Saxon bow... opinions sought (with Pic)!

[Del the cat]

I had a guy ask me for a repro/re-enactment Saxon bow. D section 61" long, nocks 2" inboard of each tip, 30# @ 28"
Now this seems do-able, and I'm re-working an old chrysaled* longbow for him.
However, he's interested in experimental archeaolgy and reckons such a bow could have been, Ash, Elm Yew etc.
I feel that only the best wood available, Yew (in Europe) would have been able to stand up  to, that poundage and drawlength in such a short D bow.
My guess is maybe they didn't draw that long, or they soon worked out you needed a longer or wider bow... the route they chose was of course the longbow.
Now I didn't want to go spouting off without seeing what you guys thought.
Del
* I've found that chrysals go a lot deeper than I thought .

[half eye]

Del,
     Don't know much about English D bows but in the research I did on early Norther European bows like Frankish and Norman types a lot of the specimens I could find descriptions of were made of Elm and a few of Ash. A lot of the bows; the wood was not identifiable but of the ones that were the Elm was most predominant.
     Have made all types of bows from elm and can tell you it works very well in a lot of different designs. The wood fibers are very much intertangled and the wood will bend a long way. With a typical tiller of an English bow Elm will easily give you 28" of draw even below 61" bow length. 30# of draw weight will not be any issue at all.
     The Yew bow may be "snappier" (is that a word) but the Elm will make a very good bow of good cast and power and the wood has excellent longevity as well. Besides authenticity, you will find that Elm is very much forgiving of mistakes as well. JMO
Rich

[Del the cat]

Del,
     Don't know much about English D bows but in the research I did on early Norther European bows like Frankish and Norman types a lot of the specimens I could find descriptions of were made of Elm and a few of Ash. A lot of the bows; the wood was not identifiable but of the ones that were the Elm was most predominant.
     Have made all types of bows from elm and can tell you it works very well in a lot of different designs. The wood fibers are very much intertangled and the wood will bend a long way. With a typical tiller of an English bow Elm will easily give you 28" of draw even below 61" bow length. 30# of draw weight will not be any issue at all.
     The Yew bow may be "snappier" (is that a word) but the Elm will make a very good bow of good cast and power and the wood has excellent longevity as well. Besides authenticity, you will find that Elm is very much forgiving of mistakes as well. JMO
Rich

Cheers,
This bow is 57" actual working length, so it will prob' be ok.
In it's original form was 71" 60# but as it was my first 'proper' longbow the chrysals were probably due to me tillering it a tad whip ended. Seeing your bows shows that a lot of bend in the handle works well.
Thanks for your input.
Del

[Frode]

Hi all,
Don't want to hijack the thread, but it is timely, because I have also recently received similar (Saxon bow) inquiries, and, I'm working on my first bow with elm.  As I'm working the elm with the rasp, it is very rough and fuzzy, compared with, say, hickory.  It sands out fine, just real stringy while roughing.  Is that normal for elm?
Frode

[bow-toxo]

I had a guy ask me for a repro/re-enactment Saxon bow. D section 61" long, nocks 2" inboard of each tip, 30# @ 28"
Now this seems do-able, and I'm re-working an old chrysaled* longbow for him.
However, he's interested in experimental archeaolgy and reckons such a bow could have been, Ash, Elm Yew etc.
I feel that only the best wood available, Yew (in Europe) would have been able to stand up  to, that poundage and drawlength in such a short D bow.
My guess is maybe they didn't draw that long, or they soon worked out you needed a longer or wider bow... the route they chose was of course the longbow.
Now I didn't want to go spouting off without seeing what you guys thought.
Del
* I've found that chrysals go a lot deeper than I thought .

Longbowa and smallbows {the short ones used by Saxons, Irish and Scots in the old days] were both used in the same periods of history. I made a bow and arrows from a mediaeval recipe from “ Le Livre de Chasse” and it came out as 56” between nocks with 2”past each nock, almost exactly like yours. Good guess !  However the arrows to go with it were only 26 ˝” from base of nock to shouldering of the head.  If your friend wants to do experimental archaeology, maybe he should get over his fetish for 28” arrows. I think a 28:” draw would overstress the bow whether it breaks right away or not. BTW. The string is supposed to be braced a palm’s breadth from the wood. I hope you made it with sidenocks ?


                                                                                                    Erik

[half eye]

Dell & Frode,
      That intertangled mess that shows up while rasping (also with rip sawing) is exactly why it's good bow wood. The wood's fibers are so intertangled it's nearly impossible to tear it apart. It's not indestructable but that stuff will take a great amount of stress and keep on tickin'.
Rich

[Del the cat]

Hi Erik,
Yes it's got side nocks, he specifically requested them. I think 26" sounds nearer the mark for arrow length, while the bow is ok at 30 pounds, if it was thick enough for say 60 pounds, I think it would be struggleing.
The good thing about this bow, is it's got me over my reluctance to let a handle really bend, mind I'll have to do a real bend in the middle one sometime to completely cure me!
Del