Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

what lbs makes it a warbow insted of a longbow

<< < (23/29) > >>

Rod:
Obviously the nocks on the Mary Rose staves would seem to indicate that the side nock was favoured at that time for tillering, quite possibly they are also an indication that the horn nocks were cut through to the stave, which is more than possible with a shallow flush nock, as opposed to the flared or breasted nock common on later sporting bows, which makes a heavy bow harder to string.

Rod.

bow-toxo:

--- Quote from: Rod on June 26, 2009, 06:21:49 am ---Obviously the nocks on the Mary Rose staves would seem to indicate that the side nock was favoured at that time for tillering, quite possibly they are also an indication that the horn nocks were cut through to the stave, which is more than possible with a shallow flush nock, as opposed to the flared or breasted nock common on later sporting bows, which makes a heavy bow harder to string.
Rod.

--- End quote ---
I really doubt that the side nock traces are remnants of tillering nocks. Ascham tells os that the final nocks followed the bow being shot, shortened and whipped, which would eliminate any trace of tillering nocks. Certainly I personally prefer, whenever possible, to tiller a stave longer than the final length of the bow, especially  one of war bow weight. Horn nocks cut through to just touching the wood, make possible horn nocks of minimal thickness, making it easier to slip the string loop over the horn while avoiding damage to the really slender whipped ends. That's professionalism.

gigmaster:
I don't know about historically, but mostly, when I see a bow listed as a 'Warbow', it doesn't have a wrapped handle. Most longbows have some kind of wrap on the handle. I don't know if this is significant or not. I have one of each: 1-60 lb longbow, and 1-80 lb warbow.

Davepim:
It certainly appears that none of the Mary Rose bows had a handle-wrap, since no bow has any kind of mark at that point. Also medieval depictions of these bows never show any.  There are 2 possibilities; either it was considered an unnecessary expense, or the centre of the bow was just too fat to get your hand around when wrapped. Personally I favour the latter.

Dave

adb:
I have both, but I prefer a larger handle. I must say, that a wrapped handle just wouldn't look proper on a yew warbow. I have a 100# trilam with a wrapped grip, and I do like it. To each their own.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page