Author Topic: small diameter osage (Read 10787 times)

rkeltner · « **on:** January 22, 2008, 04:34:10 am »

i recently got to cut some osage at my hunting grounds, and one of the pieces is a small diameter(about 2" after removing bark and sapwood). the question that comes up now that working this piece, sould i decrown or should i make this a flatbow? i'm still a novice with a lot to learn, but i;ve been farely successful so far. this is #9, i think(can't remember the broken ones!)

duffontap · « **Reply #1 on:** January 22, 2008, 04:47:33 am »

I would rather have a solid ring than a flat back. I would leave the back crowned and the belly slightly flatter. Just my preference derived from science and superstition.

J. D.

330bull · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2008, 01:11:38 pm »

I do know that John Strunk made a sapling flatbow from Osage earlier this spring and hunted for elk with it last fall ('07). He even left the sapwood on and didn't even back it. The belly was totally flat and man oh man it was not only gorgeous and unique looking, but it was a flat out smoking fast bow. The sapling could not have been any more than 2" in diameter. I have held that bow, and oh how I would love to have one for myself!

Having said all of that, don't forget that this is John Strunk we're talking about here. That guy could practically make a bow from any piece of wood on the planet, and he has more patience when making bows than anyone I've ever seen. Seriously, glaciers make more moves in a day than John when it comes to crafting bows.

That's why all of his are works of art.

Lastly, JD comes from the same mold as John, so I would also trust his advice just as much. Did you see his thread entitled something like "The are you fricking kidding me this is the most ridiculously crazy and perfect crabapple character selfbow on the planet". If you did, you know that "JD's got some mad skillz yo!".

Hey JD, I don;t remember you giving that bow a name. How about the "Roy Hobbs" or "Kirk Gibson" or the "Wonder Bow"? You know the storyline. Beaten up, broken down, left for dead. No one had any faith in them any more. Yet in the bottom of the 9th, 2 down, the coach calls him in as their last hope. The batter steps up to the plate, or in your case the stave hits the workbench. Hobbled, tired, sore, yet miraculously the stave comes alive and hits the grandslam and the crowd goes nuts; Leaving a legacy that all of us hope one day to leave ourselves. But we'll tell the story of that bow to our kids, and to our kid's kids; aspiring all of us to have the skills and patience to craft such a masterpiece that surely will go down as the "BOC", or "Bow of the Century"...

Either way Rkeltner, please post your results and I'll even donate some cherry bark if you promise to back it and post it!

Good luck! Joe

tom sawyer · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2008, 01:30:31 pm »

I don't think I even know anyone who has ever decrowned a stave and made a selfbow out of it. Its one of those practices that is meniotne din the Bowyers Bible, but not a technique that has a lot of practical applications. A crowned back isn't a big deal, in fact its better than a crowned belly from a physics perspective. Like JD suggested, couple it with a flat or just slightly rounded belly and you should have a winner.

duffontap · « **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2008, 12:45:30 am »

Quote from: tom sawyer on January 22, 2008, 01:30:31 pm

I don't think I even know anyone who has ever decrowned a stave and made a selfbow out of it. Its one of those practices that is meniotne din the Bowyers Bible, but not a technique that has a lot of practical applications. A crowned back isn't a big deal, in fact its better than a crowned belly from a physics perspective.

I couldn't have said that better.

J. D.

330bull · « **Reply #5 on:** January 24, 2008, 12:13:38 am »

OK I think I'm all backwards.

The question is about de-crowning the back of the bow. Sorry for the rambling because I never answered the question.

duffontap · « **Reply #6 on:** January 24, 2008, 12:40:43 am »

Quote from: 330bull on January 24, 2008, 12:13:38 am

OK I think I'm all backwards. The question is about de-crowning the back of the bow. Sorry for the rambling because I never answered the question.

I thought you did answer it.

John Strunk doesn't believe in decrowning--like most other bowyers. Thanks for the nice things you said about my bow, too.

J. D.

Jesse · « **Reply #7 on:** January 24, 2008, 01:38:00 am »

I met a bowyer this year that decrowns his hickory selfbows but still follows one ring down the center. His bows are pyramid style and very fast. He claims to get the best performance you should decrown it. I cant say hes right or wrong but his bows have almost no set and he told me they hold up to years of hard shooting.
Jesse

Rich Saffold · « **Reply #8 on:** January 24, 2008, 02:12:04 am »

If I'm making a long bow from a sapling which is stronger in compression, I'm leaving the back as it is.

If I'm making a bow with a long draw for its length from wood say a 51" 75#@27" recurve which was a favorite for many years out of a tension strong wood I will de-crown it..

Rich-"the forest thru the trees"

Pappy · « **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:58:00 am »

Here is one made from a small Osage,maybe 2 1/2 in. across.I split it down the middle
and it pulled about 4 inches of backset while drying.I made it 1 in. to mid limb then tapered to the tips.Bent through the handle.I just built the handle up with leather to get the size I wanted.
It is flat belly and crowned back.It held about 2 1/2 of the backset after finished and shot in.
it don't take a lot of Osage to get the weight if it is dense.This one is 66 n-n 53@26.I did
chase a ring and barely had enough to get the pith out of the belly.I have seen them made with the sap wood left on but have never tried it.I guess this would be what I would call a limb bow cause that is really what it was.I have seen some that don't have a lot of heart wood and some that have mostly heart wood,just have to cut it and see.

Pappy

[attachment deleted by admin]

duffontap · « **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2008, 01:41:51 pm »

Pappy,
With all the Osage you've got, you should play around with a couple sapwood bows and tell us what you think. I built an Osage bow last spring from a 2" sapling cut down the middle. There wasn't enough heartwood to make weight so I just used the full thickness of sapwood. I ended up cutting it down to to 60" and having my friend re-tiller it. It came out to about 55#'s at 27". Really fast and it held 2" of reflex. I was pretty impressed but I'll have to reserve final judgment for a couple years to see if it lasts.

J. D.

Pappy · « **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2008, 02:10:10 pm »

I have some drying now that are the same way ,not much heart wood and thought
I would give it a try,I had a old friend that has passed on now named Sonny Idman
from Ill. that built a lot of limb bows and I'll have to say some of the most beautiful work I have ever seen.He hardly ever took the sap wood off and said it would work just fine.I don't
know if that was just on a limb or weather you could get by with it on a regular stave
or not.I guess with a regular stave there is really no need but lots of limbs have a small
amount of heart wood.The experience I have had with limbs is they are snappy and hold the reflex very well.It may be because it is all natural,if you split it down the middle it will pull
itself,sometimes to much.

I'll get on some of mine in the spring.Cold in the shop right now.

Pappy

rkeltner · « **Reply #12 on:** January 25, 2008, 02:35:32 pm »

this banter is very interesting! everything i've read about osage sapwood has said thet it's the worst form of worthless. while the piece that i'm chasing a ring on right now has already had the sapwood removed, you guys are giving me food for thought for future harvests at my hunting grounds!

rkeltner · « **Reply #13 on:** January 27, 2008, 04:42:22 pm »

just wanted to get a response to 330bull. joe, let me make sure i can succeed at getting this stave to the stage that i can actually do a backing on it, and i'll be glad to take you up on thatcherry bark! i've been itching to both post some of my work,and try some cherry backing. quick question, though. what kind of glue would you suggest for attaching the bark? i've used tb3 fairly successfully so i'd probably use that unless it's not a good idea.

Pat B · « **Reply #14 on:** January 27, 2008, 05:13:18 pm »

Rkeltner, even though osage sap wood is "the worst form of worthless" it is still stronger than lots of different whitewoods. IMO. I have left it on quite a few bows I've made with good results. A 68" osage ELB style bow, the 60" static recurve I sent KOAN in the Christmas trade(50%/50%) and others. I have also made good bows with mulberry leaving some sapwood on their backs. One in particular was almost all sapwood.
Here are pics of an osage pole bow I built last year. It was from a 3" shoot. I removed some sapwood but left 3 or 4 rings. The pole took way too much backset so I removed some. It still has about 4". Pat

[attachment deleted by admin]

Primitive Archer