Bending scarf joints (handle)

[Tom Dulaney]

Although the bow in this thread is a horn-composite, I have decided to post this in the regular bow section, since there is more traffic here, and my question only pertains to the handle:



Taken from: http://www.atarn.org/magyar/magyar_2/bow.htm

So the writeup on these bows is not really detailed and it doesn't say a whole lot about the Moschevaya Balka bow in the picture. I don't know much about how the handle of this bow is constructed, but it looks like a scarf joint with two plates for the handle. I would like to try and make a bow with a handle like this by bending two pieces of wood in to those shapes and gluing them together. It just seems to me like you have more opportunity to get a better fit with this method, as opposed to scraping. Obviously the surface still has to be scraped and smoothed a little bit, but it's less work than taking a really thick piece of wood and scraping a scarf on it. Do you think this is a viable alternative? Has anybody here ever made a handle like this?

[PatM]

I'm not sure what you mean by "this method" versus scraping. Not sure what you mean by scraping in this context either.

[Tom Dulaney]

I'm not sure what you mean by "this method" versus scraping. Not sure what you mean by scraping in this context either.

By scraping, I mean scraping the two pieces of the handle so that they form the female ends of the scarf joints. This would involve thicker pieces of wood. What I am thinking of doing is taking two thinner pieces of wood and bending the ends of them, so they form the female parts of the joints in that manner. Does that make sense? Sorry I wasn't clear in the original post.

[stuckinthemud]

The diagram sucks, but I can't see the scarf joint, just two decorative antler plates facing off the handle grip. Sorry, don't mean to burst your bubble. Having said that, I don't see any reason some kind of scarf joint reinforced by side plates wouldn't work

[bubby]

If you can draw a better representation of what you want to try we can help you

[PatM]

The original was not actually spliced in the middle.

 http://www.atarn.org/mongolian/moshcheveya_balka.htm

[Tom Dulaney]

The diagram sucks, but I can't see the scarf joint,

The original was not actually spliced in the middle

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say that's impossible. The wooden grip area of the bow would be about 0.2mm wide. What would be the point of narrowing a stave down like that and then splicing bone to it? What a retarded waste of time. Andrew Hall is clearly wrong, this is two limbs scarf-spliced to a composite handle. You can see how it opened up after years in the grave.

[Aaron H]

That is the top view of the bow and what you see are the bone side plates of the handle.  PatM is correct in saying the original was not spliced in the handle. It was a single piece for both limbs with a laminated handle piece on the back side of the core.

[mikekeswick]

The 'best' way is to simply v-splice two limbs on to a separate handle piece. V-splices won't fail and it is easy to adjust angles etc with them.

[Tom Dulaney]

That is the top view of the bow and what you see are the bone side plates of the handle.  PatM is correct in saying the original was not spliced in the handle. It was a single piece for both limbs with a laminated handle piece on the back side of the core.

Yean, I'm aware that's a top view of the bow. And I'm saying there's no way that's possible. Look at how narrow the handle would be, inbetween the bone plates.

[PatM]

The limbs are wide and it's also a drawing, not a photo.  The bone plates could have the natural curve on the inside with the wood shaped to fit that.
 
 In short if you know best, don't ask questions.

[Tom Dulaney]

The limbs are wide and it's also a drawing, not a photo.  The bone plates could have the natural curve on the inside with the wood shaped to fit that.
 
 In short if you know best, don't ask questions.

"The limbs are wide".... Like 1.3 inches wide.

http://circasvoices.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-moshchevaya-balka-necropolis-key-to.html



Can somebody tell me what the point would be of narrowing a bow's handle for no good reason just so you can attach some silly plates to it? Why not just leave it the way it is? This looking like it must be a splice to me and until somebody can show me x-ray proof or an official documentation from an archaeologst that they aren't, I simply cannot believe that. Somebody please show me the proof.

[PatM]

Why would a narrow splice be any more feasible than just a narrow continuous piece?

 Almost all of those bows had multiple stiffening plates. This is not a one off bow. A narrow stiff handle is more center shot.

[Tom Dulaney]

Why would a narrow splice be any more feasible than just a narrow continuous piece?

It's not a matter of feasibility, but rather pointlessness. Why narrow a handle to paper-chip thinness just to attach some bone plates to it? What it looks like is two limbs spliced to bone handles.

 

Almost all of those bows had multiple stiffening plates. This is not a one off bow. A narrow stiff handle is more center shot.

I would say they are not bone stiffening plates, but handles in to which the limbs were spliced.

[Aaron H]

The handle is a little over an inch wide with the side plates, the bone side plates measure a little less than 1/8" thick per side.  The bone side plates do also have a convex shape to them.  Basically there is still 3/4" of wood still in that handle under the bone side plates, they are not "paper chip thinness"
You are making assumptions based on archeological drawings, people who are not experts in the archery field