Osage Ring Thickness

[BowEd]

Speaking in general here about all wood in the beginning my thoughts were that thin ringed wood only benefited conifers mostly.Yew especially.Arrow shafts from DF with more than 4 rings are wanted too and valued by the maker and user as being a denser better shaft.
Hickory I know does better with hardly distinguishable lines almost like dots.Common denominater here is that it was slow growing.
If I'm wrong here these woods along with osage are all ring porous woods yet.
Seems like it takes making bows that are pushed stressful wise with a design that's when a person can notice a difference between thick ring and thin ring in set and cast.At least for me anyway.

[SLIMBOB]

I saw the post.   Nothing wrong with those tips. That is some seriously thin rings.

[sleek]

Beadman, you can add elm and black locust to your list of woods that are best with high ring count.

[BowEd]

Yes your right.Probably more too.
Now before splitting up a log on most logs anyway the rings can be tighter on one side opposed to the other.I know when guys are taking a stave from juniper the side that has the center of the stave closer to that side,that side is the one they want for a stave.It usually has a thinner sapwood too.The rings most times are always thinner.I see that on other ring porous woods too.

[SLIMBOB]

I can't speak to the science behind any of this, only to my observations, and my experience tells me that lots of thin hardwood rings sandwiched between lots of early rings is lighter, but stronger.  Jim makes a good point about the early wood occupying more area on the belly of a thin ringed bow.  That's true, but it doesn't seem to matter.  In fact the bellies take less set than the thicker rings where there is less early wood, or at least I believe this to be the case.  The physical weight difference is easy to understand.  Build a bow out of 100 percent hardwood and it will be heavier than the same bow where 10 to 20 percent  is made up of lighter early wood.  It would be 10 to 20 percent lighter.  It just doesn't follow that it will also be 10 to 20 percent....weaker.

edit....it wont be 10 to 20 percent lighter as the early wood is not weightless, but it will be considerably lighter.

[bradsmith2010]

could it be that the thick ring osage and tight ring osage made to the same width,, or designed the same could be some of the performance difference,, if there is a difference in mass then the wider limb thick ring might perform as well as the more narrow thin ring that is more dense,, I am just asking ,, cause I have made some really nice bows with thick ring osage,,, maybe a bit wider,, a friend of mine made a bow with the thickest rings I have seen,, barely two rings on the limb,, he heated into reflex and then made the bow,, it holds even and shoots great,, not sluggish at all,, we shot it quite a bit through the chrono,,,, most people will give a general width that works for osage , with not much consideration for ring thickness or mass of the stave,, just wondering,, 

[sleek]

Unless I am reading wrong, I keep seeing folks say tight rings make more dense wood. That aint right. Its less dense.

[SLIMBOB]

Yes, lower density.  Less physical weight.

[Eric Garza]

Unless I am reading wrong, I keep seeing folks say tight rings make more dense wood. That aint right. Its less dense.

I can't say I've noticed a strong correlation between ring count and density. Sometimes a wide-ringed tree will be very dense, other times not so much. Same is true with a tight-ringed tree. My favorite staves are particularly dense pieces with tight rings, regardless as to species.

[BowEd]

It seems then that conifers benefit more density from tighter rings then other woods.
Less mass with tighter rings with osage maybe makes sense then as one advantage I see FG limbs having over wooden ones is the limbs weigh less.
The only true way is to float test these things instead of guessing.Then it probably will be rather minute I would think,but maybe that's all it takes then too.Other variables while making a bow contribute too yet.
Seems like making and trying to understand making bows and bow wood is still like groping in the dark after something yet.

[SLIMBOB]

What you said Ed sums it up for me pretty well. There is no magic wood or super design, or hidden ring configuration that will in and of itself give you the next world record holder, but, each of these small things like ring configuration for example, coupled with the correct design and flawless execution can allow someone like me, to every once in a while have it all come together for a special bow. Understanding all these little things and how and why they are important, that's still an area that remains a mystery after all this time.

[Stick Bender]

I like what has been said about all the other variables & small things I already know enough that the bows that I skipped the small things caused me the biggest problems,and the ones I sweated every detail and asked a ton of questions turned out the best , I'm sure the guy with the thick ring stave that pays attention to every aspect of the build would make a better bow then the guy with a thin ring stave that didn't , some times I over think things but so much valuable time & material goes into making one of these sinew bows you want to get it right , but with all that was said I don't feel under gunned with this stave and will give it a go.

[loon]

Saw this video of a guy making a short bow out of osage, very very tight-ringed, and it blew up. It sort of makes sense that very tight rings may be more likely to fail in the back?.. maybe he didn't chase the ring perfectly

[sleek]

Saw this video of a guy making a short bow out of osage, very very tight-ringed, and it blew up. It sort of makes sense that very tight rings may be more likely to fail in the back?.. maybe he didn't chase the ring perfectly

Ever see a very short bow with thick rings fail? Or even a long bow with thick rings fail?

Of course you do have a valid point, thin ring is a bear to chase when they get around .005 thick.  A sheet of paper is around .003 thick. I have done it but not on my first try! Its an exercise in profanity and stress management.

[paulsemp]

I have absolutely no proof nor can I explain it but here are my thoughts. Now personally I will always reach for the good ratio thin ring Osage. But I have had some that's garbage. I've also had good and bad luck with some thick ring stuff. I personally think asides from rings what's in the soil has something to do with it. Not sure if it's pH or minerals or maybe excessive rain or drought but some Osage is absolutely invincible and some is just junk. Would not know where to even start on the research of that. By the time you have the piece to floor tiller usually it's Crystal Clear whether it's good or bad. The best Osage I've ever had comes out of rows in the cornfields and regardless of ring thickness it's all been great but it's very hard to find straight pieces