Sinew on an ALB?

[blackhawk]

The whole point of making a longbow or longer bow is that its safer and doesn't come as close to exceeding the woods limits...in general and when all is equal a longer bow is faster and a very efficient weapon if done right...efficient enough for the majority of most archers....so why add sinew to something that's already a good thing? Sure ya can,but why? A shorter sinewed bow needs added setback,reflex,or recurve to be able to shoot on par with a good longbow,and to overcome the shorter bow is slower rule...you would have to pull a sinewed alb into near or more than 10" to get he benefits of sinew IMO...and when ya do that to an already long and narrower design your gonna possibly run into some stability problems,and a finicky tricky mess to tiller and tame,not too mention much the extra time involved sinewing it,and ya might have to make it wider than a self bow to compensate for stability issues adding even more mass cancelling out some or most of the benefits...the whole point in archery other than flight shooting is HITTIN YOUR MARK,and not speed speed speed,fps fps fps performance etc...and I see a lot of folks get blinded by that and thinks that is what makes a great bow,and forget all the other ingredients of a bow.....well I disagree....you can get the same results without sinew on it,so why? Just don't make sense to my lil pea brain...

[SLIMBOB]

That is a great idea Pearl, and I am interested to hear the results.  I'm not taking any side yet on this one.  As someone who has messed with sinew only a few times on short bows, my first reaction is to think that longer bows wont benefit enough to warrant the trouble.  But, as PatM stated, the trouble factor is a personal thing.  The only question should be can you get a net benefit from sinew on a longer bow.  Pre-stress the sinew enough and you might.  PatM's method seems to squeeze the excess moisture out more than the way I have done it, so diminishing return but possible, maybe.  All of blackhawks points are good ones, but may not address the single question.  All other factors aside, can you get a net benefit?  Open minded here.

[blackhawk]

Slim what's your definition of a net benefit? ...define it please...if its only a 3 more fps and a harder to handle bow then is that a benefit? Your definition might be different than mine...mine is would it help me be a more accurate archer or not?

[PEARL DRUMS]

Peace of mind never hurt anybody.

[blackhawk]

Peace of mind never hurt anybody.

Some may and I know do think that,and that's fine....but IMO if that's the case use rawhide...much easier and a heck of a protection

[SLIMBOB]

I'm with you on that Blackhawk.  Pure speed is of less value to me than accuracy by miles, so I agree with you there.  By net benefit I am strictly speaking about net cast per pound, nothing else.  If there is a net increase, then it would be up to the builder/shooter as to whether it was worth it.

[blackhawk]

I think the term alb..aka american longbow needs to be defined here,or otherwise there could be lots of misunderstanding going on here....some are talking 62-64" and to me that's not a alb,unless your 5 feet tall and draw 24"....but were talking an american longbow here..not a flat bow etc....and most albs were 68" on average in length with normal length handle sections...so unless your making  a 68" bow with a two feet riser area your not gonna need the sinew....

[SLIMBOB]

If we define it that narrowly, then you will undoubtedly be right, in my opinion.  But open the parameters up some and that may change it.  I am working on a 68" Blackhawk inspired holmie.  8 inches of stiff handle and 10 inch levers so 20 inches of working limb.  Could this bow benefit from adding a sinew backing?  I know that changes the argument a bit by reducing 20 inches that wont get any sinew, but it represents my point.  I just think it is an interesting question that should be explored.

[blackhawk]

Since I've been there done that a thousand times slim I'd say any benefit you'd get from it would be to minute for me personally to sinew..because I know if done right(key words) that design will do very well without the sinew..a few more fps on a bow that already should shoot easily in the mid 170's fps doesn't need it IMO,and doesn't warrant the troubles and downsides of sinew..although sinew is a great thing when used right,and I'm not bashing it or saying sinew is a waste of time n effort to do cus its not.....BUT I just don't see a whole lot of strong enough reasons to sinew in a lot of cases and this is definetly one of those cases to me...

[adb]

I agree totally. Let's face it... sinew backing a bow is a lot of work. I would never consider sinew backing a longer bow that already performs at it's peak. Why bother?

To me, it would be like putting an expensive set of high speed rims and low profile tires on a Ford Escort. What's the point?

[Badger]

      The only real fast bows I have tested that were sinewed were bows designed around the sinew, meaning the design could not be pulled off without using sinew. A short reflexed bow can be built at lower mass using sinew than without. I have also used it myself on some plum bows where I only had 1" of width to work with on 60" bows and got decent performance out of them but nothing earth shaking. I see no benefits on longer bows. Woods like juniper, wrc, and low elevation yew might be good candidates to use sinew on slightly longer bows.