The figures that give around 20% at 300 yards are based on volley fire on a target representing a whole enemy line. It's not like you would get 20% chance to hit a single man at 300 yards. Moreover since you wanted to stress the difference between actual battle accuracy and "technical" accuracy, you wouldn't pick a large target to check actual accuracy... Indeed, in a battle, as you admitted yourself, you will most probably not see as well after your first shot, and therefore your accuracy will decrease, so firing at 300 yards is clearly not realistic, not even at 200 yards.
I said that with modern training, a soldier with a musket could get into a man's chest by 90 meters, and into the infantry / cavalry line at 350 meters (in theory)..
In France, sports are held on shooting from authentic muskets for 50-200 meters: http://www.svartkrutt.net/articles/vis.php?id=45
Regarding your comparison with bows, range is certainly not the main reason for which muskets were used, especially if we look at the actual accuracy in battle, which was more than very low as I already said. The reason is that muskets are much easier to use than bows, you don't have to be very well trained to use a musket. If you look at your own figures in one experiment "well trained" soldiers would put 53% of bullets on the regiment-sized target at 100 yards while ordinary soldiers would put 40. So one has to wonder whether it's worth the time and money to train soldiers and the answer is clearly no, except for a few elite troops.
You are a strange person, do you understand this?
In the same experience, "ordinary soldiers" have 23% hits per 274 meters per infantry / cavalry line! French soldiers have 20% of hits on 300 meters in the target 1,75х3 meters! And you're talking about poor accuracy at long distances?!
No bow will let the arrow go that far, let alone get into the infantry / cavalry line and cause deadly wounds.
As can be seen from the video, the maximum range of an arrow shot from a 120 pound bow is 220 yards.
On this video, a 110 pound bow hardly penetrates the skin from a close distance.
Longbows had good range and could fire much quicker. I'm pretty sure that longbows would have been deadly against an infantry regiment. The problem was that using bows required much more training, and also they didn't had the same kind of melee defense, especially against cavalry.
You are wrong: https://bowvsmusket.com/
Musketeers always broke archers.
Archers were not afraid of cavalry.
Arrows were used efficiently by Cossacks during the Napoleonic Wars: https://www.rbth.com/arts/2014/07/29/how_russias_steppe_warriors_took_on_napoleons_armies_37029
550 yards ?? 8 generals under Borodino? This is a joke?! Are there any scientific materials confirming these legends and myths? What historical sources did the author of this article use ??
I laugh to tears ..