Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Kviljo on August 15, 2009, 05:00:36 pm
-
Finished this MR replica today. It is a little over 80" ntn, and 39mm wide at the handle. 11mm just below the horn nocks. It is made from norwegian yew, and has waterbuffalo horn sidenocks. It had 1" natural deflex from two kinks at midlimb on both limbs. The wood isn't too dense, even though the growthrings are tight, so it isn't more than 75# @ 34".
Hoping to make a string for it tomorrow. Perhaps there will be a fulldraw picture too.
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/1.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/2.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/3.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/4.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/5.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/6.jpg)
-
Nice work, and even side nocks, too! I can't wait to see a full draw pic.
-
Love the nocks... clean and simple.
75 lb @ 34" adds up to a fair bit of stored energy, I'd guess if you want to increase the draw weight it could be shortened a tad. Do you really draw 34"?
Del
-
Thanks :)
It didn't follow the string much. I didn't measure it, but it was under one inch. - so I guess it could be shortened quite a bit to raise the draw weight a bit. The extra long staves are quite rare here, so I like to make them full length. I draw 31-32" with these heavier bows, so hopefully it will serve another archer some time.
-
Thanks :)
It didn't follow the string much. I didn't measure it, but it was under one inch. - so I guess it could be shortened quite a bit to raise the draw weight a bit. The extra long staves are quite rare here, so I like to make them full length. I draw 31-32" with these heavier bows, so hopefully it will serve another archer some time.
Congratulations ! I'm really impressed. So nice to see a genuine replica. The side nocks look bang on. The MR website could use them to replace their lame Victorian "replica".
-
Congratulations Kviljo..... that's a bow you should be very proud of.
-
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/7.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/8.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/9.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/10.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/11.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/12.jpg)
After finishing it is 55# @ 28" ( ;D) and 70# @ 34". One thing is for sure, this piece of yew is quite relaxed, hehe.
On the picture I am aaaalmost drawing 34".
-
An excellent piece of work (as expected) Kviljo. As Erik says the nocks do looks photofit good. Did you have to chase the sap down or are your Scandinavian yew trees better behaved than ours in Britain?
Cheers,
Jeremy
Oh yer, don't forget to tell us how she shoots. I often think it would be interesting to shoot an arrow that was standard so we could put performance into context to enable us to interpret the data better. I think something like the EWBS Livery arrow would fit the bill as it a good replica war arrow.
-
Thank you :)
I removed about 5mm sapwood on this one, but there are trees here that have down to 4-6mm sapwood, although they are quite rare. It really varies a lot on the growing conditions.
It is 31mm thick at the grip by the way. It should perhaps have been a bit thicker, but still with it's massive 39mm width I would have imagined that it should have come out a bit heavier, to say the least. I was aming for just over 100 at 32.
As an experimental bow for telling us how the MR-originals behaved, it is quite interesting. I think it does show that they not neccesarily were all 190 pounds. The larger bows could have been made that big because the wood wasn't as dense as the wood in the smaller bows. - but I don't think it will do much with a 75 gram arrow. I will shoot it some day and let you know. I bet no more than 140-150 meters though.
-
An accurate MR replica in every way, except the draw weight. Well done. ;D
-
Oh... I forgot to ask... with your side nocks, does the nock go on one side of one tip, and the other side of the opposite tip, or did you put both your nock grooves on the same side? Thanks.
-
All of the MR bows I have seen have the nocks cut on both sides, and it seems like the top one always is on the left side, seen from the belly - and the bottom one on the right side.
Not sure about the "except the draw weight" thing. :) If there are MR-bows with the same dimensions as this one (80"+ and 39x31mm), it is only the density of the wood that decides the draw weight, and that is unknown as far as I have heard. Even the growthrings and amount of sapwood seems to be close to the originals. - and if they used this kind of less dense wood, the original MR bows could not have had any higher draw weight. In fact some of the smaller bows would have had even less draw weight if they were made from this non-dense yew. :)
The distances shot with heavy arrows we can read about in the historical scources seem to be the most reliable source of information on the draw weight of the MR bows.
Still, this bow is perhaps a bit too long and too thin to be a typical MR bow and to represent a typical MR draw weight - but not by much :).
-
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?
-
Nice bow Kviljo!
My last bow in Italian yew was very very similar in dimensions to this but weighed in at a tad over 120lb at 32". I have tried shooting 1/2" to 3/8" bobtailed shafts that weigh in at just over 90g from another bow of 75lb draw weight and they just don't work; I doubt I'd get 100m distance and absolutely no chance of going through plate armour! I really don't think arguments that the MR bows might have been around the 100lb mark, or even less, will hold water. ;)
Cheers, Dave
-
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?
Yep, and it was most likely done over and over again. - just look at the Nydam bows. Some have estimated them to be around 60-70#. That was 300 AD, but still.
I don't disagree that ~120# probably is the best estimate for the MR bows, but we can not be too sure. If we were to depend on replicas alone to estimate the draw weight, it would have to be a very broad estimate - probably from 60-200# at 32". But then again, what the bows will do with replica arrows, is probably the best scource of information on the draw weights. - on the other hand, as I said in my previous post, some of the largest bows may have been made that large because the stave was not as dense as the other staves.
So while shooting replicas might hint at draw weights over 100#, the reconstruction of replica bows from less dense yew might give us a hint that the extra large bows not necessarily were as powerful as they might look. :)
...after all, stories tend to make things bigger and bigger over the years... ...and longbows in Britain are probably not the exception, hehe...
-
Kviljo,
I have a question regarding your sidenocks, seeing as you are one of very few people who get them to work well for you. What knots are you using top and bottom? The close up of one of your nocks suggests that your bowstring has a loop and that this is passed through itself to make a slipknot; am I seeing this correctly? How does it hold and how easy is it to loosen when unstringing?
Cheers, Dave
-
Hi,
Nicely made bow Kviljo. I am interested in the width profile and fade to the tips as this has a bearing on the overall draw weight of the bow. Interestingly enough I am also constructing an 'approximation' that has the same amount of growth rings as the original (well mine has 65 per inch and the original has 68, I think this is close enough) and is dimensionally correct width/depth. This bow is tillered to 18ins at the moment and is projecting to over 150lbs at 32. The bow is also 4 inches longer than the original! If we assume that arrows on the MR were on average 30ins then your bow would have a draw weight of around 60 odd pounds I guess? Fine I think against unarmoured sailors, but not plate armour. I would be interested in how far your bow would shoot a 60gram arrow with appropriate medieval fletchings though.
Anyway good to see some bows on this part of the forum.
Cheers,
Alistair
-
Nice bow. Little flat inner limb on the left side, which I perceive is lower limb on the fulldraw pic.
Kviljo, your argument about Nydam bows being light is nonsequiturial. The question was about "medieval", which 200-300 AD is not, that is late roman/iron age. Anyway, the question asked should probably sound : "Do you think that any bowman will go into battle with a bow underpowered for the task in respect to enemy armour and artilery?" The answer is aparently "No, or he wont live for too long."
Nydam bows in their age of use were aparently sufficient for kiling unarmored or very lightly clad men - and again that is what an experienced craftsperson can easy judge by the construction of arrows and arrowheads. (Which is by the way pretty consistent with the traits of naval combat).(And archeologist can supply the context of the time and material culture.
Im usually first to cry : "caution" whenever I see sensationist post, but I would think that median range of drawweight for MR bows 120-130# can be taken as established fact.
On the other hand we can safely say that bows in the originally perceived range (60#-80#-90#) have not sufficient performance in the context of late medieval and tudor archery.
J.
-
That said a bow of similar dimensions and profile made out of very coarse park grown (light) yew by my buddy Paja came out at nice 125# and delivers very good distances.
Same yew has strange weight/stiffness ratio.
J.
-
Dave, you are interpreting the picture correctly. I use the spliced slipknot loop for the top nock and a reinforced bowyers knot (or a kyodo-knot) on the lower nock. This bow is no problem stringing without a stringer, and it works without any problems. On heavier bows with FF string, the knot on the lower limb tend to slip after some shooting, lowering the braceheight. The spliced selftightening loop on the upper nock seems to tighten quite a bit, although it's not a big problem to loosen it as long as it is used together with a stringer.
Outcaste, this picture shows the width-profile:
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/11.jpg)
~60# @ 30" is a good guess. I've got some 1/2" - 3/8" ash shafts that I will try with it. They won't leave the bow in a hurry, hehe ;D
It is interesting to hear these numbers from replica bows. Is it enlish yew you are working with? It must be pretty dense :)
Jaro, yep, Nydam is from the roman period. But just for the sake of the argument, hehe, it is only 175 years too early to be defined as medieval (if we stretch the space-definition of the start of the medieval period a little). ;) So from the evidence of the Nydam bows, one could easily state that archers in the medieval period went into battle with 60-70# bows... :P - like adb asked :)
Other than that, we agree :)
-
Outcaste, this picture shows the width-profile:
(http://kviljo.no/bue/mr75/11.jpg)
~60# @ 30" is a good guess. I've got some 1/2" - 3/8" ash shafts that I will try with it. They won't leave the bow in a hurry, hehe ;D
It is interesting to hear these numbers from replica bows. Is it enlish yew you are working with? It must be pretty dense :)
Thanks for the pic. Is the width 4ins beneath the knock around 1in as the limb looks pretty slim? Sorry for all the questions, but is this based on an actual MR Bow dimensions?
Yes my bow is made from English Yew.
Cheers,
Alistair
-
1" wide 4" down from the nock seems plausible. Just below the horn it is 11 or 11,5mm wide (and 12mm thick). 39 x 31mm at the handle. And a little over 80" ntn. Other than that I haven't made it with the slide caliper. It is probably a little too thin and of course too long compared to the originals, as I wrote somewhere. That would at least account for some of the baby-weight. :)
-
I measured - it is 21 and 20mm wide 4" down from the nocks.
It shot:
150 yards with a 46 gram arrow with 6" fletchings
136 yards with a 68 gram 1/2"-3/8" ash shaft with 7" fletchings
125 yards with a 80 gram 1/2"-3/8" ash shaft with 7" fletchings
219 yards with a 37 gram parallell 11/32" flight arrow with 2" parabolic feathers
15 strand ff+ string. The arrows were drawn 29-32".
-
Nice bow Kviljo!
My last bow in Italian yew was very very similar in dimensions to this but weighed in at a tad over 120lb at 32". I have tried shooting 1/2" to 3/8" bobtailed shafts that weigh in at just over 90g from another bow of 75lb draw weight and they just don't work; I doubt I'd get 100m distance and absolutely no chance of going through plate armour! I really don't think arguments that the MR bows might have been around the 100lb mark, or even less, will hold water. ;)
Cheers, Dave
I agree. 125 yards with an 80g arrow is not adequate. I do not believe for a second that medieval archers went into battle with a 60# bow. Don't get me wrong... your bow is beautiful in every way, it's just too light to be a true MR replica.
-
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 ;)
-
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 ;)
Yes you do???????
-
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... ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
I forgot to mention it, the nocks are loosely based on the one preserved from the MR.
-
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.
I nicely made bow and an interesting discussion. I entirely agree with your sentiments on how to go about assessing facsimiles of bows and I have argued for this in many environments. If you could get enough large billets of wood from the same two sources - one of the densest wood and one of the least dense, than you could make replicas of the smallest and largest MR bow from each. I'd like to see how closely (or not) the big bow from least dense wood matches with the small bow of most dense. We can already guess how the opposite would work out.
C
-
Ahh, you're on to something there! It would be a great experiment. If the two bows came out with about the same weight, it could add credibility to the hypothesis that the outer dimensions of the originals reflect the density of the wood more than the draw weight.
-
Jaro—The beginning of the medieval period is the fall of Rome whenever you date that. .As the Nydam bows are such close relatives of the MR ones, and are very close to the time the Saxons brought their longbows to England, I think they are worth considering and comparing.
Davepim--- A singlelooped string as used in the Middle Ages with self sidenocks is ideal for speed in preparing to shoot, and for taking down, with the pressure of the thumbtip pressing the V of the loop to the nock. Very little effort. They were cut in opposite sids on the MR bows, most of the Nydam bows, the Viking bows, and the Alemannic bows. With horn nocks, round because of standardisation and because that is the only shape that can be easily made to fit a bowtip, the loop, again standardised, must fit closely in order to be secure. I can understand why Victorian nocks came to be.
Rod---I don’t respond to every post with enthusiasm. Only those few that impress me.
I agree with you that the ff two strand peg board string is a disappointment and I see no excuse for one on an otherwise flawless replica bow of that low draw weight. On the horn nocks, flush wouldn’t be an authentic reproduction. Medieval guild craftsmen were discouraged from innovations which was considered unfair advantage.
Kviljo—I am really astonished that your yew bow of true NR dimensions would have a low draw weight I hadn’t believed possible. Live and learn. Strings were tightly twisted in the belief that the tighter and harder the twist, the better it would cast the arrow. I stick with the tradition.
Cheers,
Erik
-
A note of caution about drawing too many conclusions about draw weight from even to seemingly identical density of wood bows. For example, if 2 staves were split from 1 bent log one would be reflexed the other deflexed. The reflexed stave bow would be heavier at the same dimensions. The way a bow is tillered also has an effect because if it is held too long on the tiller at various points it will increase set and reduce draw weight.
BTW I am certainly not saying this is what has happened with kviljo's bow.
I think far more than one or two bows is needed to give a faithful picture.
-
"Jaro—The beginning of the medieval period is the fall of Rome whenever you date that. .As the Nydam bows are such close relatives of the MR ones, and are very close to the time the Saxons brought their longbows to England, I think they are worth considering and comparing."
"The beginning of the medieval period is the fall of Rome whenever you date that." - That would only bear relevance if the "medieval period" was homogenous body with similar level of technology and sociopolitical clima all through it, which is not. It is for good reason why era from fall of Rome till some 10. century is called "dark ages" - and it is not until end of it when modern feudalism developped from originall chieftan democracies and spread universaly through evrope. It is pretty nice bad comparition fallacy to assume that my argument is irrelevant since the date in question is so close to "medieval". Frankly if I was interested in this type of debate, I would respond that MR bows arent "medieval", they are modern, since medieval age ends with the discovery of New world - a thing which you can read in each well meant yet badly written history book. I hope you catch my drift.
"As the Nydam bows are such close relatives of the MR ones, and are very close to the time the Saxons brought their longbows to England, I think they are worth considering and comparing."
1300 years of development of both the weapon and the armour and order of magnitude leap in metalurgy divides them, the only comparing of the Nydam bows and MR bows worth of doing is that of their qualities relatively to tactics and armour of the era they have been used in. And I would bet my shoes that again we will eventually get to very simple definition - that they were adequate to job they were designed to do, at the time they were.
Frankly, even technology on those two examples of bows is the same only as far as what is possible to make from small diameter yew tree with basic bowmaking principles in mind - since MR bows were manufactured in the clime best described as industrialised.
-
A note of caution about drawing too many conclusions about draw weight from even to seemingly identical density of wood bows. For example, if 2 staves were split from 1 bent log one would be reflexed the other deflexed. The reflexed stave bow would be heavier at the same dimensions. The way a bow is tillered also has an effect because if it is held too long on the tiller at various points it will increase set and reduce draw weight.
BTW I am certainly not saying this is what has happened with kviljo's bow.
I think far more than one or two bows is needed to give a faithful picture.
Agree absolutely with all of that - the difficulty is getting enough of the stuff together. As an absolute minimum, you would be looking at replicates of three - so you end up making 12 bows as a bare minimum and even that wouldn't really be enough. It ends up being a lot of yew to be hunting around for!
C
-
"Jaro—The beginning of the medieval period is the fall of Rome whenever you date that. .As the Nydam bows are such close relatives of the MR ones, and are very close to the time the Saxons brought their longbows to England, I think they are worth considering and comparing."
"The beginning of the medieval period is the fall of Rome whenever you date that." - That would only bear relevance if the "medieval period" was homogenous body with similar level of technology and sociopolitical clima all through it, which is not. It is for good reason why era from fall of Rome till some 10. century is called "dark ages" - and it is not until end of it when modern feudalism developped from originall chieftan democracies and spread universaly through evrope. It is pretty nice bad comparition fallacy to assume that my argument is irrelevant since the date in question is so close to "medieval". Frankly if I was interested in this type of debate, I would respond that MR bows arent "medieval", they are modern, since medieval age ends with the discovery of New world - a thing which you can read in each well meant yet badly written history book. I hope you catch my drift.
"As the Nydam bows are such close relatives of the MR ones, and are very close to the time the Saxons brought their longbows to England, I think they are worth considering and comparing."
1300 years of development of both the weapon and the armour and order of magnitude leap in metalurgy divides them, the only comparing of the Nydam bows and MR bows worth of doing is that of their qualities relatively to tactics and armour of the era they have been used in. And I would bet my shoes that again we will eventually get to very simple definition - that they were adequate to job they were designed to do, at the time they were.
Frankly, even technology on those two examples of bows is the same only as far as what is possible to make from small diameter yew tree with basic bowmaking principles in mind - since MR bows were manufactured in the clime best described as industrialised.
I didn't assume your argument was irrevelant . I suggested that the Middle Ages, being between the Greek/Roman period of classical culture
and the rebirth [Renaissance}of it, does not have an exact cut off point.. I agree that the MR bows and arrows are Renaissance and not mediaeval. I consider the bows similar because;---- they are longbows. they are both the right length for a 30" draw. they aree both tapered from a maximum width and thickness at the handgrip to slender tips, they are both designed to bend evenly throughout their length, they both have side nocKs, they both have a simililar variety of cross sections, they are both mostly of yew wood. Even with the average greater thickness of, and the horn nock pieces on the MR bows, I could imagine them coming out of the same workshop and I think they are worth considering and comparing.
-
"I suggested that the Middle Ages, being between the Greek/Roman period of classical culture and the rebirth [Renaissance}of it, does not have an exact cut off point"
That is exactly what you have not sugested, but nice backpedaling.
"I could imagine them coming out of the same workshop and I think they are worth considering and comparing."
I could not because with regard to what these bows have in common, much more they have not - for example the backs of MR bows are worked down, while those on Nydam bows are not, the level of worksmanship on Nydam bows is extremelly uneven in terms of skill, on MR bows quite contrary to that, Nydam bows have diferent tapers which suggest they were tilered much like modern sporting longbow, the placement of nock grooves is not the end of staves etc...
These bows are only worth comparing in regards to their respective historical context, but not next to each other.
J.
-
I agree.
-
Jaro, you're not saying that the nydam bows aren't the ancestors of the mr-bows? If someone should set up a typology of bows from the past, these two would definitely be on the same lineage...
It all depends on how narrowly we define the types, absolutely, but compared to the world wide spectrum of bows, I don't see that there could be any doubt.
By the way, Nydam bow nr. 1440 is made from a rather large trunk. - so not all the nydams were made from narrow staves :)
-
Very nice to see a Mary Rose replica bow with the correct nocks fitted :-)
great job !
-
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
-
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?
Of course he would have.
-
I doubt it!
-
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.
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.
-
Oh, that kind of low spots :)
I normally make the belly follow the growth on the back. After all, it doesn't take many millimetres for a section to become too stiff and then putting the stress on the thinner places. I would make a section with a knot or other weakness in it thicker, but if it is only the wood fibers that fluctuates I don't see why one should stiffen such a section of the bow? It would definitely make it quicker to make, but I don't think it is the best way to distribute the stress as evenly as possible?
Alanesq has a nice web page dedicated to the side nocks of the MR.
-
"I suggested that the Middle Ages, being between the Greek/Roman period of classical culture and the rebirth [Renaissance}of it, does not have an exact cut off point"
That is exactly what you have not sugested, but nice backpedaling.
"I could imagine them coming out of the same workshop and I think they are worth considering and comparing."
I could not because with regard to what these bows have in common, much more they have not - for example the backs of MR bows are worked down, while those on Nydam bows are not, the level of worksmanship on Nydam bows is extremelly uneven in terms of skill, on MR bows quite contrary to that, Nydam bows have diferent tapers which suggest they were tilered much like modern sporting longbow, the placement of nock grooves is not the end of staves etc...
These bows are only worth comparing in regards to their respective historical context, but not next to each other.
J.
I have seen Nydam bows and have detailed descriptions of them. Some were not as well made as others but I consider the workmanship on most of them, and on the arrows, to be very good. I suppose you have studied them very carefully ? I am not sure what you mean by the backs being worked down. In both cases the backs were worked to suit the chosen cross sections. I also would be interested in what you mean by a " modern sporting longbow". Do you mean a Howard Hill "American longbow"? A Victorian longbow ? one of my longbows ? The ends of the Nydam bows extend beyond the self side nocks. That has no effect on the shooting function of the bow. You consider it an important difference ? i mentioned the horn nock difference.
-
Oh, that kind of low spots :)
I normally make the belly follow the growth on the back. After all, it doesn't take many millimetres for a section to become too stiff and then putting the stress on the thinner places. I would make a section with a knot or other weakness in it thicker, but if it is only the wood fibers that fluctuates I don't see why one should stiffen such a section of the bow? It would definitely make it quicker to make, but I don't think it is the best way to distribute the stress as evenly as possible?
Alanesq has a nice web page dedicated to the side nocks of the MR.
I would like to see the nock issue addressed with pictures as a separate archiveable topic without out any ill mannered nonsense.
But I can always edit that out if it becomes necessary.
Rod.
-
Nice job on that bow kviljo.
jb