Earlywood/Latewood Rings

[SeanStuart]

What do you think of these samples for bow making. I am trying to get a better eye for early/late wood. I don't have staves of them all, just conversation.

First is Hickory, Looks really good to me!

Second is Maple, Not so good, plus it has that funky spalting or darkening that doesn't look healthy.

Third is ERC-good latewood, and I made a bow of this that exploded very nicely while tillering. It was incredibly spring-y. High tension, I think. The rings are inconsistent. I have another stave; If I can treat it properly, I think it will make a nice lighter weight bow~40# or so.

Forth is Mesquite which is hard to tell about the rings, but looks like alot of latewood?? What a beautiful wood. I wish I had a peice long enough for a bow. Seems very hard. Maybe too brittle.

[Pat B]

The most important thing is to get a good, clean back ring. I very rarely worry about the ratio between the early and late wood. Ideally you want more latewood but even with 50/50 you can make a good bow. It might be a little thicker than it the ratio was better but that is about all. IMO

[Del the cat]

IMO, all this ring stuff is only relevant for Osage which is sooooo different to any other wood regarding the relative strength of late/early. I describe it to people who have not used it as being like cast iron alternated with chalk
Del

[mikekeswick]

I'd use all of those samples. 
More latewood = narrower bow
Less latewood = wider bow
That's about it really!

[Eric Krewson]

I am with Del, I don't look at the early/late wood ratio on anything but osage.

[Josh B]

A few things that might help clarify the subject.  As others have said the early/latewood ratio is more significant on Osage and mulberry than most other woods.  The maple is diffuse porous which means it doesn't really have early wood.  The pores are scattered throughout the ring so the ratio doesn't apply.  ERC is a softwood and softwood structure is a lot different than hardwoods.  In my experience with ERC and other junipers, the tighter the rings(thinner) the better.  Ratio doesn't really apply there either.  With the mesquite, I haven't worked with it enough to have an opinion on it's ring structure.  The best I can tell you on mesquite is that it's pretty brash in tension as a selfbow but works great backed.  Back to the maple, is that spalting or figure in the grain?  Its hard to tell from the pic.  Anyway hope that helps.  Josh

[Stringman]

This note is not completely relevant to the topic, but I'm pretty sure your last pic is walnut and not mesquite.

[alwayslookin]

Ed Scott used mesquite a lot for his bows. I believe they were backed as gun doc pointed out.

[SeanStuart]

Thanks for the replies; it sounds like I was giving it too much importance.

In my experience with ERC and other junipers, the tighter the rings(thinner) the better.

Josh, do you have a preference between sapwood or heartwood of Junipers?

I would really like to get a mesquite stave. It is really beautiful wood, but looks like it would take a pretty skilled bowyer to make a bow from it with all the curves and holes that it normally has.
 

[DavidV]

http://video.pbs.org/video/2172600552/

This is a good video on why ring porous woods are weaker with poor growth rings. Softwoods are better with thin rings. Diffuse and semi ring porous I don't think it makes a difference.

[Pat B]

David, totally different application then bow building.

[George Tsoukalas]

Sean, if you think the ratio is not so good, leave the stave a little wider. Jawge

[Josh B]

With juniper, I always want sapwood for the back on selfbows.  I've heard of folks making all heartwood selfbows, but I sure haven't had one hold together.  If there is any heartwood peaking through on the back, I will at the very least rawhide back it.  Even that's no guarantee against the back failing.  Josh