One ring osage

[crooketarrow]

     Saw a post on another site about ring size. This got me to thinking and I thouhg about this fir years. A while back my old bowyer(mentor) friend died. His wife gave me all he had. As for tools he only had a rasp and eye glass scraper. But I did get a few staves mostly osage. He had the nicest staves, He aways said your bow only as good as the stave you started with. One stave I knew I wanted that he had. He had it for as long as I knew him. He had 2 and had built a bow out of the other long before I knew him. He'd traded the bow for something. But had used it for 7 or 8 years. HE ALWAYS SAID HE'D WISH HE'D KEPT IT. HE SAID IT WAS BEST BOW HE'D EVER BUILT. AND HE'D BUILT SELFBOWS FOR OVER 50 YEARS.
    The stave was and osage 70 "s straight,staifgt grained with 3"s of deflexed it no knots it had bow writen all over it.
  I Built it 66"s, 64"s  nock to nock 60#'s, at 26"s 1 1/4 wide I rounded the edges good a little more oval toward the back. Osage is a little less in compression. My favoret deside for osage. Still had and inch of deflex. I looked great shot great fast good cast. I was going to use it. At lest for a while.  Wish I'd keep it but money talks. What made this bow so different was it as built useing only one ring for ths limbs. The rings were 1/2" thick. Thickest I've ever see to date.
   Can't say this made the bow any better. Or it was just because I just started out the such a good stave. But like I said I was fast,sweet just felt good in your hand and to shoot. It you've built a few bows you know where I'm comeing from. Dose anyone think being the limbs were one ring dose this make it a better bow or just easer to built.
   .

[Pappy]

Not sure about better but easier ,I would say,don't have to worry about violating a ring.
I have alway liked tighter rings rather than thicker,seem to be denser wood to me.JMO.
  Pappy

[Dean Marlow]

I have made Osage Bows out of tight ringed and wide ringed Osage and I personally like Osage with the tighter rings. To me they are snappier than the wide ringed Osage. But my best shooting Osage bow has medium rings but was a well seasoned stave. 5 years to be exact. Beginning to believe the longer you let a Osage stave season may be something to think about. They say the people who use Yew are saying the longer you Let Yew season the better also. May be the same with Osage. Dean

[gstoneberg]

Yea, thick rings are easier on the bow back and harder on the bow belly.  I like thin rings when I'm tillering the belly because it makes the taper and thickness so obvious.  I have a spliced mulberry bow that has a one ring limb on the bottom and about 5 rings on the top limb.  Shoots fine and the limbs are about the same thickness.  However, there is a big difference between really well seasoned (read old) osage and the 2 year old wood most of us use.  I'm betting that's what you were feeling.  Half inch rings though, wow.  I've seen mulberry like that but never osage.  That was a rare one.

George

[George Tsoukalas]

Are you talking about 1 ring on the belly? Jawge

[crooketarrow]

    No the whole limb is one ring the second ring shows up in the fade third in the handle. Only osage I've seen with rings this thick. Tress that grow away from water wind swep hill sides where the tree had to fight for sun light make better bows I think. But maybe this is because this is what we have to use. I'm not sure but I like tight ringed staves also. And I agree the older the osage the better. All my osage staves are 10 years or older.
  I once got 5 staves for a 100 year old corner fence post in KS  they all made fine bows.

[Elktracker]

Sent you a pm back

[George Tsoukalas]

I chase to one ring tip to tip including the handle on all my bows. I know some that have one limb one ring, the handle another and the other limb another ring. No thanks. My last osage bow bends in the handle anyway and not having one ring on the whole bow wold be disastrous. Jawge

[osage outlaw]

I think what he is talking about is one ring thick, front to back on the limbs.  The stave had rings thicker than the limbs ended up being.

[George Tsoukalas]

Oh, thanks, osage outlaw. I must be as thick as one of the rings o his beautiful osage save. I don't see that situation he describes as a problem. Jawge

[crooketarrow]

    No not a problem at all. It made a great bow. Just wandering if was better 1 ring back and belly than a multi ring limb. Where the backs 1 ring and the belly another. Dos'nt really matter I sold the bow a few years ago. Just wandering.

[George Tsoukalas]

I've never had that situation so I don't know  but I don't think it matters either way. Jawge

[Ryano]

IMO ring thickness doesnt mean that much. I've seen very thin ringed osage that was extremely dense wood and made great bows but I've also seen thin ringed wood that was very light and took more set than you would normaly expect from osage. On the other hand I've seen thick ringed wood that felt heavy and dense and didn't seem to make such a great bow either? I think every piece is diferent. I do tend to agree about seasoned wood...seems like the older the better.

[The Gopher]

the ratio of latewood to earlywood is more important than ring thickness. I did some study of red oak latewood/earlywood ratios just to see how much of a difference it made. the results are below. NO, I'M NOT COMPARING RED OAK TO OSAGE 

This shows how large of difference you can see in specific gravity from tree to tree of the same species. In general the latewood of a given species has a consistent specific gravity, but that ratio can mess things up.

[Carson (CMB)]

Sounds like a sweet piece of osage.  At the least, it would be easier to tiller not having to deal with early wood feathering out on the belly.