Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: Stick Bender on August 21, 2016, 10:32:18 am
-
Hi Fellas this time of year is when I start getting my bows Ruffed out for winter ,I have a couple osage in the works now but I read the other day that thick ring osage has slower cast to it and The only osage bow I have made so far was thin ringed and had pretty fair cast , is there any truth to that ? I would like to make a 44 in. parallel limb sinew bow out of this stave but have thinner ringed choices in the shop ?
-
When starting this hobby I was always told a 7 to 10 ring count on staves is very good,but yes I personally do seem to get an anticipated thrill from making a bow from a thinner ringed stave.Especially if it is seasoned well.Faster cast??? There are so many variables in bow making it's like trying to split hairs here.Design and tiller rule the day.
If your using sinew on this one I would'nt worry about it much.
-
Yep, yep and yep. I will use what I have on the bench but, I much prefer tight ringed staves. I always looked for the thicker ringed stuff when I first started making bows as I thought THEY were superior. Over time I have reversed course on that. Having said that I have had both thin and thick each be really good and each be just so so, but on the whole, the tight ringed wood has performed at a higher level more often for me.
-
Like many o the others I have grown to like the thin ringed osage but I still know plenty of guys who make outstanding osage bows from thick rings like you have there. Just a personal preference. I doubt it makes a lot of difference either way. If the bow doesn't take set or break it will be a performer as long as your design is decent. 44" bows are not going to be all that fast to start with but fun to shoot.
-
i think it will make a fine bow,, how the bow is made and designed will usually have more effect on the cast than the ring count,,, I my self have not noticed much difference in ring count performance, and have been shooting self bows through a chrono for about 25 years and keeping records as well,,
If I have a piece with rings so thin its going to be difficult to follow,, I will pick that for sinew,,
if I have a nice piece like yours,, I will make a self bow or sinew back,,,,
my post crossed with Badger, so I will add,, at his level of of bow making and competition ,, I would not be surprised if there is a slight difference in ring count performance, that could make a difference,, in a competition,,
my bows are mostly for hunting,,and for my use ,, a slight difference in ring count performance is not an issue,, :)
-
I believe Brad that your take is more common than mine, but I want the tight ringed as a self bow. If it's thick enough to get a good back, and that don't take much, That's my ideal self bow. Save the more sluggish (perceived) thicker ringed stuff for backing. I know that differs from many others, but that's the wonder in all this.
-
Like Brad said design and execution are more likely to make a better performing bow than ring count. There are folks that would give their eyeteeth for a stave with rings like the one you posted. I prefer osage. If I have a choice I prefer thinner rings but I would kick that stave out of my Stave Master. ;)
Once you've made a few dozen selfbows you will know what works better for you. If you haven't made a couple dozen bows you probably won't notice a difference.
-
That is a horrible piece of wood, with those awful rings a blind man could chase. You would be better off sending it to me for safe disposal.
Someone had to say it >:D
-
yes I wish I had not typed so fast,, and said how useless that ring count would be,, :)
-
Edge grained cut thick ringed osage makes excellent lamination stock for sure,if nice and straight,and even if it's not straight too.Pretty too.Thinner ringed we're talking 12 to 18 rings/inch.Maybe thinner yet depending on the condition of the back for self bows.Made a couple out of a 16 ring count once.Still shootin fine and holding up well.
-
Forgot to mention that important early/latewood percentage factor too.
-
Yours looks real good on your stave Stick Bender.
-
I would consider that a premium stave, no reason to even think it might be sluggish. Nothing at all wrong with those rings. The thinner rings have only recently become more widely accepted but I still doubt us thin ringed fans are in the majority.
-
I would agree. Early wood ratio looks real good and that's what I look for first. Before ring width. If that's good, I'm happy with either.
-
I use my thick ring staves as trade fodder. I wont even take the time to build a bow of it. I notice thin ring to be far superior.
-
Total bull crap. I guarantee you make two exact same bows, one from thin ringed and one from thick, there would be next to no difference. Anyone who don't want their thick ringed Osage, I will gladly take it lol.
-
I will put you on my trade with list then. But you gadda swap me thin ring stuff.
-
I don't know joe....I see some pretty accomplished guys saying they prefer thin ringed Osage. You saying that ring configuration has no impact? None?
-
I don't know joe....I see some pretty accomplished guys saying they prefer thin ringed Osage. You saying that ring configuration has no impact? None?
I wouldn't say it has absolutely no effect, I think it could have a very minor effect on the performance but I personally wouldn't bet on it having any huge jump in performance.
-
I will put you on my trade with list then. But you gadda swap me thin ring stuff.
Hey I don't discriminate I like thin or thick rings haha. 8)
-
It should make you a fine bow. Don't worry. Jawge
-
Ok. That's backiNg way off from "total bull crap".
-
Ok. That's backiNg way off from "total bull crap".
Like i said, there would probably be "next to no" difference. I was just stating my opinion on the subject, then again I'm a nobody with an opinion worth nothing haha, don't take me serious.
-
I'm with others in that while I wouldn't necessarily shun a thick-ringed stave, they're never my preference. With osage, as with all other woods, I always prefer thin ringed staves provided the early-to-late ratio strongly favors late wood. If I had a stave like the one you showed, I'd do what sleek does and put it on the trade blanket. I have two osage staves with fairly thicks rings on the trade blanket as we speak, in fact.
-
Joe...I was fine with you jumping out there with your opinion. "Total bull crap, and I guarantee"...I was just hoping you'd make your case. Instead you walked it way back. I've had my biases about this stuff over the years, and some of those things I believed to be true 10 or 20 years ago, I now know that I was wrong then. I'm wrong about something I believe right now. No shame in discovering your wrong about something and getting right with it.
-
I'm wrong about something I believe right now.
"But I may be mistaken about that."
-
Joe...I was fine with you jumping out there with your opinion. "Total bull crap, and I guarantee"...I was just hoping you'd make your case. Instead you walked it way back. I've had my biases about this stuff over the years, and some of those things I believed to be true 10 or 20 years ago, I now know that I was wrong then. I'm wrong about something I believe right now. No shame in discovering your wrong about something and getting right with it.
Hey, neither one of us is wrong because neither of us actually has a scientific factual case about this.
-
I like thin ringed stuff. I believe they hold heated shaping a bit better and maybe they are bit more resilient, like white wood saplings often are. Id say a good share of the thick ring fans cant chase a ring to save their draw knife, hence the love affair. Aint nothing wrong with that either. To each their own.
-
True enough, but I didn't throw down a guarantee. You did. I was just hoping you would back up your argument with something. Scientific or not. Here....
#1 about 4 rings per inch.
#2 about 15 rings per inch.
I made bows from both, and I like them both. Love them both. But they are different bows. The thinner ringed bow having lower mass, took less set and shoots at a higher draw weight than the thick ringed bow.
I have not run either thru a chrono, but I know what I like. Low set, low mass, hunting weight bows. 3 things that are sometimes difficult for me to achieve together. The thinner ringed stuff has done that for me more often than the thick.
-
I agree with that PEARL. All of it really. The thick ringed stuff is much easier to work. That is why I sought it out early on. The thin ringed Osage just holds up better over time, for me anyway. And lastly, it is a matter of what you like more than anything else.
-
The thinner ringed Osage has taken less set for me so far...Maybe the thicker faster growing rings aren't as dense as the slower growing thinner rings?...Getting into ultra thin rings, ring ratio will have to be considered...
Don
-
I've made bows from paper thin rings and thick rings. Once again I'll say I like it all, Osage is just great wood all around. This one I made three years ago has tiny little rings, great bow took next to no string follow.
(http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q681/joec123able/717F5B60-9462-419D-8F68-C0B944750B7C_zps3olszfci.jpg) (http://s1354.photobucket.com/user/joec123able/media/717F5B60-9462-419D-8F68-C0B944750B7C_zps3olszfci.jpg.html)
-
I hate Osage. Makes a crappy bow.... >:D
-
Somebody was hoping for scientific evidence. I don't have it but it is true that something like 90% of the tension and compression forces are carried in the wood that is within one tenth of the thickness from the back and belly.
So, a thin ring that is .05" thick on a limb that is .5" thick is carrying about the same load as a much thicker ring would carry.
It is also worth noting, that a thin ringed limb that tapers in thickness will have more early wood on the surface of the belly than a thick-ringed limb.
I'd be into those trades for my thin-ringed stash if it weren't for the shipping costs.
Jim Davis
-
Just a interesting thought if you add sinew to the mix I wonder if the thicker ring stuff would be better in compretion ? Or is there any difference just curious since my original post included sinew , I don't have enough exsperience to know the difference yet . All though the thin ringed osage is my fastest bow so far.
-
OK. Good start. That's better than throwing something out there and running from it. But it doesn't support your argument. It seems you have changed your mind, or rethought the whole thing and decided that you too like thin ringed better. ???
Stick. With sinew, I dont think it matters at all.
-
OK. Good start. That's better than throwing something out there and running from it. But it doesn't support your argument. It seems you have changed your mind, or rethought the whole thing and decided that you too like thin ringed better. ???
Stick. With sinew, I dont think it matters at all.
I don't have any factual proven argument and you've agreed you don't either so I see no reason to argue to get no where :) I will, however, admit I was wrong in saying "I guarentee" that was wrong to say.
-
I recently built a thick ring bow. There was barely two rings in the limbs. The stave was not as dense as the tight ring stave. You pic up two staves at the same time and the thick ring bow was quite a bit lighter. Drop them on the concrete and the tight ring had a higher pitch. I built the bow as if it was a white wood bow thicker and wider. The bow has good cast and speed.you pick a bow of the same design and draw weight the thick ringed bow is much larger in physical size. I think it comes down to density and mass. Arvin
-
Forgot to mention that important early/latewood percentage factor too.
Yes on early to late ring. Tighter the early ring the better. Arvin
-
I will put you on my trade with list then. But you gadda swap me thin ring stuff.
Sleek if it is straight put me on your list and we can trade at OJAM. Arvin
-
Joe...I'm giving you a hard time. No argument here. It looks like we agree anyway!
Arvin...I agree with you. I too think it is density and mass. I have seen this often enough in the staves I worked that I will treat them differently. As a side note, you and I met each other a few years ago in Vanderpool. Your bows are really really nice!
-
I just finished my 154th bow, with a few exceptions they were osage bows. For the osage I cut around here, rings wider than 3/8" make sluggish bows.
I have made several bows out of the middle slice and others like it, all were light weight wood, took string follow and were sluggish.
More of my bows have been made out of wood like the other two examples, heavy wood, real snappy and my first choice.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v181/ekrewson/bow%20making/osagesamples.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/ekrewson/media/bow%20making/osagesamples.jpg.html)
-
(http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i411/rocketernally/20160822_182706_zps4rbmpwv0.jpg) (http://s1092.photobucket.com/user/rocketernally/media/20160822_182706_zps4rbmpwv0.jpg.html)
This is about right.
-
Sleek....Now that's tight ringed Osage. Did you leave the sapwood on it? How did it perform? Very curious.
-
I left the sap on, and it took very very little set. Shoots great. Its a good performer. Its ole ugly tips. The one I miffed up the tips on and redid them.
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,57886.0.html
-
Speaking in general here about all wood in the beginning my thoughts were that thin ringed wood only benefited conifers mostly.Yew especially.Arrow shafts from DF with more than 4 rings are wanted too and valued by the maker and user as being a denser better shaft.
Hickory I know does better with hardly distinguishable lines almost like dots.Common denominater here is that it was slow growing.
If I'm wrong here these woods along with osage are all ring porous woods yet.
Seems like it takes making bows that are pushed stressful wise with a design that's when a person can notice a difference between thick ring and thin ring in set and cast.At least for me anyway.
-
I saw the post. Nothing wrong with those tips. That is some seriously thin rings.
-
Beadman, you can add elm and black locust to your list of woods that are best with high ring count.
-
Yes your right.Probably more too.
Now before splitting up a log on most logs anyway the rings can be tighter on one side opposed to the other.I know when guys are taking a stave from juniper the side that has the center of the stave closer to that side,that side is the one they want for a stave.It usually has a thinner sapwood too.The rings most times are always thinner.I see that on other ring porous woods too.
-
I can't speak to the science behind any of this, only to my observations, and my experience tells me that lots of thin hardwood rings sandwiched between lots of early rings is lighter, but stronger. Jim makes a good point about the early wood occupying more area on the belly of a thin ringed bow. That's true, but it doesn't seem to matter. In fact the bellies take less set than the thicker rings where there is less early wood, or at least I believe this to be the case. The physical weight difference is easy to understand. Build a bow out of 100 percent hardwood and it will be heavier than the same bow where 10 to 20 percent is made up of lighter early wood. It would be 10 to 20 percent lighter. It just doesn't follow that it will also be 10 to 20 percent....weaker.
edit....it wont be 10 to 20 percent lighter as the early wood is not weightless, but it will be considerably lighter.
-
could it be that the thick ring osage and tight ring osage made to the same width,, or designed the same could be some of the performance difference,, if there is a difference in mass then the wider limb thick ring might perform as well as the more narrow thin ring that is more dense,, I am just asking ,, cause I have made some really nice bows with thick ring osage,,, maybe a bit wider,, a friend of mine made a bow with the thickest rings I have seen,, barely two rings on the limb,, he heated into reflex and then made the bow,, it holds even and shoots great,, not sluggish at all,, we shot it quite a bit through the chrono,,,, most people will give a general width that works for osage , with not much consideration for ring thickness or mass of the stave,, just wondering,, :)
-
Unless I am reading wrong, I keep seeing folks say tight rings make more dense wood. That aint right. Its less dense.
-
Yes, lower density. Less physical weight.
-
Unless I am reading wrong, I keep seeing folks say tight rings make more dense wood. That aint right. Its less dense.
I can't say I've noticed a strong correlation between ring count and density. Sometimes a wide-ringed tree will be very dense, other times not so much. Same is true with a tight-ringed tree. My favorite staves are particularly dense pieces with tight rings, regardless as to species.
-
It seems then that conifers benefit more density from tighter rings then other woods.
Less mass with tighter rings with osage maybe makes sense then as one advantage I see FG limbs having over wooden ones is the limbs weigh less.
The only true way is to float test these things instead of guessing.Then it probably will be rather minute I would think,but maybe that's all it takes then too.Other variables while making a bow contribute too yet.
Seems like making and trying to understand making bows and bow wood is still like groping in the dark after something yet.
-
What you said Ed sums it up for me pretty well. There is no magic wood or super design, or hidden ring configuration that will in and of itself give you the next world record holder, but, each of these small things like ring configuration for example, coupled with the correct design and flawless execution can allow someone like me, to every once in a while have it all come together for a special bow. Understanding all these little things and how and why they are important, that's still an area that remains a mystery after all this time.
-
I like what has been said about all the other variables & small things I already know enough that the bows that I skipped the small things caused me the biggest problems,and the ones I sweated every detail and asked a ton of questions turned out the best , I'm sure the guy with the thick ring stave that pays attention to every aspect of the build would make a better bow then the guy with a thin ring stave that didn't , some times I over think things but so much valuable time & material goes into making one of these sinew bows you want to get it right , but with all that was said I don't feel under gunned with this stave and will give it a go.
-
Saw this video of a guy making a short bow out of osage, very very tight-ringed, and it blew up. It sort of makes sense that very tight rings may be more likely to fail in the back?.. maybe he didn't chase the ring perfectly
-
Saw this video of a guy making a short bow out of osage, very very tight-ringed, and it blew up. It sort of makes sense that very tight rings may be more likely to fail in the back?.. maybe he didn't chase the ring perfectly
Ever see a very short bow with thick rings fail? Or even a long bow with thick rings fail?
Of course you do have a valid point, thin ring is a bear to chase when they get around .005 thick. A sheet of paper is around .003 thick. I have done it but not on my first try! Its an exercise in profanity and stress management.
-
I have absolutely no proof nor can I explain it but here are my thoughts. Now personally I will always reach for the good ratio thin ring Osage. But I have had some that's garbage. I've also had good and bad luck with some thick ring stuff. I personally think asides from rings what's in the soil has something to do with it. Not sure if it's pH or minerals or maybe excessive rain or drought but some Osage is absolutely invincible and some is just junk. Would not know where to even start on the research of that. By the time you have the piece to floor tiller usually it's Crystal Clear whether it's good or bad. The best Osage I've ever had comes out of rows in the cornfields and regardless of ring thickness it's all been great but it's very hard to find straight pieces
-
Unless I am reading wrong, I keep seeing folks say tight rings make more dense wood. That aint right. Its less dense.
Only if the early rings are bigger than the late rings. Weight does not lie. If two pieces of wood are the same size and have the same moisture content . The heavier will be more dense. That's why they won't float as high. Arvin
-
Maybe like grape vines and the grape making better wine when it's stressed a bit it's like that for trees.To grow in a tough neighborhood you have to be tough and you'll make a great bow.
-
Someone might have already have said this,but to me ,It does'nt make a difference in ring thickness,up to a point. What matters is the thickness of the early wood. I have built good performers from wood that has 2 growth rings in the finished limbs,and also good ones with 6-8 rings in a 1/2" finished limb.It does seem I can get by with a little thicker early wood layer with the thicker late wood ring. JMHO God Bless