Archers Defending Property

[kannonfyre]

My neighbour, his wife and their two teenaged children are keen competitive recurve archers. I was talking to him near the neighbourhood garbage dump and the topic of bugging in/out during social emergencies came about. He said that he intended to bug in and that after barricading his extensive driveway with his car, him, his wife and his kids would protect the property with their 35lb -45lb drawweight recurve bows. He claims to have more than 150 fieldpoint arrows and "a couple o' dozen" broadhead arrows in reserve.

Is this guy practical or realistic? Can a "squad" of 4 archers working in 4 hour shifts keep casual or even semi-determined looters away?

 

[Stachie]

Insufficient

I seriously doubt their potential to defend themselves. They may be excellent at hitting stationary targets, but stopping multiple moving targets is quite unlikely. I honestly believe that a .22 would be better than a bow, in a SHTF situation.

 

[Fn-P9]

I think it would work against semi determined looters. Once they one guy in front of you goes down from an arrorw or 2 are you still gonna go into the house. Looting is for tv's and playstation 3's and what not. I wouldnt take an arrow to the chest for a kick ass game system I would also choose some sort of semi auto over a bow and arrow. But it does sound sweet, kinda like the new Punisher movie.

If for say I wanted your house for some reason (only house with power or something) I'd have to say a rifle from about 150 yards away would be the devil vs a bow

 

[tellner]

It doesn't have the rate of fire of a gun, but there's a reason why the bow ruled the battlefield for centuries. And an awful lot of people take deer and elk every year with arrows.

 

[Owen]

kannon,

you are in Singapore or something right?

I would think that 30 to 45 draw weight is a little light for antipersonnel work, and they probaly want a lot more arrows than they have.

150 arrows isn't that many if you are dealing with mobs, and they'd probably want a few arrows sticking out of looters out in the yard.

 

[zinj]

Arrows can be an effective deterrent, but it comes to blows an archer doesn't have much on their side. Bowhunters almost never have an instantaneous kill, the animals often live for several minutes even after an excellent hit. Human anatomy is also more resistant to arrows. From the front or rear it is impossible to get a double lung shot on a human, and a human's thinnest profile is broadside.

Finally, a bow's range is severely limited compared to firearms. Even a mere pistol has a greater effective range, more lethality, and the pistolero can get off multiple aimed shots in the time it takes the archer to reload. Shotguns and rifle just increase the disparity.

As said above, your average looter looking for a pre-owned Playstation 3 is not going to mess with someone with a lethal weapon. However, when someone has no clean water and knows there you have a filter (or needs fuel and sees a jerry can, is fevered from infection and thinks you have anti-biotics, etc), a bow could very well not have the stopping power needed for protection.

 

[El Tejon]

Sure, as long as no one shoots back.

After Waterloo, did not some British general, Lord Fussypants or something, propose archers to be used inside infantry squares to keep the cavalry off them while they reloaded?

 

[Owen]

everyone knows that the way to keep cavalry off of infantry is the 16ft pike.

Gosh!

 

[Vairochana]

Worked in Deliverance

 

['Card]

Let's look at the options:

1. Typical nervous-as-hell homeowner armed with a .38 revolver he bought at a pawn shop a decade ago, stuck in a drawer, has never practiced with, and has fired exactly six times on that camping trip they took in the mountains 5 years ago.

2. Practiced, confident, competitive archer (with three back-up archers) who can drive a 30" arrow with a 100-grain razor-sharp broadhead clean through your brainpan from 35 yards out.

Personally? If I'm a looter, I think I'd rather take my chances against the typical gun-toting homeowner.

 

[usmccpl]

Me myself I would want something a lil bigger say 70 lbs or bigger but I cant see why it wouldnt work.

 

[Joe Demko]

Try shooting that bow from cover, from prone, and on-the-move, in the dark and sh*****g your pants with fear because some miscreant with a gonne is returning fire. Then get back to me on what a swell weapon it is.

 

[zinj]

Let's look at the options:

1. Typical nervous-as-hell homeowner armed with a .38 revolver he bought at a pawn shop a decade ago, stuck in a drawer, has never practiced with, and has fired exactly six times on that camping trip they took in the mountains 5 years ago.

2. Practiced, confident, competitive archer (with three back-up archers) who can drive a 30" arrow with a 100-grain razor-sharp broadhead clean through your brainpan from 35 yards out.

Personally? If I'm a looter, I think I'd rather take my chances against the typical gun-toting homeowner.

Hold on now, the "Typical Homeowner" just isn't typical. Are there people like that? Yes, but they aren't typical. Most firearms owners at least plink a bit.

If you are going to make a comparison like that, at least do it apples to apples.

Lets say the archer learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts and got his bow for Christmas when he was a teenager. Since the empty lot next door was developed the archer hasn't actually practiced in fifteen years.

Otherwise it is like trying to compare someone driving a compact 4-banger with someone driving a muscle car. Except the guy in the 4-banger is a rally driver and the guy in the muscle car is some dude who moved to the big city, embraced the public transportation and hasn't driven in ten years. Yes, both segments of the population exist, but neither is the majority.

Lets compare the expert archer with your average deer hunter. As you said, the competetive archer can put one in your grill at 35 yards. The deer hunter can put his shots with his .30-30 within a pie plate at 75.

A bow is better than nothing, but if you have access to superior tools use them!

 

[CWL]

35-45lb bows aren't in the same category as warfare weaponry. They may not penetrate very well either. An arrowhead in the chest isn't going to be as damaging as a rifle or handgun round -especially in this drawweight range.

As for barricading, what if the mob/looters don't decide to march up the driveway but chooses to come-in from another direction, or several directions at once? Does your neighbor have a back-up plan?

 

[Odd Job]

If it was crossbows, and you had four people who were only defending the house itself, and made sure they were not visible from the exterior, I would certainly say they would be a force to be reckoned with.
Short range, in confined spaces, if you have to use arrows/bolts, the crossbow is the boss.







That crossbow there can be loaded and fired without a buttstock. Having said that, I have also fired that with one hand only (with the buttstock, and aiming through the scope). So you got a free hand there and you can crawl/sneak at will.

Archers...I don't know. If they keep out of view, you might have a problem as soon as you get in, but it depends on how fast they can acquire you from whatever position they are in.

Nah, I would stick with my crossbow.

 

[zinj]

Actually, if I were inside a house and only had access to arrow type weaponry I'd probably take the bow and arrow over the crossbow. The crossbow has a much greater loading time, as you must take the thing off your shoulder, step on it, and pull the string back, bring the piece back up and nock a bolt, aim and fire. The bow is nock, draw, release. The crossbow definately wins in the accuracy and ease of use department however.

http://alpharubicon.com/leo/uselessweap.htm

The writing could be a bit better, but this guy at least raises some basic faults about crossbows (and other anachronistic/exotic weaponry, and I don't mean that in a negative way). Like many things, they seem impressive initially but once you become more familiar with the technology you begin to see flaws.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Hold on now, the "Typical Homeowner" just isn't typical. Are there people like that? Yes, but they aren't typical. Most firearms owners at least plink a bit.

No, they really don't. Most firearm owners are incompetent hacks who are frankly more of a danger to themselves than to any potential intruders/looters/home invaders/flesh-eating zombies. Most firearm owners shoot rarely if ever. Most firearm owners have no defensive plans in effect at all.

Harsh but true.

To be fair, I suspect most archers are the same way. Martial arts, climbers, kayakers, all the same. I suspect that most hobby/recreational groups are like this.

Back to the topic at hand. A bow that you can use confidently is better than a gun you don't know what to do with. But let's be real - there's a reason that the military issues rifles instead of compound bows. A practiced archer would probably win over a solo or small group of not-so-motivated looters. Against an armed and motivated opponent, he'd have trouble.

- Chris

 

[tellner]

35-40? My bow is very light by historical standards at ~60.

 

['Card]

Easy now. I'm not saying that a recurve is a better home defense option than a gun. I mean... I'm an experienced archer, but I'm sure as hell not going to replace my double-barrel 12-gauge with a bow.

I'm just saying that we shouldn't dismiss the idea completely. In the right hands (and the OP did say these were experienced, competitive archers) using a bow for defense would probably put you in a better position than 75% percent of the population with no self-defense capability at all - and you'd probably be better prepared than a lot of the gunowners (who aren't shooters) out there.

 

[zinj]

To be fair, I suspect most archers are the same way. Martial arts, climbers, kayakers, all the same. I suspect that most hobby/recreational groups are like this.

I think we saying the same thing.

However, it is alot easier for someone to pick up a gun after not shooting for say, ten years, than a bow in the same situation. You can get minute of pieplate with a rifle with largely knowledge, just knowing how to align the sights and squeeze the trigger. A bow requires not only knowledge but also physical strength and muscle memory, stuff that can only be maintained with regular practice.

But let's be real - there's a reason that the military issues rifles instead of compound bows. A practiced archer would probably win over a solo or small group of not-so-motivated looters. Against an armed and motivated opponent, he'd have trouble.

Again, we think alike!

And I have to agree with you on the firearms thing, though not quite in the same way. Often I read about people concealed carrying here who think that merely because they have a gun on them and can punch the bullseye at seven yards they are capable of defending themselves. I read so many SHTF threads and have to shake my head, as some people have no concept of survival beyond who they are going to shoot. Some people preparing don't even realize what they are preparing for. They provide a list of arms and ammunition and then state that they will "liberate" any supplies they don't have on hand when stuff starts going down. Sounds like looting to me!

Easy now. I'm not saying that a recurve is a better home defense option than a gun. I mean... I'm an experienced archer, but I'm sure as hell not going to replace my double-barrel 12-gauge with a bow.

Nothing personal, I just like to debate!

Anyway, like I have said before, the bow can be a tool, but there are better options available.

 

[Sunray]

A mediocre rifleman will kill them all stone dead from 100 yards.

 

[JohnKSa]

A mediocre rifleman will kill them all stone dead from 100 yards.

Or even a decent pistolero...

 

[rustymaggot]

this is a case of 'use what ya got'. they have bows and they are confident with them. they have done more than many, they have formed a plan.

 

[kannonfyre]

To everyone:

Owen was right about my location. Gun control here is near ABSOLUTE. The bradyites and minions of rebecca peters only WISH they could impose our standards WORLDWIDE. As 99% of private firearms have to be stored in government monitored armouries at govt affliated gun clubs, it is almost safe to say that when the SHTF, the authorities can deprive almost ALL legal gun owners of their pistols/rifles/shotguns. (The bright side is that we've had less than 8 gun crimes in the last 25 years so the rioters/loots most probably won't have any firearms.)

Hence, my neighbour figured quite rightly that the only projectile weapons he could legally own and keep was a bow and arrows. I guess he is lucky in that both him and his spouse compete internationally and his children have been archers since they were 9 or 10.

As said perviously, his 150 fieldpoint and "many several" broadheads seem to be his reserves. I've practiced archery with him before and his family's practice stock would add another 60 or so fieldpoint arrows to the pile.

If you consider that there are at most less than 500 trained archers here who own their own bows, that the number of civilian CCW holders is less than 80 and that they are maybe 50-70 functional illegal guns still in the hands of ill-practiced criminals....and all this with a population of 4 million in an area the size of Washington DC, the saying, "among the blind, the one-eyed man is king" could still hold true.

 

[Odd Job]

A mediocre rifleman will kill them all stone dead from 100 yards.

That's why they mustn't come into view. They must wait and hide.

@ Zinj

I appreciate the speed difference because I tried it out practically at the club. I am quite accurate and can load quite quickly if it is my crossbow, and I went up against an experienced guy with a bow and he easily finished his six before I had fired even three. That was at 30 yrds, mine were all golds.

I think if you have an open battlefield where hordes of ne'er-do-wells are approaching and you need to have as rapid fire as possible, then the bow has merit. But that scenario is confined to history: four people inside a house is nothing like the small scuffle that happened at Agincourt.
I can't see where the faster drawing and releasing of the bow is going to make a difference between that family's survival in the house, and another family armed with crossbows. Of course if you have a single window through which about 18 men are coming, one right after the other, then an archer in a fixed position may be better off than a guy with a crossbow.
But I would pick the crossbow because of the ease with which it can be kept loaded and carried, and the flexibility it allows (you save a hand). I think either way (bow or crossbow) you are likely to get only one shot in before you have to run or you take fire yourself.