Cecil

[Rez 4,960]

 

A bow and arrow, in its most simple of methods, or most technical, does not have the amount of energy transfer to kill. Everything dies quickly through transfer of energy. You can't argue against that.

 

The lion in question must of been a big unit to say the least, not to mention his hide... a arrow, whatever speed it is travelling does not transfer enough energy to cause enough damage internally. It's too clinical and clean. There is also no spread of energy, it would literally go in and out.

 

A bullet on the other hand breaks up on impact, (depending on the type of round used of course) and the impact is far more intense. We can all view this on the web with gun hoe yanks blasting various calibres and rounds at ballistic gels. The Lehigh 300 blackout round is a good example to search for. A bullet as we now it, but with a small indent at the tip, travelling at 2400 FPS from a decent bolt rifle would of took that lion much more humanly than any arrow. Not that I'm saying it should of been shot with anything.

 

The compound bow method of hunting is more to feed an urge of hunters to take the biggest of animals with the oldest method of weaponry. It's more statisfaction.

You know nothing about bows. They are not designed to kill with shock energy. Arrows can be used to take much bigger game than a thin skinned lion, eg eland, cape buffalo etc. Many of the lion bowkills I have seen on video have complete pass throughs, the heart and lungs being perforated. You cannot compare bullets and broadheads, they are two different animals.

Upon a shot from a bow it is expected for the animal to run for 15-20 seconds until the blood stops the heart/lungs working and the animal falls over in a faint through loss of blood/oxygen to the brain.

 

As in all shooting, it is all about shot placement. If you went out and shot a rabbit with a .22 air rifle but it got away injured, does that mean the weapon should be banned, or simply that you didn't aim correctly?

 

There are MILLIONS of bowhunters in the USA, if the arrow were not effective then bowhunting over there would have been stopped a long time ago.

 

I dont know nothing you are right, I dont hunt with any form of bow.

 

But if you read my post back you are actually just agreeing with me in yours..!? Your just saying what I said in a different way It does kill yes, i dont say it doesn't, but its doesn't kill AS instantly as a bullet. So, as what got us onto this subject, the bow was the wrong choice of weapon for that Lion.

 

Why do you think its was the right sort of weapon may I ask?

 

Yes, shot placement is a big factor... but energy transfer is what kills quicker.

 

There are millions of bow hunters in the US, again you are right, but that in fact says it all.

[J Darcy 5,871]

 

 

A bow and arrow, in its most simple of methods, or most technical, does not have the amount of energy transfer to kill. Everything dies quickly through transfer of energy. You can't argue against that.

 

The lion in question must of been a big unit to say the least, not to mention his hide... a arrow, whatever speed it is travelling does not transfer enough energy to cause enough damage internally. It's too clinical and clean. There is also no spread of energy, it would literally go in and out.

 

A bullet on the other hand breaks up on impact, (depending on the type of round used of course) and the impact is far more intense. We can all view this on the web with gun hoe yanks blasting various calibres and rounds at ballistic gels. The Lehigh 300 blackout round is a good example to search for. A bullet as we now it, but with a small indent at the tip, travelling at 2400 FPS from a decent bolt rifle would of took that lion much more humanly than any arrow. Not that I'm saying it should of been shot with anything.

 

The compound bow method of hunting is more to feed an urge of hunters to take the biggest of animals with the oldest method of weaponry. It's more statisfaction.

You know nothing about bows. They are not designed to kill with shock energy. Arrows can be used to take much bigger game than a thin skinned lion, eg eland, cape buffalo etc. Many of the lion bowkills I have seen on video have complete pass throughs, the heart and lungs being perforated. You cannot compare bullets and broadheads, they are two different animals.

Upon a shot from a bow it is expected for the animal to run for 15-20 seconds until the blood stops the heart/lungs working and the animal falls over in a faint through loss of blood/oxygen to the brain.

 

As in all shooting, it is all about shot placement. If you went out and shot a rabbit with a .22 air rifle but it got away injured, does that mean the weapon should be banned, or simply that you didn't aim correctly?

 

There are MILLIONS of bowhunters in the USA, if the arrow were not effective then bowhunting over there would have been stopped a long time ago.

 

I dont know nothing you are right, I dont hunt with any form of bow.

 

But if you read my post back you are actually just agreeing with me in yours..!? Your just saying what I said in a different way It does kill yes, i dont say it doesn't, but its doesn't kill AS instantly as a bullet. So, as what got us onto this subject, the bow was the wrong choice of weapon for that Lion.

 

Why do you think its was the right sort of weapon may I ask?

 

Yes, shot placement is a big factor... but energy transfer is what kills quicker.

 

There are millions of bow hunters in the US, again you are right, but that in fact says it all.

 

It's all about accuracy. Had the lion been hit correctly it would have been down and out before it knew what was happening.....

 

It's better an accurate bow shot than an inaccurate rifle shot.

 

Does a bullet in the lions guts kill faster than an arrow through the heart? Of course not. Bowhunting, in general, cannot be judged on one persons inaccuracy.

You can shoot a lion with a .750 elephant gun in the guts and he's going to get away into the bush injured.....so it doesn't matter about energy transfer if the ammunition is incorrectly placed.

 

What's more important? shot placement or energy transfer.....?? of course it's shot placement.! That's why people have dropped elephants , rhinos and hippos with a single arrow.

 

Likewise with a game rifle, shoot an elephant in the guts with a .750 and it's going to wave you goodbye, however, a smaller calibre such as .375 with much much less energy transfer will drop it in its tracked IF the bullet is placed correctly....

 

For example in the early part oft he 20th century frenchman Theodore Lefebvre shot large numbers of elephant with a 8mm lebel military rifle. That had far, far less energy transfer than a .500, but it dropped the game none-the-less due to shot placement.

 

Just the same as that I've seen people hit a fallow badly and it went limping off with a 30-06, and yet other people have dropped deer after deer with the smaller .243........ Accuracy is everything......surely?

[Rez 4,960]

 

 

 

A bow and arrow, in its most simple of methods, or most technical, does not have the amount of energy transfer to kill. Everything dies quickly through transfer of energy. You can't argue against that.

 

The lion in question must of been a big unit to say the least, not to mention his hide... a arrow, whatever speed it is travelling does not transfer enough energy to cause enough damage internally. It's too clinical and clean. There is also no spread of energy, it would literally go in and out.

 

A bullet on the other hand breaks up on impact, (depending on the type of round used of course) and the impact is far more intense. We can all view this on the web with gun hoe yanks blasting various calibres and rounds at ballistic gels. The Lehigh 300 blackout round is a good example to search for. A bullet as we now it, but with a small indent at the tip, travelling at 2400 FPS from a decent bolt rifle would of took that lion much more humanly than any arrow. Not that I'm saying it should of been shot with anything.

 

The compound bow method of hunting is more to feed an urge of hunters to take the biggest of animals with the oldest method of weaponry. It's more statisfaction.

You know nothing about bows. They are not designed to kill with shock energy. Arrows can be used to take much bigger game than a thin skinned lion, eg eland, cape buffalo etc. Many of the lion bowkills I have seen on video have complete pass throughs, the heart and lungs being perforated. You cannot compare bullets and broadheads, they are two different animals.

Upon a shot from a bow it is expected for the animal to run for 15-20 seconds until the blood stops the heart/lungs working and the animal falls over in a faint through loss of blood/oxygen to the brain.

 

As in all shooting, it is all about shot placement. If you went out and shot a rabbit with a .22 air rifle but it got away injured, does that mean the weapon should be banned, or simply that you didn't aim correctly?

 

There are MILLIONS of bowhunters in the USA, if the arrow were not effective then bowhunting over there would have been stopped a long time ago.

 

I dont know nothing you are right, I dont hunt with any form of bow.

 

But if you read my post back you are actually just agreeing with me in yours..!? Your just saying what I said in a different way It does kill yes, i dont say it doesn't, but its doesn't kill AS instantly as a bullet. So, as what got us onto this subject, the bow was the wrong choice of weapon for that Lion.

 

Why do you think its was the right sort of weapon may I ask?

 

Yes, shot placement is a big factor... but energy transfer is what kills quicker.

 

There are millions of bow hunters in the US, again you are right, but that in fact says it all.

 

It's all about accuracy. Had the lion been hit correctly it would have been down and out before it knew what was happening.....

 

It's better an accurate bow shot than an inaccurate rifle shot.

 

Does a bullet in the lions guts kill faster than an arrow through the heart? Of course not. Bowhunting, in general, cannot be judged on one persons inaccuracy.

You can shoot a lion with a .750 elephant gun in the guts and he's going to get away into the bush injured.....so it doesn't matter about energy transfer if the ammunition is incorrectly placed.

 

What's more important? shot placement or energy transfer.....?? of course it's shot placement.! That's why people have dropped elephants , rhinos and hippos with a single arrow.

 

Likewise with a game rifle, shoot an elephant in the guts with a .750 and it's going to wave you goodbye, however, a smaller calibre such as .375 with much much less energy transfer will drop it in its tracked IF the bullet is placed correctly....

 

For example in the early part oft he 20th century frenchman Theodore Lefebvre shot large numbers of elephant with a 8mm lebel military rifle. That had far, far less energy transfer than a .500, but it dropped the game none-the-less due to shot placement.

 

Just the same as that I've seen people hit a fallow badly and it went limping off with a 30-06, and yet other people have dropped deer after deer with the smaller .243........ Accuracy is everything......surely?

 

This isn't an argument with you Darcy.

 

All Im saying is energy kills, accuracy second. I can have pin hole surgery in my heart/brain, it wont kill me but its bloody accurate. I stand on a land mine, Im dead instantly. Nothing to do with my vital organs within reason of course. But the sheer energy involved blows my bloody body to pieces.

 

As mentioned, Im not starting an argument on whats most important regarding the original OP, all I was initially saying is a bow, I think, is not as effective at killing as a bullet.

 

Otherwise we'd still be fighting wars with them

[J Darcy 5,871]

 

 

 

 

A bow and arrow, in its most simple of methods, or most technical, does not have the amount of energy transfer to kill. Everything dies quickly through transfer of energy. You can't argue against that.

 

The lion in question must of been a big unit to say the least, not to mention his hide... a arrow, whatever speed it is travelling does not transfer enough energy to cause enough damage internally. It's too clinical and clean. There is also no spread of energy, it would literally go in and out.

 

A bullet on the other hand breaks up on impact, (depending on the type of round used of course) and the impact is far more intense. We can all view this on the web with gun hoe yanks blasting various calibres and rounds at ballistic gels. The Lehigh 300 blackout round is a good example to search for. A bullet as we now it, but with a small indent at the tip, travelling at 2400 FPS from a decent bolt rifle would of took that lion much more humanly than any arrow. Not that I'm saying it should of been shot with anything.

 

The compound bow method of hunting is more to feed an urge of hunters to take the biggest of animals with the oldest method of weaponry. It's more statisfaction.

You know nothing about bows. They are not designed to kill with shock energy. Arrows can be used to take much bigger game than a thin skinned lion, eg eland, cape buffalo etc. Many of the lion bowkills I have seen on video have complete pass throughs, the heart and lungs being perforated. You cannot compare bullets and broadheads, they are two different animals.

Upon a shot from a bow it is expected for the animal to run for 15-20 seconds until the blood stops the heart/lungs working and the animal falls over in a faint through loss of blood/oxygen to the brain.

 

As in all shooting, it is all about shot placement. If you went out and shot a rabbit with a .22 air rifle but it got away injured, does that mean the weapon should be banned, or simply that you didn't aim correctly?

 

There are MILLIONS of bowhunters in the USA, if the arrow were not effective then bowhunting over there would have been stopped a long time ago.

 

I dont know nothing you are right, I dont hunt with any form of bow.

 

But if you read my post back you are actually just agreeing with me in yours..!? Your just saying what I said in a different way It does kill yes, i dont say it doesn't, but its doesn't kill AS instantly as a bullet. So, as what got us onto this subject, the bow was the wrong choice of weapon for that Lion.

 

Why do you think its was the right sort of weapon may I ask?

 

Yes, shot placement is a big factor... but energy transfer is what kills quicker.

 

There are millions of bow hunters in the US, again you are right, but that in fact says it all.

 

It's all about accuracy. Had the lion been hit correctly it would have been down and out before it knew what was happening.....

 

It's better an accurate bow shot than an inaccurate rifle shot.

 

Does a bullet in the lions guts kill faster than an arrow through the heart? Of course not. Bowhunting, in general, cannot be judged on one persons inaccuracy.

You can shoot a lion with a .750 elephant gun in the guts and he's going to get away into the bush injured.....so it doesn't matter about energy transfer if the ammunition is incorrectly placed.

 

What's more important? shot placement or energy transfer.....?? of course it's shot placement.! That's why people have dropped elephants , rhinos and hippos with a single arrow.

 

Likewise with a game rifle, shoot an elephant in the guts with a .750 and it's going to wave you goodbye, however, a smaller calibre such as .375 with much much less energy transfer will drop it in its tracked IF the bullet is placed correctly....

 

For example in the early part oft he 20th century frenchman Theodore Lefebvre shot large numbers of elephant with a 8mm lebel military rifle. That had far, far less energy transfer than a .500, but it dropped the game none-the-less due to shot placement.

 

Just the same as that I've seen people hit a fallow badly and it went limping off with a 30-06, and yet other people have dropped deer after deer with the smaller .243........ Accuracy is everything......surely?

 

 

 

All Im saying is energy kills, accuracy second.

 

 

If accuracy is second why can you kill a lion with a 30-06 in the heart but it will run away with a .500 in the guts?

 

Of course accuracy is the most important thing. The guys who shoot big bore rifles on large game know this. Above everything, accuracy, bullet placement is the most important criteria.

 

if we went out with the airguns and you took a .22 and I my .177, and I killed twice as much as you, even though we fired the same amount of shots, what would be the reason?

In all forms of shooting accuracy is the top priority.

[paulus 26]

 

 

 

 

 

A bow and arrow, in its most simple of methods, or most technical, does not have the amount of energy transfer to kill. Everything dies quickly through transfer of energy. You can't argue against that.

 

The lion in question must of been a big unit to say the least, not to mention his hide... a arrow, whatever speed it is travelling does not transfer enough energy to cause enough damage internally. It's too clinical and clean. There is also no spread of energy, it would literally go in and out.

 

A bullet on the other hand breaks up on impact, (depending on the type of round used of course) and the impact is far more intense. We can all view this on the web with gun hoe yanks blasting various calibres and rounds at ballistic gels. The Lehigh 300 blackout round is a good example to search for. A bullet as we now it, but with a small indent at the tip, travelling at 2400 FPS from a decent bolt rifle would of took that lion much more humanly than any arrow. Not that I'm saying it should of been shot with anything.

 

The compound bow method of hunting is more to feed an urge of hunters to take the biggest of animals with the oldest method of weaponry. It's more statisfaction.

You know nothing about bows. They are not designed to kill with shock energy. Arrows can be used to take much bigger game than a thin skinned lion, eg eland, cape buffalo etc. Many of the lion bowkills I have seen on video have complete pass throughs, the heart and lungs being perforated. You cannot compare bullets and broadheads, they are two different animals.

Upon a shot from a bow it is expected for the animal to run for 15-20 seconds until the blood stops the heart/lungs working and the animal falls over in a faint through loss of blood/oxygen to the brain.

 

As in all shooting, it is all about shot placement. If you went out and shot a rabbit with a .22 air rifle but it got away injured, does that mean the weapon should be banned, or simply that you didn't aim correctly?

 

There are MILLIONS of bowhunters in the USA, if the arrow were not effective then bowhunting over there would have been stopped a long time ago.

 

I dont know nothing you are right, I dont hunt with any form of bow.

 

But if you read my post back you are actually just agreeing with me in yours..!? Your just saying what I said in a different way It does kill yes, i dont say it doesn't, but its doesn't kill AS instantly as a bullet. So, as what got us onto this subject, the bow was the wrong choice of weapon for that Lion.

 

Why do you think its was the right sort of weapon may I ask?

 

Yes, shot placement is a big factor... but energy transfer is what kills quicker.

 

There are millions of bow hunters in the US, again you are right, but that in fact says it all.

 

It's all about accuracy. Had the lion been hit correctly it would have been down and out before it knew what was happening.....

 

It's better an accurate bow shot than an inaccurate rifle shot.

 

Does a bullet in the lions guts kill faster than an arrow through the heart? Of course not. Bowhunting, in general, cannot be judged on one persons inaccuracy.

You can shoot a lion with a .750 elephant gun in the guts and he's going to get away into the bush injured.....so it doesn't matter about energy transfer if the ammunition is incorrectly placed.

 

What's more important? shot placement or energy transfer.....?? of course it's shot placement.! That's why people have dropped elephants , rhinos and hippos with a single arrow.

 

Likewise with a game rifle, shoot an elephant in the guts with a .750 and it's going to wave you goodbye, however, a smaller calibre such as .375 with much much less energy transfer will drop it in its tracked IF the bullet is placed correctly....

 

For example in the early part oft he 20th century frenchman Theodore Lefebvre shot large numbers of elephant with a 8mm lebel military rifle. That had far, far less energy transfer than a .500, but it dropped the game none-the-less due to shot placement.

 

Just the same as that I've seen people hit a fallow badly and it went limping off with a 30-06, and yet other people have dropped deer after deer with the smaller .243........ Accuracy is everything......surely?

 

 

 

All Im saying is energy kills, accuracy second.

 

 

If accuracy is second why can you kill a lion with a 30-06 in the heart but it will run away with a .500 in the guts?

 

Of course accuracy is the most important thing. The guys who shoot big bore rifles on large game know this. Above everything, accuracy, bullet placement is the most important criteria.

 

if we went out with the airguns and you took a .22 and I my .177, and I killed twice as much as you, even though we fired the same amount of shots, what would be the reason?

In all forms of shooting accuracy is the top priority.

 

only takes 3flbs to kill a rabbit with a head shot so it would seem accuracy does over rule energy unless your equipping a large fighting force were all are at different levels of accuracy. then energy is used to bridge the lack of accuracy. miss a mans head and hit him in the arm and you will only disable him but use a round that will take his arm off then even if shock does not kill him he will not be back in the fight any time soon.