Primitive Archer

Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: Wooden Spring on December 04, 2013, 11:39:27 am

Title: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Wooden Spring on December 04, 2013, 11:39:27 am
I've been on this forum more as an observe / learner for a very long time, but now that I'm building hickory backed board bows for the last year or so, there's one question that I can't find an answer to...

Let's say that with a perfect tiller for the specific design below, and each bow comes in at 50# with the same materials, (I'm not saying that the dimensions below will produce a bow of that weight) what advantage does one bow have over another????

And I'm talking about meat-on-the-table differences... I'm not really concerned with which bow is the fastest...

I suppose, if you only had one style of bow to build the rest of your life, what would it be, and why?
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Don Case on December 04, 2013, 12:00:46 pm
If you're not concerned with speed all that's left is durability and aesthetics I would think. That leaves the Molly out >:D
Don
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Wooden Spring on December 04, 2013, 12:07:04 pm
If you're not concerned with speed all that's left is durability and aesthetics I would think. That leaves the Molly out >:D
Don

Well maybe I should have qualified my "speed" comment... I'm not concerned with speed in a sense that if the argument is over just a few fps, then a few fps makes no difference to a deer who is about to receive a lethal splinter at 30 yards... I don't attempt hunting shots over 30 yards anyway. If I'm target shooting at 50 and 100 yards however, then the speed makes the difference. But for hunting, not so much.

Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: artcher1 on December 04, 2013, 12:16:03 pm
It comes down to the amount of leverage (not bend) each limb produces. AFB, the inner limb does the most work. If outer limbs are keep relatively stiff, will, IMO, shoot the heaviest arrow the fastest......Art 
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Badger on December 04, 2013, 12:20:30 pm
  I like the American flat bow, elyptical tiller with stiff outer limbs.
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Tom Leemans on December 06, 2013, 05:08:45 pm
When you get in to bows like hybrid R/D (heavy on the reflex) and recurve, etc, you can throw a lighter (target) arrow pretty darn fast, or as Dean Torges would put it, "A snappy bow".  For a real workhorse that throws a heavy hunting arrow, consistently, you can't beat a perfectly tillered flat bow 'type" with more of the limb working. It's really apples and oranges though. Depends on your taste. I guess that's why we build so many different types, and just shoot whichever one you fancy that day.
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: bubby on December 06, 2013, 05:23:05 pm
for a simple hunting bow i'd go with a pyramid bow for durability, don't know what would be wrong with a molly though
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: wood_bandit 99 on December 06, 2013, 05:44:42 pm
The bows I make may not be THE fastest bows on earth but I don't think they are much than a few fps from others. I make ones similar to the top one and those are the type designs that shoot heavy arrows far and are accurate and are just an over all good design. I usually reflex them about 1" and with set, they end up being .5" reflex and that makes them a little faster. This is with osage. I tried it with hickory selfbow and it took more string follow than I would have liked. Should have been trapped and a little wider
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: artcher1 on December 06, 2013, 06:11:47 pm
Several things to consider when choosing a particular design. I look for one that'll load up a heavy hunting arrow, from a light weight bow, using a very short draw, and still hang with the big boys ;D..........Art
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Arrowind on December 06, 2013, 06:43:07 pm
Right now I would favor an R/D-pyramid- molly with recurved levers...
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Eric Garza on December 06, 2013, 06:50:44 pm
Right now I prefer a cross between a paddle bow and a Mollegabet. Basically a Mollegabet with rounded corners rather than the typical angular corners as this style is commonly made with. Or a paddle bow with the widest part of the limbs nearer to the handle and stiff outer limbs made atypically narrow. I've started jokingly referring to this style as a Paddlegabet bow. This is just my preference though, I'm not claiming it's superior to other styles already mentioned.
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: PatM on December 06, 2013, 07:48:34 pm
None of those. In fact most would likely combine the Mollie and AFB into one bow as their all around go-to bow.
 Extend the working limb out a bit and minimize the very obvious lever transition of the Mollie.
 A true Holmegaard in other words. :P
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: SLIMBOB on December 06, 2013, 07:52:33 pm
You left out a bendy handle and that would be first for me today Dec. 6, 2013.  I do however reserve the right to change my mind without notice and for no particularly good reason, as I have built all of these and have liked something about each of them.  I have more AFB's than anything, so gun to the head, probably AFB's from your list.  I'm glad we can all make these very different bows from various woods and argue with one another about which is better.
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Christian Soldier on December 06, 2013, 08:13:19 pm
I personally think the Pyramid bow is the most straight forward bow.

They are usually fairly easy to design and tiller so it's actually in my range of expertise and you can modify for whatever stave you are working with so that's why I'd pick that one.

Great bows have been made from all three designs though, its more of a personal/individual stave thing.
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: JonW on December 06, 2013, 08:14:36 pm
You got it Slim. Short and bendy for me.
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Weylin on December 06, 2013, 08:20:44 pm
If your question is which design will reliably put meat on the table the answer is, all of them. We all have our preferences and all the designs have some minor pros and cons put any of those designs will make a perfectly deadly and dependable hunting bow.
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Wooden Spring on December 06, 2013, 08:28:26 pm
I'm kindof getting the impression that my question could just as easily been "which is better, blondes, brunettes, or redheads?" Answer? Whatever you like... But most like aspects of all three...
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Don Case on December 06, 2013, 08:40:25 pm
As long as they're female
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Aussie Yeoman on December 06, 2013, 09:01:49 pm
In your Molly schematic, the bending portion of inner limb needs to taper in thickness if it is to also have consistent width. Otherwise the stress will be concentrated near the fades.

An important one you left out is a bend through the handle longbow, with the widest and thickest portion at the handle. That's what I'd go for for putting meat on the table. You can use narrower saplings to make them, require less tools, and is quite forgiving to make.
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: rossfactor on December 06, 2013, 09:11:18 pm
If I could only build one bow it would be: 50# @ 28", 66" long, 1.5 inch wide for the inner 2/3 of the limb, with an elliptical taper for outer 1/3 to a 1/2 inch wide tip,  a barely bending handle, slightly deflexed inner limbs and gentle recurve on the last 8 inches.  I would build them out of 3 inch diameter, pipe straight purple leaf plum.

This design, from this type of wood and limb, produces a really comfortable, beautiful, hard hitting, easy to build, durable bow, ideal for shooting heavy arrows. Its not heard enough wood to use as a battering ram.  If you want that, build your bow out of Osage, or Almond. Most of all it this design has a magical quality that makes you smarter and more attractive to women.... oh wait, I got carried away.

Gabe
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Jim Davis on December 06, 2013, 10:47:28 pm
I not only would, but do hold to  the "pyramid" design. It is efficient, straightforward to tiller, durable and fast

Paul Klopseg, an engineer and archer, wrote about how to make this design in May of 1932. He and Clarence Hickman, another engineer, sang  the  praises of this "new bow" as having limbs that returned to their neutral position faster than an other design of which they were aware.

"Archery, the Technical Side," which contains their writings, is a fascinating read that makes it obvious that a lot of what we are experimenting with now is an effort that is related to reinventing the wheel.

I highly recommend  this book. If you can borrow or buy it, you will find Klopsteg's construction advice beginning on page 110.
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Wooden Spring on December 06, 2013, 11:09:31 pm
I not only would, but do hold to  the "pyramid" design. It is efficient, straightforward to tiller, durable and fast

Paul Klopseg, an engineer and archer, wrote about how to make this design in May of 1932. He and Clarence Hickman, another engineer, sang  the  praises of this "new bow" as having limbs that returned to their neutral position faster than an other design of which they were aware.

"Archery, the Technical Side," which contains their writings, is a fascinating read that makes it obvious that a lot of what we are experimenting with now is an effort that is related to reinventing the wheel.

I highly recommend  this book. If you can borrow or buy it, you will find Klopsteg's construction advice beginning on page 110.

I'm sure it's a great book, but unfortunately the publishing nazis want $200 for it on Amazon.
Title: Re: Bow Design Question...
Post by: Aussie Yeoman on December 06, 2013, 11:32:09 pm
It really is a great book.

It is actually a collection of articles written by the contributors that were first published in mathematical, engineering and archery magazines at the time. Be aware that a few hypotheses presented early in the piece are refuted in later entries. Still, it's all worth reading.