| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Woods |
Posted - November 09 2003 : 01:42:55 AM
The Long Rifle versus the Bow and Arrow
Can you provide me with (or direct me to) discussion of the relative effectiveness of the French and Indian War long rifle versus the bow and arrow of the same period? For long distance work, the long rifle is clearly longer ranged and more accurate. Closer in, the bow and arrow has an advantage of more rapid reloading.
I would appreciate being educated on this subject. |
| 12 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 16 2003 : 12:25:27 AM
quote:
The damage inflicted by a musket or rifle is more likely to be mortal than that inflicted by an arrow. When a lead ball passes through the body it creates a small explosion as it passes through and leaves a much larger exit wound.
You are right about the 'explosion' a bullet produces, CT Ranger. In the police biz this is refered to as hydrostatic shock. The explosion sends out shockwaves through the body fluid which contact nearby organs. The amount of damage these waves cause is dependant on things like sectional density, velocity and angle of impact of the projectile. The exit wound size is dependant on if the bullet becomes deformed by striking bone, otherwise the exit wound will be the same size as the entry wound. I have seen my share of bullet wounds over the years (and then some), both mortal and non-mortal, and the above facts remain a constant.
As to a bullet being more 'mortal' than an arrow, that is only if the projectile does not hit a vital organ. Then the above mentioned hydrostatic shock comes into play, and the bullet has the advantage.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - November 11 2003 : 11:55:15 AM
I think another thing to consider with the effectiveness of these weapons, is the amount of damage inflicted on the target. An arrow can be a very deadly weapon, but it does not inflict as much trauma on the body as a lead round ball or load of shot. The damage inflicted by a musket or rifle is more likely to be mortal than that inflicted by an arrow. When a lead ball passes through the body it creates a small explosion as it passes through and leaves a much larger exit wound. Therefore a non-mortal wound from a firearm is more likely to take the enemy out of action than a non-mortal arrow wound. Just some thoughts.
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 11 2003 : 04:11:16 AM
Well Fitz, I have a tendency to hoist an 'idiot stick' (as a bow is called here SWPA) every now and then. Back when I had more time, and less family responsibility, I used to shoot a couple of hours a week. During my prime, I had no trouble hitting a paper plate at 25 yards every time, and that was with a long bow I had purchased from a bowyer in Suffolk (UK), during my time there in the military. The bow is a replica of what an English Archer would have used during the longbow's heyday (ala Crecy & Agincourt). With a pull weight of over 70 pounds, and a draw of over 32 inches, it is not a weapon for the faint hearted.
Using a bow effectively requires the development of a combination of muscles (forearm, bicep, pectoral) unique to the mechanical act. These muscles develop overtime, and through correct repitition. Sighting is easy enough, the dominant eye draws a line from fletch to head to target. Corrections for wind, angle of deflection, and speed of target are made individually through experience with one's own weapon and projectile.
Now, as I had said, I had no trouble hitting a target of that size at 25 yards. This was at a time when I was at my peak practice, and I would still have not been good enough to compete. There are archers out there who could do the same at over 50 yards, with the same style of long bow I own. I had witnessed this level of competency at informal archery club competitions in the U.K., back in the mid-80's.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Fitz Williams |
Posted - November 11 2003 : 01:27:12 AM
I didn't know the archer that was putting on the demonstration, but presumably he was reasonably good. I was surprised that he didn't hit the target more often. I have heard stories about what can be done with a long bow, and I guess I expected more. The bow was considered a primitive bow, but that is what would have been used 250 years ago. I suppose that constant practice is needed over a long period of time. Not too many of us can do that nowdays. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 10 2003 : 07:58:27 AM
No problem, Dark Woods, glad I could help.
Fitz, you're right, I should have been more specific and said "both highly skilled at the use of their respective weapons", my bad.
|
| Dark Woods |
Posted - November 10 2003 : 02:28:19 AM
Thank you for the information! Among the many things that I learned was the substantially greater time needed to train an archer, versus a musketeer.
Again, thanks to all!  |
| Fitz Williams |
Posted - November 10 2003 : 01:04:52 AM
I had the opportunity to watch an archery demonstration this weekend. The archer was shooting at a paper plate in front of a stack of hay bales at about 20 yds. He missed the plate about as often as he hit it, but all shots were grouped around it. No wild misses. At that range, with a smoothbore fusil, an average shooter could have cut the center out of the plate with no misses. And the arrow was slow enough in flight so that you could see it, which means it would be that much more difficult to hit a moving target. It's easy to see why the Indians gave up the bow for the fusil. The only advantage of the bow is that it is silent. |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - November 09 2003 : 7:37:37 PM
If some of you were like me when I was a kid, you may remember Ben Hunt.
I recall him telling the story somewhere of learning the use of the bow from the Sioux working for Buffalo Bill when he was a kid and the show was in town.
They used it for hunting rabbits and such.
From an account of a Hessian officer surveying the field where a number of "Stockbridge" Indians had died (now Indian Field in Van Cortland Park) after the Battle of Kingsbridge in the Bronx:
quote:
Their costume was a shirt of coarse linen down to the knees, long trousers also of linen down to the feet, on which they wore shoes of deerskin, and the head was covered with a hat made of bast. Their weapons were a rifle or a musket, a quiver with some twenty arrows, and a short battle-axe which they know how to throw very skillfully. Through the nose and in the ears they wore rings, and on their heads only the hair of the crown remained standing in a circle the size of a dollar-piece, the remainder being shaved off bare. They pull out with pincers all the hairs of the beard, as well as those on all other parts of the body. (Tustin, editor of Diary of the American War. A Hessian Journal: Captain Johann Ewald, Field Jager Corps, p. 145.)
http://www.americanrevolution.org/ind3.html
I think it most likely they were using the arrows to fill the cooking pot, but they were there as an option.
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 09 2003 : 1:54:50 PM
Al Amos stated:
quote:
Another point to consider. Who used the bow and arrow?...If the source is correct, then our concept that warfare between European Americans and American Indians were arrow versus musket ball may be incorrect.
You are right, Al, the vast majority of Native American Warriors had switched to using firearms (smooth bore trade guns being in majority), by the 1750's. But, there is still enough documentation from captive accounts, personal journals, etc. that support the fact that a certain number of Native Americans still used the longbow. Now whether the use of the longbow was a matter of necessity or choice, remains to be seen on a case by case basis. Eventhough shortages of gunpowder, flint & lead might force a man to use any means to feed his family, I still believe that there were a number of 'traditionalists' (for lack of a better name) within the Native American Nations who's use of the longbow was one of choice.
The number of warriors who mastered the art of the bow was small in comparision to their firearm using comrades by the mid-18th century, no matter which Eastern American Nation you sample. My opinion, is based on a 'one-on-one' comparision between the Native American Archer and the European Musketeer, both of comparable skill level & quality of weapons. If you look at it that way, there is just no contest, the Native American Archer will win almost everytime, in a woodland enviroment like Southwestern Pennsylvania.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Al Amos |
Posted - November 09 2003 : 12:37:41 PM
Another point to consider. Who used the bow and arrow?
I have seen references (okay it was History Channel's hour show on Pontiac's Rebellion) that indicated by that time, at least, that many Indians had gone over to using fire arms for hunting, and had let their skill in archery decline. According to the TV, when the Brits decided to reduce the amount of munitions traded to the Indians was one factor Pontiac listed. That being Indians were too dependant on the White men for basic supplies of life (ammo for hunting.)
If the source is correct, then our concept that warfare between European Americans and American Indians were arrow versus musket ball may be incorrect. |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - November 09 2003 : 09:48:33 AM
In the New England town where I live, there is the remains of an AWI fort on a hill several miles inland.
At the time, the fort had a clear and extensive view of the water. It is now impossible to see the water from there due to the fact that the area is heavily wooded.
Much of New England was open farmland, and a rifle would have been ideal for taking deer.
However, they didn't appear here in any number until after the Revolution. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 09 2003 : 02:47:32 AM
A good point, Mr. Woods, but you are missing another facet to the debate. That being the smooth bore firelock, the standard issue weapon of the combatants involved in the North American Theater. The rifleman had the advantage of the longest ranged accurate fire of the three. The archer had the advantage of medium ranged accurate fire, combined with a high sustained rate of fire. The musketeer had the advantage of a high rate of fire, but limited effective range. Let us take a look at these three types of missile weapons, and their effectiveness in woodland warfare.
First, the debate of archer versus musketeer had boiled on, in Europe, for at least 150 years preceeding the Seven Years War. The proponents of the archer had valid points (forgive the pun), that being the accuracy and high rate of fire. The musketeer had shortcomings in all contests against the archer, save one, economics. A servicable musketeer could be trained in a couple of weeks, whereas the archer spent years perfecting his art. The cost of munitions was a 'no-brainer' also, a fletcher/arrowsmith was a highly skilled craftsman compared to the minimal skill needed to cast lead balls. The decrease in cost to produce gunpowder, due to the extraction of Salt Petre by cooking barnyard waste, also assited in the economic supremacy of the musket. Add to this the, introduction of the socket bayonet (a favored weapon of my cousin Sgt. MacWilliam of the 77th Highlanders) at the end of the 17th century, the firelock musket reached its zenith as a combat weapon system.
The rifled firelock is an animal of another stripe. Rifled guns had been in existence since at least the late 15th century, and primarily used as sporting guns by the wealthy. Even in the mid-18th century, rifled firelocks on the frontier were the exception as opposed to the rule. This was due to a couple of reasons, most important being the cost of manufacture (average cost $10,000 in today's dollars). The density of the eastern woodlands made the rifle redundant for shooting game, since most shots would be taken at under 50 yards. And of course, the other obvious reason, the slower reloading time. The final reason could be mitagated by using smaller diameter bullets for faster loading, reserving the properly sized ones for longer ranged 'aimed fire' shots, where time was not so critical.
As you can see, my opinion is that the native archer would reign supreme, except for the fact that Europeans could field far more musketeers in short order. I hope this helps with your question.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
