Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: half eye on January 18, 2015, 08:50:26 pm
-
Hey fellas,
Ya know I usually make short Eastern woodland styled bows, and that they are usually plain as in no backing, heat treat, or only seldom some steam straightening. I was looking at my bows yesterday and it dawned on me that not one of my whitewood bows would qualify as wide and thin. All of them are rectangular in section.
I grabbed 5 bows and did the measurements. 4 are bows I made and the one is the bow that Don Burchett sent me. There is a list of the bows and the particulars. I have pics of unbraced, braced, and full draw for you to look at.
52" Ojibwa, ironwood, 58#@26 (55#@25") 1-1/16" wide and .602" thick, no set
39" Eastern woodland, black locust scrap, 40#@20", 1-1/8" wide and .495"thick, 1" of set
42-1/2" Ojibwa, slippery elm scrap, 44#@21", 15/16 wide and .530 thick, 5/8 " set
49" ocean spray, eastern woodland, 57#@25", 1-1/4" wide and .611" thick, 1/2" of Reflex
57-1/2 Mollegabet, Ironwood, 54#@26" 1-1/4@fades and 1-1/16"@levers, .650" and .502" respectively.
Anyway, I wonder where the idea of whitewood needing to be wide (and thin) to make good bows came from, since my experience says that the Native American whitewood bows were not built that way but rather closer to rectangular or square in section.
This square section bows are very snappy, take little set, and seem to be good bows in all respects. Any opinions welcome.
rich
-
next bow
-
next one
next bow
-
It came from people wanting handles, longer draws, higher weight and better performance.
-
Those are awesome half eye
-
next
-
next
-
sorry I screwed up the full draws....here are all of 'em.
-
Thanks for posting these Rich. I was going through some threads from a while back on short bows and noticed the same thing, took down the measurements and 2 bows I'm working on are now narrow and square.... maybe not quite as short though.
-
Thanks Tyke, and David I be really interested in how your turns out compared to the expectations you have.
Thank you Pat M.
rich
-
Rich,
I've read the white wood bow needs to be 2'' wide in TBB 1 page 150-151 and heard it said so many times. It states that narrow limbs are to much for white woods and odds are it will follow the string considerably and robs cast...Don't want to pick a fight but this is "so untrue"...The narrow rectangular cross section short bows can be drawn to decent draw lengths and have excellent cast with hardly any string follow...You have the proof leaning on your shed...I have shot them and made one recently that actually retained some reflex. The Elm you sent me is a rocket launcher shot many times and hasn't moved in set from day one, slightly wider than 1 inch at its widest part which is the handle. Glad you brought this up!
Don
-
Nice Rich. Always love your bows. They all look great. I love to see you challenging the norm.
-
T hanks Don, Idaho Wasn't trying to stir the pot either. But for the square section bows to be as widely occuring it just occured to me that wide was not the only way to approach whitewood.
I think at this point that a wide and thin limb (the compression and tension surfaces) are very close together and as such dont give much room for error.....meaning hinges, compression failures or lots of set. It just seems to me that with a deeper thickness limb there is more "meat" between the compression and tension surfaces and the neutral line.....that's because the square sectiobn bows are forgiving to make, give really good results and allow a bow maker more latitude for mistakes in the making.
I dont believe that I'm challenging anything Just really suprised that with hundreds (maybe thousands) of Native american bows made of square section white woods, I seriously want to know the reasoning for the wide/thin position......and this forum is the place to kick stuff around, got a lot of people smarter than me....want to see what they got to say.
rich
-
looking at a lot of museum bows in some of Jim Hamms books,, there are quite a few that are wide and thin, I dont see a larger amount of square section bows,,, I am sure they shoot great and depending on the stave I had to work with some would turn out square,, but I would choose those for the lighter bows,,
in my experience ,, the wider bow will hold more weight,,or draw further without taking a set,,, on the lighter or medium bows probably not that much difference, once over 50 I think you will see a dramatic difference,, :)
-
Most impressive short bows. I seriously doubt I can make them that short without getting much more set. Still IMHO we need to have chronograph results to be objective.
-
Most of the bows you posted are bend-in-the-handle bows that have limbs as long as a rigid handled bow 4 to 5 inches longer. For those longer bows, the draw lengths you list would would not overstrain the limbs, so they would take no set either.
The thickness of a limb determines the degree of arc to which it can be bent without damage. When thickness is correct for a given arc, a bow can only be made stronger by making it wider. If the thickness is increased, the limbs will take set or break when pulled to the same arc as limbs with the appropriate thickness.
Your bows seem to be right at the limit for the draw length.
Most of the eastern woodland bows I have read about, such as the Sudbury bow, were 55 to 66 inches long and rectangular in cross section. The sudbury was made for a full draw and has a rigid narrowed handle.
Your bows seem more like plains Indian bows, except the are not sinew backed.
Nice collection of snappy bows, nonetheless.
Jim Davis
-
Rich,
I've read the white wood bow needs to be 2'' wide in TBB 1 page 150-151 and heard it said so many times. It states that narrow limbs are to much for white woods and odds are it will follow the string considerably and robs cast...Don't want to pick a fight but this is "so untrue"...The narrow rectangular cross section short bows can be drawn to decent draw lengths and have excellent cast with hardly any string follow...You have the proof leaning on your shed...I have shot them and made one recently that actually retained some reflex. The Elm you sent me is a rocket launcher shot many times and hasn't moved in set from day one, slightly wider than 1 inch at its widest part which is the handle. Glad you brought this up!
Don
2 inches is generally too much BUT the sentiment of what is said in that book IS correct.
Again it comes down to physics. All the equations for all this stuff have been worked out long ago.
Wider/thinner can bend further than narrow/thicker. It really is that simple.
Halfeyes bows show that you can make them narrower but they aren't being drawn far nor are they high weight.
If you increase the strain you need more wood to carry that strain = Simple!
-
Also short bows have this weird thing of feeling faster than they are. The chrono will tell you the unmerciful truth!
Asharrow has it nailed.
-
Those are some extremely well made bows. I think you have come close to getting everything you can out of the staves before they start to take a lot of set. I'd be surprised if a beginning or average bowyer could equal your results with white woods.
Heat treating and or a little reflex go a long way to counteract white woods deficiency in compression when it is narrow limbed. An average piece of white wood, maybe not as dry as it could be, without any heat treatment will usually will yield a bit of set, sometimes even a lot of set, even when wide limbed. Give the same bow a whack of heat and induce a small reflex and that bow can turn into a real nice shooter with virtually no stringfollow. The wood is still the same piece of wood, but the extra work, and knowledge of the bowyer produces a better performing bow.
The same results can be gotten when using an unusually dense stave of whitewood, or one with a natural reflex, and no heat treatment.
Hamish.
-
Same thing for locust, but this says otherwise: http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,49241.msg672094.html#msg672094 (http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,49241.msg672094.html#msg672094)
Really like all of these little things you made, they're actually pretty inspiring ;) ;D
Getting my hands on my vine maple soon, looking to follow your example a little closer with white wood but I'm not giving up my heat treating :P
-
A good analogy Hamish! I've seen severe string follow in wide limbs and narrow limbs, I agree a lot of it depends on the makers ability...The bottom line is I don't think you need to go 2" wide and thin to make a really nice shooter with low string follow.
Don
-
Thanks for the comments fellas. I believe I have the consensus now. Thanks
rich
-
I think the distinction of wide and thin may have been initiated to get away from the classic ELB or victorian style bows of yew and osage that can make an almost square cross section or follow that 5/6ths rule. Looking at the dimensions you've provided the width is almost twice the thickness is most cases. Not close to square and some would say wide and thin. It's all relative. To expect bows to be made 2" wide to be good bows is understandably wrong in many cases but I think it's been proven that a more rectangular cross section is better for many woods than a deeper cross section. For bows that are almost square, even if the bow doesn't break, it'll generally take more set as the depth can't accommodate the expected bend radius. I think in the end we just make bows as "wide" and "thin" as necessary. ;D
-
Maybe somebody made a wider, possibly longer, bow by accident and realized it was superior to a narrow underbuilt bow and the ball got rolling from there. It sure wasn't/isn't being done because folks like to waste their wood stash.
-
What Jim, Brad, and Mike have said bears out everything I have read in the literature--(read, mind you--not done myself), and what you see in Volume I of Hamm and Allely. Hamish probably hits the nail about as squarely on the head as possible--the quality of the bowyer. Although I am not able personally, to evaluate tiller, it seems to be the consensus that perfect tiller can lead to the forgiveness of otherwise mortal sins.
Best regards,
Russ
-
Is not the "wide and thin" concept a function of a 28 inch draw?
-
Its not about draw length, its about the woods characteristics. For example, you cant make a 50" ash bow and a 50" osage bow of matching dimensions perform the same.
-
It is about the wood Chris. But that will dictate the available draw length without breaking down the wood. Both designs have merit within the expectations of the bow.
-
I know it's not apples to apples, but reading Adam's writing on the Ottoman bows and the different dimensions for different types of bows makes a lot of sense to me. I highly recommend reading his thoughts even if you only make wood bows.
-
Hey fellas,
I really think the whole deal is just semantics. What I mean by that is this real simple drawing I made up. All the choices are 6 square units, my question was at what point in the width to thickness ratio have you gone from wide and thin "A" to Square as "D". The grey area is in B & C to my mind. That is what I was after with the question, when does "wide and thinish" go into "squareish"
As to some of the other points I believe draw length is a function of bow length (self bows) so the actual draw needed is a function of the shooting style and therefore The Native American bows are not short draw for the manner they were used, maybe so if you stand erect and draw behind your ear but those bows aren't usually as short as Native American bows. As to the issue brought up about weight I stand corrected because I always thought that 50 to 60 pounds of draw weight was a good bow for hunting and never have considered them in the weak, or inadequate category, and since I have not made any 100 pound bows I can not argue the point.
Ryoon, I have to agree with your assessment sir, it's down to how you interpret the terminology.
Thanks again for all the input fellas.
rich
The sketch is only for illustrative purposes fellas
-
The question is which is more efficient for a particular stave. Somehow I'm getting the impression that even the "wide and thin" people are trying to make their bows as narrow as possible, at least not as wide and thin as fiberglass bows. Other than the ease of manufacture using primitive tools, what would be the reasoning behind such a tendency?
-
Performance and longevity is all that matters to me personally. I don't want a bow to simply not break, I want it to be the best bow it can be. Not all of us have the same spin, and that's cool to. I've built a pile and a half of bows from well over a dozen woods in more styles than I can remember. After a while it became obvious to me why I made some wide and some not so wide and why I SHOULD HAVE made some wider than I did. In my opinion, until you've shot a bow no less than 500-750 times you cant really tell how well built it was/is. So what if it didn't take set the day I made it, lets talk after a 1000 shots.
-
Performance and longevity is all that matters to me personally. I don't want a bow to simply not break, I want it to be the best bow it can be. Not all of us have the same spin, and that's cool to. I've built a pile and a half of bows from well over a dozen woods in more styles than I can remember. After a while it became obvious to me why I made some wide and some not so wide and why I SHOULD HAVE made some wider than I did. In my opinion, until you've shot a bow no less than 500-750 times you cant really tell how well built it was/is. So what if it didn't take set the day I made it, lets talk after a 1000 shots.
Pretty much how i was thinking
-
I made bows for guys that would shoot 1000 arrows a week,,, so any flaw in design became apparent quickly, great testing ground,, "overbuilt bows" were the only ones that would stand up,, a bow that had no set from a few hundred shots,, would start to shift after a few weeks if everything was not perfect,,,
I am not a thin bow or wide bow advocate,, but there are proven advantages to both,, no right or wrong here depending on design,, but most the time a wider limb bow will draw further without taking set or breaking,, that is why on some woods it is,, the only design that will lead to consistent success,,
example, take one of the narrow bows that is at its max draw,, now draw it 3 more inches for a 100 shots and shoot it through the chronograph,, now take a same wood bow that is about 2 inches wide but same draw weight and length and do the same,,,the chronograph will make it very clear what the advantages of the wider limb can be,,
-
It all comes down to what radius you are bending them at. I might use a 10" radius bend in a bow or I might use a 72" radius bending area. The larger the radius the thicker the wood can be. If a bow is a bendy handle 6" long elb with a circular tiller it might be 3/4" or more thick. It just depends on the design. If you make it too thick you loose power. I am working on one right now that is just over 1/4" thick and still to thick. I should have brought it down just a little more.