Main Discussion Area > Bows

Elm limb?

(1/2) > >>

paulc:
Elm limb characteristics...?

Should it be wider side to side  and relatively narrow front to back?

Or does narrower side to side and "thicker" front to back also work?

I was thinking I might go vaguely ELB inspired on the current project w really no understanding of why that might work or not work.....

As always, Tia.  Paul

bjrogg:
I don’t know if I have much useful advice Paul

I only made one elm bow and I am  afraid it came in way under weight.

I removed to much wood roughing it out .

Not sure all elm is equal but the piece I used took much more wood than Osage, HHB or ash would’ve.

Good luck

Bjrogg

Pat B:
I've only made a few elm bows but they were wide/thin rather than narrow/thick. I do believe that elm was one of the woods used in ELB and English war bows.

Del the cat:
If you go for an ELB keep the belly relatively flat, (don't round it too much), it can be a whisker wide than the back (e.g a trapped back... trapezium cross section).
Heat treating to belly to avoid chrysals is a good idea too if you are going for heavy draw weight.
Del

Aksel:
In Europe relatively narrow elm limbs dominated for 1000s of years during Mesolithicum. 3,5-4 cm wide bows of very high draw weight, 80-100 lbs. How much set they took we don´t know but they were sofisticated and well tillered weapons, so I think we can assume they knew what the where doing. Bows were made from small diameter elm, so a "natural trapping" follows with semi-circular cross sections.  In my experimenting - if made this way - they can take the strain very well. No wide logs needed. Saplings acctually makes better bows from elm than rectangular cross sections.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page