns that it is hard for us to imagine not having them. That is why many our answers revolve around "buy a gun".
Something else you might consider is a big, well trained dog. My shepard was very poorly trained, but exceptionally loyal, and she saved my butt once. I was 12 at the time, so it wasn't possible to be armed.
Other than that, a bow is still a wicked weapon in the hands of a man who can use it. I would still keep a knife on my person so I could at least fight back if the barbarian hordes "got inside" my effective range.
Are slingshots legal where you are?
I used to be quite good with one when I was a kid. I could shoot aluminum cans out of the air with one. Using ballbearings as ammo, a slingshot would really lay some smack on someone. And they are very quick when you shoot them instinctivley.
I know I would haul a*s if an arrow came zinging past my head.

[Sunray]

The problem with using a bow of any weight is that it requires constant practice just to keep those muscles you use only when shooting a bow toned. It's the upper back muscles that are used when shooting a heavy bow, especially a non-compoud bow.
If you don't shoot regularly, you will lose the tone in those muscles and you won't be able to shoot accurately enough to be of any use. Do not try to pull a bow, any bow, of a pull weight that you can't easily lift. I mean if you can't easily lift 50 pounds, you won't be able to shoot a 50 pound bow either. If your job doesn't involve lots of heavy lifting or use of your upper body, you must shoot your bow regularly just to keep your back muscles strong enough to pull it. Fortunately, target archery isn't seen as being evil by those that want to take our toys away. So finding an archery club is likely easier than finding a gun club. And most out door gun clubs have an archery range too.
However, having siad that any bow of 45-50 pounds will drop a 120 pound critter with a well placed shot. Learn to track though. It ain't the same as a rifle.

[david_reeves]

The muscle memory / conditioning can be a major factor for someone who changes from a compound to a traditional bow as well. I do quite a bit (by my standards) of shooting (usually no less than an hour per day when the weather permits) and I had issues when I shelved the compund and started shooting my recurve and my longbow again (Browning Recurve, and a Custom Longbow) the difference in holding an 80lb compound bow at full draw with 75%let off AND a release VS a 120LB fingers only long bow is indescribable(sp?). It took about 4 weeks of heavy <<GRIN>> shooting (2+hours per day) to get the conditioning for my muscles as well as my fingers (no shooting tab here) to start coming back. Now, I rotate bows once per week so I dont have to go through that nightmare again. And I believe that the shooting the longbow has improved my ability with the compound as well.
Just my .015 cents worth (I'm still new here):D

Dave

[stevelyn]

The bow killed plenty of people from the Neolithic to 1600

Uhmmm.............I'm sure that members of the 7th Cavalry would argue the bow killed plenty into the late 1800's.............had any lived to tell their story.

[brownie0486]

Didn't the Little Big Horn fight have the indians with guns for the most part?

I may be mistaken but I think the rednecks [indians:cool:] were not for the most part using bow and arrow.

Anyone care to elaborate further?

Brownie

[Sir Galahad]

Actually, a recent archaeological exploration of the Little Big Horn battle site revealed there were more bows used than previously thought. A brush fire revealed the grounds laid bare and many iron "trade point" arrowheads were found. Also, a trooper's vertabrae was found at one time with an embedded trade point. One other thing revealed was that the hostiles had repeating weapons (Winchesters.) The 7th had problems with their Springfield trapdoor .45-70s, as evidenced by knife marks on spent cases. The trapdoor, when hot, had problems with extraction. According to AmerIndian warriors who were there, they rode down and killed many of the troopers with "Indian CQB":D weapons: stone maces, clubs, and hawks. It would make sense, since the honors for counting coup and killing an enemy with one's hand are greater, and with such honors come prestige in the tribe.

The advantage a lot of AmerIndians took of the bow was that the trajectory of the arrows could "rain" them on top of soldiers hiding behind rocks and cover. Something bullets could not do. Many AmerIndian firearms up until the Winchester became readily available were smoothbore "trade guns". So, bows remained in use well up and beyond even the appearance of the Winchester. For one other reason, was that it was easier to shoot buffalo with to avoid spooking the whole herd (so it was said.)

[Byron Quick]

I haven't researched this so please take it with a very large grain of salt: but I was under the impression that the Indians archery technique left much to be desired-drawing to the center of the chest rather than to the ear, etc.

[Sir Galahad]

Depends on what Indians you're talking about and what period in time. Indians in wooded regions built longbows that they did pull back to the corner of the mouth (the "to the ear" is an English longbowman thing many other archers did not practice.) Indians on horseback built shortbows better suited for mounted warfare. However, these were composite bows made of horn, sinew, and wood and were actually pretty powerful. Indians without horses were generally better archers than those with horses. However, what might be lacking in precision was made up in rate of fire. In Plains Indian warfare, the more preferred method of killing was by lance, club, hawk, or knife. This is because, as noted earler, this brought greater honor and, therefore, more prestige to a warrior. So this would be a warrior more able to lead war and raiding parties of his own and able to capture more plunder, horses, scalps, and captives. The prestige, plus the horses and plunder, could be used to garner a better bride, in tribes that do so to pay bride price and in other tribes, the prestige and scalps to impress the father enough to win the bride. Plus, the more successful warriors stood better chances at becoming chiefs. The bow was first a hunting tool, then a tool of war. Often, the bow was used to get the enemy to come out of cover and fight, whereupon the weapons of choice were the CQB weapons of lance, hawk, and so forth. For if an enemy died by one's hand at one's hand, the scalp could be immediately claimed and there was no question as to whom the enemy fell. The scalps proved the prowess of the warrior (and, no, "white" people did not teach them scalping; the Mississippian cultures well prior to the Europeans used to take the whole head and unearthed sculptures shows this practice.) An Indian was good with a bow simply because if he was not, he did not eat. A warrior had to prove not only that he could defend his family, but feed them as well.

[Sunray]

"An Indian was good with a bow simply because if he was not, he did not eat." They were actually much better at stalking than shooting their bows. Came from being a part of nature rather than becoming part of it during hunting season.
"...Indians without horses..." Didn't hunt buffalo by riding to them them. Guided them over a cliff and shot arrows to claim carcasses. See Buffalo Jumps.
By 1876, the Indians had had firearms of all kinds of types for several hundred years. The Hudson's Bay Co. had been trading in central NA for almost 200 years by then.

[Sir Galahad]

Sunray, running buffalo off cliffs was done predominantly by Paleo-Indians. The arrival of the horse made that unneccessary, as tribes could ride up and cull what they needed. The method involved in running an entire herd off of a cliff was a dangerous undertaking, even if done on horseback. The reason the Paleo-Indians did this was to secure enough meat and, importantly, fat, for the winter since they'd be locked in for the heavy snows. However, there is evidence that in some cases, they did this in other seasons and only took the portions they sought as delicacies. Regardless, the horse gave them the ability to cull what they needed from the fringes of the herd at less risk, follow the herds, and also carry the meat back to camp. This made running herds off cliffs obsolete to most tribes. Not saying the practice was abandoned, just saying it was not as widespread as some books make out. There are not cliffs all over the Western Plains.

Stalking is fine, but you still must have skill with a bow to hit center mass even at 20 feet. People who think there is no skill involved in shooting a bow at a target 20 feet away have never shot a self bow with primitive arrows. Using a modern recurve with aluminum arrows would have many people screaming obscenities if you just handed it to them off the street and said, "Here. Now feed your family. Shoot that deer tied twenty feet away.

Yes, Hudson's Bay traded guns to Indians. Again, flintlock smoothbores. They were cut-down Brown Besses in some cases, French-pattern fusils in others. They had a serpent on the rifle stock, opposite side of the lock. Leman made rifles for the Indian trade, but most Indian trade guns were flintlock smoothbores.