Removed by mod

A firearm, easily. I’ve fired both and bows require much more strength even if it’s a compound bow. On top of that aiming an arrow is much less intuitive than using even iron sights on a gun. Not to mention you can get rounds off much faster on a bolt action gun than a bow. Additionally I think you’re probably more likely to hurt yourself with a bow by smacking your arm than with a gun, assuming you get basic training for both

Guns. The advent of firearms revolutionized warfare to the extent that no other military arms mattered, and no other training mattered.

Before firearms were adopted, it would take a good ten to twenty years to raise a standing army, and retinues would still need a few months of training to not be slaughtered within the first battle. With firearms you just need a week or two and any peasant with two arms became an effective soldier.

Contrasting this, bowmen weren’t peasants. They did not return to their family when there wasn’t war. They were trained from around the age of seven to around the age of 15, and after this would be a professional soldier until they retired or died; training every single day (except Sundays or Saturdays depending on religion). They were paid to be bowmen, nothing else. Even if a peasant could use a bow, say if they were a hunter, they would never qualify for military service. Its that big of a difference in skill.

As to their differences in effect, range and force.

The weakest powder musket equals a ~80lbs draw war bow. Both can pierce plate armor on a good day, but the former can do so from a longer distance and again with decades less training. As guns get more advanced, their range and penetration increases massively, whereas most archers will be unable to draw a 120lbs or higher bow, meaning there is a maximum distance and effectiveness of bows that is almost comically lower than weapons.

To keep with freedom units, a deadly long range bow shot tops out at around a quarter mile with a high draw weight long bow. That’s about the absolute max, assuming the victim is wearing no armor. The current record for a sniper with a gun is around 1.5 miles, with the target wearing body armor.

I shoot as a hobby and I’ve dabbled with archery

Bows take strength to use and are also harder to be consistent with. The way you nock the arrow on the string, keeping constant pull while aiming and inconsistencies in the arrows all play a part. Rifles aren’t nearly as bad as long as you have good fundementals.

Ballistics are a big deal with ranged weapons. Arrows don’t go very far or very fast so you really need to know how the arrow will arc and account for that as you aim. The farther the shot the more wind, drop etc will have to be factored into your aim. Elevation matters too if you’re on a hill or in a tree stand or something.

I’m going to make up a number but let’s say 50 yards would be a tough shot for a bow to hit something consistently. For a rifle that is no problem and most rifle bullets’ paths won’t start to arc or get blown by wind significantly until it has travelled several hundred yards.

I find that long range shooting with a bolt action “feels” roughly the same as shooting archery. You really need to focus and make sure you’re doing everything right for good results. But that also makes it that much more satisfying when you do well!

I’ve shot both, but don’t consider myself an expert by any means. For pure “ease”, I would say a firearm. If you can rest the gun on a table or tripod, even more so. Smaller firearms, like handguns, would be a “little” more difficult to aim.

Bows, on the other hand, would depend on the type. Recurve bows will usually have a lighter draw weight and harder to aim since you’re holding back the entire weight of the bow the entire time. Compound bows are my preferred type. You can more easily work a heavier draw because the bow kinda “locks” into place at full draw, requiring MUCH less effort to keep it there. My compound bow has a sight on it and I found shooting it a much more enjoyable and consistent experience than that of my wife’s recurve.

I got kinda rambling about it, but for pure “ease”, a firearm is my choice. I find a bow to be a more satisfying experience, however.

Bows take years to learn and a lifetime to master. Crossbows were a military revolution simply because they were easy to learn. In that sense, crossbows and firearms are very similar, but depending on your range you’ve got more dropoff in accuracy with xbows due to gravity.

Modern guns a extremely precisely engineered devices that are incredibly easy to use, for better or worse. I know modern sporting bows are also but it’s no contest in my opinion.

I’ve shot both, bows as a complete amateur and relatively competent with a rifle. There is no question that a modern gun is way easier to pick up as an amateur and hit what you want to hit and I cannot possibly believe there are anything other than extremely niche uses where a bow is superior.

There’s a reason guns were called the great equalizer.

Ask yourself a question, have you ever heard of a toddler accidentally shooting someone with a bow? Firing a gun is so easy that you have to keep them away from babies or the babies are likely to kill themselves.

Bows are a little more intuitive I think, but it’s also more physical. Obviously depends on the bow.

Shooting guns is trickier to pick up I think. If you’re shooting paper, it can be hard to see where you’re striking and how you need to adjust when you’re new. The flinch instinct is a big one to overcome. And, of course, if you’re shooting a handgun you’re going to feel less stable than a bow or rifle will.

Note: I’m not a marksman or hunter or anything, I just like shooting stuff when I can

Idk in practice yeah shooting guns is going to be easier. But honestly it’s not hard to learn how to shoot a bow either. I’m not saying you’ll shoot great, but still.

Ultimately, you’re going to suck with both for a bit. But you’ll improve with a gun faster. Really though people are making basic target archery out to be harder than it is, modern bows are very good. You’re not an English longbowman, you’re shooting a 21st century bow with a draw weight you can handle.

I have little experience but have fired each and your instincts are right. gun much easier. now because my experience is low maybe large kickback firearms are worse than bows but I went regularly to an archery range but only for like some months and I can say I never got that good with hitting close to a bullseye but with a rifle it was not hard to get better than that the first session. Your example though is video games so im not sure if run and gun might be different. I mean when you are not moving and aiming the sites work pretty well (presumably if calibrated right but I have never done that and assumed whoever did it did a good job) but like if your running around shooting things then I dunno maybe the bow could be better but I doubt it.

Of all the weapons in the vast Soviet arsenal nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947, more commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov.

It’s the world’s most popular assault rifle, a weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple nine pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood, it doesn’t break, jam, or overheat. It will shoot whether it’s covered in mud or filled with sand.

It’s so easy even a child can use it, and they do.

The Soviets put the gun on a coin, Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people’s greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure; no one was lining up to buy their cars.

~ Lord of War

I’ve shot both and guns are much easier to both shoot and aim. A single action revolver is a lot easier to shoot than most people think. It takes barely any pressure on the trigger, so aiming is a lot more accurate. The bigger the gun, the easier it is to aim (and the more accurate it will be, especially if the barrel is rifled). Also rapid fire is much easier than a bow. There’s a reason there are no mass murderers using bows.

That being said, bows are way easier to make. You can make a decent enough bow and arrows with a dead chicken, a sharp rock, and a few nice sticks. Making a gun requires some pretty complex knowledge of both metalwork and chemistry. You also need a source of immense heat, so building at least a small forge is required.

The act of using a prepped weapon? The gun for sure.

The complexity of the mechanical nature and upkeep? Bow far simpler.

If you were to just hand a prepped weapon to someone and tell them to shoot a target the gun user would be far more likely to succeed first.

If you expected someone to figure out how to prep a weapon (stringing the bow vs loading a mag) I think people would intuitively understand how to prepare the bow for use, but the specific motions and buttons for guns might stump some people.

Now I really want to find a bunch of people who have somehow never seen or heard of either and see which one they intuitively understand easier.

100% firearms. They are so easy that literally (sadly) toddlers have used them and killed with them. A bow takes some practice and skill, almost all basic guns you can use and hit close by targets with, after like 5 minutes of practice.