Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

MR replica (pics)

<< < (9/10) > >>

alanesq:

Very nice to see a Mary Rose replica bow with the correct nocks fitted :-)

great job !

nickf:
I spoke to steve stretton about the drawweights. He made a replica of the smaller bow, wich drew 140#, and was made of less dense yew than the original. A friend of mine made a replica, but much narrower and smaller, from dutch yew. Draws a nice 120#@32".

I'm certain the mary rose bows drew 140-200#.

And why not? I finally got to shoot 130# pleasantly. But I shoot very little, have only done warbowshooting for a few months, and I'm a 16year old. those guys shot their whole life, no doubt they could draw over 150# at my age, and 180# wouldn't be too incommon for a grown up man.

your bow looks really nice though!

Nick

radius:

--- Quote from: adb on August 17, 2009, 12:24:12 am ---Do you think a Medieval archer, who was depending on his life with the bow he carried, would have carried a 60 or 70# bow into battle?

--- End quote ---

Of course he would have.

adb:
I doubt it!

Rod:

--- Quote from: kviljo on August 20, 2009, 06:36:39 am ---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.

--- End quote ---

I would tend to disagree about commenting on tiller from a side view although of course within certain limits.
Absence of knowledge as regard width variation being one such.

However such width variation to accomodate flaws is probably more common in character bows such as snaky flatbows than in english longbow staves since the stave selection criteria are generally higher given a source of well got up staves of the first quality.

A friend of mine has a couple of what are called in some circles "peasant" bows (by Chris Boyton), intended to represent a bow made from a stave that might not pass quality inspection as a livery bow stave, which have some interesting features to accomodate knots.

I should perhaps expand on my "low spots" comment. I would normally expect to see the line of longditudinal character in the back followed in a lesser degree in a durable hunting of fighting weight longbow.
Over the years I have seen and handled quite a lot of bows by reputable makers and whilst the taper can follow any deviation on back and belly, it is both quicker and safer to "split the difference" in establishing the line through the belly.
This is the context of my comment, which I perhaps should have made clear in the first instance.

Finally, I think it would be interesting and informative to see a new topic on mediaeval cow horn nocks, showing and discussing the form, taper and fit.  A superficial recollection of seeing a photo of the MR nock leads me to think of it as being flush or almost flush.

My opinion FWIW is that war bow nocks might be minimally worked as compared to later "trademark" styles on sporting bows.
Quite literally natural in shape, drilled and fitted with minimal waisting taper, if any.

Would someone care to kick off such a dedicated new topic on proper war bow horn nocks.
It would be nice to have some specific archivable stuff that doesn't need to have a lot of editing out of extraneous matter.

Rod.

Not officially back yet, just rained off for the day and doing some chores.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page