Wood for warbow?

[bow-toxo]

Ash makes a fantastic back, just fails on the compression of the belly
I wonder if we need to forget about the D section for whitewood bows and figure out a completely different design ?

 No need to do much figuring. As previously stated, D ection bows were a minority on the Mary Rose. Either oval or rounded rectangle sections {as those on the Mary Rose] would reduce belly stress by bringing the shearing line from close to the back to the middle

[Yeomanbowman]

For me it's a 120lber from wych elm without and frets but over 2" of set.  I know Jaro has gone a fair bit heavier with dense ash.  I intend on going nice and heavy with the wych again but just trying to find time.

[Et_tu_brute]

brute,

I agree with you that neither Hickory, nor Bamboo has been used on TUDOR ENGLISH warbows.
but
Boo has been used on countless warbows, hickory has been used a little aswell, but mainly on lightweight bows (+- 55#)

let's take a look at this quote:"
"warbow/longbow 120-130#@30". And i want to laminate it"

I would think he just want's a warbow/longbow. Not a true mary-rose replica. So, why shouldn't he use bamboo? bows have been backed with all kind of stuff, varying form rawhide, to sinewcables, to bamboo. Hickory became popular in the last century, however bamboo has been used since the first bows were made.


If you want to be truly traditional, please, don't make any warbows, exept from SPANISH, PORTUGESE, ITALIAN yew, with a rpi of no lower than 60. Otherwise, it won't be a real warbow, since that's what they used. No pacific yew, no yew with a rpi of below 60, no waterbuffalo horn, no fastflight, b-50, d-75, but COWHORN nocks, linen or hemp strings, and DOUBLE sidenocks. and ofcourse, drawweights varying form 160#-200#. Goodluck. Recovering from a shoulderinjury right now, after drawing a 130# without any warming up. That dumb, yeah. But I'm not able to draw that 160# minimum, nor will my skeleton take it, nor will I pay 400€  for a italian-yew stave. Instead, I pay 40€ for a board, 15€ for a boo pole, and make 8 powerfull warbows, wich are, in addition, more efficient.

well, we all know, this true warbowmaking is gonna be very expensive. So turn our 'primitive' mind on, and decide that bamboo is the strongest and most reliable backing. Osage slats are excelent bellies, however flattened osage hasn't been used on any warbows I've seen so far. Exept from modern laminates, ofcourse.

Nick

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on the use of bamboo on longbows, I have used it myself on them and as I said it is an excellent backing material, but I just feel it's a bit far removed from true woods for it to be used on a "traditional" English longbow, not that I'm having a go at those who do use it though. I also did not say that Moen shouldn't use bamboo on the back of his bow, my comments were unrelated to that.

I think your stipulations of what constitutes a warbow are somewhat presumptuous and limited. As Yeomanbowman said (English) "warbows" (not a fan of the term myself) have been made from a variety of woods historically, not just Yew, and also as I understand it there are also records of Yew being imported from all over Europe (Germany etc.), not just Spain, Portugal and Italy + good quality English Yew is certainly suitable for livery bows. Also I think to say that no Yew of under 60rpi would be used for making "warbows" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as afterall what is so desirable about such a high ring count? It isn't ring count which determines the draw-weight of the final bow but the density of the wood, so Yew with much lower ring counts than that is perfectly suitable, though admittedly it may be harder to get quality staves. However I can't see Medieval bowyers discarding otherwise excellent staves simply because the ring count is less than 60rpi, I'm sure they would recognise that it isn't that which determines what the final bow turns out at. Your statement that the draw weight of "warbows" would range from 160#-200# seems a little odd, to me that seems a very high estimate - what makes you of the opinion they were that sort of weight? I would not give an estimate myself as I don't suppose we will ever really know, but I know if I was forced to do so it would be considerably lower but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Dave

[nickf]

Dave,

all warbows found on the mary rose had such a high ringcount, those old english sure knew what they were doing.

Nick

[Et_tu_brute]

Are you sure about that Nick (60+ ring count)? I'm not trying to argue, but I did think there were a number of bows that were more coarse grained than that.

[nickf]

I'm sure about high ringcount, but not totally sure about the 60+.

If I recall correctly, steve stretton told me about it. He stated that the former replica's with rpi's of around 40 weren't to be taken serious, considering the drawweight, as those on the mary rose were made form much denser yew, and that even the smaller ones would exceed 150# drawweights when made from yew with a similar quality.

Nick

[Rod]

Since good wych elm can be hard to come by, a good second choice wood that is not too exotic for the purist might be ash or american red elm.

The latter can be got in plank form, but for a "war bow" weight in an English bow might benefit from backing.

Rod.