Boynton doesn’t mince his words. Page 113:
“One of the reasons that firearms superseded bows, it is suggested, is that they could be mastered in a shorter time. Such an argument runs wholly counter to the growing professionalisation of military affairs. Training, in particular, was becoming ever more comprehensive and the specious argument that firearms required less, not more, training, bears all the marks of a propagandist’s sophistry. No contrast could be more pointed between the old assumption that levies were briefly trained en route for battle, and that implicit in the whole conception of the trained bands, that a certain minimum of discipline and instruction were essential.”
The great emphasis placed on sufficiently training shot is so clear that anyone seriously asserting that muskets replaced bows because the muskets could be passed out to a great untrained rabble clearly has not done their research.