Probably a dumb question: arrows vs. bullets

[SteelyDan]

For most of my life, I regarded bows-and-arrows as distant seconds to firearms. Then, last summer, my brother in-law took me to his archery range. At 25 yards, he was hitting consistent silver dollar sized groups, and I gained a new respect for arrows.

Since then, I've paid a little more attention to arrow-related posts, and have learned, to my surprise, that they out-penetrate even high powered rifles. So, my question is why they penetrate so well, compared to bullets. Is it a function of mass, or "pointiness," or what? And are there any lessons that can be extrapolated from arrows to bullets (e.g., slow-and-heavy vs. fast-and-light)? Thanks for any info, I'm just kind of clueless and surprised here.

 

[444]

This has very little to do with your questions, but..................

I have always imagined that the wound from a broadhead would be much worse than a wound by pretty much any handgun. Two or more literally razor sharp knives punching clear through you cutting a swath a couple inches or more across. Nothing rolls over those blades without be sliced in two.

I don't think that a bow would be any kind of substitue for a firearm, but if you were able to employ it, you would have a heck of a brutal weapon.

 

[JShirley]

Dan,

I think it's the relative mass, but the fact that arrows are sharp and not designed to deform is probably also a factor.

John

 

[mete]

Penetrate ? Compare arrow with full metal jacket bullet. Also see what happens when the arrow strikes bone. The actions of arrow and bullet are very different. The arrow works by cutting only. The bullet does other things to tissues that involve velocity effectss.

 

[Soap]

It doesn't really penetrate more. If you shot the foam target with an '06 I bet the the bullet would go straight through. But the difference is that the arrow has very thin and razor sharp blades, so it basically cuts a path through flesh and bone. Also the bullet has a hydrostatic shock effect at high powered rifle velocities which displaces water in the target. In short, the two effects are completely different.

 

[Baba Louie]

The obvious differences....

Loud vs quiet (or sorta)

Fast vs. not very

Far vs near

Reload time if multiple targets are a problem

Size of delivery device within space available (hard put to use your bow from your bed, car seat, etc).

As far as wounds on target... Hunters using firearms usually end up with immediate expiration of prey, arrows... follow the blood trail... That fact alone tells the major difference in my opinion.

Either one would be effective but for some reason, we've kind of advanced from archers in our armed forces... and its probably a very good reason too.

Still and all, mastery of any shooting sport sure is fun and its fun to sit around and blather about all of 'em.

Agree?

Adios

 

[JShirley]

Arrows do indeed penetrate more, both in solid matter and water.

John

 

[JeFF D]

"Arrows do indeed penetrate more, both in solid matter and water."

I've never seen an arrow go through 3/4" steel like turk surplus 8mm mauser does....or shoot through a mid-sized tree trunk. Could you elaborate a bit?

 

[JShirley]

May have to contact my brother...he did a lot of bow hunting years ago (close to 20). At that time, he mentioned the relative penetration of arrows vs bullets (.30-06) in hay bales and water. You're right, through something like steel plate the bullet will have the advantage.

John

 

[Don Gwinn]

Obviously that kind of statement depends on the arrow, the bow (draw weight) and the medium. But yes, arrows can be shocking penetrators. The mass of an arrow is not just more than the mass of a bullet--it's several times more.

Put it this way: The arrow is slower, the bullet is lighter. However, I don't think the gap in speed is nearly as large as the gap in mass, so the differences favor the arrow.

I have no idea if that's true, of course.

 

[George Hill]

Apples and Oranges here.
On one hand you have something that cuts to penetrate. On the other hand you have something that delivers crushing blunt force trauma. Different wound profiles. Different all together.
A bullet fired from a handgun will be caught by a level II vest with no problems.
An arrow fired from a moderate power compound bow with zip through that same vest with little to no problems.

There is an air powered rifle you can buy that fires arrows to insane velocities. This weapon was featured in some retarded Jean Claude Van Dame flick... "Hard Target"? I think that's it, but I am not sure. Anyway, such an arrow shot would probably penetrate like a rifle shot.
My High School science project... I built a "Rail Gun" that fired an arrow. The "Gun" self destructed in the firing, but the result was the arrow went through 4 bails of hay and penetrated 1/2 into a tree. (I used capacitors from TV sets and 24 12 volt car batteries to power and fire it... it was insane. I got an A for the year. Science teacher was an decorated Marine from Korea.)
I suspect that this air rifle arrow launcher would be a most effective weapon against anything short of rolled steel armor. A knight in "Shining Armor" had better run... fast.
Check this:
http://www.swivelmachine.com/html/rimfire.htm
435 FPS with an arrow! Niiiiiice....
Here is the air powered one...

http://www.swivelmachine.com/html/stealth.htm

 

[QKRTHNU]

Mass.

If I could launch a tree at you it wouldn't have to be going very fast to hurt.

 

[Kevlarman]

George, any chance we could see some plans of that railgun of yours?

 

[George Hill]

From almost 20 years ago? I don't have them. But you can find railgun plans all over the place. The whole thing was wired with the batteries charing the capacitors and the capacitors discharging to power the magnets. Pretty simple stuff.

 

[jmbg29]

I've never seen an arrow go through 3/4" steel like turk surplus 8mm mauser does....or shoot through a mid-sized tree trunk. Could you elaborate a bit?

A lot depends on the type of arrow, and the bow that launches it.

Medieval archers used "footed" shafts as armor piercing rounds.


Top shafts are "footed".

Bottom shafts are plain.




Footed arrows have shafts made from traditional flexible materials (spruce, cedar, fir, etc.) for reasons of weight/spine, while also sporting a spliced on portion (the last 6+ inches of shaft) made from dense/inflexible wood (rosewood, ironwood, ebony). A 600+ grain footed shaft shot from a 100+ pound (pull) bow, will punch through a Knight's armor as though it wasn't even there. 3/4 inch steel would require something more substaintial, but large crossbow-style weapons mounted on cannon-style carriages were not uncommon then. See: http://www.montaguemillennium.com/medieval/Medieval_Siege_Weapons.htm

 

[david_reeves]

Somewhat related thread,,,,


http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=21809


Dave

 

[Sir Galahad]

A recent massacre in the Congo involved the use of spears, machetes, a handful of guns, and bows and arowws. Jimmy Carter can get Africans to hand in their guns, but too many people know how to make bows and spears.