Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: cool_98_555 on October 21, 2016, 02:15:57 pm
-
Hello everyone,
I have the option to buy a nice 2-year seasoned stave, 67.5" long. However, the rings are thin near the back and gradually go to thicker and thicker rings as it gets closer to the belly. There is a really nice ratio on the stave. I want to make a flatbow above 90#, and i'm wondering if I need to look for a stave with thicker rings for the back, or if thinner rings will work for the type of bow I want to make. As long as the ring is chased properly, does it really matter if it's a thin or thick ring?
Thanks for your help!
-
IMO as long as its a good ratio and not predominately early wood it doesn't matter... so with saying that just get a clean ring all the way down and your good to go.. gut
-
There is a recent thread all about this. Search for it and you'll get lots of opinions all at once!
-
Osage is very tough wood, thin ringed or thick. Like gut said get the back ring clean and you should be fine.
If you have enough thickness go down on the back to a thicker ring.
-
A couple of years ago I posted one over 100# that was about 62" long. The bow has since been drawn out to 112# and never took any measurable set. This bow had about 20 rings to the inch.
-
Something I've noticed from cutting lots of trees on hills. When growing out the side of a hill where the tree is leaning the center is off set with large fat rings on the down hill side (compression). The up hill tension side is very thin tight ringed. I've wondered if thin rings may be a better tension wood compared to the fat compression rings. It could just be wood that is stronger in tension may need most of the growth in the compression side to hold the weight of the trees from falling.
-
Good question Emmet.
-
Use it :)
-
Something I've noticed from cutting lots of trees on hills. When growing out the side of a hill where the tree is leaning the center is off set with large fat rings on the down hill side (compression). The up hill tension side is very thin tight ringed. I've wondered if thin rings may be a better tension wood compared to the fat compression rings. It could just be wood that is stronger in tension may need most of the growth in the compression side to hold the weight of the trees from falling.
Were you cutting conifers or broadleaf? From what I've read, conifers put extra on the compression side and broadlead make stronger wood on the tension side.
-
Were you cutting conifers or broadleaf? From what I've read, conifers put extra on the compression side and broadlead make stronger wood on the tension side.
I think you are saying "more wood" on the tension side, right? I have read this too, but have not checked it out in the woods. I have cut maybe a 1,000 trees in my lifetime (so far:) but have never bothered to check this. It does seem to me that all the leaners I cut had wider rings on the compression side.
-
Something I've noticed from cutting lots of trees on hills. When growing out the side of a hill where the tree is leaning the center is off set with large fat rings on the down hill side (compression). The up hill tension side is very thin tight ringed. I've wondered if thin rings may be a better tension wood compared to the fat compression rings. It could just be wood that is stronger in tension may need most of the growth in the compression side to hold the weight of the trees from falling.
Were you cutting conifers or broadleaf? From what I've read, conifers put extra on the compression side and broadlead make stronger wood on the tension side.
Most trees that had little strain as in growing straight up and in a tight groups seem to have the tree center in the center with even ring thickness all the way around but trees on the outside of the group tend to lean or on a step hill tend to lean or may even develop a pistol grip at the base. when cut the tree center is off center depending on the amount of lean. Yes conifers, maple. (most trees) I assume natures way of shoring it up.
The original question on cools stave, thin on the back thick belly may be a good combo. I don't have anything except tree growth characteristics to go by and it's just a thought.
-
Normally, the thin vs thick ring debate wouldn't bother me all that much. What gets under my skin is: Does my target draw weight pose a problem when using a backing from a thin ring?
-
My opinion. Not at all. As long as the back is clean, clean. If you knicked those thin rings and violated the back, that's a problem. If not, I wouldn't be concerned.
-
Were you cutting conifers or broadleaf? From what I've read, conifers put extra on the compression side and broadlead make stronger wood on the tension side.
I think you are saying "more wood" on the tension side, right? I have read this too, but have not checked it out in the woods. I have cut maybe a 1,000 trees in my lifetime (so far:) but have never bothered to check this. It does seem to me that all the leaners I cut had wider rings on the compression side.
This is interesting. I haven't paid that much attention to the trees that I've dropped but everything that I've read says that broadleaf trees squeeze more/or stronger cellulose fibers into the tension side. The wood stays the same size but is stronger. I'll have to investigate a bit.
-
after getting all the way down to the ring you're chasing, do ya'll sand it down to finish cleaning it up?
-
Yes. I typically sand the back baby smooth. As I have gotten better at ring chasing, my backs are in pretty good shape without gouges and the like that require a lot of work. Just a light sanding to finish it up.
-
On medium to thick rings I'll chase a ring with a draw knife and clean up what's left of the early growth with a scraper and then sand paper. On really thin rings I'll use scraper to get down to the final ring and clean it up with sand paper.