Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: kevinsmith5 on November 03, 2013, 12:23:19 am
-
Has anyone ever seen or made a bow with the shape of a horsebow (double curve like a Hun or Scythian) without the horn? Maybe with sinew but no horn? And yes, I know a lot of people use that "F" word but it won't be me.
-
I'm surprised this question still gets asked. Many people have made those styles of bows with just wood and sinew. Many of the historical bows were actually close to five feet long and didn't actually have that setback grip that is so popular in FG replicas.
(http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp78/pat_05/IMG_0887.jpg)
-
I've never even vaguely attempted a horsebow before. Are there build alongside for this?
This question came up because in attempting to get the SCA to actually promote archery that would be PERIOD correct for the time they allege to be modeling themselves after (pre-17th century) it was proposed to have a class of scores where cut out shelves and that "F" word not be allowed. The horsebow shooters pitched an unholy fit saying they'd be driven out because a non-fiberglass horsebow costs (quote) $1200 and would be very unstable. So I'm gonna see about making one that doesn't have the "f" word.....
-
Well they would be wrong and uninformed.
-
Not shocking.
Could I do a bamboo back and a thin ipe belly (or more bamboo) and epoxy it to a high reflex or do you think there is no way to accomplish this without sinew? I'm looking for performance comparable to an F-word bow (which my understanding of horsebow knock offs is that they're generally un-impressive in performance).
-
kevinsmith5,
Funny how so much of the SCA is about trying to be all historically accurate but when it comes to archery it's almost anything goes, other than compound bows. I've messed about with the SCA off an on for the last few years and it's always amazed me how many folks put so much time into their garb but then give up when it comes to trying to have period-correct archery tackle. As for your question, you could get a pretty convincing Asiatic-looking composite bow using only bamboo back and belly with either some other wood for a core or even all bamboo. James Parker has made some pretty amazing bows that were all bamboo. I have a 'Bows of the World' book that mentions (along with one of the TBB volumes), that one of the Asiatic bows was in fact all bamboo and didn't use horn and sinew. It might have been a Mongol bow if I remember correctly. The bamboo belly would need to be heat treated (carbonized), to get it to be stronger in compression. I've played a bit with this design in the past but so far have had no success. I've tried emailing James Parker in the past to ask about his construction methods but he's never answered any emails I sent him through his website or private messages through here or one of the other archery forums. So, you're on your own regarding that. The ATARN website might be helpful, but I think it's mostly horn/sinew composites folks are doing over there, although I can't confirm, not having been on their board much.
-
I've found some references to traditional Korean all bamboo horsebows, looking for buildsalongs on that.
The unstrung profiles of the FG bows I've found don't look to reflexed, I may just take a crack at making one seat of my pants.
-
sweet bow Pat
-
And I've been told quite a few times in the past week that they're not "reenacting" the past....
-
(http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp78/pat_05/011-1-1.jpg)
-
Some details in the construction Pat?
-
The first is Elm and sinew with spliced in Ash tips. It is 62 inches and I'm drawing it about 33 inches in the picture.
The second is Ash backed Ipe with spliced in Ash siyahs. It is 55 inches and I pulled it back to destruction to test the limits. It popped a sliver at 28 inches.
I'm going to repair it with a fresh backing and a layer of sinew.
-
Sinew backing on both? Did you tiller the belly or the width?
-
No sinew on the second one(yet). I tillered from the belly. There is also a bit of incidental side tillering when refining the edges,
-
I think I remember Pat posting that bow a couple years back. If I remember correctly, it doesn't have an extreme amount of reflex when it's unstrung. I think you can get a "horsebow" profile simply by having heavily reflexed siyahs and a more circular tiller to the working parts of the limbs. The only problem is a bow with say a bamboo back but wood belly is that it will have low cast because there isn't enough compression resistance in the belly without horn and if the siyahs are heavy as well. All of the bows I've seen that were all bamboo and supposedly were fast shooters with minimal handshock were ones without actual siyahs and were a bit more like an extreme recurve. Also, the bellies were pretty well toasted on those bows. Now with that being said, I have seen an all-hickory horsebow look-alike. How it shot, I have no idea, but I'm still interested in trying something similar myself one of these days.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-45iIf6_x7uc/UnXZ_vgmzsI/AAAAAAAACkE/0xnqFWkn9tg/w1043-h273-no/mittelalterbogen_03_image.jpg)
-
Clearly you've never made one. Why would a bamboo back and wood belly with Siyahs not be fast? Wood has more compression resistance than horn.
-
I've not been too impressed by how lax the archery kit is for a lot of SCA folks. Come to think of it, there has been some pretty lax garb in the past as well. I suppose it all depends on your kingdom, or local groups. There isn't much archery in my area so the few folks who are regulars until recently didn't make much of an effort to step up their game when it came to the actually archery implements. It's that whole bit of only re-enacting the "good" parts of the middle ages. You know, like how the real fancy lords could afford the nice fiberglass-backed bows, but the crap-covered peasants were stuck shooting those lame all-wood bows.
-
Easy there Pat. The point I was trying to make was that design has to be spot-on to make a bow that shoots fast and hard with minimal handshock. Siyahs by their nature are big heavy levers of wood out at the tips of a bow, which is why many of them are made from the lightest, stiffest, woods like Sitka spruce for example. And, I believe you're wrong regarding the compression resistance of wood versus horn. I'd venture to say that horn is tremendously stronger in compression than almost any wood could be. Also, it depends on the species of wood as to the compression strength. Ipe will be much stronger in compression than say red oak. I've seen my share of other people's experiments with all-wood, no-horn, no sinew "horsebows" on this site and others, and most of those folks will readily admit that the performance of the bows have been less than stellar. There's a reason sinew and horn are used over a wood core. Also, don't forget the whole reason this type of bow was created was because the geographic areas and cultures that gave rise to these bows were in tree-poor areas where they didn't have the ability to make 6'+ length longbows that would heave heavy armor piercing arrows, so they had to make do with what they had. This meant they used shorter wood sections with the laminated siyahs and horn and sinew to add tension and compression.
-
Clearly you've never made one. Why would a bamboo back and wood belly with Siyahs not be fast? Wood has more compression resistance than horn.
No (most) wood has greater resistance to BENDING than horn. However horn can be compressed upto somewhere around 8% of it's length and wood only 1% of it's length. So from a bow making point of view horn can be bent 8 x further and can therefore store more energy than wood.
-
Kiltedcelt - These osrt of bows don't differ from any other wood bow - they ALL have to be tillered perfectly to make fast shooting bows with no handshock. Just because these are a funky shape the same rules apply as with any wooden bow.
Sure if you make excessively large tips/recurves/syhias (makes no difference) then of course you will get unwanted side effects. I have never seen any old horsebow made with sitka syhias...that's a TBB thing!
The reason all these ancient cultures used horn/wood/sinew bows is simply that they could, or more importantly their environmental conditions allowed their useage. There definately would have been 6 ft long trees if that's the sort of bows they wanted - maple the wood that was used for the cores would readily grow to 6 ft and make great selfbows.
Most of the hornbow designs are actually made to shoot light arrows.
-
To answer the original question - yes it is possible to make a short wood only bow that would fool the majority of people. However wood has it's limits, whatever wood you choose and the balance you'll have is finding those limits and altering things to suit. As long as you don't draw too far and bear in mind these limits then you will get fast shooting bows.
People genarally won't do 'buildalongs' on this sort of thing because it's a little too complicated. As in if you have the required skills to make one of these then you probably won't need a buildalong only a helping hand now and again.
Here are few of my thoughts on the subject - Sinew is the best backing to use. Your recurves can be found in the the crook of a tree where a large branch comes out of the trunk. I'd use ipe or heat treated bamboo (pre tiller well before glue-up!) for the belly. A maple pretapered core may be useful. I'd start your experiments around 55 - 58 inches. Forget any setback in the handle.
Also hornbows aren't actually that difficult to make - it's just a steep learning curve.
-
Pardon Me, but what is the SCA ? Bob
-
There is still plenty of theoretical stuff being tossed around on this thread. We all still hear of the fantastic capabilities of horn but it's rarely like that in real life.
Horn is never actually compressed 8x farther than wood and chrysaling of horn is frequently reported.
I don't think it's incorrect to say that wood "resists" compression more than horn. It may collapse sooner but that doesn't mean it's not resisting more than something that just gives, even if it does bounce back.
Nothing quite makes a person lose credibility about these style of bows more than the mention of Sitka spruce siyah's.
;D
-
Kevin I believe you can get the scaled down look of a hornbow with an all wood bow but not with the shorter lengthed limbs that a horn bow has at the same draw length.To me it's all about the mass weight/poundage ratio as far as speed goes.I pay attention to what depth the surface of sinew or horn is.When a horn bow is reflexed into a backwards C being only 44" long there is no doubt in my mind as to the resistance and resilience that horn has over wood.The only time horn will chrysal is because of BAD tillering or tapering just as any all wood bow.
-
Bob it stands for stupid crappy acting :laugh:
To answer the question from my opinion yes you can...just make it a lil longer,wider,and not as much unbraced setback...I've done quite a bit of making something similar to what your wanting with wood only,and pushing wood to its limits...and without the use of sinew...you'll need to use the best of materials to pull it off,and your still going to encounter some failure with trial and error pending on how skilled you are...its not easy making these kinds of bows and you are going to have to go into this with the expectation of having some not quite work out the way you want it...IMO yew and osage are the two best woods to use if attempting a selfbow or simple sinew backed bow...and it should be good to primo quality wood as well...as far as backed bows osage,yew,n tempered bamboo will be hour best bet for bellies...some have used ipe,but I have personally found it not as elastic as the aforementioned...there's so many different species of ipe that vary in properties etc etc...the ipe I've used has fretted before yew or osage would've...I haven't made a tempered boo belly bow,but I've seen several good reputation guys who have...the hard part is finding that sweet spot of a bow whis belly isn't overstressed and takes more set than normal crushing too many wood cells and making it noodle wood,or breaking outright...you'll also need something very tension strong for the back as well...again the aforementioned woods excells above the rest if attempting one unbacked...another reason for using the best of the best materials is because you want to give yourself the best chances at success...if using other woods your odds won't be as good...its doable with other woods,but it'll have to be an exceptional piece for the species,and you won't know if its exceptional or not until after you start bending it...if your not highly skilled I'd suggest making a simple sinew backed osage or yew bow with siyah like recurves either heat bent or spliced in....even tho these won't look like one unbraced,at brace n full draw they will be so close that no one who doesn't know much WO t know the difference...OR since your putting so much emphasis on being period correct then do it the same EXACT way they were made... ;)
-
Well put Chris since you have been down that road.What the heck is the SCA anyway?......LOL.
-
SCA - Society for Creative Anachronism
Mostly a bunch of folks who like playing medieval dress-up. A handful of cool people enjoying reenacting the Middle Ages and the various garb, tools, etc. that go along with it. Mostly a bunch of obsessed folks who eat, sleep, drink, live their hobby - oh wait a minute! That sounds kinda like bowyers! They're not all that different than us bow building folks, especially the archery ones, and like any hobby there are some weird folks.
As to the main subject though, I will defer to all the better advice being given. I freely admit all my knowledge comes from several "learning curve" failures, and what I've read. Clearly I'm no expert. If I was going to go to the trouble to build a Asiatic-looking composite bow, I'd see no point in putting the time and effort into making something that looks like that type of bow without using all the proper materials. Me, I'd rather just make a traditional wood/horn/sinew bow. Someday I will. I think I'll try to better master more traditional styles first though.
-
It is still entirely worth making a look alike. A well made one will far outperform even a well made wooden straight bow.
Think of it as just a variation of a sinew backed bow. Nothing wrong with them at all.
-
As I've found examples of Korean horsebows that are all boo I think I will start there. I'm not so much after "all period correct" as after proving that a stable horsebow can be made for less than $1200 and thereby removing the excuse to allow that dirty F stuff into period shoots.
-
In looking at "faux" horsebow pictures where they are unstrung they don't seem to have much reflex at all.
-
Not a great idea to go all boo in a first attempt. You have to tiller during the glue up since there is no margin for belly material removal.
I'm not really sure why everyone seems to be going off in random directions when I have already posted two fairly simple proven solutions to the problem.....
-
James Parker and Vinson Minor have been making that style for years, bamboo backed. Also there is a build along article in Primitive Archer several years ago on building one that is sinew backed.
-
Shoot, I've made a bunch of manchu style bows out of simply red oak, with red oak siyahs. No set back handles or reflex though.
-
mullet do you remember what issue
-
http://www.hornbow.com/pa1098.html
Here is the article. Keep in mind few who have tried this design are happy with it. It's a bit of an "all show and no go design". You are much better off with a slightly longer design with lower angled and more efficient levers.
-
thank's pat
-
I just had to explain to someone on the SCA "Period Archery" email list that a Martin Bushmaster is NOT "all wood" just because he an see the wood grain...several other people clearly didn't realize that they make CLEAR glass. UGH. I'm thinking this may be a losing battle...
-
Could I roughly follow that design from the article but back with bamboo? I mainly ask because I have maple and bamboo aplenty but not so much sinew....
-
There is still plenty of theoretical stuff being tossed around on this thread. We all still hear of the fantastic capabilities of horn but it's rarely like that in real life.
Horn is never actually compressed 8x farther than wood and chrysaling of horn is frequently reported.
I don't think it's incorrect to say that wood "resists" compression more than horn. It may collapse sooner but that doesn't mean it's not resisting more than something that just gives, even if it does bounce back.
Nothing quite makes a person lose credibility about these style of bows more than the mention of Sitka spruce siyah's.
;D
Compression is a description of the force that is acting on a material.
Sure horn will chrysal once it has been pushed beyond it's ability to be compressed - right after it has reduced in length by around 8%.
It has the ability to store more energy than wood because of it's cell structure.
The point I was making is that horn will bend a whole lot further than wood can and it has the capability to store more energy during this bending than any wood can.
This is directly related to the original question because he was asking if it's possible to make a hornbow without the horn essentially - the simple answer is no.
The longer answer is that you can make a wood bow that will, to the untrained eye, look SIMILAR to a hornbow. However it is impossible to make a dimensionally correct hornbow out of wood and still have it being drawn more than 12 inches because the materials have vastly different limits.
My advice would be to forget the hornbow (unless you want to make one) and just make either a wood only recurve or a sinew backed recurve.
-
I disagree. Many of the longer hornbow styles are perfectly attainable in wood and sinew and the unbraced bow will show just as much reflex as those bows typically have and stand as much draw as a person is likely to use.
A typical hornbow uses up about 6.5% of its compression capability just getting to brace height. I think you're giving the impression that all of that 8% is available in actual delivered stored energy.
The dismal performance of 98% of recent hornbows shows that there is far more to the picture than just bending s piece of horn a long way.
-
Now you can see all 16 parts of the osage horsebow. #1-16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1YJ03Voixg
-
bamboo belly.
Korean infantry couldn't afford hornbows. Prof. Thomas Duverney has written extensively on the subject.
-
Actually the Grayson museum has a couple of wood bellied sinew backed bows of Korean origin. They are much longer than the horn based bows but oddly enough still have the tip crossing reflex.
-
http://www.hornbow.com/pa1098.html
Here is the article. Keep in mind few who have tried this design are happy with it. It's a bit of an "all show and no go design". You are much better off with a slightly longer design with lower angled and more efficient levers.
I have to agree, Pat. The two made from osage I shot performed like an old dog.
-
I'm not real sure poor performance will be an issue. These folks haven't ever shot a real horsebow.
-
Now you can see all 16 parts of the osage horsebow. #1-16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1YJ03Voixg
Thanks
-
i'm interested in trying this like the article and then a little longer with different angles on the ears and seeing about the difference I can get performance wise, sounds like a nice experiment
-
I disagree. Many of the longer hornbow styles are perfectly attainable in wood and sinew and the unbraced bow will show just as much reflex as those bows typically have and stand as much draw as a person is likely to use.
A typical hornbow uses up about 6.5% of its compression capability just getting to brace height. I think you're giving the impression that all of that 8% is available in actual delivered stored energy.
The dismal performance of 98% of recent hornbows shows that there is far more to the picture than just bending s piece of horn a long way.
Seriously how can you not see that if a hornbow is made close to it's limits (like every bow should be to get decent performance) wood simply cannot do the same thing.....it's just basic physics ;)
All the longer hornbows are meant to be drawn to 34 - 35 inches......
Do I really have to show you pictures of my hornbows at full draw and then lay down a challenge for somebody to make a dimensionally correct bow wooden that looks the same at full draw.....I KNOW it can't be done ;)
Shall I also post results of how my hornbows perform....then you can judge wether they are dismal performers or not.....
The performance of a bow is down to the maker and not just the materials.....
Like I said of course it's possible to make a good wooden bow that would fool the untrained eye but not the trained eye. ;)
Have fun making short wood bows. Then when you find the limits of wood alone try horn/wood/sinew and you'll find the limits are a lot further away ;D ;D ;D
-
I love work with wood . I make hornbows but I will be always primitive bows bowyer. I make short wodden bows many years and dont find yet wood limit. Hornbows are not suprising - always shoot good :) . I think it is possible make wodden shortbow in combination Ipe/white wood/sinew or lamination bamboo/bamboo with performance similar like in good hornbow. I think it is possible even make wood/sinew shortbow with great performance. Hornbows are realy amazing, soft, elastict and fast but I will be always wood defender :)
-
Seriously how can you not see that if a hornbow is made close to it's limits (like every bow should be to get decent performance) wood simply cannot do the same thing.....it's just basic physics ;)
All the longer hornbows are meant to be drawn to 34 - 35 inches......
Do I really have to show you pictures of my hornbows at full draw and then lay down a challenge for somebody to make a dimensionally correct bow wooden that looks the same at full draw.....I KNOW it can't be done ;)
Shall I also post results of how my hornbows perform....then you can judge wether they are dismal performers or not.....
The performance of a bow is down to the maker and not just the materials.....
Like I said of course it's possible to make a good wooden bow that would fool the untrained eye but not the trained eye. ;)
Have fun making short wood bows. Then when you find the limits of wood alone try horn/wood/sinew and you'll find the limits are a lot further away ;D ;D ;D
[/quote]
The trouble with your analysis is that there is no "dimensionally correct" rule. Horn bows come in every shape, length and size. There is little evidence that the long bows were all meant to be drawn that far. The found arrows tell us otherwise.
I merely pointed out the style of hornbow shape that was possible for someone to make cheaply and falling under the non-glass rule.
I'm not sure why you don't understand what 98% means. ;
-
I disagree. Many of the longer hornbow styles are perfectly attainable in wood and sinew and the unbraced bow will show just as much reflex as those bows typically have and stand as much draw as a person is likely to use.
A typical hornbow uses up about 6.5% of its compression capability just getting to brace height. I think you're giving the impression that all of that 8% is available in actual delivered stored energy.
The dismal performance of 98% of recent hornbows shows that there is far more to the picture than just bending s piece of horn a long way.
Seriously how can you not see that if a hornbow is made close to it's limits (like every bow should be to get decent performance) wood simply cannot do the same thing.....it's just basic physics ;)
All the longer hornbows are meant to be drawn to 34 - 35 inches......
Do I really have to show you pictures of my hornbows at full draw and then lay down a challenge for somebody to make a dimensionally correct bow wooden that looks the same at full draw.....I KNOW it can't be done ;)
Shall I also post results of how my hornbows perform....then you can judge wether they are dismal performers or not.....
The performance of a bow is down to the maker and not just the materials.....
Like I said of course it's possible to make a good wooden bow that would fool the untrained eye but not the trained eye. ;)
Have fun making short wood bows. Then when you find the limits of wood alone try horn/wood/sinew and you'll find the limits are a lot further away ;D ;D ;D
Not to prove anything, ....but I wouldn't mind seeing some more horn bows!I disagree. Many of the longer hornbow styles are perfectly attainable in wood and sinew and the unbraced bow will show just as much reflex as those bows typically have and stand as much draw as a person is likely to use.
A typical hornbow uses up about 6.5% of its compression capability just getting to brace height. I think you're giving the impression that all of that 8% is available in actual delivered stored energy.
The dismal performance of 98% of recent hornbows shows that there is far more to the picture than just bending s piece of horn a long way.
Maybe you could show us some of your bows as well ,Pat. Ones that have been shot in and used regularly, to see how the design stands up over time.
-
I already did. The bow on the first page is 12 years old and has been shot thousands of times and was shot in sub-optimal conditions with no finish on it on many occasions. It has been abused and overdrawn and left on a tiller stick at full draw for too long.
It has definitely lost a tiny bit of oomph because of this but any natural material bow will. Still it's just "broken in" rather than broken down.
It was also finished and shot about a month after being cut down. Do everything right and give it a touch of heat treating and it would be all the more impressive.
-
Lostarrow - unfortunately my most recent Turkish hornbows core broke at full draw.....however i'll try and dig out some photos of my older bows. I have an experimental sort of hornbow that I can get strung up and photo.
Pat as for no dimensionally correct hornbow read A.Karpowzi's book on the Turkish bows. Instead of talking about all hornbows in general there is a large table with dimensions of actual Turkish bows in the palace collections....add them all up and average them. Bingo! Then make a wooden bow with the same widths, thicknesses and length of bending sections, same side profile etc my prediction is that it will get to brace and have taken a massive amount of set, if it doesn't break during drawing the amount of set will make it very easy to string ;D
Anyway I have said what I wanted to on the subject.
Each to his own.
-
That's my whole point. You've made the Turkish bow into the only horn bow. I have repeatedly said that people should make a feasible hornbow style when doing this. People are trying to duplicate the look of a typical warbow, not a flightbow.
The funny thing is that the hornbows made today are really just for looks too. Lots of really nice looking bows on ATARN shooting about 170 fps and going 200 yards. >:D
-
I already did. The bow on the first page is 12 years old and has been shot thousands of times and was shot in sub-optimal conditions with no finish on it on many occasions. It has been abused and overdrawn and left on a tiller stick at full draw for too long.
It has definitely lost a tiny bit of oomph because of this but any natural material bow will. Still it's just "broken in" rather than broken down.
It was also finished and shot about a month after being cut down. Do everything right and give it a touch of heat treating and it would be all the more impressive.
Any unbraced pics? How much set did it take from the original unbraced profile?
-
Originally it was straight through the grip. The original string I made to go with the bow was shorter than necessary which undoubtedly strained the bow far more than necessary. I never bothered changing it though.
(http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp78/pat_05/IMG_0886.jpg)
(http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp78/pat_05/IMG_0879.jpg)
-
http://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/grayson/koreanarchery/1998-0112-bow.shtml