How can I justify having a Bow skill in a setting where there are plenty firearms? Yeah...

I meant your character loves using bows, and so uses them.

You're going to a location where getting ammo is hard to do and you know how to craft arrows.

You have arrows that do things bullets can't, carry tech equipment that can't survive going at super-sonic speeds that you wanna place at a location that you can't reach on foot for whatever reason like a camera on them.

Different tech levels, just because guns are common doesn't mean everyone has them, ask the colonized about their most common long ranged weapon while the British and the other Europeans shot them.

The nobility of the past used bows and thus it's a sign of wealth and power to use a bow.

You're super strong and your arrows are significantly deadlier then most bullet guns a la Crysis 3.

Some form of magical enhancement that wouldn't work with bullets

A strong cultural or religious bias in favour of bows

Hawkeye/Green Arrow style special arrows allowing more flexibility and options for non-lethal take downs

Taking advantage of this thread to ask a quick question:
Bows and Crossbows under the same weapon skill; Yes or No?

Depends on the rest of the system. I mean, if you have a single "melee weapon" skill then yes, obviously. If you have separate skills for one-handed, two-handed and fencing-swords, then no, obviously.

No. If you're a lazy shit, Yes.

You learned to use a bow for sport, but never learned to fire a gun. So you still use a bow.

You need a ranged weapon that is truly silent.

/thread

If not: maybe something like japanese history. There wasn't at all a real ban on firearms like many people think in the Tokugawa period, but that shit was for the lords (mostly for strategic deterrence, but also for things like hunting). Even samurais couldn't really go out with a gun.

In your setting, maybe guns ARE strictly controlled, but bows? How the hell do you enforce a ban on bows, if you can readily make in from trees, if you know what to do?

In any realistic late 20th/early 21st century setting there is very little to no reason to ever use a bow. Firearms are more accurate, have much longer ranges, have better penetration on non-biological things (IE armour and cover), and they don't have to be reloaded after every single shot. Even post apocalyptic, guns would be ubiquitous as bullet manufacturing will likely be a primary industry for most, next to agriculture, and there would be more than enough firearms left in military stockpiles.

The only reason to use a bow would be style, utter lack of firearm skill, or the slightly unlikely case that you are unable to obtain ammunition for said firearms.

Mind you, this is only in the context of modern settings.

A skilled archer can put down a lot more firepower than a person armed with a black powder weapon.

>Even samurais couldn't really go out with a gun.
They could, but there's absolutely no advantage to carrying a large arquebus that takes a ton of time to reload, when you can just waltz around with your swords and have the legal jurisdiction to kill people with them. Early firearms were absolutely only effective in formations, while a single man with a bow and quiver can actually engage multiple people.

>modern settings
Not all the world is murrica user

And neither is all of the world Britain. Some of us have been given the permission to own firearms by our nanny states.

The US is more of an exception than Britain in this case, user.

Military stockpiles would be raided even in Britain, again assuming a post apoc setting. In fact, it's likely that mass demonstrations against military forces after a nuclear exchange or something of the sort would lead to many citizens gaining access to stolen weapons and the ability to form a militia.

Yes, you're right. The Americans have the RIGHT to own and bear arms, which is a rarity in the rest of the world where old states have collected all possible power, like in the UK, a complete nanny state that prohibits the sale of utensils to minors.

its a family tradition

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
Yes you can.

I'd more expect the military to take over and suppress any such attempts.

>100
>10
>50

is this the
>month
>day
>year
thing?

It's very very difficult to suppress mass demonstrations. Either they would start firing on civilians and be met with defectors who sympathize with the people and even more violent reactions to them, or they don't fire on them and deal with more minor insurrection movements and food riots.

A post-nuclear state is nearly impossible to control.

>It's very very difficult to suppress mass demonstrations
There aren't going to be any demonstrations in a post nuclear apocalyptic world. There's going to be gangs, riots and looting. The military just happens to be the strongest gang of all, with the arms, organization and knowledge to take over.

No, there will be mass demonstrations in a post nuclear world. After a reasonable nuclear exchange (Not a general strategic exchange, more or less) you would still have millions of people who are now likely homeless, running out of food and water, and really pissed. The military would have to take over the government but food shortages and the necessary repression to keep things in some semblance of order would no doubt lead to demonstrations. Of course there would be roving bands of marauders, but they would operate outside of population centers. Of course there would be looting but eventually it dies down, probably within the first month. The most reasonable outcome from a nuclear exchange, really, is civil war.

Stop getting your nuclear knowledge from Fallout.

Kevlar, but no ballistic inserts yet.

Yeah, meant it as social faux pas/actually doesn't give you advantages.

I'm kinda surprised that to my knwoledge they didn't try handguns tough. Japanese oplololgy is weird.

So if the war just occurs in this convenient "reasonable" manner, instead of logically occuring in a full nuclear exhange scenario, resulting to MAD. Could you argue for why exactly it would happen as you say? What exactly is reasonable about not using the weapons you have?

Superior geometry.

>MAD memes
Stopped right there. Nice job thinking a doctrine from the fucking 50s is still in effect.

They have minor use in paramilitary and special-case scenarios: India's cyanide-tipped crossbow bolts in the 80s, China using them in riot suppression, possible use against suicide bombers, and use in cases where noise discipline is important - bows have a sound that's both more quiet and very different to a gunshot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow#Modern_military_and_paramilitary_use

When was MAD ever official doctrine? You didn't explain to me either why a nuclear exchange targeting nations themselves would not escalate into full strategic exchange. I ask you again, why would a nuclear exchange that targets countervalue targets remain a "reasonable" one, against reason?

>Peruvian army (Ejército) equips some soldiers with crossbows and rope, to establish a zip-line in difficult terrain.
> In the United States, SAA International Ltd manufacture a 150 ft·lb crossbow-launched version of the U.S. Army type classified Launched Grapnel Hook

Huh, I thought "hookshots" were highly fictional.

MAD was abandoned when both sides of the cold war realized they actually wanted to win a hypothetical world war 3. The doctrine was shifted to a heavy tactical nuclear focus with limited strategic strikes at key facilities (airfields, military manufacturing, oil refineries). Population centers were out of the question as nuclear targets by the 1980s. MAD is no longer a doctrine of war but something thrown around to prevent the start of limited nuclear hostilities. Again, you want to win the war, so doctrine states that you use nuclear weapons tactically and strategically.

But for some reason everyone just thinks of MAD. Probably because it's a lot more simple and demonizes nuclear weapons more than the idea of them being used with any amount of intelligence.

Have can you NOT?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

How does you not targeting population centers in any way stop the enemy from doing so?

MAD is used as the concept of deterrence mostly these days. Once someone uses a nuke, they're back on the playing field and escalation is very likely.
Nuclear doctrines are also really fucking top secret, so for all we know, countervalue targets might still be right up there. Almost certainly are. The amount of instability and logistical issues you can cause with a single warhead above a city is staggering.

You don't throw nuclear weapons around en- masse because that just leads to both sides losing. You use them when you have to, and you trade shot for shot (as dictated by doctrine). No one wants to escalate a nuclear war, despite what you may think. The threshold to apocalypse would not be crossed in one great leap, but rather slowly inched across, neither side knowing they've crossed it until it's too late.

It doesn't, which is why population centers are are and always will be targets.

>You don't throw nuclear weapons around en- masse because that just leads to both sides losing
And if one side already lost? What exactly is stopping them then?

>Bows
>More accurate
Can this meme finaly die?
Bow is fucking HORRIBLE when compred to even most primtive guns when it comes to accuracy

Supplementary question:
Guns and Crossbows under the same weapon skill; Yes or No?

Wrong.

Unless you're going for "Everything ranged" under one skill, no.

I would dare argue that 15th century firearms were less accurate than longbows in the hand of a skilled archer. Am I wrong?

If they lost they no longer have the structure to use nuclear weapons

Yeah, just like Germany was utterly annihilated after Stalingrad.

Germany didn't lose the war at Stalingrad. They lost the war when they sued for peace you idiot. And if a country was in the process of losing, they wouldnt launch all their weapons because that would just lead to them being utterly destroyed. It's pointless at that stage and just better to sue for peace.

>they wouldnt launch all their weapons because that would just lead to them being utterly destroyed
Destroying their enemies also in the process.

They lost the war when the opened Eastern front.

Nope.

Early firearms were good for 50-100m at the very very best.

BOW? no excuse.
Crossbow, on the other hand....

Not really.
While neither were really used to target individuals on the battlefield, Archers could train to be very accurate.
Guns took a few centuries, better manufacturing techniques and rifling to reach the same level.

You are extremely wrong.
Think about it this way - you need about a year to train an archer to hit anything at all. And they still shoot in volleys to cause any sort of damage, forget about them aiming in the encounter aside of adjusting range.
It takes a week to train gun usage, most of it about loading, not aiming, and you can hit reliably a human target in no time at range that exceeds the range of bow
And we are talking still early firearms and stuff like handgonnes.

>More memes

but you needed to train the mofo 3 years and it was exhausting as fuck to use a medieval bow

>hit reliably a human target in no time at range that exceeds the range of bow
Lol no. To reliably hit anything outside of bowrange requires a rifle.

Are you fucking retarded? You sound like you are.

You are implying an individual can be traine to accurately use bow, but somehow, magically I guess, it's impossible to train them with using gun.
Bow can't reach above 200 meters.
That's the range at which a smooth-bore muzzle-loaded gun can reliably hit a human target with minimal training.
Which was all achieved around the times when firearms rolled for good into the battlefield in early 16th century. About 300 years before breech-loading rifles using cartridges became a thing.

Jesus fuck, finally start educating yourself, rather than sprouting shitty memes.

In the context of OP's question, it's hardly out of the realms of PnP to have someone who's highly skilled in archery.

Hell the OP pic gives you an out - the character is from a previously-isolated tribe and learned to hunt with a bow from a young age.

But we're talking about early firearms here, not rifles.

And early firearms were not capable of accuracy beyond bowrange.

Can yewaboos leave this thread already?

Call me again when you learn a thing or two about weapons.

Bows and the Eiffel Tower

I came here to post this.

>it's impossible to train them with using gun.
Training can't get you past the effective range of the firearm.

Bow range is 200 meters, you moron. And that's assuming good weather conditions and having a very skilled and well-trained archer.

That is also the range even YOU, with zero training, could shoot accurately using a smooth-bore gun.

Stop fucking bending reality or repeating the "b-but early firearms were unreliable and inaccurate". They weren't, unless you were a total idiot and made your powder get wet.

>I have no arguments, so I will use ad homs

Which is 300 meters for guns like Brown Bess, a smooth-bore muzzle loaded gun.
Try fire a bow at that range. I dare you. I double fucking dare you.

I'd need to know more about the setting.

Are we talking late medieval firearms?
Late medieval firearms are harder to protect from moisture damage than bows, they require gunpowder which isn't cheap or accessible to everyone. Hell if you know what you're doing you could make a functional longbow with a wood cutting knife and some linen.

Are we talking 21st century firearms?
Excluding legality bows are inferior.

Gentlemen! This discussion has come down to a simple dispute of facts, please cite your sources and I'm sure we can sort this out.

Not even that guy, why are you using the Bess as an example of early firearms?

That was the final generation of musket to be used by the british army after centuries of technological refinement. It's hardly comparable to a handgonne.

>could shoot accurately using a smooth-bore gun.
No. 100 metres is the range you can reliably expect an early firearm to hit a man-sized target, maybe up to 150.

>Which is 300 meters for guns like Brown Bess, a smooth-bore muzzle loaded gun.
>300 metres with a smoothbore
>battle range, a range even modern assault rifles aren't reliably accurate at
Care to source that bullshit for me, because you're wrong.

People still use bows for either sport or hunting IRL.

Thank you, I laughed. I'm pretty sure that half the people in this thread can't hit shit at 200 meters even with a modern gun. And that's only because this kind of threads attracts /k/ommandos.

>ITT: People claiming bows are accurate

Bow, unless we are talking modern sport bows, don't have any form of aiming mechanism nor an actual trigger of any kind, so you need to fire after you pull the string, making a vague guess where it will land exactly. Anything after 50 meters is a good luck if you hit.

You could make an argument for crossbows being more accurate that early firearms, but that's literally it.

Bows aren't accurate. They aren't cheaper, aren't better, don't have superior range nor are easy to use, not to mention train for actual combat.
Which is all why they were phased away pretty quick when crossbows and firearms were better in just about every single regard, including even price.

>a range even modern assault rifles aren't reliably accurate at
Let me correct that a little. Assault rifles are reliably accurate at that distance, but start losing accuracy at larger distances.

Source and definition of "early firearm", please.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up. Oh, wait:
>Modern assault rifle aren't reliable on 300 meters
They have their aiming mechanism set on 400 without any adjustment. And you can reliably hit a fucking BEER CAN at that range, assuming you will notice the can first.

Jesus, you are so retarded it's sickening.

Not him and I have zero combat or firearm training, and yet I was perfectly capable of scoring 42/50 at a fire range using a musket. Granted, it was at 100 meters, but it was a standard target shield.
So I'm more than willing to take his claim for granted, since human target is about four times as big as the that shield.

>They have their aiming mechanism set on 400 without any adjustment
What the fuck are you talking about? There no "set aiming mechanism". You've got sights with an adjustment mechanism on them. You can fucking change it into whatever you want. Have you ever even seen a gun?

>And you can reliably hit a fucking BEER CAN at that range
Depends on your rifle, optics and ammo, but in general, no you can't.

Reusable ammo, because ammo in your setting is expensive.

Those goal posts won't move by themselves I guess.
Sure, but your musket was likely either a Bess or a US Civil war rifled one. I.e. pinnacle of black powder guns.

He's probably talking about AK-74 (74, not 47), which has the aiming mechanism set on 400 meters. And that's indeed the distance you can do a marksman competition using that gun, because the dispersion is close to zero. And if you can't hit a target using just mechanical sights at 400 meters, you have probably some serious sighting problem, rather than the gun being inaccurate or beyond the range of it (assuming we are still talking modern rifles).

>Those goal posts won't move by themselves I guess.
What goalposts, exactly?
>Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd). A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.9 oz) arrow 328 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd). A flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yd
You can not reliably hit a target with early, non-rifled firearms at that range. Not possible. A fucking black powder musket or arquebus is not accurate to that distance.

>Brown Bess
>Pinnacle
Are you fucking kidding me? That gun was outdated even in times when it was a service gun.

But nations don't care about that. When the chips are down it's about survival.

Nice job trying to be figurative when I'm being literal.

>You can not reliably hit a target with early, non-rifled firearms at that range. Not possible. A fucking black powder musket or arquebus is not accurate to that distance.
Because you say so?

Son, you literally have no arguments whatsoever on that statement, other than being persistent.

First browning machinegun prototypes fired black powder.

It was a replica of a wheel-lock gun. As far as I know, those went out of use around 1700s, but I might be wrong about it. But it had no sights on it, other than just pointing it in general direction. So the first shot barely hit the target shield. After the second shot I knew which part of the lock mechanism can be used as a crude sight, so I was scoring very close to the centre, even getting one 10.

To be fair, neither do you.

>which has the aiming mechanism set on 400 meters
You see these? You can ADJUST your sights to alter the distance of your zero. What in the flying fuck are you talking about? There's no modern rifle with a set zero that you can't alter.
> And that's indeed the distance you can do a marksman competition using that gun
And lose against better, more accurate rifles. If we're talking original Russian Aks here with milspec ammunition, you won't reliably hit a beer can at 400 metres. The effective range of the rifle is at 500 metres and that's against man sized targets.

>Son, you literally have no arguments whatsoever on that statement, other than being persistent.
Do you have any sources to back up your claims, because every one I find support my claims.

>An inspection of the targets produced some surprises. At 100 yards only three balls struck the board at the bottom, with a spread of 11 1/2 inches–a grouping that was caused more by chance than any other factor. At 50 yards we had a 100 percent hit rate with a grouping of 20 inches, and at 25 a deadly eight-inch spread of all five balls. Basically, up to 50 yards, if someone were firing at you with a Brown Bess it looks like you were pretty much toast.

allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/the-inaccuracy-of-muskets/

>Effective firing range Variable (50–100 yards)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Bess

Really, the only weird and unhandy part of the gun was the whole loading process and I can't imagine doing it without pre-measured powder charge, but by itself, it was very accurate. I remember how in high school we were all doing the obligatory shooting practice and I've scored back then 95/100 at 100 meters, but that was using a training rifle with normal, mechanical sights.

Those were the only two times I ever fired a gun or handled one.
Unless BB gun counts, then I had my fun when I was in my early teen.

For the US. It's my understanding that Britain and France intended to target Soviet population centers.

You mean the turn of the 19th century? Right on the fringe of muskets becoming obsolete and replaced with rifles?

Jeez yeah that sure was an early firearm.