Osage Ring Thickness

[Stick Bender]

Hi Fellas this time of year is when I start getting my bows Ruffed out for winter ,I have a couple osage in the works now but I read the other day that thick ring osage has slower cast to it and The only osage bow I have made so far was thin ringed and had pretty fair cast , is there any truth to that ? I would like to make a 44 in. parallel limb sinew bow out of this stave but have thinner ringed choices in the shop ?

[BowEd]

When starting this hobby I was always told a 7 to 10 ring count on staves is very good,but yes I personally do seem to get an anticipated thrill from making a bow from a thinner ringed stave.Especially if it is seasoned well.Faster cast??? There are so many variables in bow making it's like trying to split hairs here.Design and tiller rule the day.
If your using sinew on this one I would'nt worry about it much.

[SLIMBOB]

Yep, yep and yep.  I will use what I have on the bench but, I much prefer tight ringed staves.  I always looked for the thicker ringed stuff when I first started making bows as I thought THEY were superior.  Over time I have reversed course on that. Having said that I have had both thin and thick each be really good and each be just so so, but on the whole, the tight ringed wood has performed at a higher level more often for me.

[Badger]

  Like many o the others I have grown to like the thin ringed osage but I still know plenty of guys who make outstanding osage bows from thick rings like you have there. Just a personal preference. I doubt it makes a lot of difference either way. If the bow doesn't take set or break it will be a performer as long as your design is decent. 44" bows are not going to be all that fast to start with but fun to shoot.

[bradsmith2010]

i think it will make a fine bow,,  how the bow is made and designed will usually have more effect on the cast than the ring count,,, I my self have not noticed much difference in ring count performance, and have been shooting self bows through a chrono for about 25 years and keeping records as well,,
If I have a piece with rings so thin its going to be difficult to follow,, I will pick that for sinew,,
if I have a nice piece like yours,, I will make a self bow or sinew back,,,,

my post crossed with Badger, so I will add,, at his level of of bow making and competition ,, I would not be surprised if there is a slight difference in ring count performance, that could make a difference,, in a competition,,
my bows are mostly for hunting,,and for my use ,, a slight difference in ring count performance is not an issue,,

[SLIMBOB]

I believe Brad that your take is more common than mine, but I want the tight ringed as a self bow.  If it's thick enough to get a good back, and that don't take much, That's my ideal self bow.  Save the more sluggish (perceived) thicker ringed stuff for backing.  I know that differs from many others, but that's the wonder in all this.

[Pat B]

Like Brad said design and execution are more likely to make a better performing bow than ring count. There are folks that would give their eyeteeth for a stave with rings like the one you posted. I prefer osage. If I have a choice I prefer thinner rings but I would kick that stave out of my Stave Master. 
 Once you've made a few dozen selfbows you will know what works better for you. If you haven't made a couple dozen bows you probably won't notice a difference.

[jeffp51]

That is a horrible piece of wood, with those awful rings a blind man could chase.  You would be better off sending it to me for safe disposal.

Someone had to say it

[bradsmith2010]

yes I wish I had not typed so fast,, and said how useless that ring count would be,, 

[BowEd]

Edge grained cut thick ringed osage makes excellent lamination stock for sure,if nice and straight,and even if it's not straight too.Pretty too.Thinner ringed we're talking 12 to 18 rings/inch.Maybe thinner yet depending on the condition of the back for self bows.Made a couple out of a 16 ring count once.Still shootin fine and holding up well.

[BowEd]

Forgot to mention that important early/latewood percentage factor too.

[BowEd]

Yours looks real good on your stave Stick Bender.

[Badger]

      I would consider that a premium stave, no reason to even think it might be sluggish. Nothing at all wrong with those rings. The thinner rings have only recently become more widely accepted but I still doubt us thin ringed fans are in the majority.

[SLIMBOB]

I would agree. Early wood ratio looks real good and that's what I look for first. Before ring width. If that's good, I'm happy with either.

[sleek]

I use my thick ring staves as trade fodder. I wont even take the time to build a bow of it.  I notice thin ring to be far superior.