Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

MR replica (pics)

<< < (6/10) > >>

Yewboy:

--- Quote from: kviljo on August 17, 2009, 01:05:12 pm ---And I agree :)

I don't know of anyone that has examined the smallest bow within the MR-find yet. That would be quite interesting  ;)

--- End quote ---
Yes you do???????

Kviljo:
huh?

125 yards with an 80 gram arrow is not enough. A 1234 grain arrow would normally be shot by a 123,4 pound bow. Trying to shoot it from a bow of half the draw weight won't result in an adequate distance... :)

Still, it is probably quite likely that 60# bows were taken into battle in the medieval period. Perhaps not in 16th century England, but after all the Mary Rose bows aren't medieval either... ;)

Rod:
Whilst it is often true that a thin looking bow is a light bow it is not always the case. I have a Boyton bow made from a very dense piece of Oregon yew that drew 90 lb at 32" and was always assumed to be 65 to 70lb at most by those who looked at it.
Alongside this bow Jaro's 90 lb Bickerstaffe bow looked like a fencepost.

As to this bow, it is a creditable effort, but it is a hunting weight bow, not a true warbow weight.
But then I regard 90 lb as marginal/transitional as a true war bow weight
I would like to have see slightly more flush side nocks and I see at least 3 or 4 thin spots in the tiller and the string looks a little loosely made.
Not a tight re-inforced made in the hand string as I was taught to make them.

Also I think it is more than likely that 100 lb plus bows have been around for a lot longer than some folks seem to believe, although it is no doubt true that the type derives from the development of heavy hunting bows.

I realise that it seems to be the fashion to respond to every post with positive comment, nothing wrong with a positive attitude, but I would prefer to see rather more constructive comment and perhaps a little less blind admiration.

Rod.

PS. Away teaching public access long bow archery until the 29th, so excuse me if I don't respond immediately to any comment.

Kviljo:
Of course, denser woods give a lot thinner bows. I think I mentioned it, but I've got another norwegian yew longbow which is a lot smaller and still 40 punds heavier than this one. I once handeled a Stratton 120# flightbow, which looked like a 60# bow. It was really heavy in weight though. Yew usually gives a larger bow for a given weight than other woods. Ipe for example... :)
A nice experiment would be to make two replicas of the smalles MR-bow, one from dense yew and one from less dense yew. If nothing else, it would give an interesting new set of data for the interpretation of the MR draw weights. As it is now, we only seem to have the upper limit setteled to be from 200 to 120#. - so there's really no good evidence to back up any statement on what the lower range of draw weights was like.

The more you twist a string, the more stress you put on each fiber, which results in more elastisity with the stronger stuff and more risk with e.g. linnen. So I usually twist them no more than necessary for them to hold together while also making sure the cross section stays reasonably round. This is a 3x5 ply ff+ string. That one is overly safe :) The less you twist the less strands you can get away with, so with flightbows I twist them even less.

And just as a general comment: When it comes to constructive comments and spots on the tiller... ::)  ...a picture is really not enough to give detailed advice. To do that you need an overview of things like local density of the wood, knots, amount of sapwood/heartwood, the shape of the cross section, the shape of the natural growth and most basicly - the width of each section of the bow.  What pictures are good for are considering the gereral shape of the tiller compared to the width-profile of the bow, and of course for considering symmetry.

Kviljo:
I forgot to mention it, the nocks are loosely based on the one preserved from the MR.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page