Osage rings??

[Josh B]

Man...this is a good thread!  It's sure got me to thinkin.  I usually avoid building the same thing over and over.  But it seems to me that a body would need to do just that to really fine tune and get the best out of a design.  Definitely something that I need to study on.  Josh

[Gsulfridge]

I think I have a dozen or more thick ringed staves for trade now!  And, I was so proud of them

[okie64]

My experience has been pretty much the same as everyone elses. The thin ringed stuff almost refuses to take set while the thicker ringed stuff still makes good bows it usually takes more set and is a little more sluggish. The dark orange thin ringed stuff like tmk posted a pic of is the perfect bow wood in my opinion. Around here the good, dark orange thin ringed stuff grows in the stream valleys of the ozark mountains. The thicker ringed yeller hedge is found in the river bottoms around ag fields. Heres pics of what im talking about, ideal osage being on the staves on the right in these pics and the thick ringed second rate stuff being on the left.

[BowEd]

Did'nt read this whole thread so it may have been mentioned.When chasing rings on osage I pay attention to the early to late wood ratio of course but I look at the early wood as it's being removed.Most times it'll be honeycombed.The tighter smaller honeycombed early wood is what I'm after.Not the larger honeycombed stuff.You don't know that till you start chasing rings.
Personally I've had great luck with finer ringed osage.

[PEARL DRUMS]

I use it all just the same and pay no attention to the rings at all. Sure its funs to say "Wow! Those are nice rings on that one!". I have no chrony so its all speculation from my chair. I think we can all agree thin ringed/young wood from any tree is generally stiffer than its older counterpart. 

[BowEd]

An example for thought.....I once made a take down osage.Each limb exactly dimensined the same,but from two different trees.One thick ringed.One thin ringed.The thick ringed limb almost hinged on me.

[PEARL DRUMS]

Thats just your tillerin' skills Ed, dont blame the wood!

[BowEd]

Well the limbs were exactly dimensioned width and thicknes the same.

[BowEd]

By the same I mean the taper and everything.

[SLIMBOB]

That's about what I would have expected to find.  The thicker ringed stuff needs to be a bit wider or longer than the thin, all else equal.  Interesting illustration of that.  My question is, does the layering in of thin slivers of light early wood between multiple layers of late wood in a bow limb, itself provide the bump in performance or is it just the younger springier wood, as PD suggested.  I'm not a Yew guy, but it's well known that high RPI in yew is preferable to low RPI so same question applies I think, to any wood.

[lostarrow]

So are you guys planning on dispelling another old adage? Just started chasing the rings on my first piece of Osage last night (Thanks SteveB!) Rings are thin, and the early wood it very thin . Sounds like I have a good candidate on my hands! Thinner rings generally mean that a piece of wood has grown slower. Less water , nutrients, sunlight , but not always shorter growing season. In my experience with ring porous woods , the late wood on thinner ringed woods  is usually  significantly harder than it's faster growing neighbour. It really shows in species  like red oak . The fat rings are generally quite soft and easily dented.

  Does anyone have Data to back it up?  This one might be hard to get scientific on, but I would think that a couple of samples of thick and thin ringed wood planed to a uniform thickness, width and length, would show us their merits with a bend test.
 
 Excellent thread, Adam!

[Parnell]

It's all been said but I'll just support.  THIN RINGS!  And almost non-existant early wood.  It's the best.  Can be a real pain to chase, but absolutely worth it.

[BowEd]

lostarrow's on the right track there to confirm things.A floating density test would be nice too.Most often people are in a hurry to make a bow and don't go through those tests.Which is understandable with osage because most all osage makes a good bow.Seems like what we are trying to do here is bypass those tests by noting ring thickness and early wood late wood ratios.

[wood_bandit99]

i bet the wide ring stuff grows so fast that the density goes down. the wide stuff also seems to have thick early growth, where the thin stuff seems to be denser and less early wood. i have no idea but the thin ringed stuff we all can agree is better for one reason or another. i dont think it is the ratio but more the thin ringed stuff unless you find a stave that has very little late growth(i have found that before but once i scraped past it it was the fastest bow i have made)

[Gsulfridge]

Being a rookie, I have mostly worked with the thicker ringed staves and the few local Osage trees that I find are thicker ringed.  I would like to get some thinner ringed stuff for a side by side comparison. When everyone says "better", how much better are we talking about here?  Without knowing better, I would say that tillering and ratio is more important than ring count on Osage, but that's coming from someone who has only built a handful of bows.  Is there any hard evidence (through a chrono) of thick vs thin at the same dimensions?  Someone who is more analytically inclined than me and has more time to spare should test this and post results.  Very interesting thread here.