Besides, this is D&D, home of the crazy and far out there rules! I'm letting it fly, cause it's awesome.
And in mine, Bows are still viable, due to better damage. Ah, you're wondering what I mean? Consider: bows can add Str to damage (and Dex, if you're sneaky). Guns don't add crap to damage (though, I'd totally allow Dex through the same tricks as bows can get it). Bows are still out damaging guns. Guns should have the advantage of higher base dice and badassery (which they totally do). Also, guns take TWO feats to get to free action reloads. Bows do it all the time forever.I would say that my rules replace cross bows, but normal bows are still viable since reloading them is always a free action, and reloading a gun never is! I actually developed the rifle for a revolutionary war game to make muskets viable vs. Indian bows and arrows. I needed them to be actually effective. The idea is to match the effectiveness of a bow in a gameplay perspective.
God love the New York Reload, god love it. My favorite was the following suggestion from a buddy of mine for high-level hilarity: Get Rapid Shot, Multishot, and the Improved version of both of those. Dual-wield revolvers. Burn your ENTIRE clip in each one every round. New York Reload. Do until everything's dead. It's basically lighting your money on fire, but it's so awesome no one cares (also, it's questionable as to the interactions here, but who cares, it's awesome).Firing a pistol, dropping it, and free-drawing a second pistol is totally bad ass though. It would be even more bad ass if it dealt 2d6 damage. : ) Ditto for dual-wielding revolvers.
Also, imagine a Kensai using a Bolt-Action or an LDR.
So far, I'm quite pleased with these rules. Should damage actually prove to be too low, I'll boost it in play, though I doubt that'll prove needed. In case though, I'll change it.