Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Kviljo on June 10, 2007, 02:37:57 pm
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
(http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q280/yeomanbowman/noose.jpg)
-
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
-
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.
-
The best article I've ever read on the subject was in Primitive Archer about ten years ago. It was called 'The Enigma of Side Nocks' and was written by Roy King. You can buy the issue from PA for $3.
J. D. Duff
-
I'm having trouble picturing these side nocks. Can someone post a picture of some? Is the top notched on both sides of the bow or just one? Is the bottom nock only notched on one side? I'm getting confused here! ???
-
I think there are some drawings of side nocked native american bows in TBB. Maybe even a picture.
Mark in England
-
I'll have to order that issue JD. By the way, did Bickerstaffe say anything about the nocks?
He should have every possibility to experiment with close replicas sice it seems he has seen the nock.
Here's the original, and incredibly a replicated nock that they fitted to an original bow.
(http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=863.0;id=1193;image)
The single side nock is placed on the left side of the upper limb. And on the right side on the lower.
-
As far as I know Pip hasn't experimented with them. He did tell me not to use them because you have to tie the string to both ends.
J. D. Duff
The back issue is vol. 8 issue 1. It costs $4--I thought it was $3.
http://www.primitivearcher.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=002&Category_Code=BIUS
-
Okay. Perhaps they didn't bother to make spliced loops because the strings didn't last that long anyway?
Although I'm quite convinced that Yeomans selftightening loop will work nicely together with sidenocks and fastflight. Not completely honest to the archaeology that either, but a little closer at least.
Thanks for the reference! Think I'll order a set while I'm at it. :)
-
I'll put together a list of magazines that have English Warbow articles in them. There are probably 15-20.
J. D. Duff
-
Ahh, that's Great JD! :)
-
I don't think that the case for sidenocks has been proven as yet.
Having said that, a side nock, like a flush nock should be easier to string than the later type of sporting bow nock with it's pronounced flare below the string groove.
What is probably essential to make a side nock secure is either a smaller diameter string loop, or the use of a hitch at BOTH ends.
I think Simon Stanley has recommended the latter.
Rod.
-
I think it helps if the string groves cut through the horn slightly and grip the cone of the wood. This is even more vital if using natural non-waterproof glues, as with MR bows.
-
That same Roy King piece was probably in The Glade some few years ago. Ted will know which issue.
Why a side nock? Probably so that, as with a flush nock, you don't get a hernia trying to get the loop over a nock that increases in diameter just when you are straining to make that last inch or so as you struggle to brace your war bow.
Mind, Chris Boyton once smiled as I struggled to brace a heavy bow and told me it was just a matter of timing. And proved it by effortlessly bracing a bow that was making me turn puce around the gills...
Rod.
-
Hi,
I was in Portsmouth this summer, and visited the Mary rose Museum. It is my understanding, from information there, that the "side nocks" exist because the staves were tillered first, and the horn nocks were added later. The side nocks were for the tillering string. No horn nocks survived, only evidence of their existance.
Thanks.
-
They must have forgotten to update the exhibit.
The top nock, is an original MR horn nock :)
(http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=863.0;id=1193;image)
Most of the iron age longbows had sidenocks, from roman times, through the viking age, and up to the english longbow.
I've used my ~90# yew sidenocked MR-inspired longbow for a while now, and they work great together with the knot Yeobowman suggested.
(http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v134/234/88/613131899/n613131899_442881_4430.jpg)
-
Rather baggy transition from nock to wood......
Jaro
-
I have just converted my 120lb longbow to side nocks (with help from kviljo) after learning of the side nock found on the Mary Rose
and I can confirm they work great :-)
I use Dacron string so the timber hitch both ends works ok for me
I suspect that the idea of the side nock is that the string also helps hold the nock onto the wood (as the groove goes right through to the wood) as they didn't have Araldite ;-)
if you cut such a deep slot both sides of the bow it would weaken it too much
btw - when using a timber hitch its almost possible to shoot the bow without any kind of nock, as the knot tightens on the taper of the bow and so doesn't slide down
so you dont need any more than a simple groove on one side just to help keep it in place
-
Hello Mark,
This perhaps explaines why Ascham talked about whip tillering a bow once shot in.
I'm not sure he was talking about whip tillering, which is a 20C phrase? From memory he mentions ‘whipping round’, and it's a separate action after shortening and pyking, all post shooting-in. a common practice seems to be having the bow 'dressed' after it was shot-in but maybe only for private, not livery bows?
Are you going to Sandon Hall?
Cheers,
Jeremy
-
Ascham also writes about "cunning heatynge" the bow shall get, so here goes the ide they werent aware of benefits of heat treating wood.
The appeareance of symetrically notched nocks do seem to corelate with some things.
On continent its recirving tips on longbows, for any kind of twist, even small one is deadly to recurve. The other seem to be introduction of recreationall archer, means amateur who only does it occassionally for fun...That strangelly also corellates with appearance of glued (backed bows) - and by that I mean the moment where the need to shoot in any situation and weather was no more.
Jaro
-
I still think they were using a loop on one end of the string though. In millitary sittuations it would be much faster to string the bow having one end with a loop. Though, I do think it was a tight fit on the loop and that they may just have lifted the string completly off the tip instead of sliding down the limb to unstring it. Just a bit of suposition on my part but I think it could be an argument for loops.
David T
-
That strangelly also corellates with appearance of glued (backed bows) - and by that I mean the moment where the need to shoot in any situation and weather was no more.
Yes, that's a good point Jaro, I'd always assumed that was largely due to good yew becoming scarce in the 16th C.
-
Jeremy,
when you say "I'm not sure he was talking about whip tillering, which is a 20C phrase? From memory he mentions ‘whipping round’, and it's a separate action after shortening and pyking, all post shooting-in. a common practice seems to be having the bow 'dressed' after it was shot-in but maybe only for private, not livery bows?" what do you think he meant then?
When I read that part, as it was talking about "dressing" the bow to make it a fully finished bow suited to the archer it seemed to me that this was talking about fettling the tiller, length, strength and cast of the bow to suit the archer. what does whipping a bow mean? Binding with thread? I am sure there is wording that really does seem to talk about tillering and lighteneing the limbs to get extra cast.
Mark
-
I still think they were using a loop on one end of the string though. In millitary sittuations it would be much faster to string the bow having one end with a loop. Though, I do think it was a tight fit on the loop and that they may just have lifted the string completly off the tip instead of sliding down the limb to unstring it. Just a bit of suposition on my part but I think it could be an argument for loops.
I was planning to experiment with a loop on mine but once I saw how well the knot grips the taper of the nock it seems to make so much sense that I no longer felt a loop likely to have been used on side nocks, a loop would not tighten around the nock so I am confident it wouldnt work.
if you have a knot on your bow string try it slightly up from the nock on your bow (on the tapered wood), it grips so well its possible to draw the bow even though there is no slot at all to hold the string in place (I wouldnt pull it too far though as it could damage the bow)
My first try at making a side nock was not tapered and it didn't work at all, the taper is very important for a side nock to work
-
Jeremy,
when you say "I'm not sure he was talking about whip tillering, which is a 20C phrase? From memory he mentions ‘whipping round’, and it's a separate action after shortening and pyking, all post shooting-in. a common practice seems to be having the bow 'dressed' after it was shot-in but maybe only for private, not livery bows?" what do you think he meant then?
When I read that part, as it was talking about "dressing" the bow to make it a fully finished bow suited to the archer it seemed to me that this was talking about fettling the tiller, length, strength and cast of the bow to suit the archer. what does whipping a bow mean? Binding with thread? I am sure there is wording that really does seem to talk about tillering and lighteneing the limbs to get extra cast.
Mark
Hello Mark,
Well obviously we are working on the premise that our ‘theories’ can only be informed guesses. However, I think it’s safe to assume that he is not referring to binding but who knows. I posted this a while back…
What Ascham mean by pyking and shortening seems to be quite straightforward. But then he talks of 'whipping' as well. This is not a reference to either of the above as it's mentioned as a separate action and right after the other two in the text. Is this a reference to recurving the tips? As Jaro states in another thread, it seemed a common practice to have a bow 'dressed' after it was shot-in. If the bow tips were recurved when purchased any later shortening would reduce the effect. It could also be done to a straight limbed bow to counter string-follow.
There is limited evidence of this practice, but it is a theory Chris Boyton espouses, and is also mentioned by Hugh Soar in his last book (however how serious he considers this I don’t know). The point is what one means by whip tillering. If it’s re-tillering and lightening the limbs to get extra cast, yes. Deliberately making the outer limbs do too much work, no.
-
Makes sence actually! If you pike it you will take away the thin tips. Then "Whipping" would be steaming or boiling the resulting tips and bending them then reshaping them. Could force more work from an already shot in bow and increase the range it could shoot. Otherwise taking a flaby shot out bow and making it servicable again if not better.
David T
-
I think a more likely explanation of Ascham where he writes of whipping the tips would be that having a basically tillered bow, having shot in the bow and had it come round or broken to the string, if the tips are still unbending the tips would be "whipped" meaning that the tip tiller would be refined so that the tips also came to bend a little at full draw.
The final classic tiller would result in a full drawn shape where ALL of the bow does some work, ideally least at the tips and in the handle, most through the mid limb.
In the context of Ascham, whipping the tips and having the bow come to the string are related aspects of maximising the working of the final tiller.
Rod.
-
I paid a visit to the Mary Rose last week, had a good study of the sidenock there and I have now made as close as I can an exact copy of the nock
see http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.blackham/warbow/nock/ (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.blackham/warbow/nock/)
The Mary Rose nock: http://www.alanesq.com/temp/sidenock%201.jpg (http://www.alanesq.com/temp/sidenock%201.jpg)
There were two things surprised me about the nock;
1. It looked very big (I estimate 76mm long and 20mm wide at the base)
2. There is a lip on the lower edge of the string slot
As you can see from the pictures it doesnt look overly big when fitter to a bow
After some pondering I now suspect the lip is because its a lower nock and this lip will hold the bow string in place when using a stringer (as I have experienced problems myself of the stringer pulling the bow string out of the slot when stringing my bow)
I dont think the top nock would have one as it would make it difficult to de string
(this is all just guess work on my behalf though)
I have not tapered the bow enough (in the pictures) so the mark made by fitting the nock to this bow is too close to the end, but apart from that I think you will agree its a good match for the marks on the Mary Rose bows
Here is my 120lb bow with the replica nocks fitted:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.blackham/warbow/nock/120lb/ (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.blackham/warbow/nock/120lb/)
-
I have tried making a better copy of the Mary Rose nock and finally got the hang of my new camera ;-)
so here are some good pictures of it
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.blackham/warbow/nock/demo/
BTW - I now have some of these nocks fitted to my 140lb bow
-
Here's the original, and incredibly a replicated nock that they fitted to an original bow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lower nock is not a replica. It is not even a sidenock. Sidenocks were selfnocks on early longbows as well as the horn nocks on later ones. As someone suggested, they were used because the long early bowtips wouild have been dangerously weakened by an additional nock in the oyher side. It was thought that the thinned down [whipped] ends would give a better cast to the bow. Horn nocks were later used not to prevent the string cutting through the wood [impossible] but so as not to weaken the tips by cutting even a single nock into the wood. You can see that the MR bows are thinned in the last foot or so of the bowtip. I use a string loop with my side nocks but it has to be a very close fit to hold and the nock has to be very carefully cut.
-
The lower nock is not a replica. It is not even a sidenock. Sidenocks were selfnocks on early longbows as well as the horn nocks on later ones. As someone suggested, they were used because the long early bowtips wouild have been dangerously weakened by an additional nock in the oyher side. It was thought that the thinned down [whipped] ends would give a better cast to the bow. Horn nocks were later used not to prevent the string cutting through the wood [impossible] but so as not to weaken the tips by cutting even a single nock into the wood. You can see that the MR bows are thinned in the last foot or so of the bowtip. I use a string loop with my side nocks but it has to be a very close fit to hold and the nock has to be very carefully cut.
Good to hear from someone else using sidenocks :-)
Do you have any pictures of your nocks you could post here?
how long have you been using them?
-
Alanesq: I just had pictures of my horn sidenocks taken taken and will send them when I get my scanner operational. I have been using sidenocks for over thirty years.
-
That makes 3 of us now then ;-)
I dont know why, but there seems to be a great reluctance for people to use them ?
especially if making a Mary Rose type bow it seems to me the only way to go
how do you attach the bow strings ?
I have been using a bowyers knot both ends which works ok but I am now converting to a small loop forming a noose on the top nock (as the others here have been using)
what type of string do you use?
-
I used single loop strings of the Irish linen thread from Belfast. I always made my own strings.My Mary rose replica broke several of my strings before I got it right. Now I am making silk strings. With sidenocks you need a really close fitting loop. With a silk string you have to start off with a loop about the size to fit a pencil because silk will stretch a lot in the beginning. Sidenocks were used because the thin whip ends of mediaeval bows would have been almost cut through by a double nock.
-
I have recently had a first try at making a linen string but didnt get on very well
I think the linen I have is no good
it has a breaking strength of around 2kg a strand but when I try and add strands together it seems to get weaker ? ? ?
do you know a good place I could buy some ?
-
I have recently had a first try at making a linen string but didnt get on very well
I think the linen I have is no good
it has a breaking strength of around 2kg a strand but when I try and add strands together it seems to get weaker ? ? ?
do you know a good place I could buy some ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The good Irish linen thread is difficult to find these days. Maybe you don't have equal tension on all the strands. I don't know how you are making the string. Is it three strand single loop ? That is what I know as Flemish but nowadays the term is used for other kinds. I have a picture of my nock but I can't figure out how to post it here. If I get your email I could do it that way.
-
I didnt get as far as making a full string, I was just experimenting with measuring breaking strength to work out how many strands i would need but I found that with 10 strands for example I was only getting half the strength I expected? so I didnt get any further than this
below is the picture of your sidenock
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I am going to start using them on my 90#er. I do not care for horn nocks all that much so will just use self side nocks in the yew. I just have a feeling that its a gonna be hard stringing the bow with side nocks and timber hitches. anyone have any sugestions?
SJM
-
I am going to start using them on my 90#er. I do not care for horn nocks all that much so will just use self side nocks in the yew. I just have a feeling that its a gonna be hard stringing the bow with side nocks and timber hitches. anyone have any sugestions?
another convert :-)
sidenocks are a bit more fiddly but nothing too bad
if you make a very small loop in the string then thread the string through this forming a noose this works well and is easier to string/destring
you can then put some silicone on the string which helps destringing if you are using modern string material
btw - I have a 100lb ash bow which is just tapered bow tips with no nocks at all (i.e. no horn or slot cut for the string) which I use timber hitches on and this works surprisingly well
I did this just as an experiment to see if this could explain the Otzi bow but it works so well I kept the bow like this
-
Yes, a convert in the process. I will pot some pics up later today of the area. i am making up a new linen string right now.
SJM
-
Here they are,
One of my horn nocks broke a few months back and I am fresh out of horn and do not want to make more. I have always liked the idea of the self side nock. I have a few 60 + # yew bows that have self nocks that show no real wear from the string. It seems like the string will compress the yew to a certain point and then leave a nice little groove. We will see now well these hold up but I have faith in them from what I see. I hade to twist up a new linen string to acomodate. I will do lots of shooting tomorrow and see how they do. Its raining here now! >:(
It is suprisingly easy to sting and unstring with the 2 timber hitches. Bow is around 85# or so @32". I still have to rub a finish on this bow. Still getting to it.
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d114/yewarcher/Mary%20Rose%20Replica/000_0119.jpg)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d114/yewarcher/Mary%20Rose%20Replica/000_0120.jpg)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d114/yewarcher/Mary%20Rose%20Replica/000_0124.jpg)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d114/yewarcher/Mary%20Rose%20Replica/100_5547.jpg)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d114/yewarcher/Mary%20Rose%20Replica/100_5546.jpg)
SJM
-
Looks great :-)
I really like the look of a bow with a timber hitch at both ends but I have found a noose on the top nock makes life much easier as its easier to string and there is no problem with the knot slipping and this moving your nocking point etc.
I have no idea if its likely that Medieval archers would have used a noose though?
Sometimes after you have shot the bow it can be a bit more difficult to destring but I suspect linen will be no problem
I am using D75 which is too stiff and can be very difficult some times (you cant get fastflight anymore though)
yes, I found on my "Otzi test bow" that the string made a indent in the wood which the string now sits in nicely
I must try and find out if there is anything like this shows on the Otzi bow tips ?
-
Thanks!
Cant wait to do some shooting now. But since its raining might as well goin the shop and rough out another mary rose bow!
SJM
-
I wouldn't use a timber hitch on unprotected Yew. I've had a timber hitch cut through Elm and seriously mark the back other hardwoods
-
I wouldn't either. Seems like you're asking for trouble.
-
I wouldn't use a timber hitch on unprotected Yew. I've had a timber hitch cut through Elm and seriously mark the back other hardwoods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe there is a draw weight cutoff. I've used single loop strings with a timber hitch in the lower self nock of several yew bows for years without any more damage than a slight indent. They were at only 60 pounds draw weight. I was patterning the bows after early mediaeval yew longbows bows that don't seem to have had a problem with unprotected nocks.
-
I wouldn't use a timber hitch on unprotected Yew. I've had a timber hitch cut through Elm and seriously mark the back other hardwoods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe there is a draw weight cutoff. I've used single loop strings with a timber hitch in the lower self nock of several yew bows for years without any more damage than a slight indent. They were at only 60 pounds draw weight. I was patterning the bows after early mediaeval yew longbows bows that don't seem to have had a problem with unprotected nocks.
Which early medieval yew longbows were these ones then?
-
I went back to horn.....bow looked to naked without horn nocks.
SJM
-
Which early medieval yew longbows were these ones then?
http://www.vikingsna.org/translations/hedeby%20bows/ (http://www.vikingsna.org/translations/hedeby%20bows/)
Norse longbows were most often self-nocked, and were mainly made of yew.
-
I am going to start using them on my 90#er. I do not care for horn nocks all that much so will just use self side nocks in the yew. I just have a feeling that its a gonna be hard stringing the bow with side nocks and timber hitches. anyone have any sugestions?
SJM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I use the self side nocks on my Nydam and Viking pattern bows.I have had no poblem with a single loop string tied with a timberhitch at the lower nock. The string loop must fit pretty close however. Sidenocked horn tips are more tricky and have to be very well fitted.
-
Hello,
My name is Mark Headlee and I am new to this forum as a member, though I have been reading the posts for some time. I hope I learn and share some of my experiences with longbow - warbow archery.
First, I am in the process of researching and possibly having an accurate reproduction MR warbow built. It has been quite a chore, but research is 99% of the total project, the finished bow is just part.
I would like to ask if there is anyone who sells or is willing to make for me the sidenocks based on the MR artifacts. I ask since there are members how have researched them in person and I do not want to make a "ok" copy based on what I can deduct from internet pictures. I'm striving for accuracy, not acceptability.
If there is anyone please contact me via PM or at my below email address. I would be very interested in speaking with you.
Thanks,
Mark
mheadlee(at)bresnan(dot)net
-
Hi Mark,
There is only the one horn sidenock from the Mary Rose; you should find photos in this thread. If you buy horn sidenocks ready-made from someone else, you'll have a lot of trouble making the tips of your bow fit exactly, which they must do, without any voids between wood and horn. Some bowyers taper the tips of their bows with, essentially, a large pencil-sharpener, so that the cone has straight sides and then they can drill out the horn with a triangular bit. This is inaccurate; the original MR bows have gently tapering tips, and you need to make a drill bit that follows this idea. See the photo here:
http://s289.photobucket.com/albums/ll219/Davepim/Davepim%20%204/ (http://s289.photobucket.com/albums/ll219/Davepim/Davepim%20%204/)
Don't forget that the diameter of the bow tip where it enters the horn nock is about 12-14mm and the depth inside the horn should be about 45mm. I am not an expert on sidenocks, but I find that when the nock is finished (bar the cutting of the groove) it can be glued on and then the string groove cut with a fine rat-tailed file or tile saw, all the way through to the wood beneath, as was done with the originals.
Cheers, Dave
-
I have put all the info I have managed to find on sidenocks here:
http://alanesq.com/sidenock.htm
if you look at this pic
http://www.alanesq.com/longbow/sidenock/diagram.jpg
this is an archaeological diagram I received from the Mary Rose Trust which is about the best source I know of for dimensions etc.
-
Hi Mark,
There is only the one horn sidenock from the Mary Rose; you should find photos in this thread. If you buy horn sidenocks ready-made from someone else, you'll have a lot of trouble making the tips of your bow fit exactly, which they must do, without any voids between wood and horn. Some bowyers taper the tips of their bows with, essentially, a large pencil-sharpener, so that the cone has straight sides and then they can drill out the horn with a triangular bit. This is inaccurate; the original MR bows have gently tapering tips, and you need to make a drill bit that follows this idea. See the photo here:
<snip>
Dave,
I'm guessing that you mean the tips need to be tapered for historical accuracy not necessarily for functionality? Pretty sure that's what you mean, just double checking. :) Thanks
Swamp
-
Quite right Swamp! They work just as well done with a straight taper and no offense intended to those of you who use that method, it's just that, if you're going to use sidenocks, you might as well get the rest right as well. Just my personal opinion however ;D
Dave
-
Question about side nocks... on which side of the nock are they cut? or does it matter? and are they cut on the same side top & bottom, or do they alternate?
-
Question about side nocks... on which side of the nock are they cut? or does it matter? and are they cut on the same side top & bottom, or do they alternate?
The slots are cut so that both nocks are identical - so when fitted on the bow the slots are on opposite sides of the bow
so if you just copy this pic then they will work out right
(http://alanesq.com/longbow/sidenock/sidenock1s.jpg)
-
Thanks Dave.
It makes me wonder why though. After all it is easier (for me) to make a straight end instead of convex/concave taper. Tradition? I would think that it is easier to match the stave to the nock, than to try and adjust the nock. Given that, it stands to reason that the tool that makes the hole in the horn is the deciding element controlling shape. It's been a while since I have looked at medieval woodworking tools, but I seem to remember that spoon bits where the order of the day. It would be pretty easy to tweak one to make a taper like that, maybe all bits were shaped like that to start with. It really has been a while since I looked at that style of tool. Still, I just think it would be easier to do a straight taper even if you have to modify a spoon bit. But I'm looking at this from a very modern point of view, maybe it isn't easier. Bearing that in mind, does anyone know how it was actually done in period? Could they have ground the joint? As in did they rough out the hole and then use an abrasive slury (water/oil grit) to grind the pieces together until the fit was perfect? I would think that technique would leave obvious marks on the staves though and I've never heard anyone mention that. I'm just thinking out loud here. Anyone else have any ideas or even better, period documentation?
Swamp
-
Swamp,
This is a question that I've given a lot of thought to, mostly because I waste so much time and effort getting it right! I believe that the shape of the taper on the bow tip was traditional, going back probably thousands of years. People back in the middle ages were practically-minded, but also very tied to tradition - if something worked they were unlikely to change it. With respect, the straight taper works because of good modern glues, whereas the gradual taper works even without the horn! When I do this, I rough out the bow-tip to what looks a close match to the profile of the drill bit, then I drill out the horn and use this, placed on the bow tip and rotated round and round, as a way to find the bits that need further reduction - the horn leaves a mark on the wood. I have also wondered whether the horn nocks might have been heated up to soften them, before placing them on the bow tips (with or without glue) so that when they contract and harden up again they would form a tight fit. As you have suggested, they might have used a stone grinder with the exact internal profile of the horn, to work the wood down. It would be interesting to see if the cones on the Mary Rose bows were standardised in any way from each particular bowyer; this might indicate such a system. However it was done, it was likely to have been done using a quick and efficient system to ensure a rapid production rate. Certainly this idea doesn't tally with the way I personally do the bow nocks, but then I am probably unusually slow and incompetent here ;)
Cheers, Dave
-
Dave, I'm sure they did it like you do. I do it that way as well. With a bit of practise it can be done reasonably fast. They were probably not as hung up in production efficiency back then as we are today.
Mark, I can make you a couple of nocks, in water buffalo horn. Let me know if you're interested.
-
Swamp,
This is a question that I've given a lot of thought to, mostly because I waste so much time and effort getting it right! I believe that the shape of the taper on the bow tip was traditional, going back probably thousands of years. People back in the middle ages were practically-minded, but also very tied to tradition - if something worked they were unlikely to change it. With respect, the straight taper works because of good modern glues, whereas the gradual taper works even without the horn! When I do this, I rough out the bow-tip to what looks a close match to the profile of the drill bit, then I drill out the horn and use this, placed on the bow tip and rotated round and round, as a way to find the bits that need further reduction - the horn leaves a mark on the wood. I have also wondered whether the horn nocks might have been heated up to soften them, before placing them on the bow tips (with or without glue) so that when they contract and harden up again they would form a tight fit. As you have suggested, they might have used a stone grinder with the exact internal profile of the horn, to work the wood down. It would be interesting to see if the cones on the Mary Rose bows were standardised in any way from each particular bowyer; this might indicate such a system. However it was done, it was likely to have been done using a quick and efficient system to ensure a rapid production rate. Certainly this idea doesn't tally with the way I personally do the bow nocks, but then I am probably unusually slow and incompetent here ;)
Cheers, Dave
I really think the [cow] horn nocks were standardized. The bowtips are all so near the same size, whatever the strength of the rest of the bow. Also, then, guildsmen were prohibited from doing the work of another guild [bowyers were not to make arrows or fletchers to make bows] and anything of horn would be made by a horner, so standardization of military gear would seem necessary. African Man described how he ground a spade bit to shape to match the tip taper and drilled the holes with that. We can see why the tips had to be round. Some say that soaking the horn in boiling water makes for a better fit. I wouldn't advise much pressure and twisting as I have caused lengthwise cracks and splits that way. They were probably glued with hide glue as Elizabethan archers in Ireland had nocks coming loose in the rain. With horn sidenocks, be sure that the groove is high enough that the string loop stays on the horn.
-
Yes, I've had nocks split when twisting them too!, but there's no easy way out - standardised or not. The only thing I can say is that the more of these you do, the faster and easier they become.
Dave