Hickory - Thin Rings vs. Thick Rings

[Drewster]

I have a number of hickory staves and billets to build bows with.  Some of them are thick enough that if I remove six to ten rings I can get to a group of much thicker rings.....but with obviously more work.

All things being equal, will the thicker rings make a noticeably better bow?  Is it worth the extra several hours of work or will the greater number of thinner rings in a limb build just as good a bow?

Thanks for your help and sharing your knowledge.

[TRACY]

With hickory I never even look at the rpi. Peel the bark and scrape the cambium layer off. Now tiller bow to desired draw length and poundage. Done.



Tracy

[RBLusthaus]

As Tracy says, unless you damaged the back peeling the bark, don't chase a ring, just use the wood under the bark as your back. 

Russ

[bradsmith2010]

i dont think the thicker ring will make a better bow

[burchett.donald]

Drewster, I've worked some hickory and never seen any difference in performance due to ring thickness...Keeping it dust dry was the most important issue for me...Very tough but the slightest bit of moisture caused set...
                                                                                   Don

[blackhawk]

Hickory is ring porous...in general the less early wood you have in a piece of ring porous wood the denser/and better it is IMO...what kind of ring thickness and ratio are you speaking of? It seems folks have differing opinions on what "thin" rings are...

Sure hickory is hickory and strong tensioned wood,and works just fine for normal average bows(which is what most folks who have answered you make)....BUT I'd say it depends on what kind of bow your wanting to make...if I was wanting to make a high stressed high performance design I'd want the thicker and better wood in my limbs...to me there IS a difference when making those kind of bows compared to the "normal average" flatbows etc...Dan Perry(who's an excellent flight archer/bowyer) mentions he likes his hickory with thicker summer growth and really thin early wood(I.e..good ratio wood)...flight bows are tortured wood put to the test at near max limits...and I agree with him 100%

Just thought I'd throw that out there as there is differing thoughts from others about it out there than those who answered before me...

[George Tsoukalas]

Just take off the bark and there's the back. Jawge

[bradsmith2010]

I would agree with dan,, less early wood is preferred in most cases,, but there is not any study or documentation that i know of,, ,, that states one ring thickness makes a better bow than another,,even in osage it is very debatable,, with examples of thin ring and thick ring bows  both making great bows,,, maybe if I saw an example of a thin ring flight bow,,,,and thick ring flight bow test,,, I would become enlightened,, or if I saw examples of chrono test ,, thick ring against ,, thin ring,, and the thicker ring bows had better cast,, I have never seen this,, I am open minded to a true example,,,and do learn something every day,,,and would even think that with normal bows designed to last a life time,(slightly overbuilt to stand the test of time), the ring thickness would have even less effect on performance,, flight bow design,, is a world of its own,,,,most hunting bows or target bows are not stressed to that limit,,

[PEARL DRUMS]

Until somebody can make two self bows identical to one another, which is impossible, we'll never really know any of this. Same goes with dry or seasoned wood. Use what you have and make the best bow you can each time.

[blackhawk]

I'm referring to thin ringed poor ratio wood such as 1/64" thin late wood with equal or greater early wood for example...such wood with most all ring porous woods is junk IMO...even hickory. Sure you can make a "normal" or slightly over designed bow with it,but it does not do well in a more stressed design....I've had enough "experiences" with it to find out you want better late wood and ratio for a more stressed design....

Like I said everyone's opinion on what "thin" rings are is different,and can thwart discussion on it.

[Drewster]

Great info guys.....thanks for the discussions.  Keep it coming.  The hickory that these billets came from has nice thin early wood.  Even the thicker late wood rings have thin early wood.  A friend of mine and I got some high quality billets out of this 110 year old hickory that fell in a neighbors yard late winter.

Since there seems to be no disagreement in the fact that the late wood is the stronger, then it seems to me that a bow made with the areas of thicker late wood rings would be better, since that would increase the percentage of late wood.  But, another bower told me that the thinner rings would be stronger, like plywood with thinner veneers being better than plywood with thicker layers.  SO, who knows.  I'd love to see some well done comparative tests too.....if any exists.

In the meantime, I'm proceeding with the thinner rings since it will save me several hours of additional work to get to the thicker rings.

[RBLusthaus]

In the meantime, I'm proceeding with the thinner rings since it will save me several hours of additional work to get to the thicker rings.

Whatever your opinion on the ring count debate, this should not be the reason you decide to go one way or the other, IMHO. 

Russ

[gmc]

I read an article some years back that Hickory was graded in the old days on its rings per inch for use in making wagon wheels.  The implication was that 50 rings or better per inch was considered premium wood.  So the more rings per inch was considered to be better wood.

Now how that translates to bow making material I'm not sure, but nonetheless it did mean something to somebody at some point in time. 

[Drewster]

That's very interesting info gmc.  Thanks.  I'm not sure how you would set up a test to try different pieces of hickory with varying ring counts for use in a bow, but it sure would be good to know if it would make enough difference to even make it a consideration.