Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: adb on November 07, 2013, 12:37:00 pm
-
OK, all you osage selfbow experts... Pearlie, Chickenhawk, Pat, Gordon, etc... what's better and why? Close, tight rings, or wide thick rings? Don't forget the why part.
-
The important detail is the ratio of early wood to late wood. Generally speaking, its easier to get the best ratio with thicker rings. The early wood is only good for one thing as far as I'm concerned and that is it serves a nice guide for the draw knife when chasing a ring. So the least amount of early wood the better. That being said, I've made some pretty sweet shooters out of Osage that would rival warbow quality yew for ring count. Josh
-
Any osage is good! Wider rings are easier to work with but I really like thin ringed osage. The ratio of early to late rings is probably the most important part.
I think I get better performance from the thin ringed stuff but I usually back the bow with rawhide for protection.
-
Josh n Pat got it covered....its all about the ratio...if my naked eagle eye can discern and distinguish heartwood from early wood I can run a ring and make a unbacked self bow...to add onto what has already been said you need to realize within the stave where it came from within the tree...was it from the tension or compression side? The bigger and easier rings will be on the compression side,and some people will mistake these as the best staves because it has the biggest rings in the tree...although compression side wood makes fine bows the tension side is going to be your better wood,and especially the best for your higher weight bows...if you didn't harvest the tree you prob don't know which side of the tree your stave came from ....this is something a lot of folks don't consider or pay enough attention too IMHO...
-
When you say compression or tension side of the tree... do you mean which side of the tree was facing the prevailing wind, causing the tree to bend and flex during growth?
-
The important detail is the ratio of early wood to late wood. Generally speaking, its easier to get the best ratio with thicker rings. The early wood is only good for one thing as far as I'm concerned and that is it serves a nice guide for the draw knife when chasing a ring. So the least amount of early wood the better. That being said, I've made some pretty sweet shooters out of Osage that would rival warbow quality yew for ring count. Josh
So, the late wood (heartwood) should be thicker than the early wood (sapwood)?
-
Yes that's one way...another is hillsides...or like branches with the top side being tension wood holding the weight of the branch,and that's why when cut and split and relieved of its stresses wood will reflex as it dries...I've seen staves once split immediately move within the first hour after splitting it out...and tension wood is very strong and resistant to taking a set hence why its best using it for your higher weight bows ....last night when I cut that long osage bow out it immediately gained another half inch right off the saw from taking more wood off it relieving it even more from being g held back by the previous weight that was holding it back....
-
What we mean by early and late wood is every year when the tree comes out of dormancy, it lays down a rapid growth of extremely porous wood to get the sap moving. After it lays that down it starts growing the late wood that is very dense with few pores. This late wood is the good stuff. This is where the description ring porous in hardwood comes from. Every year the new ring starts out porous and then gets less so as the growing season progresses. I think I have an end cut pic of some fair ratio Osage that will show it. In the pic the end cut looks banded. One light color ring, one dark color ring. In truth, its one ring. The light band is the early wood the late wood is the darker stuff. Josh
-
Yup...the less overall percentage of the porous wood within a stave the better...because the porous wood is brash,brittle,and junk...its called porous because it contains pores....which is basically air pockets...and we all know how great air bends,and how dense it is...so the less porous wood within the stave the less "air" is in your wood and making it denser and a higher specific gravity...
-
Yup...the less overall percentage of the porous wood within a stave the better...because the porous wood is brash,brittle,and junk...its called porous because it contains pores....which is basically air pockets...and we all know how great air bends,and how dense it is...so the less porous wood within the stave the less "air" is in your wood and making it denser and a higher specific gravity...
Ahhh... thanks! That's the 'why' part I was looking for! Thanks, Amigo!
-
Adapt. If the rings are thin leave it wider. If the ratio of heartwood to sapwood is not good leave it wider. Jawge
-
Of course im no "osage selfbow expert" but My favorite Osage bow has almost 50/50 ratio of late to early wood, it has zero string follow after countless shots. Probably just got lucky with it.
-
Sorry Adam, I misunderstood your reply question. I've never heard any one refer to early growth as sapwood before or lategrowth as heartwood. Sapwood and heartwood have a completely different definition in my admittedly limited vocabulary. Another case of confused terminology I guess. Luckily Chris answered your question. Josh
-
I am beginning to wonder about this ratio thing in Osage myself. I have made several Osage bows and cut a-lot of it also. I understand that the wide ring Osage is easier to chase and to stay in the same ring . I just finished a Osage bow that when finished all there was left was about 2 or 3 wide growth rings when done. Not a real snappy bow compared to some I made with more of the early wood late wood ratio. Beginning to wonder if there is more to white ring in Osage than we think.
-
Lower mass? I've oftened wondered about the performance of a two ring bow. One ring for tension and one solid ring on the belly with a thick earlywood core. Just never found a stave that worked out that way to try it. Josh
-
I agree. My wide (.5" wide growth ring) staves have made slow bows. My last ones with less late wood is far faster. I think the late wood is super heavy compared to the light stuff making it a lot more heavy in the limbs. They seem to take more set and be slower than my tight ring osage. Whatever it is I make wide ring bows wider since I have found they take more set.
-
I am a recent convert to thin ringed osage. I will take all I can get. I like to see a good ratio as mentioned but I have worked it as mentioned above like fine ringed yew and they come out great. If ther ratio is good it is also just as dense as any other osage, which varies quite a bit from tree to tree.
-
I think I get better performance from the thin ringed stuff
I second that. Thin ringed osage has grow slower and denser most of the time. It is more springy and takes less set (if any). I find this true in lots of wood I work as well, and I figure it wouldn't just be true in only yew. The best stuff around my area I know of grows high up in the hills of kentucky from smaller and tougher trees, not the stuff growing around flat farmlands where most people get their osage. (I have been on a lot of Craigslist powered osage adventures, haha ;D )
-
Here's a pic of a chunk of the best osage I have ever come across:
(http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb392/toomany7/Thinringedosage.jpg) (http://s1203.photobucket.com/user/toomany7/media/Thinringedosage.jpg.html)
-
Of course im no "osage selfbow expert" but My favorite Osage bow has almost 50/50 ratio of late to early wood, it has zero string follow after countless shots. Probably just got lucky with it.
Here's what the rings are like on that bow this is the same piece of wood it has no string follow like I said I shoot it a lot pretty tight rings on the wood it was made from
(http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q681/joec123able/73FA24D5-C559-4F64-98EC-2A8A2B51E1AE-363-00000037EF1166EC_zpsb4b26ad7.jpg)
-
I hope you guys aren't cutting your bows in half to prove a point!
-
I hope you guys aren't cutting your bows in half to prove a point!
Lol well I didn't that was a piece I cut off the bow when cutting it to lenth
-
I like that osage in the pic you posted TMK. My best osage bows have come from tight ringed, darker colored, dense osage like pictured in that end cut view. Late wood rings small but early wood rings really small. This is just my opinion
as no real science and very little advanced thought happen when I'm making a bow. :-[
-
as no real science and very little advanced thought happen when I'm making a bow. :-[
Glad I'm not the only one! ;D
-
Boy ....... I've got quite a few thin ringed staves in my stash that you guys have got me thinking about again. I'm going to get that stuff out and take a look at it.
I got real discourage with it a while back, I had about four bows in a row out of the same tree raise splinters and then fail.
Thanks for firing me up again on the thin stuff.
DBar
-
Like it all, but tight ringed with very thin early wood is superior in my opinion. Add in reaction wood with some set back and a bit of a crown...it's what dreams are made of. Lower mass, more speed, less set than the thicker ringed staves. As an aside, this also matches the description of the staves most likely to explode during construction, at least for me.
-
This has been a very interesting discussion, as I was definitely of the "thick rings are better" mindset...but the tension wood thing makes a lot of sense.
-
With all this talk about thin rings I'm going to start looking at some different trees to cut next year. I usually try to go after the ones I think will have thicker rings. I wouldn't mind making a few bows with yewish rings and see how they perform.
-
rps3 has a trade bow i made for him w/rings around 1/32&1/64 thick. mostly late growth. I don't have the experience as some others. all i can say for sure is that bow is the best I've done so far. my fist thin ringed I'm happy, i will try another soon. just my two sents >:D
chuck
-
The bow I shot the world broadhead record with was very fined ring. I built it with about 5" reflex and it held 4. They just don't seem to take any set.
-
Man...this is a good thread! It's sure got me to thinkin. I usually avoid building the same thing over and over. But it seems to me that a body would need to do just that to really fine tune and get the best out of a design. Definitely something that I need to study on. Josh
-
I think I have a dozen or more thick ringed staves for trade now! And, I was so proud of them :'(
-
My experience has been pretty much the same as everyone elses. The thin ringed stuff almost refuses to take set while the thicker ringed stuff still makes good bows it usually takes more set and is a little more sluggish. The dark orange thin ringed stuff like tmk posted a pic of is the perfect bow wood in my opinion. Around here the good, dark orange thin ringed stuff grows in the stream valleys of the ozark mountains. The thicker ringed yeller hedge is found in the river bottoms around ag fields. Heres pics of what im talking about, ideal osage being on the staves on the right in these pics and the thick ringed second rate stuff being on the left.
(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee503/Jamey_Burkhart/null_zpsdde8df00.jpg)
(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee503/Jamey_Burkhart/null_zps30777b20.jpg)
-
Did'nt read this whole thread so it may have been mentioned.When chasing rings on osage I pay attention to the early to late wood ratio of course but I look at the early wood as it's being removed.Most times it'll be honeycombed.The tighter smaller honeycombed early wood is what I'm after.Not the larger honeycombed stuff.You don't know that till you start chasing rings.
Personally I've had great luck with finer ringed osage.
-
I use it all just the same and pay no attention to the rings at all. Sure its funs to say "Wow! Those are nice rings on that one!". I have no chrony so its all speculation from my chair. I think we can all agree thin ringed/young wood from any tree is generally stiffer than its older counterpart.
-
An example for thought.....I once made a take down osage.Each limb exactly dimensined the same,but from two different trees.One thick ringed.One thin ringed.The thick ringed limb almost hinged on me.
-
Thats just your tillerin' skills Ed, dont blame the wood!
-
Well the limbs were exactly dimensioned width and thicknes the same.
-
By the same I mean the taper and everything.
-
That's about what I would have expected to find. The thicker ringed stuff needs to be a bit wider or longer than the thin, all else equal. Interesting illustration of that. My question is, does the layering in of thin slivers of light early wood between multiple layers of late wood in a bow limb, itself provide the bump in performance or is it just the younger springier wood, as PD suggested. I'm not a Yew guy, but it's well known that high RPI in yew is preferable to low RPI so same question applies I think, to any wood.
-
So are you guys planning on dispelling another old adage? Just started chasing the rings on my first piece of Osage last night (Thanks SteveB!) Rings are thin, and the early wood it very thin . Sounds like I have a good candidate on my hands! Thinner rings generally mean that a piece of wood has grown slower. Less water , nutrients, sunlight , but not always shorter growing season. In my experience with ring porous woods , the late wood on thinner ringed woods is usually significantly harder than it's faster growing neighbour. It really shows in species like red oak . The fat rings are generally quite soft and easily dented.
Does anyone have Data to back it up? This one might be hard to get scientific on, but I would think that a couple of samples of thick and thin ringed wood planed to a uniform thickness, width and length, would show us their merits with a bend test.
Excellent thread, Adam!
-
It's all been said but I'll just support. THIN RINGS! And almost non-existant early wood. It's the best. Can be a real pain to chase, but absolutely worth it.
-
lostarrow's on the right track there to confirm things.A floating density test would be nice too.Most often people are in a hurry to make a bow and don't go through those tests.Which is understandable with osage because most all osage makes a good bow.Seems like what we are trying to do here is bypass those tests by noting ring thickness and early wood late wood ratios.
-
i bet the wide ring stuff grows so fast that the density goes down. the wide stuff also seems to have thick early growth, where the thin stuff seems to be denser and less early wood. i have no idea but the thin ringed stuff we all can agree is better for one reason or another. i dont think it is the ratio but more the thin ringed stuff unless you find a stave that has very little late growth(i have found that before but once i scraped past it it was the fastest bow i have made)
-
Being a rookie, I have mostly worked with the thicker ringed staves and the few local Osage trees that I find are thicker ringed. I would like to get some thinner ringed stuff for a side by side comparison. When everyone says "better", how much better are we talking about here? Without knowing better, I would say that tillering and ratio is more important than ring count on Osage, but that's coming from someone who has only built a handful of bows. Is there any hard evidence (through a chrono) of thick vs thin at the same dimensions? Someone who is more analytically inclined than me and has more time to spare should test this and post results. Very interesting thread here. ;)
-
I can't imagine it being a very big difference. Design and tiller would absolutely be more important . I've made bows of about every possible ring structure Osage has to offer and really can't say thin ring is snappier than thick or vice versa. I have noticed that too much early wood in the belly is problematic at times. That's why I look for good ratio above all else. There is a lot of food for thought here though. Josh
-
as no real science and very little advanced thought happen when I'm making a bow. :-[
Fun ain't it !!!
-
If anyone has any thick ringed Osage they don't want any more, I'll take it >:D
-
The only difference I can say I notice is that they seem to hold reflex better after heat treating with the tinnner rings. They also might be a tad more elastic as the limb thickness looks to be just tad thicker than the thick ringed stuff, I didn't measure just going by eye.
-
All that being said osage is good wood any kind of growth rings as long as the ratio is decent.
-
as no real science and very little advanced thought happen when I'm making a bow. :-[
Fun ain't it !!!
Ha!! ;)
-
With all this talk about thin rings I'm going to start looking at some different trees to cut next year. I usually try to go after the ones I think will have thicker rings. I wouldn't mind making a few bows with yewish rings and see how they perform.
Yewish bows? How do you do that? I suppose you just take the tips off?
I prefer thicker onion rings and thinner osage rings. When I first started making bows, my mentor chanted over and over how much tight ringed wood was for making bows. Then a while back, folks started talking about thicker rings being so much easier to work with as long as you had great early wood to late wood ratios.
I fall into the camp with my opinion that thicker rings are necessarily less dense rings. I am getting good enough at chasing rings after 12 years that I don't worry about chasing down to a thick ring for safety.
Someone mentioned that they don't get all worked up over what the rings might or might not be, they just make a bow. That's a good attitude, work with the wood you got, with what tools you have, and the brains the good Lord gave you. And for future bows, when I have thicker rings, I will make the bow a tad wider and if they are stacked in there like leaves of rolling paper I will make a skinnier bow!
-
Yes JW...When I started making bows I was told a 7 to 10 ring per inch stave was a good standard.I think it still is.
-
With all this talk about thin rings I'm going to start looking at some different trees to cut next year. I usually try to go after the ones I think will have thicker rings. I wouldn't mind making a few bows with yewish rings and see how they perform.
Yewish bows? How do you do that? I suppose you just take the tips off?
I prefer thicker onion rings and thinner osage rings. When I first started making bows, my mentor chanted over and over how much tight ringed wood was for making bows. Then a while back, folks started talking about thicker rings being so much easier to work with as long as you had great early wood to late wood ratios.
I fall into the camp with my opinion that thicker rings are necessarily less dense rings. I am getting good enough at chasing rings after 12 years that I don't worry about chasing down to a thick ring for safety.
Someone mentioned that they don't get all worked up over what the rings might or might not be, they just make a bow. That's a good attitude, work with the wood you got, with what tools you have, and the brains the good Lord gave you. And for future bows, when I have thicker rings, I will make the bow a tad wider and if they are stacked in there like leaves of rolling paper I will make a skinnier bow!
JW.... you can make a yewish bow....but you haveto have a Moyle present, lol... You aint right ;D
-
I have a 5 gpi and a 15 gpi osage staves. I will do a side by sidè comparison and chrono it and stuff. Should be done by February or so.