Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

MR sidenocks

(1/13) > >>

Kviljo:
I'm wondering if anyone here have experimented with side nocks on 100#+ Mary Rose lookalikes?

It seems like everyone is using 17-1800 century nocks on these bows.  - which is far from archaeologically correct.

This is probably because fastflight is prefered as string material, which isn't compatible with sidenocks.
If this isn't the case, I would like to hear how one can combine fastflight with side nocks. It seems to work better with linnen and timberhitches though.

Perhaps some lucky ones have seen the preserved horn nock too, or have got some measurements? It would be interesting to hear it's outer dimensions and the size of the notch. Also how thich the horn is, and if it has the same thichness all way around. Does the notch go through the horn, so that the wood would be visible from the outside? There are two pictures of it in Bickerstaffes and Soars books, but they don't say too much about it.

I'm asking because I really want sidenocks on my longbows, but also because I think it is quite dishonest to use regular modern nocks on bows we would like to call english war bows.

SimonUK:
I saw a picture of the Mary Rose nock somewhere online, but I can't find it now. It was a lot simpler than the nocks we see on many of our bows.

But I was under the impression that ?? all of the bows had horn nocks. There was a lighter colour to the tips of the bows, suggesting something had been there before it degraded in the water. I thought the suggestion was that the string groves were cut through the horn and slightly into the wood, helping to keep the horn in place.

People in these forums were suggesting that the nock was cut only on one side of the bow... is that true?

I can't help you with info on 100+ bows. I use self nocks on both sides of my 65 lb bows and they seem to work fine. But I have a feeling my tips are still too wide (and heavy) so that's why I get away with it.

Yeomanbowman:
I've not had the bottle to try side nocks yet :-[, but I agree that really they should be used on a self warbow replica (I have now been shamed into remedying this situation ;D).  The slots are indeed cut on one side only, one nock on the left and the other on the opposite side.  The top nock is on either side that will make strining easier.  I have heard a theory that the string can have a noose at one end instead of a double timber-hitch.  One of the pros is that the stress is more evenly distributed around the nock, as opposed to a front nock.
Cheer,
Jeremy

markinengland:
I've read that a side nock is easier to string but I can't understand why this would be the case.
With opposed side nocks the point at which the string naturally lays alongside the edge of the bow would give a natural spine friendly handle and nocking point. I wonder if this would by chance be aprox 1 inch above centre on a warbow?
Mark in England

Kviljo:
As far as I know, all MR bows have had horn nocks, but that may not be the case with older bows. I believe the Ballinderry bow, which is 10th century, didn't show signs of having horn nocks, even though it is pretty much the same size as MR bows.

Jeremy, wouldn't that self-tightening "knot" work just like a timers hitch? - although that may actually work with fastflight and sidenocks! I'll have to try that.


My bet is that they had to use one large sidenock because the string was to large and the limb tip to narrow to cut nocks on both sides of the tip.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page