Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: Tom Dulaney on July 28, 2017, 07:01:54 am
-
Although the bow in this thread is a horn-composite, I have decided to post this in the regular bow section, since there is more traffic here, and my question only pertains to the handle:
(http://www.atarn.org/magyar/magyar_2/magyar13.jpg)
Taken from: http://www.atarn.org/magyar/magyar_2/bow.htm
So the writeup on these bows is not really detailed and it doesn't say a whole lot about the Moschevaya Balka bow in the picture. I don't know much about how the handle of this bow is constructed, but it looks like a scarf joint with two plates for the handle. I would like to try and make a bow with a handle like this by bending two pieces of wood in to those shapes and gluing them together. It just seems to me like you have more opportunity to get a better fit with this method, as opposed to scraping. Obviously the surface still has to be scraped and smoothed a little bit, but it's less work than taking a really thick piece of wood and scraping a scarf on it. Do you think this is a viable alternative? Has anybody here ever made a handle like this?
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "this method" versus scraping. Not sure what you mean by scraping in this context either.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "this method" versus scraping. Not sure what you mean by scraping in this context either.
By scraping, I mean scraping the two pieces of the handle so that they form the female ends of the scarf joints. This would involve thicker pieces of wood. What I am thinking of doing is taking two thinner pieces of wood and bending the ends of them, so they form the female parts of the joints in that manner. Does that make sense? Sorry I wasn't clear in the original post.
-
The diagram sucks, but I can't see the scarf joint, just two decorative antler plates facing off the handle grip. Sorry, don't mean to burst your bubble. Having said that, I don't see any reason some kind of scarf joint reinforced by side plates wouldn't work
-
If you can draw a better representation of what you want to try we can help you
-
The original was not actually spliced in the middle.
http://www.atarn.org/mongolian/moshcheveya_balka.htm
-
The diagram sucks, but I can't see the scarf joint,
The original was not actually spliced in the middle
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say that's impossible. The wooden grip area of the bow would be about 0.2mm wide. What would be the point of narrowing a stave down like that and then splicing bone to it? What a retarded waste of time. Andrew Hall is clearly wrong, this is two limbs scarf-spliced to a composite handle. You can see how it opened up after years in the grave.
(http://i.imgur.com/TSmJeK2.jpg?1)
-
That is the top view of the bow and what you see are the bone side plates of the handle. PatM is correct in saying the original was not spliced in the handle. It was a single piece for both limbs with a laminated handle piece on the back side of the core.
-
The 'best' way is to simply v-splice two limbs on to a separate handle piece. V-splices won't fail and it is easy to adjust angles etc with them.
-
That is the top view of the bow and what you see are the bone side plates of the handle. PatM is correct in saying the original was not spliced in the handle. It was a single piece for both limbs with a laminated handle piece on the back side of the core.
Yean, I'm aware that's a top view of the bow. And I'm saying there's no way that's possible. Look at how narrow the handle would be, inbetween the bone plates.
-
The limbs are wide and it's also a drawing, not a photo. The bone plates could have the natural curve on the inside with the wood shaped to fit that.
In short if you know best, don't ask questions.
-
The limbs are wide and it's also a drawing, not a photo. The bone plates could have the natural curve on the inside with the wood shaped to fit that.
In short if you know best, don't ask questions.
"The limbs are wide".... Like 1.3 inches wide.
http://circasvoices.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-moshchevaya-balka-necropolis-key-to.html
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mBFzGRnJ05k/U28m_vMQTWI/AAAAAAAABDA/Xtxlef64UPw/s1600/2.+Bow-case,+bow,+and+arrows..jpg)
Can somebody tell me what the point would be of narrowing a bow's handle for no good reason just so you can attach some silly plates to it? Why not just leave it the way it is? This looking like it must be a splice to me and until somebody can show me x-ray proof or an official documentation from an archaeologst that they aren't, I simply cannot believe that. Somebody please show me the proof.
-
Why would a narrow splice be any more feasible than just a narrow continuous piece?
Almost all of those bows had multiple stiffening plates. This is not a one off bow. A narrow stiff handle is more center shot.
-
Why would a narrow splice be any more feasible than just a narrow continuous piece?
It's not a matter of feasibility, but rather pointlessness. Why narrow a handle to paper-chip thinness just to attach some bone plates to it? What it looks like is two limbs spliced to bone handles.
Almost all of those bows had multiple stiffening plates. This is not a one off bow. A narrow stiff handle is more center shot.
I would say they are not bone stiffening plates, but handles in to which the limbs were spliced.
-
The handle is a little over an inch wide with the side plates, the bone side plates measure a little less than 1/8" thick per side. The bone side plates do also have a convex shape to them. Basically there is still 3/4" of wood still in that handle under the bone side plates, they are not "paper chip thinness"
You are making assumptions based on archeological drawings, people who are not experts in the archery field
-
The handle is a little over an inch wide with the side plates, the bone side plates measure a little less than 1/8" thick per side. The bone side plates do also have a convex shape to them. Basically there is still 3/4" of wood still in that handle under the bone side plates, they are not "paper chip thinness"
You are making assumptions based on archeological drawings, people who are not experts in the archery field
Um, yeah, no, there is most definitely not 3/4" inches of wood left in the handle of this bow.
(http://i.imgur.com/4CIAIPo.jpg?1)
-
Why would a narrow splice be any more feasible than just a narrow continuous piece?
It's not a matter of feasibility, but rather pointlessness. Why narrow a handle to paper-chip thinness just to attach some bone plates to it? What it looks like is two limbs spliced to bone handles.
Almost all of those bows had multiple stiffening plates. This is not a one off bow. A narrow stiff handle is more center shot.
I would say they are not bone stiffening plates, but handles in to which the limbs were spliced.
The bone plates are documented as separate slabs. I'm not sure you understand what a scarf joint is. How exactly are you proposing the two limbs actually are joined?
See this image for the same structure.
http://kgx.narod.ru/bow/bow.gif
-
The bone plates are documented as separate slabs. I'm not sure you understand what a scarf joint is. How exactly are you proposing the two limbs actually are joined?
See this image for the same structure.
http://kgx.narod.ru/bow/bow.gif
Based on what I've read, from internet postings such as this one, nobody really has any idea what function the bone plates serve. (https://www.reddit.com/r/Archery/comments/6ijo3c/difference_between_avar_and_magyar_bows/dj6xeak/)
Look at this picture. The blue line represents the glue line where the two bone plates are joined together. You can see that this produces two female fishtails in to which the two limbs (with tapering male ends) can be inserted (glued) and sinew wrapped. My this is similar to, but not identical to the joints described as "scarf" joints on Scythian bows in this PDF (http://www.atarn.org/chinese/scythian_bows.htm).
(http://i.imgur.com/yXn9F2Y.jpg?1)
It looks to me like that is exactly what this is.
(http://i.imgur.com/3YrGoFm.jpg?1)
Your picture was interesting but it looks like an artist's impression rather than an actual archaeological drawing. The bow as illustrated by archaeologists does appear to be two limbs spliced together.
-
So you think that two pieces with no continuous connection to each other is stronger than one piece waisted in to a narrow strip and reinforced with bone?
Any bowyer worth their salt could tell you that bone being about 7 times stiffer than wood allows dramatic reduction in width. Many of those bows were made with wood of questionable strength and stiffness so adding bone dramatically increases their abilities.
This is the same principle with I beam risers in modern bows
-
Um, yeah, no, there is most definitely not 3/4" inches of wood left in the handle of this bow.
What practical difference does it make? Even if there is no wooden handle under the bone plates, there must be something in there. What difference does it make whether it is one piece (with the limbs) or scarfed pieces?
The handle is rather thick. Though just 1 inch wide (in the front profile), it appears to be a couple of inches thick (in the side profile) at least. That means it is more likely to have a separate handle piece and the limbs are spliced into it and the bone plates are added. Do you have any idea how wide (high in the side profile) are the bone handles? Practically it would be a lot easier if there is wood under the bone plates. What difference would it make if it is the same piece as the limbs or a separate piece? Either way there must be a separate piece on top of the limbs (in side profile) anyway. What difference does it make whether it is made of the same bone plates or another separate piece (of wood or whatever) under the bone plates? There are many ways to skin the cat.
-
I would like to try and make a bow with a handle like this by bending two pieces of wood in to those shapes and gluing them together. It just seems to me like you have more opportunity to get a better fit with this method, as opposed to scraping.
Go on ahead, report back when you're done. If you squint a bit it looks like two limbs 'V' jointed into a bone handle, should work but I've never done it.
-
I hate to tell you this but that archaeological drawing is crude as hell. The ones that patm posted are much more detailed, do you just want to argue about it?
-
Its not a scarf joint for starters. Its a cobbled together v splice by what your drawing shows. And yes, if there is enough surface area, that will work.
-
I hate to tell you this but that archaeological drawing is crude as hell. The ones that patm posted are much more detailed, do you just want to argue about it?
I don't think that was a drawing of a bow that was dug out of the ground, I think it's an artist's impression of whatever they thought an ancient bow was supposed to look like.
-
Even worse.
-
I hate to tell you this but that archaeological drawing is crude as hell. The ones that patm posted are much more detailed, do you just want to argue about it?
I don't think that was a drawing of a bow that was dug out of the ground, I think it's an artist's impression of whatever they thought an ancient bow was supposed to look like.
So, the second part of bubby's statement?
-
Obviously you know more than everyone else, so I can't wait to see what you come up with. >:D
-
Man that pic that patm posted the link to is pretty detailed, almost looks like a guy that knew what a bowyer would like, cross sections and everything
-
I would've though it was obvious why bone was used...;) As Pat said bone is very stiff compared to wood......
Yes please do make one of these and show us. It won't take long!
-
maybe that bow is just decorative and not meant to shoot,,,, (-P