Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: dane lund on September 07, 2016, 12:43:10 pm
-
Got two great staves, but very thin ringed. Chased a ring easily, but am concerned. TBB1 say use a ring that is 2 to 3/16" thick. None of these are that thick.
Do I need to back it?
Thanks in advance!
-
I just made a flight bow from thin ringed Osage... no prob' .
I must admit, I was worried by it, and had considered using it with the rings running back to belly. The guys on the forum, said it'd be fine and it was :)
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,57723.0.html (http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,57723.0.html)
If you look at the pic on that thread, I didn't even use the fat ring in the pic... I ended up using the one above it!
Del
PS I'll go and measure the ring on the back... don't go away...rings are spaced very even every 0.07" that's one whole pair of rings late plus early
-
Not everything in the TBB is set in stone. Its just a bunch of opinions no different than mine or Del's.
-
Not everything in the TBB is set in stone. Its just a bunch of opinions no different than mine or Del's.
Yeah, TBB... in Vol 1 they said the Mary Rose was raised off Plymouth >:( ... It was PORTSMOUTH... I was there! (when it came up, not when it went down! ::) )
Del
-
There was just a big thread up regarding ring thickness in osage. Probably a good read for your confidence.
-
Everyone seems to worship the TBB series, I found a mix of very good information and very bad in #1-#2 and #3 never bought #4.
-
I agree with you on the TB series Eric, I guess it was the best info they had available at that time but based almost purely on opinions. I got some paper thin ringed osage several years ago and figured it would be junk. I loved it.
-
If you chased a ring cleanly I wouldn't worry about backing it. I did a test on a piece of osage at the Classic this year. It had micro rings that were pretty much all early growth. I cleaned the back of the stave up, sanded it smooth, and coated it 2x with super glue. I never chased a ring or paid any attention to them. The back was covered in violations. The bow pulled 28" easily but it was very weak due to the poor quality of the wood. We decided to see how far it would go before breaking. I think it finally blew at 31" or 32". Not bad for a 66" bow with a stiff handle. The break was clean across the back on both limbs. It didn't break at a violation.
-
Everyone seems to worship the TBB series, I found a mix of very good information and very bad in #1-#2 and #3 never bought #4.
From my point of view, I view it in context with what was available before which was virtually nothing or Practical Mechanics articles which referred to woods not available in the UK.
Del
-
Since bowyering(word?) almost became extinct in the 70's or so just about everything you read has just been re-discovered. It's still sort of an infant craft that changes on a day to day basis. TBB4 corrects quite a few of the errors in 1 through 3. It was written by the cream at the time. Just because there are a few errors doesn't mean it isn't a valuable resource. It's kind of like the internet, make sure you have a few opinions before you go ahead and make sure the the people that are giving the opinions didn't get them from each other.
-
I'm not knocking the TBB series as it did nudged me along big time. I'm just saying don't take every word as bowyery gospel.
-
Look how far we've come since TBB I. There's more usable information shared between folks on this forum in just a few days than than the entire book can offer. Del's right though, it was the best source available then and I am grateful it was done. Lot's of folks having done enough of these bows now can say with some authority, that white woods will make good bows, Fast Flite strings wont break 'em, you don't NEED to back thin ringed bows, and monthly rings are caused by the moon! 8)
-
I built my first bow using only Tbb1
-
Look how far we've come since TBB I. There's more usable information shared between folks on this forum in just a few days than than the entire book can offer. Del's right though, it was the best source available then and I am grateful it was done. Lot's of folks having done enough of these bows now can say with some authority, that white woods will make good bows, Fast Flite strings wont break 'em, you don't NEED to back thin ringed bows, and monthly rings are caused by the moon! 8)
Perfectly said
-
And before the TBB's there was Jim Hamm's book, which I used for a guide with my first bow. He said you couldn't use kiln dried wood in that one.
-
Conversely to the thin ring issue, I built an osage bow with really thick rings. It is the worse, weakest piece of osage I ever worked with. That sold me on the fact that ring thickness doesn't tell the story of the quality of a piece of wood for a bow.
-
The TBB series was my mentor in the beginning.Helped me too,but like said earlier there are different experiences with different woods and designs that can be opinionated.Not written in stone so to speak is what I mean.
-
I love thin ringed Osage, if I can chase it, it's thick enough. Like most wood if it is thin it had a tough growing life which I think makes wood more dense and tougher, like the TBB series JMO. ;) :) :) :)
Pappy
-
Jim Hamm, Tim Baker, Jay Massey, Paul Comstock, and Steve Allely put more information about making wooden bows into The Traditional Bowyer's Bible than had ever been assembled in one book before. They had only each other's experience and the older books to go on.
As mentioned in the book, they benefited from earlier writers, but they did not have the advantage of contact with the thousands of us who make wooden bows and share our experiences on forums. They did most of their communication by phone (probably land lines at that).
Yes, there are mistaken ideas in those books. But anybody who follows their advice will end up with a bow--or hundreds of them--and arrows too.
We have a great resource in the P.A. forum. The one thing that would be as big a help would be if there were an indexing mechanism that would put all our observations on one subject in one spot, preferably overseen and edited by a panel of recognized masters. THEN, there would be a real authority to consult!
Jim Davis