:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Oh my gosh! Don't make me laugh so hard that I start spewing tea all over the place! I can't read this thread anymore because my stomach is going to rip apart from laughing!
A 16" rifle is easier to manuaver than a 30" sword is a small enviro, and a hell of a lot more effective. I remember reading aco**** of Samurai in close quarters such as this and their difficulty in attacking in confined quarters like that.
By the way, sign up and help out the US Military since according to you, we should re-outfit all our Marines doing house to house in Iraq since they would be way more effective with a sword instead of a bullet. Maybe let them change out their rifle for a bow too, no? Crap! We can take down all those insurgents this way and they won't know what hit em! And that is considering you are not using a handgun!!!
Anyway, want to know the outcome of rifles in the woods vs bow and arrows? Go ask your local Native American. I'm sure he can set your record straight, regardless how he outnumbered the white man when the battles were waged! I think Custard is the only idiot to lose to them, and that was purely by his stupid arrogance.
Lets put it this way, one rifles bullet = way more damage than an arrow that peirces straight, especially the way a 5.56 explodes when hitting flesh from a 14.5" barrel (min length for the phenominon to occur) or longer (Why do they even bother making 12" M4's? Might as well have a .22). It is easier to train and fire a rifle. Firing more than one shot is near instant. Someone with a rifle can hide as easily as someone with a bow. Need I go on? Quit watching too many Rambo movies.
-S
__________________
 
|