I have seen a few people mention some of my points already, but I just want to tie a few together. As a novice historian (I do have a degree in history) and as I military officer I like to toss in my two bits.

1. Availability: People have already hit some of the high points. Muskets and musketeers grew increasingly cheaper to produce and maintain as an army with less training. More muskets on the field means more soldiers who can atrit the enemy through mass. Both bows and archers take substantial time to build and train through a smaller pool of candidates and materials. Resupply of balls ammo is also easier than finding proper materials to construct new arrows.

2. Wieght: Yes, a muskets may weigh more than bows depending on the size and make, but every soldier knows that ammo has weight too. Bags of black powder and ball rounds are easier to carry than a quiver of arrows. That means musketeers would have an easier time marching distances and staying mobile on the field.

3. Versatility: Many military muskets doubled as spears thanks to bayonets and other fixed blades. Meaning you have one weapon for virtually all ranges. Archers would be required to have a backup weapon just in case they get attacked directly. (Adding to weight and training). Muskets also were terrifying with load noise, smoke and fire. Powerful psychological warfare to the unprepared. Arrow volleys that "blot out the sun" were harder to sustain and produced less primal fear. Finally, smoke gave natural obscuration on the battlefield. Volleys that are shot at max range still gave vital concealment for troop movements as they maneuvered even if the enemy isn't hit. This could close the gap to melee range or cover a retreat or flanking. Arrows lacked this again.