Main Discussion Area > Bows

Sinew backing: to chase or not to chase?

(1/5) > >>

Marin:
Hey Guys,
So this is something I have heard different answers on. I have heard some on this website advise chasing a ring before sinew backing as even sinew won't make up for a violated back, depending on the level of violation. I have heard others however that completely cut through the back and not even care about the amount of violation that happens to the back, caring more about the eveness of the shape of the back rather than how much is violated. Both of these types of people make great, durable sinew backed bows so I do not doubt their expertise. I am just wondering if perhaps their opinions are influenced by other factors. Consulting ethnographic accounts and archaeological evidence out west, where these bows were made, I have heard of staves that were debarked and sinew applied to what was the outer portion of limb itself, and others that were heavily shaped and rounded over. Ishi did this, and I even saw a video of an old Yurok bowyer who takes a yew branch, turns it into a rough board before making it into a lenticular cross section bow, so clearly a lot of violation going on.
And honestly in making these bows, I just don't see how you can make them without some sort of violation. For example, I am working on a very good, knotless but narrow juniper stave and have taken time to get the lateral grain violations to a minimum through heat straigtening to get out all warping and such. But shaping/decrowning the back on close grained juniper, its impossbile not to violate, esepcially when juniper has these micro "hills" and contours that need to be accounted for. I understand primitive peoples were probably far more selctive, but Western bows often have such perfect shapes and contours, I find it impossible that they left their backs as is, and as I said before, accounts I have seen seem to agree with me.
Do you guys think that certain woods, especially juniper and yew, seems to handle this violation better than others, like osage and hickory, which is why sinew backed bows made from these bows have a lot more flexibilty in form and shape (ie you can shape the back any way you want)? It seems to be the only correlation I find when seeing different answers from different bowyers. Perhaps is it reducing lateral grain violation through heat straigtening and the like more important in the durability of a sinew backed bow?

PEARL DRUMS:
I would approach it as such. If its a wood, such as yew, that will allow violations and still be a self bow then I wouldn't worry about it. If its a wood, such as osage, that must be on one ring then I would be on one ring prior to adding sinew. Its not right or wrong, its just my way. The worst kind of bow you can build is the one that makes your butt cheeks tense up at full draw.   

Marin:
Is juniper also the same way though? I have heard of some juniper self bows where the grain had been violated on the back but I haven't seen them myself....

PEARL DRUMS:
I cant speak for juniper as I've never used it. Although, I believe it to be the same as yew in that regard. Some forms of violations are mostly okay on a self bow.

Marin:
If I may pick your brain, do you know why it is that lighter conifers like juniper and yew can handle this? All I can think is that it has to do with the fact they are closed ringed, but I conceptually am a little confused

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page