I watched an episode of Deadliest warrior today (apache vs gladiator), and they were discussing whether the sling or the bow was more effective.  They settled on the bow.  Which do you think is the better weapon?

The bow is generally more accurate, although a skilled slinger can have the accuracy of an archer.  The sling has a longer range (generally) and more force per projectile.  Both weapons cause terrific wounds, although the sling doesn't rely as much on accuracy to achieve a mortal or at least incapacitating wound.  For instance, an arrow through the arm is painful, but a trained warrior can continue to fight (unless the arrow hits an artery).  A stone from a sling to the arm will render the arm useless, and may incapacitate the warrior from the pain.  This sort of wound will likely call for an amputation.  The arrow wound is more likely to cause an infection, though, unless the bone fragments from the sling wound penetrate the skin.  Also, an arrow is not going to penetrate armor or a shield, unless the arrow somehow hits a weak spot in the armor (point of overlap in the plates).  A stone from a sling can penetrate nearly all types of armor, depending on whether or not it is a direct hit, and is known to go through shields. Furthermore, when an archer is out of arrows, he's out.  His bow is essentially useless, unless he can somehow scavenge more.  If a slinger runs out of prepared ammunition, he can always pick up a rock.  

I would say the sling is the superior weapon on the battlefield, although it is far closer in a one on one situation.  Overall, I am going to have to go with the sling.

i would go with the bow too, because it can be used in a tight group, and actually, me2, the english longbows, and even roman bows could easily go through a head, and plains indians bows went clear through buffalo from 10 yards, so , actually, the modern bow just has more bells and whistles to make them seem amazing, it is just ike fishing. i can happily catch a cooer ful of fish with worms, and the guy next to me is fiddling with his powerbait and super strike fancy shmancy lures, ike the od saying goes, peope design fishing lures to catch fishermen, not fish.

History is on the side of the archers. Generals tend to pick the weapons and tactics that win battles and archers survived as viable battlefield forces much lomnger than slingers.

Slingers may have outranged archers in ancient times but not in more recent history. Bows are easier to aim and are more accurate. Arrow wounds are more likely to be fatal than contusions from slingstones. Bows are easier to shoot from behind cover and companies of archers can generally stand closer together to provide more concentrated fire.

Slings have the big advantage that they are much easier and cheaper to produce. Hence in times when the average person's wealth was infinitesmal compared with what we have today a sling was an affordable weapon; easy to make, compact and using cheap expendible ammunition. Slings were the common man's weapon but armies are supplied by the wealthy.

I agree with Aussie for all the reasons he stated.

Unlike questions such as, "Who would win in a fight X vs Y" This type of question already has a definitive answer. Progress and expansion favors the victor and the victor is always at least partially a result of having the best weaponry. History acts as something like a very long term controlled experiment.

If bows eventually replaced slings it is because they had a significant advantage. Simple as that. Had the advantages of sling been greater than those of a bow then we would be telling our kids bed time stories of Robin Hood and his merry slingers.

Some things to point out though. War bows were not necessarily chosen because they were easier to learn. In fact shooting a heavy war bow takes a ton of practice and muscle conditioning which is why every English man of a certain age was required to practice regularly with them. It is true that slings are far more difficult to gain pin point accuracy with but for battles pinpoint accuracy is not required. All you have to do is lob it in the general direction so in reality the war bow probably took more preparation and muscle conditioning to use than the sling if all we are talking about is firing en masse.

Bows and arrows took longer to craft, were much more expensive, were most subject to inclement weather conditions, took up more space and weighed more and arguably took longer to learn how to use proficiently in a battle situation (at least when speaking of heavy war bows.) Yet they still won out over slings. That, more than anything else, shows you just how much more the advantage must have been in real world conditions.

As Knaight wrote,training time is overlooked,as bows usually require much less training for an absolute recruit than to get him to sling proficiently.Most factions,kingdoms etc. didn't have a full time army all the time,because it wasn't necessary,and would've been too expensive to keep thousands of soldiers,feed them ,while their farting at the garrison during peacetime.So instead they recruit most of the forces if they were attacked or the ruler was bored and decided to start a killing spree somewhere.So it was much more advantageous to order 2000 bows and 50.000 arrows and keep them in a shed,and when needed average folks or mercenaries recruited ,and after a few days,weeks of training,they could be sent to kill their brothers on the other side,than train 2000 slingers for a year,or two and keep them ready for maybe years.The wages,feeding costs for keeping units ready,would have been much more than the price of the bows and arrows issued to them.I'm sure that a 100 bowman would defeat a 100 musketeers no problem,but as a musketeer could be transformed from common folk even in a few hours of demonstration and training,the bowmen would need at least a few weeks to get to a level of proficiency.As we know it,during wartime,an afternoon or a week later is a BIG difference.Also let's not forget,that back in the days of slingers and bowmen the average peasant  plowing with a horse or ox could produce maybe 2-3 times the food he and his family needed unlike today when machines allow for one farmer to feed hundreds of people who can go to war for example.So feeding highly trained slingers at the ready would've been much expensive than giving peasants a bow to train today,and send them tomorrow and paying a few craftsmen to make bows and arrows during peacetime.I agree with the most things written above,but i strongly disagree with Sons of Benjamin's statement that slings could penetrate most armor.A slingstone to a helmet would still make you dizzy but no penetration...

the real answer is both. archers would be ideal for infantry support and slingers would be a perfect skirmish unit. a unit that never runs out of ammo and never lets you close the gap. that would be nightmarish. there's also the factor of economics which is obviously in favor of the sling. for the same money one could arm 5000 slingers that they could arm 200 archers. it's kind of like asking which is better a back hoe or a bull dozer. it depends on the situation and the better answer is both.

I disagree, the practical use of the sling on the battlefield didn´t die out for nothing, given the choice between the two I´d vote bow. Also for non-battle function such as hunting.

Only for recreational use (and that´s the only use I have for either), making equipment and shooting for fun, I´d choose the sling.

I think the bow is just a better weapon.