So, the rules do not really specify the accuracy for ranged weapons, but then, they assume one, most of the time, and it is an argument to make that the contrast between the section titled "Light melee weapons, one-handed and two-handed" and eg. inappropriate sizing rules that speak of just "Measuring the effort required to use a weapon (whether it is designated as a light weapon, one-handed or two-handed for a particular wearer)" implies that In addition to specific rules regarding the control of melee weapons, there must also be identical categories for ranged weapons.
This argument is not very strong and faces its own problems (can I use two arcs in length?), But it is allowed in RAW – nothing even says explicitly that weapons ranged do not having a left hand and therefore a GM who would have decided that the ranged weapons would have a hand equal to that used to handle them would not have violated the RAW. Note that & # 39; does not violate the RAW & # 39; and that & # 39; is mandated by the RAW & # 39; are two very different proposals, and that a GM could avail himself of such a decision be the RAW rather than to be coherent with the RAW, they are clearly mistaken.
Another argument, slightly more strongly based on the rules, can be advanced: remote weapons make have a left hand, because a lot of rules imply that all the weapons must be manageable, but they have a maneuverability that is not "light", "one-handed" or "two-handed", as these are reserved for melee weapons (except when they are not, as with but not all thrown weapons). It is both consistent with RAW and works pretty well in the game, except that it makes weapons at a distance of inappropriate size completely useless regardless of the degree of size change, unless these weapons are also melee weapons, in which case the size penalties operate normally. In addition to the size problems, I think it's the best decision to make, and it's also what I do most of the time in my games (even if the rules of the house are outside the scope of this question).
An argument with a pretty strong rule base can be made that ranged weapons to have no grip, which seems to be the argument that you advocate, although it may seem to avoid the issue of expanding the rules relating to the handing over of weapons, it is the biggest problem for the game. If ranged weapons have no maneuverability, rather than normal or light handling, one hand or both hands, the improper size cutting mechanism does not apply to ranged weapons and any character, regardless of size, can use a colossal long bow, colossal two-armed slings, or colossal shuriken swarms.
Weapons of inappropriate size are generally worse than those of appropriate size, and the -2 penalty to hit for each size difference applies, but the increase in damage from the size is exponential and therefore constitutes a small creature (like many wizarding pets) using a heavy crossbow, which could normally hit about 25% of the time and inflict 1d4 damage, can now be hit but 5% of the time and deal 6d8 damage. This is 10.8 times more damage, on a medium hit, in exchange for a 1/5 of a time, more than double the damage expected. This damage is also extremely painful and the players will suffer a lot.
That said, the opponent's response to your sunder attempt gets +4 compared to his opposite throw by wielding a longbow depends on the system you use. If this is the first option presented, then, yes, long bows are two-handed ranged weapons and are eligible for the bonus of +4. If one of the other two systems is in play, these are not two-handed weapons and a bonus should not be conferred.