Proper mass vs. overbuilt

[Kegan]

For speculations sake, as I would have no way to measure two tests bows(here let's assume stiff handled flatbows, a Comstock style vs. an Andaman-Holmegaard):

Would an overbuilt bow serve a hunter better than a faster, properly built bow? The extra weight would help with covering up shooting mistakes (but, it wouldn't be alot), the overbuilt bow wouldn't necessarily have big fat tips, just wider inner limbs and a less dramatic taper. It seems that, this bow would be easier to care for, or at least to construct, as well as the extra mass, and would be more eaily replaceable (less time invested). It would also be eaiser to ocntruct and tiller for those of us with "less than perfect" skills.

On the other hand, the bow with proper mass would be faster- something most of us like in a good bow. The would also be much less likely to have handshock, and the weight would still be in the handle, where it's needed most. And, having invested that extra time to make it fast and quick, one would be less likely to abuse it. Also, such a bow could concievably be longer, with less risk for handshock, especially in deep handled bows.

What do you guys think? Worth debating, or just another set of never-ending-archery-trade offs?

[salad days]

In my limited experience, taking the time to make the bow as close to perfect as possible, is less overall time than making a few not so perfect ones. I have a couple beater bows that aren't all that sweet to look at and I find I don't even like to shoot them as much as my nicest one. The nicer bows just look and feel better and I treat them accordingly. If I had to use them to survive I would baby all my equiptment as much as possible.

[Kegan]

Good point. I forgot about that aspect- "perfect bows" would get more use, and trherfore get you more accustomed to their nuances. Excellent point.

For arguments sake though, I was thinking both bows would be good, one would jsut be faster and the other would be a little overbuilt.

[Badger]

Kegan, you don't pay much of a penaly for having too much mass in the inner limb near the handle. Where the problem comes in with overbuilding near the handle is if they are way too wide they tend to be also a bit thinner and vibrate more after the shot. Under building a bow is worse simply because the wood becomes overworked and if it doesn't break it often becomes soft and sluggish. You can feel the difference in the string tension at brace height. An underbuilt bow will often be very soft.  I used to build most of my 50# bows at about 64" long and around 16 to 18 oz, now I build them between 18 and 22 oz most of the time depending on the tiller I use. I still like to keep my outer limbs pretty narrow and stiff. Steve

[Hillbilly]

I usually slightly overbuild hunting bows. I don't want something that looks like a 2x4, but enough to be tough and reliable and handle being strung all day in often less than perfect weather. I'll give up a few fps to gain stability.

[mullet]

  I've never weighed one of my bows for total weight. But I think as you gain experiance you also get a feel for what is right. I know my fastest, not strongest, bows tend to be very light in my hand. Except, Ipe, which is very narrow and thin when it is fast.  I'm working on a hickory/osage lamb that has very narrow tips from the last 8", kinda like a Holmegard. It was glued up in a Perry reflex and is getting very light the closer I get. The tips are close to less than a 1/4" and I will tweek them as I go.
  I also have found myself going back and redoing some of my earlier bows as I gain more knowledge.

[PeteC]

I agree with Mullet,experience brings a feel to what is right.I have only been bow-making for 10 years,but ,to see the progression of change is amazing.When I first started building,I knew no one else who did likewise.(before I learned of this wonderful site,with so many talented folks who are very generous with valuble information,Thanks).So,naturally,my first few bows were way overbuilt.I still use an 8 year old osage for tilapia hunting,that would nearly make 2 of the bows I build today,yet,when the bow I was hunting with last season developed a crack,old "Miracle",60#@28"-68.5"tip to tip, was called off the bench,and put a 700 gr. arrow clear through my buck the last day of the season.It has been braced,and rained on all day long,literally had hundreds of thousands of arrows shot through it,and has not lost a single pound of draw weight through all the abuse;so ,maybe there is something to say for overbuilt bows.Sorry for ramblin' on. Here are a few pictures comparing "Miracle" to "She's got legs",a bow I posted a couple of months ago. Both these bows shoot well,and are silent,but there is probably twice as much wood in the old bow as the new one.God Bless


[attachment deleted by admin]

[1/2primitive]

When I make my bows, it's  with speed in mind. Those that shoot fastest become my favorites, and they're the ones that I shoot the most. So I guess that I prefer to have a bow that is the proper mass, not overbuilt.
     Sean

[George Tsoukalas]

I am just amazed at how freely information is shared on this site and others for the good of our pastime. Just incredible. I wish I had this site when I started. There are some great nuggets of info here. Beginners should read Badger's and Mullet's post a couple dozen times. I have large hands and used to take some flack from other bowyers LOL because I prefer rather large and thick handles.  I'm not a dainty sort so my handles probably reflect that. They do cut down on handshock. I don't own a chrono. Learn how to tune for silence. It's not always about tuning the bow; sometimes primitive arrows have to be tuned to the bow. What we do is different. On more than one occasion at shoots I've had to scrape an arrow or 2 to improve arrow flight. I've had a few people say that they have never seen that before. I told them it's pretty hard to scrape an Al or C arrow. LOL.  Speed will get better as experience increases. The bow needs to be fast and quiet or it stays home. Jawge

[Pappy]

Most of my bows are overbuild ,I am sure.I don't pay much attention to it.I like them to hit
hard and quite,that is the main thing.I like them to be fast also but am not obsessed with
speed.As long as they handle good and hit where I look I am happy.I have found over the years
I do build the slimmer and lighter but it has just came with time,nothing I really went out to do.
I wish now I had started out with this site or someone to show me but I didn't have either
so my main concern was to build something that would stay togeather and old habits are hard to
 break.
   Pappy

[DanaM]

I've only been building bows for 2 years now I started with boards as it was all that I had available. But through this site and
lots of trial and error I feel I'm making some pretty decent bows now. One of the turning points for me was when I started to
apply badgers mass theory to my bows. I don't understand all the nuances of it but it gives you a good idea of how to build the bow
so you end up with a decent shooter. For instance I never side tillered until I began to use the mass theory now its become routine
to reduce the width to lose mass. Kudos to Steve for sharing his knowledge with all of us

[salad days]

I'm with Jawge about the info sharing. I've only built a few bows and have learned almost every thing I know from your posts. I think as your skill developes through time and shavings you develope a "feel" for what is about right but the internet has sped up the learning curve for me alot. Thanks all who make it posssible.

[michbowguy]

badger!
 you are talkin' my language 
and i can understand every word,and totaly agree with you 100%!!!!

thats the fact jack.
 

jamie

[richpierce]

If we look at "Native" bows, we see that a lot of times they were made for durability and not for speed. Many Eastern Native American bows are "D" bows bending in the handle and have wide thick tips compared to what we use today.  They were not built for speed, generally speaking.  I think that ease of building from sapling-sized trees and durability got the nod most of the time.  There are many early European designs that are shockingly thick at the nocks also.  War bows were a different deal particularly when we're talking about real armies fighting it out.  There, cast and penetration were paramount.  Just my thinking, open to other ideas.

[Badger]

A lot of folks equate a bow mass principle with low mass bow. Thats far from the truth. Aside from studying my own bows I studdied a lot of others bows as well. I found typicaly that a lot of osage bows were badly overbuilt and likewise a lot of white wood bows were underbuilt. I found terrible handshock in many many bows when it is entirely unneccessary and mostly just due to improper mass in the bow. I use the mass principle primarily when i am approaching an unfamiliar design, say extra heavy draw weight or a length i don't normaly build at.  I worry more about going under mass than I do over mass. If you told me you wanted me to build you a 200# 72" long stiff handled bow. I would go right by the mass theory and feel pretty confident it would come out right. Once you get familiar with a certain design and draw weight theres not much need for it. Steve