Is it really Bows or Guns??

[Timelord]

Is this a valid argument? I see it often put forward that it is one or the other..

The technology required to make and feed guns is Old hat. It is antiquated simple technology that can never be uninvented. It only takes someone with the basic knowledge & some simple metalworking skills or even a bodger with scavenged scrap to make a simple, crude but effective gun. Likewise the propellent can be created with low tech & the easy to aquire right knowledge.
It seems that the modern mind has difficulty in looking at things in a Retro sense. Bows & arrows are good and useful, but it is not a case of only having modern type firearms and then after PSHTF then over time regressing to more primitive tech such as ancient bows & arrows. Modern firearms may well expire over time and even pretty rapidly in many cases. This is where prepping has many levels and prepping may at times include subjects that differ from Bushcraft to strive for the same result. ie:- learning the low tech & archaic art of black powder or similar propellents and also construction of simple & expedient firearms.

It is not ideal equating gun related experience with being a licence holder & gun owner. You can still prep for it. Prepping for knowledge of & some legal practical aspects in gun use, construction & ammunition is not going to cause these same problems of red tape hassle & appearing on any authorities licence holder lists..
You do not have to be a licence holder or gun owner to prep within legality the subject of personal gun use, expedient construction, propellents etc.

If a SHTF situation really occurs, then how useful is that bow & arrow going to be against 2 legged predators? Think about our human history & reflect. It is a useful weapon & has some advantageous characteristics, but even so it did not attempt to compete with the gun for long in history. Ask yourself why? Why is it that the American west pioneers used black powder flintlock guns? They used these to great effect. If they had found bows & arrows to be a greater asset, then why did they not change over to them? Even in that great wilderness, with all its materials supply problems and inclement weather issues, they still hunted & fought with black powder flintlock guns.(+ hand to hand back ups) This was the same in many many frontier areas of the world.

Is there something about us in the modern age that makes us know better than the historical model shows?
There is a major popular misconception that black powder(or similar propellent) firearms are ancient out of date clumsy, inefficient, inaccurate, lucky to hit a barn door type affairs. This is woefully wrong. They may not be as accurate as a modern carbine etc, but strangely enough - they did the job & did it well. Most confrontations in scenarios we deliberate about are not long range sniper scenarios. In fact experienced police, military & other combat veterans will testify that the majority of individual actions take place at fairly close or very close ranges AND that they are usually over within the first few shots, if not the first. A black powder gun is perfectly usable in this scenario and whats more, the calibre is usually large. Being hit by .69 calibre soft lead ball is not something you are going to get up from or continue to fight back from. A soft lead ball of high mass is more devastating at close range than a supersonic jacketed modern type bullet. These black powder archaic firearms were used effectively right up to the 1st World war. That is not long ago and they were perfectly capable of doing the job at the time. It is easier to walk through a confined threat area in low profile mode with a 0.69 calibre black powder pistol secured to the body than with a bow strung & nocked to go. The famous lawmen of the American West and the armed settled citizens favoured the Shotgun as their primary self defence weapon. This is documented. Those guns were blackpowder and they performed well enough. Those people sure weren't using bows & arrows for a reason.
It is easy enough under post SHTF conditions to make an armour, soft or hard, that is capable of stopping an arrow - especially a modern non historical war bow. It is not easy or practical to construct an armour capable of stopping a large calibre, subsonic soft lead projectile. Even if it stops it after some fashion, it will still not mitigate adequately the complete kinetic energy dump of the lead mass. The armour would have to be extremely dense & heavy and would not be practical. Again, historical warfare ballistics has all the answers.
Another thing about arrows - how many do you need to put into a large predator to stop it fighting back? An arrow by its very nature is a slim cutting or localised piercing weapon. If the arrow does not hit the right spot, then another one will probably be required. This is not good if the opposing predator is intent on doing you harm. There is probably not going to be time to allow the opponent to "bleed out". Generally only one 0.69 calibre lead ball is sufficient to incapacitate.
A soft calbre lead ball or even slug, will not only dump ALL its energy into the opposition, it also in the process will flatten out, shear off pieces & travel within the target body in erratic pathways. The overall impact of this is immense. Any bone in the way is smashed & becomes shrapnel inside the body.
As in the case of shotgun 00 buckshot strikes, it is medically known that the combined impact of many lead pellets has a force multiplier that overloads the bodies sensory nervous system & often immediately puts the body into "shutdown mode". Whilst we are not talking about 00 buckshot & shotguns at the moment, the 0.69 calibre lead ball and its shearing, fragmentation effect can contribute to this "shutdown mode" or immobilisation in shock result.
Another thing about the pro bow case - It is put forward that bows are simpler and therefore much more suited to survival scenarios. While this is a good reasoned logic and is indeed partly true, it does not tell the whole truth, especially to novice enquirers. Other than expedient bows, (which I agree are definitely useful & easy to make inc ammo,) the bows usually propositioned are of the modern glass fibre limbed or similar variety. These have modern strings & fittings. Now in a SHTF or PSHTF scenario which is the usual discussion, then exactly how durable would these bows be? Spare strings, & nocks and even limbs would be needed. The bows are simple and robust to a point, but that point is not extreme and in a situation we propose, then the spares may well be needed. What happens after the spares if any are exhausted? What happens when it is raining for days and the bow string will not operate efficiently (same for powder propellent). A bow is large & fragile to a degree and can easily be damaged whilst traversing rough terrain.
The fact is that these bows are not simple affairs that can be constructed or repaired easily. It would need someone with the knowledge and a comparable skill set to an expedient gunsmith. Also, the materials are more exotic and less common than gun materials.
In fact the modern bow has a historical & much respected lineage that goes back to Mesolithic times. approx 6000 years ago and may be even older. A bow is an advanced skillful design and is not something a home mechanic can put together in an expedient workshop, unless he already has the learned skills to some useful degree. Yes expedient bows can be made, but these are not so effective and the poundage draw weight and accuracy may not be adequate to immobilise large predators as quickly as needed under duress.
The arrows themselves are often difficult to construct correctly for those without time spent learning the art. It is a multistage process and the materials used are crucial. Why use modern poor inferior materials to test out modern self theories, when it should in fact be the historical documented info on this that should be consulted first - so that an understanding of the materials & methods used is gained. Only then can a prototype using modern related or substitute expedient materials have a much higher likelihood of success, rather than using the hit & miss long way round method. Each material used historically was used for a reason and in a certain way. In our modern world, the same named material is not necessarily actually the same as it was historically. Eg, for wood shafts, modern saw cut & kiln dried wood is not the same as hand chosen, multi seasoned & humidity controlled, grain split shafts, balanced & shaped. The practical shooting result of this is very different!
String making is a necessary skill and the right materials & techniques must be employed. Don't forget fletching, & the right kinds of glue etc.
Making a round lead ball or bullet for a gun is fairly simple, easy to do around a campfire. lead is pretty common in our industrialised societies if you know where to look.

Why is it sometimes put forward that PSHTF, guns over a number of years would fade away into history due to being too high tech modern for a post disaster society to construct & maintain and that a bowyer would instead be in huge demand and could be very rich as a result? Would it not be the case that an amateur gunsmith would be a highly useful & desirable asset? again, the technology is old hat and fairly simple now the techniques are known & recorded and whats more, no matter how much you like bows & arrows, guns can not be uninvented..

I have no dislike of bows & arrows, indeed they are a useful tool and can double up for defense against large predators. I have knowledge of ancient bows and they are beautiful magical items that tell us much about the sophistication & cleverness of our ancient ancestors.

I do not see why it should be that it is sometimes thought that it could or should be one or the other, guns or bows.. Both have their place & proponents. Both have their advantages & disadvantages. What I can say is that History repeats itself over & over and that History has the answers to our future. How far back in time do you think our future will be? Maybe in this, there is an answer.....

TL (Don't get upset anyone, this is knowledge for debate :-)