But to imply that a recurve or longbow can't efficiently kill big game is patently ridiculous. The gazillion or so animals killed in the last couple of millennia will all attest to the fact that traditional bows work just fine.
Boy, did you read that wrong!No one did directly, hence the reason I said "imply" but if your looking for the remark that made me think that, it was you. There isn't any reason a beginner would be any unluckier with a recurve than a compound, provided that in either case the hunter is taking an ethical shot within his or her capabilities.
The medieval bow may be functionally the same as a modern longbow (lol), but the broadhead is not. Medieval archers loosed arrows with tips that were much more like oir field points than our hunting broadheads. The reason was because an arrow topped with a spike was much better at piercing armor than an arrow topped with the rough equivalent of a sharpened spoon.I know nobody would advocate using a bow as a self defense weapon,but in a dire situation would a bow suffice? I'm probably messing myself up comparing fps of a bow to a handgun or long gun to see if a bow could reliably work in the burglar removal department. I've tried reading about how the medieval bow was used. Seems like all they did was poke holes to make the enemy less effective for the man at arms to go into melee with.
Excellent point. I've had a couple surprise releases too, and never have with a firearm.I will say this. During my approximately 4 months experience with archery, I have had far more "inadvertent misfires" with a bow than I have had in almost 40 years in using firearms. By this, I mean that I let the arrow fly before I had the intention to do so. Simply obeying the 4 firearms rules goes a long way to preventing that when using firearms.
I will have to read up on them. The bow is a fascinating piece of equipment. In upstate Ny we were lucky enough to take a archery class in highschool. So now I'm trying to get into traditional archery. Just wondering if I was in a pickle if it would work. The chances of the bow being prepared when the burglar arrives is quite slim anyway as you aren't supposed to have your bow strung all the time ( not sure if its true or not. )Bows as a self defense weapon are an awful idea. Lets all agree to that, with the understanding that you absolutely can make a person dead with a well placed arrow. The main reason is the follow up shot, and the relatively low chance you are going to drop someone with the first arrow. It looks cool in movies, and Rambo certainly did a lot of damage, but in the real world, a bow is just not a good SD weapon.
Bows as a weapon of war, however, were extremely useful, but used somewhat differently. As Bobson said, the tips were not broadheads, but bodkins, and that is an important difference because of the type of target and expected damage. I would add to what Bobson said by pointing out that archers fired volleys at ranges far exceeding any reasonable self defense range. Incidentally, note I said "archers" and not "archer". Ever seen Braveheart? Those archers did a tremendous amount of damage, but it was largely because of the angle of the attack combined with the zillion other arrows that were landing at the same time. Combine numbers, a relatively high firing rate in a time where melee was king of the battlefield, and the fact that most bowmen of the day were enormously strong and pulling bows in excess of 150lbs which enabled them to launch arrows at area (as opposed to the point target SD requires) targets at very long ranges (over 200 yards, for certain), and you see that the medieval model and the modern world don't really compare.
Really, it's a very interesting little niche of history to study if you are into such things. If you are, for my money, I suggest reading up on the Mongols. I am not saying this definitively, but if there was ever an army that used bowmen in a more effective manner, I can't think of it right this second. (also, Cavalry)