51" how come / why for bow (60# @ 25" hard maple)

[half eye]

Thanks for the nice comments, I'll try to answer the questions:

DonC: I don't really know that it makes a difference. What I mean by that is there are bows of both types mentioned ("made flat across the back" and also ".....the back appears natural with very little work") At an inch wide I filed my pretty flat but it had really no crown to begin with.

D.B.: The straight tipped "double curves" are sharply reflexed in the center and when the limbs take their about 1" of set the double curves are formed. Mason is very clear that the "turned back" horns (meaning recurved tips) appears in the sinew lined bows and horn bows, but not these. Some of the Eastern woodland though, did have the recurved tips on a single curved bow.

Carson: there were indeed a few long bows among the Iroquois and middle and southeastern tribes. There were also some that exceeded six feet in the south California region. But as Mason said this type is the more common and widespread of all the types of bows. They were rectangular in section, straight tapered slightly and either single curved or more commonly double curved.
But I believe that the vast majority were from 42" to about 52" in length.

My quandary was that it appears that the majority of the "preferred" bows were hardwood self bows and not the sinew lined like you might think. A different way to look at it is that with suitable hardwood this was what they wanted, and the sinew lined area appears where the wood needed strengthening. I wanted to know if the self bow was/could be, as strong as the sinew lined bows and yes they can.

Thanks again for the nice comments, and by the way these things are very easy to tiller by having a slow even taper and keeping it the same on both limbs. It was very easy with files and a knife scraper.
rich 

[Traxx]

Im a little confused by this post.Maybe my comprehension is off today

Originally,i thought your experiment was to see what properties of the common style of double curve self bow,made it so popular.Then you added the reflexed tips as was often used in the more complex composite construction.I have never seen the added reflexed tips on a self double curved bow,from the region specified in the earlier study.Did i interpret your experiment wrong or was there something i missed?
Bring me up to speed if you would please.

I have some personal theories on what made the double curve bow so popular in many cases.It flies in the face of what most consider a good bow today,but im not exactly sure if that is what you are after in your experiments,in this case,so i will refrain from expressing those at this time,until i know for sure.

No slight toward anything said or done here,in any way,its just like i said,im trying to get on board here and am having comprehention issues it seems.LOL

Either way,its a cool lookin bow,and im looking foreward to future developments and findings.

[Traxx]

OK,

In reading your last post,i think i got it figured out now.LOL

Are you trying to see if you can make a self bow,work at the same level as a lined or composite in your own way and not specifically in a historical sense?
Or am i still confused here?LOL

[Arrowind]

Very interesting.  Very nice bow!  Thanks for sharing!

[half eye]

Traxx, you are not wrong. I was trying to see if these double curve self bows were of the same caliber as the sinew lined or composite types. The recurved tips are account that I'm not wrapped to tight . I really did not think that the shallow working recurves would add any weight to the draw. I believe that to be true although now that you mention it might give it a little more speed. In any case I'm satisfied that a self hardwood double curve is as powerful as any, assuming good wood and tiller.

Also, my take on the double curve thing is that a bow of this section that can be worked as a straight stick right down to an even bend, and then deflexed in the middle (more in the regular version and less in the "slightly double curved") makes a lot of strain (draw weight) possible where the single curve does not. So everything being equal the double curve will have a stronger draw. The other thing is that by leaving the tips "straight" and allowing more travel you can get more draw length. I believe these guys knew they could get the heavy weight from these rectangle section bows and believe that the sinew lined bows were necessary to bring the other woods up to that level. Basically, the simpler bow was the standard and the others were made to equal them.

Boy that's gonna get things going,eh?
rich

[Traxx]

I agree completely.

Of the double curved sinewed bows,i have seen,the sinew was rather thin{Lined}Leading me to believe,that it was used for durability and not for performance enhancement.

[Traxx]

OH!!!

And thanxx for the clarification.

[Traxx]

I have heard this style denegrated by many,even the so called Experts.One guy,who was supposed to be a Native archery expert bowyer labeled them as poor shooters with flabby cast,but none of these people,used these bows in the nature they were developed to be used.So,its no wonder,if they could not appreciate the designed features.

[half eye]

Something for those "experts". The best bow a Native American could get was described as a "fine" bow by them, fine being the best. To be a fine bow they needed to burry an arrow to the fletch in a buffalo (moose in the area north of Lake Superior). I can tell you from the little I have shot this one it is more than capable of that task. To be honest I really admire anyone who can pull a 60# bow with the primary release you got to have real strong hands and arm to do that.
rich

[burchett.donald]

Rich, does the handle bend in the hand with reflex added or would this negate the purpose of reflexing it? Can you feel anything moving in the handle? Thanks

[half eye]

DB: yes the bow bends in the handle but nearly at full draw because that's the thickest and it's bent besides. I believe that's why the mid limbs take a little set to form the double curves, because the strain does not get "even" till nearly full draw.

[Bryce]

Good note rich, and a dandy of a bow!

[Traxx]

I have seen old photos that have shown,that a 3 fingered draw was also used.Augmented by the thumb as well as finger tipped without the thumb in 3 under as well as split fingered.In Charles Russles Painting he shows Northern Plains hunters shooting with horizontal bow and 3 fingers with the hand turned over,contrary to how most do it today.Since Mr Russle was friends with the models he used in his paintings,i dont doubt the authenticity of which he paints.He seemed to be a stickler for precision and authenticity in his work.

In Kopendrayers article,she describes the shape of the bows as having different cross section shape at mid limb and tip that leads one to believe that they were designed to have grip, mid limb and tips to work independently at first and then to come together to release the power at the end of draw.

I have always thought,that there was a lot of Misconception and Dogma associated with these bows and how they were designed and used by longbow men who had a passing fancy with them and never delved deep enough to divulge the whole truth to them.I think with more people becoming interested and researching them more,we will come to different occlusions and more appreciation of this style bow.

I just cant believe that such a style of bow,would have been so widely used by so many,if it was so inferior,especially when their lives depended on them in so many ways.

[Gus]

Sheesh Fellers...

I can see that I'll be Rereading this post Several times to get a Grip on what you're saying.
For now I can say you have my attention fully.
And I have a few pieces of wood that would fit this design perfectly...

Thank You for posting this Thread...
Love the bow too.



-gus

[half eye]

Gus, I don't want to over simplify but one of the things that appeals to me is that the bows are reduced to their most simple form. The material is minimal, the tillering process is straight forward, and the weight comes out pretty darned high. I guess to use a visual image.....think about a 1" square piece of wood 4 feet long. Use a table saw to cut low angles (very little taper) from the center to the tips on the edges and belly. Do the other side the same and round up the sharp corners slightly. (test bend and you'll find the tiller is real close so tweek that till your even and the weight is just right for you. Then ya steam in a sharp bend in the center of the bow to form a "V" going away from you. When you draw the bow it will form the double curve, the weight will go up from when it was straight. The more severe the bend, the more weight difference. (the more you bend the center the more strain you put on the bow) that's all there is to it. I believe that you should not exceed 3 inches total.

If you think about it, working with handtools it is far easier to judge taper and evenness sighting down a flat surface so it really is a method that eliminates a lot of guess work. The thing to me that wasn't quite right is the old adage that the whitewood bows had to be wide and thin and these are not that shape at all. The other thing is how the design looks the same no matter if Hickory, Ash, or Osage Orange. I don't know all about that but I'm still workin on it.
rich
PS: the steam thing is quite easy to do even without steam pots and such. The bow can be wrapped in grass matts, big leaves etc. and then covered over with "grey coals". Steams them real nice and even.