Hunting Lions can be hazardous to your Health!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

I'm sure they'd love to hunt you too Skybird...

Might be difficult. I use a bow. When I strike them, they even will not know I am near

[Marcantilan]

Yep, I was with the lion too...

IMPORTANT ADVICE FOR KITTY (OR SIMBA OR WHATEVER YOU ARE CALLED): Next time, aim lower...

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Might be difficult. I use a bow. When I strike them, they even will not know I am near

Maybe, but if you use a bow you've been within rifle range for a mile or so already. Also unless you're a middle earth elf a bow is pretty much a single shot weapon. Like the lion in that video you may have gotten one of them but the others would have blasted you.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

they weren't game wardens... at least it doesn't look like they were...

they looked like pure idiots to me...

i'm surprised they didn't wind up shooting holes in each other...

following a wounded animal like that, especially a species that hunts
in packs... they couldn't see that they were walking into a trap... lucky
they weren't tracking female lions, or they would've definitely been
attacked from either or both of their flanks... and we'd have really seen
a gory movie...

what's next on these guys' schedule... hunting great whites off the reef...
i'd like to see that video when the sharks are done with em...


hey, anyone know what caliber weapons they were using... doesn't look like
what they had would've been my first choice for putting down an addrenaline
soaked, charging big cat...


--Mike

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe, but if you use a bow you've been within rifle range for a mile or so already. Also unless you're a middle earth elf a bow is pretty much a single shot weapon. Like the lion in that video you may have gotten one of them but the others would have blasted you.

That's when the Ninja-parts comes into play. And at close range, skilled usage of a sword beats a hunting rifle hands down - it simply is much faster to handle (not talking of claymores or something like that).

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

have you ever looked into the eyes of the big cat as it bore down on you...

swords, guns, or atomic bombs would'nt help some people...

and ninjas scream as loud as the next guy when the jaws of death clamp down around
their behinds...

--Mike

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That's when the Ninja-parts comes into play. And at close range, skilled usage of a sword beats a hunting rifle hands down - it simply is much faster to handle (not talking of claymores or something like that).

Yeah that's why swords are the popular weapon of choice ever since the invention of firearms.

But i thought we were talking about Bow and arrows?

[aaken]

have you ever looked into the eyes of the big cat as it bore down on you...

swords, guns, or atomic bombs would'nt help some people...

Never had the chance (or the guts) to hunt lions but once, on a hunting trip in central-north Nigeria, we got charged by an elephant. One experience I'll never forget.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That's when the Ninja-parts comes into play. And at close range, skilled usage of a sword beats a hunting rifle hands down - it simply is much faster to handle (not talking of claymores or something like that).

Skybirds fantasy land. Lets see if you can get me or someone with that bow! You'll never hear the first round hit you from any rifle since if you hear it - it already missed!

-S

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah that's why swords are the popular weapon of choice ever since the invention of firearms.

But i thought we were talking about Bow and arrows?

An arrow is a sword with wings! The airforce of what usually hacks and stabs.

Originally Posted by Subman

Skybirds fantasy land. Lets see if you can get me or someone with that bow!

If you come closer than let's say 100-120m, than in earlier years, when I practiced regularly, you would have been mine with most shots, promised. I haven't done that for years now. I used a special Korean compound bow, a handmade special work of which only some 40 had been built by the master who created it. Buying it made me a poor man back then. It did acchieve a somewhat very good compromise between the small size of a mongolian bow with the enormous compression-power (don't know if that is the ro crrect english word) of British Longbows and Japanese warbows (does not mean it is as stgorng as these). Depending on the weight of the arrow and the pulling power of the shooter, that beast has a precision-shot-range of around 250m. For comparison, sporting events are done at varying distances of 40-90m, and mediaval English Longbows were built with more than 100lb pulling strength and a range of 350m, roughly. An non-shooter could not pull the string of such a monster. Archers were trained in ancient times sicne their childhood to build the needed muscles for that. I couldn't shoot precisely that far, but was able to pull it to acchieve a 200m-range. Precision shooting for me ended somewhere around the 100-120m mark. That means I am not strong enough to use this bow to it's full potential. I can use around 60-70% of it. the strongest bows that are built in the present have a pulling strength of around 200lb maximum. Shooters able to use them are very rare.

If you think a good bow is inferior to a hunting gun, then you are totally wrong, believe me

Consider a shooter using such a weapon against you, and he is trying to hide and give you no target and uses sniper tactics of moving and approaching - then you have an extremely serious problem with that guy, no matter if you have long range hunting rifles or automatic weapons for yourself or not. If that guy also has a sword and is skilled in using it, then you are almost dead if you ever manage to approach his hidden position to be withion sword-striking range.

I trained archery and sword fighting and Martial Arts, and seriously so, but no Ninja-stuff and camouflage games. I have that Korean special compound bow (decinstructable into three parts (without metal, airport security would hate it), another ordinary sport bow, two wooden Katanas, one industrially-manufactured Katana, and an original ancient Katana (late 16th century). If I would sell that stuff, I would be able to buy myself a luxury car, a bigger appartment, or even a small house. :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

An arrow is a sword with wings! The airforce of what usually hacks and stabs.

If you come closer than let's say 100-120m, than in earlier years, when I practiced regularly, you would have been mine with most shots, promised. I haven't done that for years now. I used a special Korean compound bow, a handmade special work of which only some 40 had been built by the master who created it. Buying it made me a poor man back then. It did acchieve a somewhat very good compromise between the small size of a mongolian bow with the enormous compression-power (don't know if that is the ro crrect english word) of British Longbows and Japanese warbows (does not mean it is as stgorng as these). Depending on the weight of the arrow and the pulling power of the shooter, that beast has a precision-shot-range of around 250m. For comparison, sporting events are done at varying distances of 40-90m, and mediaval English Longbows were built with more than 100lb pulling strength and a range of 350m, roughly. An non-shooter could not pull the string of such a monster. Archers were trained in ancient times sicne their childhood to build the needed muscles for that. I couldn't shoot precisely that far, but was able to pull it to acchieve a 200m-range. Precision shooting for me ended somewhere around the 100-120m mark. That means I am not strong enough to use this bow to it's full potential. I can use around 60-70% of it. the strongest bows that are built in the present have a pulling strength of around 200lb maximum. Shooters able to use them are very rare.

If you think a good bow is inferior to a hunting gun, then you are totally wrong, believe me

Consider a shooter using such a weapon against you, and he is trying to hide and give you no target and uses sniper tactics of moving and approaching - then you have an extremely serious problem with that guy, no matter if you have long range hunting rifles or automatic weapons for yourself or not. If that guy also has a sword and is skilled in using it, then you are almost dead if you ever manage to approach his hidden position to be withion sword-striking range.

I trained archery and sword fighting and Martial Arts, and seriously so, but no Ninja-stuff and camouflage games. I have that Korean special compound bow (decinstructable into three parts (without metal, airport security would hate it), another ordinary sport bow, two wooden Katanas, one industrially-manufactured Katana, and an original ancient Katana (late 16th century). If I would sell that stuff, I would be able to buy myself a luxury car, a bigger appartment, or even a small house. :rotfl:

Bow speed means I can step out of the way of your ranged shot. The way the English used to get around this and kill their enemy was to unleash a hail storm of arrows at the exact same time so that there was no way for the enemy to run.
can't hit you with at least 1 round from 500 meters or less, I deserve to be shot!
Now if I take a 30 round clip, and can't hit you from 500 meters or less, I deserve to be shot.

PS. THe time it takes you to recoil and strike with a sword, I can train on you and shoot you mutiple times practically tearing your body in half before you even have the chance to strike - the very reason swords were discarded after the ball and muskett moved technologically to automatics. The point is - your ancient sword is of no use in a modern world except on an equally armed or unarmed opponent. Everything else is dream world.

[TteFAboB]

He who spots first, and gains the advantage of possibly attacking first, wins.

All the rest is accessory.

I have a 30 round clip, I have ninja poisoned throwing stars, I have a Tazer, I have nun-chakus, I have an infra-red scope, I have booby-traps set-up, I have a flamethrower, I have Jedi Mind Trick.

Carry on to infinity.

See first, hit first, win.

[Skybird]

Subman,

You oversee that an archer would be stupid to give you a target to aim at. You also cannot evade an incoming arrow - if you do not see it, do not look out at it. Spotting a flying arrow before the background of trees is extrmeely difficult, btw. Depending on arrow and bow, these things nevertheless could travel fast, btw. An archer that anticipates your reaction if you see the arrow, eventually gets you running into it right on.

You are right about the rain of arrows from Longbows (which are even not the record holders concerning range, the widest shots possible is with a certain type of Turkish bow, the range is around 900m, believe it or not, it's true). However, precision shooting is possible at ranges up to 200m, if the archers is capable to handle his bow, and the bow is an accordingly good one. there are bows for sports, range-records, precision shooting, warbows. they all are differently balanced concerning the different qualities that decide how a shot comes off. the mongoles were trained in shooting precisely through the viewing slots of helmets while sitting on a moving horse themselves. Japanese used to use rain of arrows before attacking villages, to make the residents flee, and precision fire at ranges of around 30-35m - but Samurai archers were capable to deliver precision fire at ranges in excess of 250m - I think that is the record for precision fire (if they did that during the hectic of a battle is something different). Zen-archery, on the other hand, has different aims and goals, and is done at 25, 35 and sometimes 60m (but Kyudu is not the same as Kyuyutsu, so do not judge Samuraio war-archery on the ground of Zen-archery...)

In close quarter combat with a rifle, let's say in a very small room, or a house, you would have no real chance against a skilled sword fighter. I know that that hurts your ego, but when you enter a sword fighter's effective fighting range, and he is as strong as you, and skilled in his weapon,then he handles less weapon weight than you with your rifle, and in a more dedicated way, adding to the speed of that weapon. you know that old children play: one claps in his hand, the other has to try to bring his hand between the clapper's hands, prventing them to clap? With my hands shoulder-wide apart I was not able to clap my hands before my teacher has drawn his sword from his side and touched my forehead with it from around 1 m away. You would depend on the sword-fighter stepping into your established fire line, of taking on him in limited space and blocked viewing conditions. you need more room than he does. He is more used to move agile and quickly, than a gun-shooter is. He will move doifefrently, than you do.

It's much like tanks: donT send them into forests, keep them in the open where they can see wide and clear and a target cannot hide. It is much the same with a duel "gun versus sword". Do not expect an archer or a sword-carrier fighting in the same way as if he would have a rifle like yourself. Think of it as a military sniper, well-camouflaged. Woiuld you asusme he is easy fodder for you, becasue he is not armed with a precision rifle, but a crossbow? You would be a fool to think so.

500m with a rifle without scope I would imagine to be difficult, btw. But I never shot with a rifle, only with the H&K USP of my father, and his S&W Magnum pistol. I simply do not like firearms. Loud, dirty, and do not educate the user to the degree bows and swords do, if you want to become competent with them.

[SUBMAN1]

: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

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Loud, dirty, and do not educate the user to the degree bows and swords do, if you want to become competent with them.

Define competent. To me it's dropping you long before you figure you even have to camoflage yourself and a scope is just an accessory to a firearm just the same as string silencers, sights and counterweights are accessories to the bow.

As for close quarters combat, well the situation is everything. If the gunman has the weapon already aimed in your direction, his finger on the trigger and a round in the chamber, the sword will not likely win. The sword, regardless of how fast it is swung is not faster than a bullet or load of buckshot. On the other hand if the gunman has his weapon slung and unloaded (your hand clapping scenario) then yes the swordsman has the advantage.

Even then however this scenario assumes a few things. First, the swordsman has above average abilities, second the gunman doesn't have the modern version of the sword, a bayonet mounted and finally and most importantly, the gunman is a clueless idiot who would put himself in a stituation where he is unprepared to fight.

Regarding bows versus firearms, again relative competancy is key. While an archer with a lifetime of training might be able to stretch his effective range out to 250m against single targets it takes comparatively little training for a person to be just as effective with a suitable firearm at that range. A gunman with the same amount of competancy with firearms as your Samurai archer has with his bow will have the advantage.

Bottom line here is that the use of stealth and suprise can overcome the inherent limitations of ancient weapons like the bow and sword but without them, well, there's a reason why firearms are supreme on the modern battlefield and swords and bows have become museum pieces.