Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: Kegan on November 03, 2009, 06:13:11 pm
-
Built this one for some scratch, not sure if the deal is done though. Had to show this one though :)
It's about 45" between the nocks, 61# at 22". The back bow is hickory, the main bow is white oak, FF cbales and string. Actually, I prefer the main bow itself, doesn't stack as much. Pretty neat little bow though. Shoots well enough for a short bow (again, I prefer the main bow alone), but I don't know what kind of arrows it wants. Anyway, had to show it off :)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
cool looking little bow good job.
Dennis
-
pretty cool Keegan!!!! I 've been wondering why no one ever builds these here, yours looks great! -josh
-
Nice job Kegan, how did you attach the two bows, other than the wrap.
-
Good job on that bow Kegan,I really like it.I'm gonna have to try one . God Bless
-
i dont know crap bout that kinda bow does the little bow on front have some kinda effect on what? it looks cool.
-
Sweet bow Kegan. Tiller looks great and the recurves just right . Congratulations
-
I like the bow a lot but I don't know what the benefit of that style?
-Ky
-
i like working with white oak, how wide are the limbs again? good stretchy wood if wide enough, i have found. I wonder too how deep the handle is with that reflex bow added to the back?
-
Cool little bow, Kegan. A bit out of character for you but cool none the less! ;) 8)
-
COOL...
-
HOW much yu charging for them things?
-
Very cool and always interesting to see something out of character. So the back bow adds stack? Do you think you'd build it longer if again?
-
Thanks all :). I know the bow's quite different from what I normally do, but it sure was fun at the end (kinda makes me want to make a little Indian bow now.
Dano- Just a wrap. I was intending to put a strip a leather between them, but I didn't have any handy when I was tying them. The finish makes a creak now though, my bad.
Woodstick and Ky- A penobscot, or perhaps I should say a well built Penobscot, has the benefit of being lighter (in mass) on the outter limbs for the weight you're pulling. For example, even though the main bow would only pull 40#, you would be pulling maybe 60#. That means that all the extra mass for the weight would be short and therefore low in inertia. Of course, being so short those effects are sorta nill- but that's what he wanted. Might have to try a longer version next... >:D
Radius- the limbs are actually only about 1 1/2" wide being so short- I made it from an abandoned long bow. Dunno how deep the handle is, it's sorta square- so about 1 1/4". But I like white oak too. I'm only charging $50. Between school and bows-for-scratch though, I think I'll need to raise the price a little!
Parnell- Yeah. The main bow itself stacks, but the little bow comes to flat agains the main bow adding alot of stack. I thin if I did alot of reflex with a sinew bakcing it would be better, but for the price I think that would be a little much.
-
Thanks Kegan, I have seen some with the two bows pinned with dowels, I wondered if that was necessary.
-
I saw those too, like the ones done in a few of the back issues of PA. I'm just a bit too lazy though ;D. I've just tied them, never had any issue.
This whole Penobscot thing makes me want to make a full sized one though... >:D
-
Looks like you're having fun. Bookmarked as a laminate for November, too.
-
"This whole Penobscot thing makes me want to make a full sized one though"
I hear ya, one day I plan to make one too. I got that same lazy bug tho. ;D
-
That`s a project I`m dreaming of!
Fine bow Kegan!
Regards Uwe
-
Thanks all.
Dano, I did one when I fisrt started, even with all my mistakes that thing shot pretty well. I have a R/D longbow on the rack that isn't going well though... I think I see it getting a make over pretty soon... >:D
-
I hear ya, I have a short osage stave that's got penobscot written all over it. ;D
-
Nice work Kegan, Those Penobscots are intriguing bows. I always found it odd that those were only found in Maine.(At least that is what I heard)
-
Penobscot bows are certainly beautiful (eye of the beholder and all that!), although I always had doubts as to their age, use and above all, doubtful advantage. I have made several bows and, fascinated by them, decided to study its heritage.
The research kind of lent to it being less than 150 years old!
I had an article printed a few months ago, called 'Pondering the Penobscot', Primitive Archer August/Sept 2009 Vol 17 issue 4 showing, what appears to me, the definitive age and authenticity of this 'warbow'.
Anybody read it? I would love to hear your response on the old 'chief' and my article and photo's
-
I read- and thoroughly enjoyed- the article!
Personally, I have no idea the origin of the bow. But I have seen the effects of this design. One of the first few attempts I made at a D bow wound up with a slow, bending-too-much in the handle bow. It was weak, slow, and a total failure. I can't even remember why, but I tied a little bow to the back and made a Penobscot out of it- whoooooo boy! It jumped to about 60# and shot better than my other 60# bows. How? Why? No idea then.
It seems that the Penobscot is a careful balancing act. If you start with the main bow being only slightly lighter than the final intended draw weight, then the increase in performance would be slight- or, if the small back bow. strings, and bow-to-bow friction (which might also cause as much trouble as limb hystersis). The few keys to a good one (and things I'm trying right now):
1. low stack back bow with high dry fire speed (so it actually pulls the limbs forward instead of just getting in the way).
2. bend near the handle of the main bow so the short bow won't push against it, causing useless stack
3. main bow very light in mass (and bow weight). I think this is the key. If the bow has the mass of, say, a 30# bow, but has the draw weight and stored energy (which is why the back bow needs to be fast and without stack and both need to be tuned well) of, say, a 65#+ bow, then the bow would have more energy for the arrow and less needed to move the limbs. The bigger the difference you can get in bow weight between the main bow before and the main bow after, I think the greater the performance.
Another big downfall is tuning. If the back bow stacks, begins to break down, or doesn't recover in harmony/more quickly than the main bow, then the bow's harmony will be off and it won't recover like a normal bow of the given draw weight (same way a bow with extra hystersis would rob efficiency). So if the bow's tune is off, then the lower limb mass wouldn't mean anything.
All theoretical, of course :D.
-
Nice bow,bet it's a sweet shooter. :)
Pappy
-
would have been a cool build-a-long
-
Kegan,
Never built one of these, but was wondering if there was any noise issue between the two bows limbs. I understand that they are hafted tightly together but as a bow returns to battery at the loose is there any noise? I have made native short bows (short) and a couple of cabel-backed (ala Inuit) so I'm intrigued.
When I'm bow hunting in the big woods and everything is getting real, real quiet (mouse fart at a hundred yards quiet) any kind of noise really magnifies itself. So I thought I'd ask you guys, one and all, if there are any noise, creeking, etc. issues that you are aware of?
Thanks a lot
half eye
-
Keegan
How does the bow shoot, and how does it feel in the hand,
thanx
zeNBowyer
-
Half eye- Of the few I've done, noise was solved with a shim of thick leather. Finish on finish was the biggest problem. Likewise, improper tuning left some heavy string vibration. Other than that, n big issue.
Zen- this one was a bit short, and the short bow pulled flat against the little recurve. Perosnally, I liked the little recurve recurve all on it's own. Backed with sinew, it would have made a fine little buffulo bow ;)