I was thinking the other day, and noticed I've only got selfbows as far as distance weapons go. My brother owns a few rifles, but a Cabela's Archery catalouge was sitting on the table and I started thinking: which is better?
I looked through the catalouge and determined that a decent quality compound, arrows, whole enchalada, would cost about $650. A .30-30 sots only about $300, a .30-06 about $400. However, I started thinking about their uses.
In PA, archers get about two+ months of hunting, where as rifle hunters, except flintlocks, only get a week. Also, shooting a squirrle with a blunt arrow is a fine meat-making idea with a compound, where as a .30-06 would leave about four hairs and some smoke. Obvisouly, the compound would have more uses.
Both are relatively easy to shoot, but the rifle has about a 100 yard range with a scope, about 70 open sighted. An average compound has about a 60-70 yard accurate range. 60 is still about the logest shot evre offered around here in the woods, so they're about even.
Ammunition for the rifle can't be reused, so practice becomes expensive.
Compounds can be used in "deer management" programs in suburbs, where rifles can't.
Many newer compounds are more quiet than older ones, so they function more like recurves, which is better for those who are "gun shy" or have sensitive hearing.
Anyway. Far from the original idea that brought this u[, I began wodnering if the compound bow has replaced the rifle in terms of usefulness. Any thoughts? I don't own either, so I could be just blwoing smoke. I know most of you own both, so I'd like to see what you all think about it?