Nice web site Del.
You de-crowned the back of the hazel bow.
Forgive me but I thought you never violate the back of a bow.
Either one growth ring or a broken bow.
Could you give me a run down on how and why?
If you look at my Bowyers Diary (linked from the website, or google 'bowyers Diary) I explain some of it in one of the recent posts (Thurs 29th of July) as I'm currently working on a similar bow in Ash and may have to decrown it.
Basically the stave had a rather steep crown, if I kept on removing wood from the belly it would have got narrower and narrower (As the belly is cut deeper you end up with a razor sharp edge where the flat belly meets the curve of the stave, this edge needs planing off which narrows the stave). It's necessary to retain the width to get the performance and avoid chrysals.
De-crowning allowed it to remain wide. If The stave had been from a bigger diameter log there wouldn't have been a problem, I tend to cut staves from 4-5" limbs not great big 8-10" logs.
If an even depth of cut is taken with a spokeshave it doesn't violate any rings
across the stave, it just gives long parallel lines running right up the length of the limb in the same way as the edge of the bark is exposed in a long line along and not across the limb.
Where the cut actually starts at the grip it does cut through the rings, but at that point the handle is stiff anyway.
The whole "don't violate the rings" is fine in theory, if you have the perfect stave, you have to make allowances for the actual stave in your hand on occaision and bend the rules a bit.
The Yew longbow on my home page has the back cutting through growth rings near one tip, where the sapwood layer twisted and increased in thickness, the alternative would be to have no heartwood on the last third of the limb, which seemed a far worse alternative to me. It's like a lot of things, there is some difference between theory and practice.
(I can't vouch for Osage though, as I've never used it)
I hope that makes sense.
Del
