I don't think anyone is saying that rifle hunting does not take skill. There are plenty of shots with a rifle I would not try and pull off. But if you look at the percentages on almost any hunt, or land hunted, the success rate of rifle hunters is always higher. You are correct that almost all of us who bow hunt started off as rifle hunters, and I will still rifle hunt, there is nothing wrong with it, it's a blast too. But bow hunting usually does require a little something extra in order to pull down an animal.

Knockdown power is a falacy. It's the shock imparted on the central nervous system that causes the "knowckdown". If bullets physically knocked something down, it would do the same to the shooter.

I remember one local show that featured an archer pitting his bow against a rifle. He shot into a bucket of sand at point-blank range with a .30-06. The bullet stopped less than halfway through the metal pail, while an arrow launched from a 50-pound bow punched a broadhead clear through, "proving" the authority of the bow over the rifle. A 500-grain arrow at 200 fps develops only 44 ft-lbs of energy--about half that of a .22 Short. Meanwhile, a .30-06 180-grain missile traveling at 2,700 fps works up more than 2,900 ft-lbs.

Regardless, bullets do not penetrate well as razor tipped arrows. It's a matter of physics. Check out this video, and more at http://www.grimreaperbroadheads.com/videos.html#

I think a rifle is more forgiving than an arrow for a less than perfect shot. I've never bow hunted, but that's my opinion. A rifle also allows a neck shot that drops the deer on the spot. I don't believe a bow would produce those results.

That said, I have a very healthy dose of respect for bow hunters. I can take my rifle to the range twice a year and become quite proficient with it. A bow takes MUCH more practice, then you have to be quiet and scent free enough to get them within a few yeards to even get a shot opportunity. One of these days...

Not unless you hit the jugular in the neck, and yes I have seen a fatal neck shot with a bow, it will put them down just as quickly as a double lung or heart shot, it is possible but I don't recommend it, very small margin for error.

Erased my first post I think I read this wrong.

Anyway I think as long as the arrow placement is good they die just as quick as with a rifle. Same the other way around except maybe they have a better chance of surviving a badly placed arrow.

WTF are you blabbing about that's the dumbest thing I thing I have ever heard.

Bullets don't knock things down..............

A bullet will knock the shooter's pecker in the dirt, if it hits him. If you don't think so I'd be happy to hit you with one.

I have read some absolutely absurd reasoning why/how bullets kill.

Crush vs cutting, energy to CNS, Hydrostatic Shock, energy transfer...........

The rifle is the most destructive of all small arms. Several of Newton's laws apply to a bullet and arrows impacting flesh.

For every action there is a reaction
Energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv(sq)

my .308 (1/2) 155gr (.01004kg)2880fps (877.824 m/s)sq
= 38.83 joules

A Bow & arrow (1/2) 125gr (.00809kg)315fps (96.012 m/s)sq
= .301 joules

physics is a bi**h but comes in handy quite often.

1. Entry wound damage to blood vessels, collapse of plural vacuum (bleeding and suffocation)
2. Damage to major organs, heart, lungs, liver descending aorta Severe Blood loss
3. Hydrostatic shock produced by displacement of kinetic energy. tearing of tissue and disruption of the CNS (disruption does not happen w/ every impact) The shot has to be close if not through the nerve structures.
4. bullet fragmentation ie multiple laceration multiple location of bleeding.

Arrows do basically the same thing with far less force/energy bla bla bla.......


Shot place is "vital" (note the pun)for an ethical kill with either weapon. A less than optimal bullet impact will have a grater effect on an animal than a misplaced arrow.

Poor shot placement and poor accuracy by the hunter is irresponsible and should be the focus of all the hostility rather than which is a more ethical killing machine.

But with respect to lethality you are naive to think a arrow is equal to that of bullet.

If you don't think so I'll let you shoot me, center mass, with an arrow IF you can survive center mass hit from my .308

Cruel you say.... arrows and bullets are both faster killers than cancer, anthrax, parasites, predators ....... Animals know they are going to die and they are food for someone/something else.

Circle of life man let it go and go put some meat in the freezer.



kt

You will do fine...Just practice and don't take any marginal shots. The same can be said for rifle hunting as well.

man i understand ur opinion. the thing is most people can't place an arrow like they can a high powered rifle. plus, i don't think people practice nearly enough to be ready when it is time to do buisness with a bow. think about how you have to stress with people about waitin to retrieve a deer after the shot. thats so the deer can fully bleed to death so you dont jump and lose him. every year i watch those same videos yall do. they get me so excited, but sometimes i can't help thinking, "is it unethical to intentionally make a clean kill as diffacult as possible by using a primitve weapon". i still would rather pick the bow up than the rifle, you just have to be fair and make sure u have practiced adaquately enough bow or rifle

I killed a buck one year (with a rifle 7mag in fact) he dropped at the spot. When I walked up to him I noticed a wound in the rear hind quarter he'd been shot in the rear end. When I gutted him saw he was full of urine like I'd never seen he couldn't piss. Pretty sad. I was glad he walked by me poor guy was in misery. That was with a rifle.

So either way it's gonna happen from time to time with either weapon.

Sorry to you math head you may have figured I short changed the arrow in the bow equation, I forgot to add the weight of the arrow in the mass. But I think people get the point.

And to make sure my point is clear as mud, I kill with both bullets and arrows on a regular basis. My point was they are both very effective and ethical killers, with slightly higher margin of error going to the rifle. Problems enter the formula when the dip stick behind the trigger/release doesn't do his job correctly.

It's my contention the only real difference is distance from your prey. An arrow through the heart at 25 yards will produce the same result as a bullet through the heart at 300 yards.

im an attempt to correct someone you yourself espoused multiple facets of BS regarding wounding ballistics.

google Fackler or Gary Roberts and learn something...

[/quote]

im an attempt to correct someone you yourself espoused multiple facets of BS regarding wounding ballistics.

google Fackler or Gary Roberts and learn something...[/quote]

I know the exact definition of Mr. Newtons laws, it was a paraphrase to make a point I was not teaching physics 101. Your thoughts are random at best and you make zero sense but thanks for playing.

Did you run out and learn some new words and get the cliff's notes on that article?????? or did you just skip to the end so you could go around quoting someone's conclusion, which by the way is in the minority and has mainly to do with wound care. (article written 1986 hummmmmm....)

Perhaps you should make an attempt to learn something.....
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701267.pdf (article written 2006)

The term hydrostatic shock describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact, through a hydraulic effect in liquid-filled tissues. There is scientific evidence that “hydrostatic shock" can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effect.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3051.pdf


please try and refrain from such lunacy when try to correct my posts

man, this one needs to keep going, I am learning a lot here, I have never really thought about why a bullet/arrow kills something, I just assumed that it was due to the fact that the vitals were damaged causing one to shut down due to lack of blood/oxygen to the brain in a heart/lung shot or a severed spinal cord thus no message from the brain to keep living in the case of a neck shot...interesting stuff, It does go to explain that a gut shot deer can die almost instantly with no wound to the heart, lung, or spine....or maybe there is another reason...

If throwing a tomato and hitting a deer right between the eyes worked I'd give it a shot. IMO who cares about knockdown power, as long as it gets meat in the freezer or horns on the wall........

btw, is a tomato legal?


HAPPY HUNTING

Yadda yadda yadda.

Deer die when you destroy vitals, period. Gun, bow, who cares. If you don't hit the vital organs you stand a good chance if loosing your deer.

You don't need something that will cut threw deer like butter to kill them, just something that will reach the heart, lungs, ect.

I do both. They die alot harder from my gun than my bow in my opinion.