You might be interested in the responses to this post with a shoutout to u/The_Alaskan. You also might be interested in This Post which goes into the decline of the longbow and the attitude towards guns in late 16th century england. While standing shoulder to shoulder in tight formations and delivering massed volleys had its uses, contemporaries felt early firearms were most effective in sieges or small skirmishes on broken terrain, essentially anywhere that lots of cover was available. An arquebusier could shoot from cover far more easily than an archer could and then conceal himself during his lengthy reloading process. Similarly obstacles such as bushes, ditches, or fallen trees could make it very difficult for the enemy to quickly close to melee. At ranges of 50 yards or closer, where skirmish fighting usually took place, even a smoothbore firearm could be very accurate against a single target, especially if it was loaded with a handful of small pistol bullets or with buckshot. The high velocity and energy of a bullet made it less likely to be deflected by leaves or branches and more likely to maim or kill outright than an arrow (even moreso at extremely close ranges). The high velocity also meant that someone with a gun didn't have to worry as much about estimating range precisely and made it easier to hit a moving target (at farther ranges, an arrow shot by a bow traveled slowly enough that a person might even have time to notice it and step out of the way).

Firearms certainly offered a lot of military advantages, but determining whether they were a decisive one or attributing the results of specific battles to them is really tricky. Armor and weapons technology was still just one of many factors that affected the outcome of wars or battles alongside logistics, numbers, knowledge of terrain, or even simply skill and courage. Often in military history, even if a gap in weapons technology does occur it typically doesn't last long before the other side develops tactics to counter it or adopts the technology themselves.

In fact, many early Spanish expeditions brought with them very few guns in the first place. Cortes and Pizarro for example only brought about a dozen arquebuses each, and they were the rare success stories among spanish conquistadors. While Cortes could ask his native allies to make copper crossbow bolts, firearms were only useful as long as he still had bullets and powder. Matchlock guns in particular seem to have less popular in north america. The faint glow and smoke of a match could sometimes A watchman with a matchlock would need to burn through huge quantities of matchcord among other supplies if he wanted to keep his weapon ready at all times. A compromise was to instead for groups of soldiers to carry a piece of burning wood or coals with them, but this would result in the added inconvenience of musketeers having to gather around the fire lighting their matches in the middle of a sudden attack. Though many matchlocks were brought by the early new england colonists the demand for wheellocks, snaphaunces, and other self-igniting weapons quickly rose. In 1624-1625, a census of arms in virginia recorded that already out of more than a thousand firearms only 47 were matchlocks, even though it was still the most common type of firearm in europe and elsewhere in the world. Demand for guns and powder grew among native americans as well, and as time went on there was typically no shortage of traders or smugglers willing to supply them. By the second half of the 17th century native American tribes on the east coast were becoming pretty well armed, and some in turn began trading guns and powder to other tribes farther west.