Whitewood and square section? where did "wide and thin" come from? lots of pics

[Jim Davis]

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

[mikekeswick]

  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!

[mikekeswick]

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.

[Hamish]

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.

[huisme]

Same thing for locust, but this says otherwise: 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

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

[burchett.donald]

  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

[half eye]

Thanks for the comments fellas. I believe I have the consensus now. Thanks
rich

[RyanY]

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. 

[PEARL DRUMS]

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.

[Comancheria]

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

[smoke]

Is not the "wide and thin" concept a function of a 28 inch draw?

[PEARL DRUMS]

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. 

[JonW]

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.

[JonW]

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.

[half eye]

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