No Stupid Questions

100% firearms. They are so easy that literally (sadly) toddlers have used them and killed with them. A bow takes some practice and skill, almost all basic guns you can use and hit close by targets with, after like 5 minutes of practice.

People say that aiming with bows is easier? What kind of world do they live in?

I've shot a decent amount of bows and guns, and guns are far easier to shoot. The difference is that because guns are easier to shoot, there's a greater expectation of accuracy. Shooting a bow at 30 meters and hitting your target is considered accurate, shooting a gun at 30 meters is considered nothing.

That being said, I still like archery more. There's just something very personal about the experience of pulling the bowstring and manually making the arrow fly

The act of using a prepped weapon? The gun for sure.

The complexity of the mechanical nature and upkeep? Bow far simpler.

If you were to just hand a prepped weapon to someone and tell them to shoot a target the gun user would be far more likely to succeed first.

If you expected someone to figure out how to prep a weapon (stringing the bow vs loading a mag) I think people would intuitively understand how to prepare the bow for use, but the specific motions and buttons for guns might stump some people.

Now I really want to find a bunch of people who have somehow never seen or heard of either and see which one they intuitively understand easier.

Bows are actually incredibly hard to use. When you see a "draw weight" of the bow, this is the force you need to exert to pull it back to its full draw. 40-50lbs is considered normal, I believe, while the English Longbow - famous for its use in the Hundred Years' War - had a draw weigh of at least 80 pounds, with some scholars suggesting even 50% greater numbers than that. Imagine lifting a weight that heavy each time you wanted to loose an arrow!

Bows, then, require extended training to use properly. Not just strength training, although professional archers were jacked, but in how to properly employ the weapon. The dominance of early firearms had much to do with not just their absolute performance - at times, they were actually outperformed by bows in absolute terms - but by that their effective use could be broken down into simple actions which could be easily drilled into new recruits.

If we're talking about modern guns, this effect is much exaggerated. Guns can take some getting use to, sure, and modern bows have added features for ease of use. But guns are, honestly, shockingly easy to use for what they can accomplish.

Aiming a bow is pretty easy, and it doesn’t require that much strength

(Obviously I’m not talking about a medieval British longbow)

100% firearms. Easier to aim and keep on target and easier for people of any strength,size or handicap to use moderately well with minimal training. The only place bows are really better is that they are functionally more simple.

A complete novice can pick up a gun and with minimal coaching be on target after a short time. To get close to the same proficiency and accuracy with a how would take exponentially more time and practice.

Bows take years to learn and a lifetime to master. Crossbows were a military revolution simply because they were easy to learn. In that sense, crossbows and firearms are very similar, but depending on your range you've got more dropoff in accuracy with xbows due to gravity.

Guns. The advent of firearms revolutionized warfare to the extent that no other military arms mattered, and no other training mattered.

Before firearms were adopted, it would take a good ten to twenty years to raise a standing army, and retinues would still need a few months of training to not be slaughtered within the first battle. With firearms you just need a week or two and any peasant with two arms became an effective soldier.

Contrasting this, bowmen weren't peasants. They did not return to their family when there wasn't war. They were trained from around the age of seven to around the age of 15, and after this would be a professional soldier until they retired or died; training every single day (except Sundays or Saturdays depending on religion). They were paid to be bowmen, nothing else. Even if a peasant could use a bow, say if they were a hunter, they would never qualify for military service. Its that big of a difference in skill.

As to their differences in effect, range and force.

The weakest powder musket equals a ~80lbs draw war bow. Both can pierce plate armor on a good day, but the former can do so from a longer distance and again with decades less training. As guns get more advanced, their range and penetration increases massively, whereas most archers will be unable to draw a 120lbs or higher bow, meaning there is a maximum distance and effectiveness of bows that is almost comically lower than weapons.

To keep with freedom units, a deadly long range bow shot tops out at around a quarter mile with a high draw weight long bow. That's about the absolute max, assuming the victim is wearing no armor. The current record for a sniper with a gun is around 1.5 miles, with the target wearing body armor.

Gun is far easier to hit your target with. Crossbow is compareable with much lower range but a bow, wether it be long, recurve or compound is quite hard.

guns are much easier to aim and use. technically a bow is quieter, but guns can be made to be fairly quiet and are generally much less bulky than bows. generally speaking, guns are point and click. bows are dependent on how you hold the bow, how you hold the arrow, and the form with which you release the arrow (letting the bow move the right way and amount is involved). on top of that even the quietest configuration of a gun will have more power per size than a bow because gunpowder is very energy dense and the barrel of a gun is a great way of focusing that energy into a projectile.

A firearm, easily. I've fired both and bows require much more strength even if it's a compound bow. On top of that aiming an arrow is much less intuitive than using even iron sights on a gun. Not to mention you can get rounds off much faster on a bolt action gun than a bow. Additionally I think you're probably more likely to hurt yourself with a bow by smacking your arm than with a gun, assuming you get basic training for both

Anyone can pick up a bow and fling a few arrows downrange with minimal coaching but becoming proficient takes longer with archery than with a rifle. IMO, shotguns are even easier: cover the bird with the muzzle and slap that trigger. Dinner is served.

As anecdotal evidence: If you get skunked during rifle season you're a chump, bow hunters EXPECT to get skunked

There's a reason guns were called the great equalizer.

I shoot as a hobby and I've dabbled with archery

Bows take strength to use and are also harder to be consistent with. The way you nock the arrow on the string, keeping constant pull while aiming and inconsistencies in the arrows all play a part. Rifles aren't nearly as bad as long as you have good fundementals.

Ballistics are a big deal with ranged weapons. Arrows don't go very far or very fast so you really need to know how the arrow will arc and account for that as you aim. The farther the shot the more wind, drop etc will have to be factored into your aim. Elevation matters too if you're on a hill or in a tree stand or something.

I'm going to make up a number but let's say 50 yards would be a tough shot for a bow to hit something consistently. For a rifle that is no problem and most rifle bullets' paths won't start to arc or get blown by wind significantly until it has travelled several hundred yards.

I find that long range shooting with a bolt action "feels" roughly the same as shooting archery. You really need to focus and make sure you're doing everything right for good results. But that also makes it that much more satisfying when you do well!

I have little experience but have fired each and your instincts are right. gun much easier. now because my experience is low maybe large kickback firearms are worse than bows but I went regularly to an archery range but only for like some months and I can say I never got that good with hitting close to a bullseye but with a rifle it was not hard to get better than that the first session. Your example though is video games so im not sure if run and gun might be different. I mean when you are not moving and aiming the sites work pretty well (presumably if calibrated right but I have never done that and assumed whoever did it did a good job) but like if your running around shooting things then I dunno maybe the bow could be better but I doubt it.

I’ve shot both and guns are much easier to both shoot and aim. A single action revolver is a lot easier to shoot than most people think. It takes barely any pressure on the trigger, so aiming is a lot more accurate. The bigger the gun, the easier it is to aim (and the more accurate it will be, especially if the barrel is rifled). Also rapid fire is much easier than a bow. There’s a reason there are no mass murderers using bows.

That being said, bows are way easier to make. You can make a decent enough bow and arrows with a dead chicken, a sharp rock, and a few nice sticks. Making a gun requires some pretty complex knowledge of both metalwork and chemistry. You also need a source of immense heat, so building at least a small forge is required.

Define easier

In terms of making the danger dot go, guns are miles easier to initially fire. But easy only in that sense, that pulling a trigger takes less force to achieve.

Bows are definitely harder to pull.

However, even a simple firearm isn't as intuitive as a bow to make ready to shoot.

A gun, even the simplest ones, take more steps to go from paperweight to boom stick. A bow, you can just look at and tell there's essentially three steps: put pointy part away from you, other end on string; pull string; let go.

A gun, you have to determine what size bullet and how much propellant, load a bullet and propellant, close the gun or otherwise ensure that the bullet comes out the danger end; then engage the trigger. And even that assumes the bullet and powder don't need anything like a percussion cap, a flint or whatever.

If it's a more advanced firearm, you'll be dealing with some kind of safety mechanism, loading a magazine or revolver with the correct rounds, and how to open whatever mechanism allows you to load the rounds.

So, guns take more non intuitive thinking to make work, and are thus harder.

I'd say they're roughly equally hard to shoot well, but that guns are slightly easier to shoot and hit something. Both take a lot of practice to keep tight groupings of the animation ammunition in the target. But you can kinda trust the speed of a bullet to hit what you're generally pointing at, at close range. An arrow, it tales a little more effort to figure out how to do that. It isn't a huge gap, but it is there.

It's different learning curves, basically.

Type of device does matter some; an old school long bow is going to be a little easier for a total noob to put arrows into a target with than a fancy modern bow. And you definitely have a different set of body mechanics between long guns and handguns, as well as between rifles and shotguns. There's nuances between revolvers and "semi auto" in handguns, bolt action vs semiautomatic in rifles and shotguns, etc.

But, on average, if I was wanting to get someone to the point they could have a decent chance of hunting something the size of a deer, I'm going to put a rifle in their hands. They'll, with instruction, be able to get clean kills faster than with a bow. Even with iron sights, I've seen kids keep sub six inch groups after a few days of practice with appropriately sized rifles, at hunting ranges. An adult should be able to be ready to roll at least that fast

Modern guns a extremely precisely engineered devices that are incredibly easy to use, for better or worse. I know modern sporting bows are also but it's no contest in my opinion.

I've shot both, bows as a complete amateur and relatively competent with a rifle. There is no question that a modern gun is way easier to pick up as an amateur and hit what you want to hit and I cannot possibly believe there are anything other than extremely niche uses where a bow is superior.

Ask yourself a question, have you ever heard of a toddler accidentally shooting someone with a bow? Firing a gun is so easy that you have to keep them away from babies or the babies are likely to kill themselves.

Having hunted with a bow for years; a rifle is 100X easier to use, with range and accuracy an order of magnitude better.

Bow is too slow to be useful against a home invader. And you need a lot of strength to pull the thing (not sure what its called) back to make it ready for the next bolt. Good for zombie apocalypse scenarios tho.

I've shot both, but don't consider myself an expert by any means. For pure "ease", I would say a firearm. If you can rest the gun on a table or tripod, even more so. Smaller firearms, like handguns, would be a "little" more difficult to aim.

Bows, on the other hand, would depend on the type. Recurve bows will usually have a lighter draw weight and harder to aim since you're holding back the entire weight of the bow the entire time. Compound bows are my preferred type. You can more easily work a heavier draw because the bow kinda "locks" into place at full draw, requiring MUCH less effort to keep it there. My compound bow has a sight on it and I found shooting it a much more enjoyable and consistent experience than that of my wife's recurve.

I got kinda rambling about it, but for pure "ease", a firearm is my choice. I find a bow to be a more satisfying experience, however.

Both are pretty easy to use, imo. But a gun is way easier to actually hit what you're aiming at with.

fire arms.

Hands down.

Lets just put it this way. you don't hear about toddlers accidentally killing their parents because they got into the parent's bows and arrows.

Bows are simpler logistically. Nock an arrow, pull, aim, release ("fire"). Guns have more steps up front typically but also make the round-to-round process simpler.

Both have sights that are comparable in complexity.

Form is similarly important for both.

Skill curve is similar for both at the higher end. I think bows are a little more intuitive for beginner through novice (subjective of course).

Size can vary wildly for both.

Bows need more physicality typically, so they're a little harder in that way.

Feel free to follow with questions if you like. I have some hobby experience with bows and have trained professionally (military) with firearms.

Bows are a little more intuitive I think, but it's also more physical. Obviously depends on the bow.

Shooting guns is trickier to pick up I think. If you're shooting paper, it can be hard to see where you're striking and how you need to adjust when you're new. The flinch instinct is a big one to overcome. And, of course, if you're shooting a handgun you're going to feel less stable than a bow or rifle will.

Note: I'm not a marksman or hunter or anything, I just like shooting stuff when I can

Idk in practice yeah shooting guns is going to be easier. But honestly it's not hard to learn how to shoot a bow either. I'm not saying you'll shoot great, but still.

Ultimately, you're going to suck with both for a bit. But you'll improve with a gun faster. Really though people are making basic target archery out to be harder than it is, modern bows are very good. You're not an English longbowman, you're shooting a 21st century bow with a draw weight you can handle.