Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => HowTo's and Build-a-longs => Topic started by: duffontap on October 30, 2006, 03:59:06 pm
-
Hello Everyone,
As I have said elsewhere--I am now well-invested in my first attempt at building a medieval war bow, like those found on the Mary Rose. Although I am a hunter and build most of my bows as hunting bows, there has always been a deep fascination in me with the kind of bow that was responsible for winning wars, and, ultimately keeping most of us speaking English. When I cut a Pacific Yew tree that had some decent 78" staves in it, I knew it would soon be time to start.
I am posting this build-along in response to the requests of a couple PA members. The bow is not finished, and I cannot guarantee that it will make weight without exploding. But, I can guarantee that I will make shavings until it explodes, or until I shoot a flaming arrow into a thatched roof 200 yards away. That's a promise. For the next couple weeks I'll post another step each day or two. Keep checking in if you're interested, and learn from my mistakes, and the little bit of research I have done on these wonderful weapons. I'm sure we'll even hear from the experts like Jaro, Heavybow, Marc, and others as well.
So where does it all start? Inspiration. Standing beneath an old Yew tree with a long, straight trunk is a lot of inspiration. Watching 'Tales of the Bow' on OPB is even more inspiration. Watching Simon shoot a 170# Yew bow (on the link below) is so much inspiration I couldn't sleep the night I saw it. So until tomorrow, check out these links--they should be all the inspiration you need for now!
J. D. Duff
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hUI3gMTZL-4
http://www.primitivearcher.com/articles/warbow.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hello again,
I'm currently collecting information on the second installment on the build-along: 'Materials,' which I'll post later this morning. Until then:
If you haven't taken a look at the Simon Stanley video yet, you owe it to yourself to see it. It shows him doing some steel-piercing shots. Really neat. Let me know what you think of it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hUI3gMTZL-4
-
Oh yeah!!! What a cool video! I've got some pacific yew that would probably work for an english longbow....but I don't think I'll be pulling a 170# bow....I'd end up tearing my shoulder out of socket...
-
Oh come on J.D., you've been taunting and teasing for two weeks. I need to see some serious bow pics. ;D ;D I'm excited to watch this post, keep up the good work and keep us posted. Justin
-
JD, I will be watching this thread closely as I am in the middle of an alnost identical bow from erc, I ran a ring on it this morning and have one limb just starting to flex a bit, I have no idea how many #'s i will get from the wood, I am hoping for a minimum of 90# and a max of about 125#. This bow would last me a lifetime as I can barely draw 70#. Hoping I can get someone to shoot it for me in the selfbow division of flight archery. If it doesn't explode!!
-
Steve - you didn't waste any time with that ERC! I'll be highly interested to track your progress as well as J.D.'s
-
Steve,
What a coincidence! I just happen to putting the last few coats of tru oil on an erc elb. It draws right around 80# at 31". Right now I can only get it back to 28", where it pulls in the low seventies. Is yours going to bend in the handle? I noticed that you mentioned chasing a ring. It has been my experience that the heartwood/sapwood seperation on erc rarely follows a single ring. On the bow I mentioned above, the sapwood is only 1/8" i some spots near the handle, and nearly 1/2" thick at the tips.
-
Thanks guys.
Justin, the bow is progressing along well. I'll get to 'serious pics' soon but I've been learning so much, and I've been so interested by this project I wanted to do a careful build-along to encourage others to try this kind of bow and give them the missing bits of info to do it. I got some sweet ox horn off Ebay too--thanks!
I had no idea you could get that kind of weight out of ERC! That's awesome. It's such beautiful wood.
I'm finishing up my stuff on materials--I'll post as soon as I can.
J. D. Duff
-
Welcome again to medieval war bow country,
In this tantalizing/torturously slow progression toward our goal of shooting a flaming arrow into a thatched roof at 200 paces, we have arrived at step #2: obtaining raw materials. The 175 or so Mary Rose bows were all of Yew, which reflected the strong preference of medieval archers and bowyers, but was not an accurate cross-section of all military-issue bows as just as many bows were made from white woods—in some cases more.
Experts agree that the variety of ring counts per inch, widths, depths, lengths and overall mass of the different bows are best accounted for by the fact that the yew was sourced all over Europe.
Material Options for the Medieval War Bow:
Best: Alpine Italian Yew. This is the same species of Yew as the famed English Yew, but tends to be much denser (barely floats, if at all) and makes a very slender, high-weight bow. High Alpine Italian Yew would have been the favorite of both bowyers and archers for its strength and consistency. With renewed interest in war bows, some of the original plantations of Italian Yew have been revisited and a number of replica bows have been made from them. As a point of interest, the three war bows pictured on the couch are for sale in the UK. They are selling for around 550 pounds!
Alternatives:
English Yew and Swiss Yew also make good war bows. As a general rule, English Yew has more widely-spaced growth rings and makes a physically larger bow of the same draw weight.
Pacific Yew, aka Oregon Yew is a good alternative to the European Yew woods but is a markedly different species. Pacific Yew is lighter and when grown under the right conditions it is the tightest-grained Yew there is. Problems with Pacific Yew have to do with its more brittle nature. It also tends to be weak around pins and character whereas Italian Yew can hold together even with quite a lot of character. Excellent, full-length staves of Oregon Yew are available through Don Adams:
http://www.donadamsarchery.com/staves.htm
Ash and Elm can also make good war bows and they were used a great deal in medieval times. At one point, bowyers were required to build two white wood war bows for every one Yew bow. The problem came when they tried to pass white wood bows out to archers—archers who wanted Yew! Our own Thimo has proven that heavy war bows can be built with dense Elm staves. Ash and Elm are widely available and a good option for a first shot at a war bow.
For my first attempt at a war bow, I have chosen a decent 78” Pacific Yew stave. It is not the best Yew out there, but not nearly the worst. Careful tillering will likely yield a serviceable war bow.
So take a look at the pics, grab your longest, cleanest, hardest Yew, Ash, Elm or other white wood stave and take the plunge.
Step Three Tomorrow. J. D. Duff
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Great post, JD. I'm looking forward to seeing the thatch go up. Any thoughts on how well Osage will stand up to the challenge? I'm going to give it a shot, once it dries.
-
I'm diggin this. 8)
-
I got a couple of stavs from stickhead and could not resist getting started, I used the spokeshave to chase a ring about 10 rings down from the bark, some places it is 1/8 thick other places the sapwood is close to 1/2' thick. I am doing it like all my bows and baseing it on mass weight, at 100# draw and 78" long I want it to finish between 24 and 27 oz. right now I am at 31 oz and slightly flexing. The idea for my bow is to handle fairly light arrows of 500 grains. I really want to break the 400 yard mark for a wood bow, especially a self bow. Even though yew is probably more relaible than erc, I think erc performs slightly better than yew. I may only go for a 26" draw and if it survives that enter it in the english long bow category and draw it to 30". I can only draw about 70# so will have to hire myself a shooter for the day or train my butt off and try it myself, Steve
-
Im glad to see more about war bows. Steve just train you will be pulling a higher poundage bow. JD your bow is coming along. ;D
-
Fred i think osage will stand up fine with the war bows if you keep the length down some, maybe not more than 72". I believe the bow mark built this last year that broke a record was only about 70 or 72" maybe him or marlon will stop by and talk about that bow a bit. Steve
-
JD,
Not all the bows on the Mary Rose were Yew. Some who have written books on the subject claim they were but one of the UK most notable bowyers who really knows his woods and who has seen the bows tells me that there are a few bows that definately weren't yew. One of these days I must see if I can make an appointment with the museum and go and see the bows for myself.
Mark in England
-
Thanks everyone--Step #3 Soon.
Fred: Osage is a great alternative. The only reason I didn't mention it was that I was late getting home from the office last night. Oops. There are Texas Osage war bows being shot in England right now.
Marlon: Thanks for the workout routine. I'm hitting the weights hard and my rotator cuffs feel stronger already. I'm pulling a solid 90+ right now. I'll post those shoulder workouts on this thread in a couple days. This war bow is more fun than I have ever had building a bow.
Badger: Glad you're coming along on your project, too. I wanted to mention: This is a build-along--please feel free to post pictures of your own war bow progress on this thread!
Thimo: Glad your hanging here.
Mark: That just goes to show how hard information is to come by on this subject. The 'all Yew' statement has been published so many times I didn't even question it. Thanks for the info!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You got me aching to try one now J.D.. Good thread keep it up. Thanks Justin
-
Mark who told you that some werent yew? I know about single non yew medievall english bow supposedly in wallace collection.
I wouldnt trust Pip in this as he has been caught bullshiting more than once.
Jaro
-
Very interesting thread! The video with Stanley is just awesome, it inspired me to finish my little 80# warbow, and I'm currently waiting for the moisture to drop in a 1 3/5" wide roughed out european yew warbow. I don't think the ballistic-test in the video is anywhere near realistic, but it sure illustrates the capability.
I've heard rumours say that the inventory-list of Mary Rose both listed yew and elm bows, but only the bows from yew were found. Elm is of course much mure perishable than yew. Don't know where this info came from originally though.
-
Nice thread
The bow I made Marlon is 71" long overall.
-
Internet was down here last night in medieval Oregon. Step Three follows.
Jaro--I never did say anything about the laminated stave alternative, would you be willing to post a pic of that tri-laminated war bow you posted a while back?
-
Hello Again,
The draw knife is shaving hair, the spoke shave is adjusted to take translucent shavings and the sweet aroma of air-dried Yew is on the air. Somewhere out there, under a dry thatched roof, there is nervous talk of war…
Step Three: Choosing a Draw Weight.
One of the most defining characteristics of the medieval war bow was its uniquely high draw weight. Just how high that draw weight was has been a matter of conjecture among archers, bowyers and historians and will likely be disputed long into the future. Estimates start as low as about 80# and go as high as 180# or more.
Arguments for low draw weight (100 lbs. or less):
1. For the most part, medieval war bows were goverment-issued equipment. Government quantities of production usually lead to standardization and the Mary Rose bows reflected this. For example, the tips were all exactly 12 mm (about 31/64”) and at one time, they all had horn nocks. If the government were issuing bows to peasant archers (often, but not always the case), every archer would be expected to be able to draw any bow, and not everyone can draw 150# bows. Thus, the bows would be tailored to the lowest common denominator.
2. The nocks on the arrows found on the Mary rose all have 1/8” slots. A hemp or linen string that would fit this size of nock would not last long on a 100# bow, and may not even last one shot on a 180# bow. Bows often break when their strings break, so it is unlikely that a 120+ pound bow would be a practical weapon if it was constantly breaking strings (or breaking).
3. 100# bows shoot very nearly as far as 150# bows. For the extra cost in broken strings and broken bows, 20 yards of extra cast may not be enough to have tempted the medievals.
4. Using the same quality of wood, and the average English war bow pattern, a 150# bow is much more likely to break than a 100# bow. Medieval archers, bowyers and kings would have known this and wouldn’t have pushed the limits more than necessary.
Arguments for high draw weight (120 lbs. or more):
1. Medieval arms race: thicker armor leads to heavier bows, which leads to thicker armor, which leads to heavier bows…
2. Even if a 150# bow doesn’t shoot much farther than a 100# bow, it still shoots farther! An extra 20 yards of cast could conceivably win the day.
3. ‘Just because we can’t make a linen or hemp string that is strong enough for a 150# bow and still fits a 1/8” nock doesn’t mean that they couldn’t.’ (That is, there was an ancient skill that is lost to us).
4. Replica bows that are made from the same materials as the originals, and to the same dimensions as the originals tend to be well over 120 lbs. Some would even say that you can’t make a replica to the same dimensions without going over 120#.
5. Since the people who were using war bows were being trained from youth, there is good reason to believe that they could work into very heavy bows by the time they are ready for military action. That is, 150# is not too much to pull for a medieval farm boy who had been shooting since infancy.
Personally, I like to think that the original bows were between 100 and 150 lbs. That’s mostly based on bowyers’ intuition. I think the arguments on either side are compelling enough to justify taking sides, but bowyers’ intuition will not be absent when sides are taken. Pip Bickerstaffe has recently published an essay (In book form, titled Medieval War Bows—pictured below) on why he thinks the Mary Rose bows were about 100# +/- a couple pounds.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Pip.jpg)
Pip is no slouch and he has done his homework. There are others who, with equal education, choose higher weights. Even one of Pip’s own replicas was longer and thinner than the average Mary Rose bows and draws 115# (Pictured below being shot by Steve Stratton).
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Stratton.jpg)
I have chosen a draw weight of 100 lbs. for my first attempt at a war bow. I have done this for several reasons:
1. That is a weight I’ll be able to work into quickly.
2. I’m not using the best stave, and I don’t want to exceed the limits of my materials.
3. I can always build a heavier bow later—right now I'm in it to survive.
So my friends, take an honest assessment of your materials, flex your arms in front of the mirror, and dream of heavy bows and battles won.
Until tomorrow then…
-
Good topic!!
Some images from the past...
(http://www.pinakothek.de/images/7562_11715-h.jpg)
(http://www.museenkoeln.de/wallraf-richartz-museum/_img/ma/06.jpg)
-
Well, I got my erc on the tiller tree today and judging by some handle flex I am getting about the most i will get is 75# unless i shorten it a bit,
I went ahead and tillered it out to 75# at 26", handle looks to have just a tad of flex, not having a very strong day today so not able to draw it past ablot 24", Took about 1' of set. Think I will go ahead and tiller it out to 65 at 26 and then see if it wil survive a 30" draw, not much speed at 24" and some handshock but last 14" of limbs havent been worked yet much. Steve
-
Thanks for the pics Matti!
Hey Badger, do you have a photo of your ERC bow on the tillering tree? I'll love to see where it's at.
-
great thread! 8)
-
JD, If I will narow the outside limbs a bit in the morning and get the outer limbs working a bit more then photo it. Try to post it tomorrow, Steve
-
Ask Steve Stratton if he done any of the "experiments", Pip claims he made with him on the face of the very book.
Anyway Steve Stratton, who is pretty knowledgeable to the subject is now selling italian high altitude yew bows made to profile and dimensions of MR bows. They mostly come out over 100# and these are also mostly 4´´ longer than originalls (presumably safety). Now I have seen these in person, width and profile of one of smallest MR Bows 80´´ long, drawing 96#, except that originall was only 74´´ long!!! Take a guess how much weight it would have picked when piked down 6´´, but my guess is 4#per inch. This is a bow which is only 30 mm wide!
(BTW - if you have $ - buy Steve´s bows, they are excellent and nobody knows when the stock dryes out. They are made in Italy, he imports and sells them)
Jaro
-
J.D. The laminated stave is option if you have not yew stave, but its not the right thing....
http://www.sweb.cz/hawkwind/trosky/braced.jpg
http://www.sweb.cz/hawkwind/tiler1.jpg
Jaro
-
Beautiful tiller on that bow jaro, I am going to try and get some yew this year, last year I wasnt too happy with the one stav I did buy, it seperated inbetween the lams first time bow was flexed. Steve
-
Jaro,
Thanks for the pics--the tiller of that bow impresses me every time I see it. I asked Steve about those experiments a while ago and he said he never did do any. Pip seems to imply that he has worked with Steve Stratton on those tests. I think he talks about working with Mark more. I'll ask Pip.
I agree that the laminated stave is not preferable, but I didn't want my personal preference for self bows to exclude others who would like to try a war bow style but don't have a chain saw and a Yew permit.
I would love to buy one of Steve's Italian Yew bows, but my truck didn't even cost that much. I think they're priced fairly--I was surprised at how low--but I'll never have that kind of money. The most interesting thing that they show is that bows cannot be made to MR dimensions out of Alpine Italian Yew without hitting 120-160#. It's some of the most valuable research done to date.
J. D. Duff
-
Hey everyone,
Note that the pics that Matti posted show Yew bows with both heart and sapwood.
Here are Jaro's pics if you haven't seen them yet:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The experimental data is quite convincing, but I think the properties of the wood varies quite a lot, and does disturb the data quite much.
If the 80" 96# bow Jaro mentioned was cut down to 74", and was gaining 4# for each inch, it would draw 120#. I guess it couldn't be thicker than 30mm if it is 30mm wide. My first and only self yew is 33mm wide and 30mm thick, and only 70 1/2" long, it has a quite squarish cross section, and it bends perhaps a bit much in the handle. All this leads us to believe it should be over 120#. In fact it is 40 punds lighter, being only around 80# (@28"). A variable of 40 to perhaps as much as 60# is quite a lot!
Now, my bow is made from pacific yew, which could account for some of the difference, but it sure does tell me that these experimental data is quite unreliable.
Using the correct species with the correct density, right amount of sapwood, and making them from exect measures could lead to some rough approximates.
I haven't gone through much litterature, and I don't know if the 150#+ or 100#- guesswork is supported by reliable experiments, but it seems like the disagreement suggests that they aren't.
And this of course leads to: Where can one get hold of some exact measures of different Mary Rose bows? Millimeter-measures for at least each 20cm would be preferable. Have anyone been in contact with the museum regarding this?
-
"Now, my bow is made from pacific yew, which could account for some of the difference, but it sure does tell me that these experimental data is quite unreliable."
- That is complete quatch my friend.
Pacific yew being entirelly different species is much more elastic than european yew. But we have now opportunity to work with the same yew which was used for Mary Rose bows and its harvested from the same plantage where it was 400 yrs ago. Pretty convincing results actually. Bows from Italian yew also shoot better and further than best Pacific yew.
Even working with not so dense european yew, you will hit 100+ at width 32-34 mm and the biggest problem is to get actually the thing to bend.
I just made 34 mm wide 78´´ english yew bow and it came out pretty flat to actually hit the target weight as the guy cannot pull more than 85#. It was hovever 110x when I braced it and that was pretty much tilered bow.
I will post pictures later, no hornnocks, but if youd throw it amongst MR bows, only bad wood quality would distinguish it from them. This is wood which has only about 40 rings per inch.
I m having some Czech yew, which in mediaval literature is described "as bad quality" and it still better than the piece I just worked on.
Even that one is still not longshot to that Italian yew.
(Actually I have some czech yew which might be the same density, but its not seasoned.)
Jaro
-
".... but I think the properties of the wood varies quite a lot, and does disturb the data quite much."
- Yes the properties of individual pieces of wood do varies a lot, but tell me then, why should they use bad quality wood for warbows? (Means low stiffnes per mass) Particulary if we know that the quality of wood on MR Bows is outstanding....
-
Hmm, I don't know what to believe :)
From what I've heard, the pacific yew is more brittle than the european, where the european should be more tough. But from what I understand, the pacific yew may be less dense, and therefore yield a lower poundage than european, if the same measures are used.
Even though it also seems convincing that tests are beeing carried out on trees that grew in the same locations as the originals, the climate is not the same, and the soil is probably not the same as it was either. However, tests of such staves would probably be the closest one could get, and if we are to have any opinion, we must allow ourselves to use the avaliable data.
I guess they would use bad quality wood because of the enormous quantity of bows that were made. They even made warbows out of yew branches ;) (if we are to believe Robert Hardy). Other woods were also used, so I guess they would prefer to use yew as long as they could get hold of it. But as I'm beginning to understand, the Mary Rose bows are top notch of what were used back then. So using the best yew we have today will probably give us the best draw weight estimates we can get.
Have there been carried out reliable and accurate tests of these Italian staves yet?
Jaro, smile :)
-
I'm just going to throw this out there; Have any of the original Mary Rose bows been shot (or can they be shot)?
Is it possible that the dimensions of these bows has changed since the ship sank?
Please excuse my ignorance.
Fred
-
"the climate is not the same, and the soil is probably not the same as it was either"
- do you have anything to support this? The best wood we have now is roughly worst which has found on original MR Bows.
What do you mean by "Accurate tests" - the bows are fairly accurate replicas, from the same material. We have lots of people shooting them and recording the distance, this is what we have.
What exactly do you want to do other with bow, which has the same profile,taper, material, poundage and drawlenght for testing than shoot it?
"the climate is not the same, and the soil is probably not the same as it was either"
- what is this? Show me some hard data supporting this, show me how it affect yew tree growth in the sense of wood quality and we will talk further. This is bloody "wave hand" dismisal, without anything to suport it.
(I guess the climate is different, but not the soil, on the other hand my guess is that is different in the sense that in mediaval times it was better for warbow quality yew than today. Its notable to say that trees which are cut today started their life exactly in that climate and soil as some of last warbow staves were cut there - means 400 -500 years back)
What Hardy writes is that branches were used for second rate quality bows, means bows used at home in england for law invoked archery practice and hunting. These are also called peasant bows.
However this is not something a front line professional soldier would have issued and used, after all none of MR bows seems to be branch bow, they are all excellent quality timber. Actually if my memory does not fails me Roger Ascham writes exactly the same thing.
If you think I have waxed out, you are right. Because internet is full of people throwing opinions around like if they were facts and who have nothing which could support the statements and who search for another exuse the moment when they are presented with solid rebutall.
Just now, there is somebody on englishwarbow pages who says that arrows in bundles were of different lenght (I mean in each bundle were arrows from say 28 -33´´), because you see, the soldiers were of different height and have different drawlenght. Why should it be so, where is any benefit?
Why should even the crown buy it that way (means for more money) Where are the data? Does the idiot not grasp that a short archer can draw long arow, but long draw archer cant use short arrow? And stop with "but he can shortdraw" - he cannot, because it is dangerous to do with warbow and good way to tear your shoulder muscle. With warbow full stretch of frame is imperativ.
Every single myth about the warbow is repeated again again, speculations without solid ground from people who neither made one, or shot it, there is books, there are people who know, but everytime one thing is straightened out another pure stupidity emerges.
There are more knowledgeable people than me, particulary those who dont care about internet and thus have more time for bows but I wont be silent when I have something to say.
And sorry I dont believe everything what Pip says, because he has been caught bullshiting about the tests, he said he conducted with Steve Stratton and Mark wont have anything to do with him for some time.
Jaro
-
They cant be shot after 400 years on bottom of the sea, they have been strung and several of them pulled on the tiler, hovever the elastic modulus of the wood is off after such long time in salt water.
But the shape on tiler remained alright so we know how they bend.
What we do now is that we have the same wood, roughly the same or slightly worse quality than MR bows and bows out of it to dimension, tiler and profile wont come under 100#.
Actually as I wrote, most of replicas is made in lenghts of longer examples of MR bows, if you should cut them down to shortes we have then they would be 20-30# heavier.
Jaro
-
Jaro,
I understand your frustration. Quality dips pretty low on internet research sometimes. I'm trying to learn as I build, so I'm listening to anything people who actually make a shoot these weapons are saying. I started this build-along because I wanted other people to get excited about something that I'm really enjoying. I also thought the PA page could use a little more on the war bow.
Different length arrows in the arrow bags:
I have been guilty of saying this very thing. I suppose I'm the one you're talking about on the English War Bow page. The reason why I said this is because the original leather disks that were in the arrow bag still contained the remains of arrows in an assortment of lengths. If you can point me to definitive, published proof that this is not true, I would cheerfully withdraw my comment. But your 'shoulder injury' theory doesn't change the fact that the arrow bag disks contained a variety of arrow lengths.
J. D. Duff
-
Sorry, I don't want to fill JD's great thread with a typical internet-forum-argument. :-\
I see your point about the internet beeing full of opinions and false truths. I'm currently studying archaeology, and I try to be as scientific and honest as I can. Also, a big part of being scientific is beeing able to discuss matters in a good tone.
My point is basicly that beeing critical is a good thing. And I think there is good reason to doubt some replicas exact representation of the originals draw weight, if the difference in materials actually can make such a difference as I somehow unscientificly outlined above.
If I knew how accurate some replicas were made, then I would make myself an opinion about how heavy the bows could have been, but untill then I'll stay sceptical.
If you want to, I'll be interested in discussing this further in some PMs.
Oh, just one thing Jaro, as for the different arrowlenghts, I think speculating in why they should be exactly the same lengt, is just what you yourself is warning about. If the empiricism tells us something, it has to be trusted, and we will have to shape and reshape out theories from those.
-
Ya gotta love jaro, not shy to express his feelings. I do wish you would not cuss though, you can express yourself just as well and not have to cuss. this is a family chat board eh? aside from that I am learning a whole lot here.
-
Hello Everyone,
I'm taking a break to turn a bow out in my shop this weekend. When we come back together Monday the 6th, we'll lay out the bow and discuss how the war bow profile evolves as you work the stave.
Take Care Everyone, J. D. Duff
-
Jaro, were any of the bows on the Mary Rose made of whitewoods? I read that they did make long bows out of whitewoods, but did they heat treat them like we do?
How high of a draw weight can be expected from an unheat-treated whitewood bow of similar length and width as a Mary Rose bow, before it either shatters or takes 4" of set?
-
Stickbow, I made an experimental heavy bow out of Hazel which turned out about 85# @ 32". It's 75" long and 3,4cm wide and 3,2 thick, 12 mm tips. The stick is only for training purposes but seems to work pretty well in spite of 3" set and heavy fretting. I made three heat treatings. But, I managed to break the belly by bending it in the wrong way after wondering how much set there was and can I straignten the bow. Will never do that again!
In next week I'll make another and bigger one and hopefully this one holds together for some distance shooting. Rowan tree this time.
-
Josh, This is a very interesting post. With my yew stave sitting in my basement just waiting for me to get back in the swing, I'm soaking it all in. Thanks for the time and effort you are putting in to this project and for taking the time to share your findings.
I don't know history well enough to debate this subject but I'm enjoying the debate none the less. We do need to keep it civil and realise that oppinions are like belly buttons(and other things), we all have one. Argueing and name calling get us nowhere. Debate, on the other hand is not only informative but healthy. Pat
-
I too am following along with great intrest and anticipation. I have a Yew stave at heavy floor tiller that I have sinewed. I have only made one other ELB Yew bow with a sister stave that was...well let's just say flabby at best.
Roger
-
Why belly is such knooty wood?
-
Why the belly is so knooty?
-
Very interesting thread. I enjoyed reading the posts even though this is not one og my arrchery interests. Jawge
-
I just read through this post, very interesting. Here's a thought, there's seems to be an assumption that the draw length is 30-31" based on bow performance at longer lengths? Could the 100# argument be validated in relationship to draw length being shorter, therefore the smaller nock size in evidence which would then support the estimated string strength/durability? My draw length is 26" but I shoot a 31" arrow. Different lengths affect spine of the arrow. Has anyone looked at string tracking on the existing bows or is that impossible? I'm thinking again that if the bowyer was wise, he would offset the string for near or center shot alignment so that spine on the arrows would be rendered irrelevant...hey, I do. I thought that there were indications from empirical evidence which supported that centuries ago, we all were of smaller stature physically...this would moreover suggest that the draw lengths were shorter indicating less poundage given a particular bow's dimension(s). This conjecture seems more reasonable than 150# bows being pulled by strings that wouldn't successfully take it or last; sounds like a beheading in the making to me... :P If I was the bowyer I'd be overbuilding the bows like nobody's business so I could literally keep my head once the troops came home! Cheers, P1.
-
Hello There,
I’m currently flooded here on the beautiful North Oregon Coast. This separates me from my camera at work, and work. On the down side, I’ll have to postpone the laying out of the bow until tomorrow. On the plus side, I got to spend the day in my shop seeing my replica speed toward completion with a beautiful set of jet-black horn nocks. I can see that little peasant’s cottage up in flames now—which reminds me that I need to find the time to build a cottage with a thatched roof if I’m ever going to keep that promise. Let’s lay out the bow tomorrow, shall we? Until then, here’s an equally-important discussion of long draws, and fat Force-Draw Curves. (Post to Follow)
The pic was taken with my camera phone on hwy. 101 near Seaside, Oregon.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
That is unfortunate. I hope the flood doesn't cause you too much grief.
This has become quite the intriguing thread.
I'm looking forward to seeing the finished bow, and the flaming roof.
I grabbed a drier (and snakier) piece of Osage and started working it. It seems to be the hardest piece of orange wood I've taken a drawknife to.
I guess nothing worth doing is easy.
Keep it up
Fred
-
Hello everyone,
There’s a scene in the movie Arthur in which two opposing armies face each other on the frozen surface of a lake. One commander calls an archer forward to test the range, to determine if they were in fact able to engage the enemy with the bow and arrow. He draws and sends his Hollywood prop through the air with a whiz. His arrow lands twenty yards in front of Arthur’s men, and skitters harmlessly across the ice. Out of range. Needing nothing more for encouragement, Arthur’s men (and Ms. Keira Knightly) begin launching volley after volley of arrows right into the mass of the enemy. An enemy made impotent by inferior archery tackle?—there’s no Hollywood sensationalization needed—it has happened.
What made the English longbowmen so successful? They were not the only ones out on the battlefield with longbows. The Yew war bow with its classic D-section (D-ish, we’ll talk about cross-sections another day) and D-tiller was and is very practical but hardly revolutionary. Unless you use an ordinary bow in a special way, ordinary results will be achieved. The answer has to come from how the bow was used. Namely—what kind of arrows were used and what kind of draw was used?
We are fortunate to have recovered so many arrows from the Mary Rose (Approximately 3,500). These arrows give us a bit of a window to see how the bow might have been used. Many of the arrows that were found on the Mary Rose were in collections of 24, in the remains of the standard arrow bags. In these bags (which were mostly deteriorated) were leather disks containing a variety of arrows that ranged in length from about 27” to about 31 1/2”. The heads and fletchings were of course long gone.
What this tells us, is that each arrow bag contained arrows that would permit a draw of up to between 30-31 1/2”. History tells us that the English draw was not always anchored at the same length like we do today, but drawn right past the ear—until the point touched the hand. This style allows for a very long draw from a relatively short archer. And this length of draw allows for very high energy storage.
Many of you, perhaps most of you, are familiar with Tim Baker’s ‘Bow Design and Performance’ chapter in Vol. 1 of the Traditional Bowyer’s Bible. If not, it is required reading. I’m a bit of a rebel, and I delight in disagreeing with Mr. Baker, but I reference this chapter often, and I willingly admit my debt to him for advancing my understanding of energy storage—and how to demonstrate it on a force-draw curve. Well, if you’re familiar with this chapter, or its equivalent, you shouldn’t have much trouble understanding why the English made their bows long in the first place. High weights, and stacked bellies (thick rather than wide in section) are safest when made very long. But 80” is much longer than needed for 100-180# bows drawing 26-28”. There are benefits to overbuilding a bow—Comstock style—but there are reasonable limits. Take that same 80” bow and draw it 31+” and you’ve:
1. Stored way more energy.
2. Made a very long bow very efficient.
Modern tests confirm the effectiveness of this long draw—many archers drawing their war bow replicas to 32”. Force draw curves also confirm this. If you look at a graph of a force-draw curve, adding four inches to your draw practically doubles your energy storage. If you take two opposing armies and outfit them with the same bows, with one drawing 27-28” and the other drawing 30-32”, the archers who draw further will shoot much further, can use heavier arrows, and can engage an enemy that cannot return lethal shots.
Ironically, it may have been the English Long Arrow that that made the English Longbow so famous.
J. D. Duff
-
JD If each quiver had different lengths of arrow. I guess the question that then begs to be asked is, Were there different lengths of arrows for different distances? If you had 50 like bows and 50 archers, 49 novices and one professional, the professional could tell what length to use, say 31", they all draw until it touches their finger then loose and they all shoot the same distance. Then as the army approaches they switch to 30 and shoot. It would eliminate a lot of practice or guess work. Justin
-
Very interesting point Justin. I was wondering that myself as I was thinking my way through that post. Here's what got me thinking:
My wife regularly embarrasses me in our backyard archery range by outshooting me. She does this despite the fact that she has no idea what proper form is and she is shooting crooked arrows. (I would straighten her arrows but how badly do I want to be beaten?). She judges her distance and then adjusts her trajectory by aiming higher and lower and by how far she draws her arrow. On long shots she draws farther--on short shots, she draws less. Don't ask me how she can hit anything--I don't know. But, she does know how to get extra power out of her bow and she has never read 'bow design and performance.'
As far as arrow length being used to control distances shot--you may be right. I think it is at least likely that arrows were different lengths to allow a certain randomness in where the volleys of arrows landed. If you are shooting at a group of 20,000 men, you don't want all your arrows to go 240 yards and land there. You want some to go 180, some to go 220, some to go 235, etc. so the whole group gets peppered. Make sense?
I had another point, but I forgot it. Keep the mental juices flowing. I got my camera tonight so I'll finish this post up over the next week or so. The bow is nearing completion and hasn't blow yet.
J. D. Duff
-
JD, could it be as trivial as using up shafting material? arrows were built (and needed) in the hundreds of thousands in those days. just like the dwindling availability of yew may have been one of the causes for a narrower bow design, using up available shafting material may have resulted in various arrow lengths. i guess it was not worth sorting them by length, since they were shot in volleys and no arrow was going to be shot again, so they were consumables.
-
Dustybaer, I have heard that they narrowed the bows to save wood also. As for the arrows being sorted, I think it was intentional. A short draw versus a long draw could make a difference of several hundred yards. A good group of archers could change the outcome of a battle before swords were even drawn, but they had to volley into the lines. If you are short on arrow material you don't throw sticks that have no hope of getting to the target or ones that will go far beyond. You might even give the short arrows to guys with shorter draws and the long to guys with longer draws. The fact that all quivers had both lends to the idea that it was very intentional. Justin
-
I could be way, way off here, but could the shorter arrows have been used for hunting and the longer ones for war where they needed the weight/distance/penetration? I guess that all points to the same conclusion though...hmmm....
-
When reading more on this you might find the article The Enigma of Side-Horns by Roy King(the official Bowmaker of the Mary Rose Trust) in P.A. back issue volume 8 issue 1 interesting.
-
Three or four 78” Yew staves sitting on the drying rack kind of burn a hole in the bowyer’s pocket. So when the early archery season ended this year without any meat in the pot, I didn’t need any more reasons to pursue another archery interest that I’ve been putting off for a long time. It was time to start the medieval war bow.
As I was researching whatever books and articles I could find, I was somewhat surprised at how difficult it is to obtain pictures and information on the surviving examples of the Medieval-era war bows. Information that does exist tends to be third-person, word of mouth, contradictory, cursory, cryptic, guarded by the experts, blabbed about by idiots, popularized by actors, sensationalized by public television, and sometimes even wrong. Good source material is necessary for serious research, so we are faced with certain limitations on this thread. I was telling a PA member the other day that history is not a toy, and I do not wish to treat the noble things of the past with irreverence. I was beginning to think that finding a really good source of information on these bows might have to mean going to the Mary Rose Museum and breaking into the vault with a camera and dial caliper. Lucky for us amateurs, someone already has.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/mary1.jpg)
If you’ve been with this thread from the beginning, or if you’re a loyal Primitive Archer reader, you should already be familiar with Pip Bickerstaff’s articles on the war bow. When I was despairing of finding any information on the Mary Rose bows’ dimensions, I remembered those articles from PA and decided to write Mr. Bickerstaff to see if he could point me in the direction of a good source. Pip wrote back almost immediately. The information he provided in that email and following correspondence has been my primary source for what we are doing here. Pip has built Mary Rose replicas out of Alpine Italian Yew that are about as close to the originals as you can get. He disagrees with others, and others disagree with him, but he has handled the original bows, built many replicas, and otherwise proven that he’s someone worth listening to. As we begin laying out the bow—I hereby acknowledge my debt.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/mary8.jpg)
Step 4: ‘Laying out the Bow’ follows…
J. D. Duff
-
MORE MORE MORE!!!!! ;D I've been looking for data all over the place. Bring it on!!!!
D. Tiller
-
Step 4: ‘Laying out the Bow’
As Pip told me recently: ‘the reason there are no drawings is that almost every bow is different in width, thickness and length.’ From the bits and pieces of information that I’ve turned up—this is very true. Pip has also said that ‘you can’t build a Mary Rose bow by numbers.’ So, in laying out the bow, we have to be careful not to take anything for granted. Here are a few general statements on the elusive ‘average Mary Rose bow.’
1. The average Mary Rose bow is about 77.952” long. Most are about 76-79” with one as short as 73.622”, and a bow as long as 83.020”. (Source http://www.maryrose.org/ship/bows2.htm )
2. Bows were widest in the handle (of course) and measured about 38-40mm (roughly 1 31/64-1 9/16”) in width, with one bow only 30mm wide and others scattered in-between.
3. War bows were laid out like all English longbows—with the top of the handle about an inch above the center.
4. Width tapered very little for the first 20” out from center.
5. Tips were all almost exactly 12mm (about 31/64ths”) and completely round.
6. Taper was rapid over the last 10-14” of the bow tips, with the remaining space between this point and mid-limb being negotiable.
(Limb depth and section will be covered later)
I’ve included in the pictures a stave that I’m laying out, and my current bow that’s nearly finished. The dark lay-out on the stave shows a safe starting point. The bow, shows how the mass is placed on a typical war bow width taper. You can easily see in the pictures how the bow tapers very little in the middle 40+” and then tapers to very thin tips. Looking closely you’ll get an idea of how this width taper should look. A straight taper from the handle to the tips would not replicate the originals which were beefy to the mid-limb and then tapered rapidly toward the relatively light tips.
For comparisons, I'm 6' 2".
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/StandingwithBowandStave.jpg)
This pic shows the bow from about the handle out to the tip:
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Transposed.jpg)
A couple things I did:
Start by laying out the handle--find the center of the stave and mark as shown:
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Handle.jpg)
To be on the safe side, I chose to lay out the tips about 3/4” wide to reduce the risk of a bandsaw accident.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/TableTop.jpg)
After the outline was done I worked the tips down to just over 1/2” (later to just under 1/2”).
At mid-limb you bow should be just under the handle width (maybe an 1/8” under).
Be very careful around character. The knot in the pic was avoided in the bow, but created a bump in the stave that will be left a tiny bit wide for safety.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/DrawingOutline.jpg)
Feel free to ask questions if I’ve been guilty of being vague on anything. Take care.
J. D. Duff
-
Thanks JD that answers a lot of questions I've had. Now to go get some wood! Unfortunatly the budget is low so now yew wood. I will be making a laminate of hickory and either Ipe or Bububinga. Same basic design though. I'm aiming for an 80# bow at 31.5 inches of draw. Monday will see me picking up the wood on my day off. I'm itching to start!
D. Tiller
-
D. Tiller,
I'm happy to help. Good luck on your bow. Keep ckecking in, too.
J. D.
-
Have any of you tried shooting a flaming arrow? All of mine blow out when I shoot'em. Maybe its my fuel. Kerbinator
-
Though I've never shot a flaming arrow, I've thought of it often. I wonder if Sterno fuel would work? It's kind of like a jellified fuel source. I know as a kid that stuff was fun to play with (albiet dangerous). When my buddy and I would go 'rat chasin', we had to make our own torches and paper never cut the mustard (we would go into old culverts/tunnels searching for our prey). We did find that plastic cups worked great stuffed onto the end of a stick which had the added cool effect of dripping molten plastic globs of flame as we walked...lasted a good long while as well. Another interesting note, they had a challange on the 'Amazing Race' show which had the contestants shooting the Mongolian bows with flaming arrows 80 yards to hit a 4' diameter bowl that had what looked like gunpowder in it. When the flaming arrow hit the bowl, it exploded into flames and was very neat to watch. It wasn't so neat watching people who obviously never handled a bow wrestle with them...that was painful. I was sitting on the edge of the couch, talking out loud trying to coach them...wife thought it was quite humorous. ::) After teaching 5 children so far, you can't blame me!
-
While I'm working on the next step, it would be interesting to see what some of you aficionados of bow performance think of the war bow front-view outline. Is there a reason why the taper grew progressively faster toward the tips but hardly started until mid-limb? Keep in mind also that this outline is based on the Mary Rose bows, which me may assume to represent the height of perfection of the war bow.
J. D.
-
I would guess more width at midlimb is there to support more bend at midlimb, and therefore probably a faster more eliptical bow.
-
Has anyone been having trouble viewing my pics? One person wrote me and said this. I've been experimenting with hosted pics rather than using the attachment option because it allows me to format a little nicer. If there are specific pictures you want to see that you're having trouble viewing--let me know by email and I'll send them in an attachment.
J. D. Duff
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The pictures are fine at this end
-
JD, great work sharing all your work and insights with the rest of us. I may bump up a warbow project to sooner rather than later.
I was wondering, though, where do you plan to get a thatched building to fire? Do you plan to thatch it yourself, or mockup a shed with dry hay, for instance? Thatching is a facinating subject and craft all by itself.
-
Thanks Dane,
A couple of my friends and I are planning to build a disposable/flamable hut specifically for the purpose. Thatching is an interesting subject. I had a roommate in college who was a missionary kid from the Philippines. He told me stories about how they would have thatching parties. Almost sounded like a barn raising.
I'll post something on cross-section soon. Take care.
J. D. Duff
-
By the way, I wanted to thank everyone for their participation in this group learning thread. This has been a lot of fun.
As of now, I plan on including the following before we're done:
1. Limb depth and cross-section.
2. Floor tillering.
3. Horn Nocks.
4. Replica arrows (on the arrow page)
5. Finish.
6. Video.
If there's a question you have that you don't think will be covered under those categories, please let me know and I'll try to research an answer. Perhaps I'll have the first bow done by the end of next week? But can I pull it!
Thanks again.
J. D. Duff
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Josh Thats a nice looking bow. ;D marlon
-
Thanks Dane,
A couple of my friends and I are planning to build a disposable/flamable hut specifically for the purpose. Thatching is an interesting subject. I had a roommate in college who was a missionary kid from the Philippines. He told me stories about how they would have thatching parties. Almost sounded like a barn raising.
I'll post something on cross-section soon. Take care.
J. D. Duff
Good luck building that thatched strucure. Thatching is essentially bundles of reeds in layers, trimmed then up then with a special knife. A good thatched roof can last fifty years or more.
You might want to google and look at the Globe Theater site, as they show some excellent shots of thatchers in action. The Globe reconstruction is the first thatched building in London allowed since the Great Fire. They used Norfolk reed for that project, and the results are magnificent.
I do hope you make your hut medieval-looking, since so much time and effort is going into that goal of buring the sucker down. A few manequines (sp) might add to the fun.
-
Good thread Josh, looks like some fine bows you will be making there. I have a tendency to pay attention to Pip Bickerstaff as well, I think he has earned some respect in this field and I tend to think he is as objective as possible. has anyone ever weighed these bows? The physical weight of the bows themselves. This might also give us a better assessmnet of what they were drawing. Steve
-
The conservation-method of the original bows has most likely weighted them down a bit. At least that is the case with some medieval bows we have here in Norway.
Looking forward to hearing how the side-nocking works out :)
-
Thanks Dane!
Hey Badger and Kviljo,
The weight issue is an interesting one. Pip has said that Yew from Oregon will make a much lighter (physically) bow than European Yew for the same draw weight. That being said, I don't know how scientific we can be in comparisons between their and ours. One thing that is important to note is that bows made today to the same dimensions as the Mary Rose bows, from Alpine Italian Yew tend to average around 140#s.
The next step follows...
-
Step 5: Cross-Section and Limb Depth
The outline of our war bow has been carefully cut out and the tips have been worked down to just over 1/2” wide. If you have taken the plunge and bought a full-length Yew stave for your war bow, you may soon understand why Yew has gained such a favored reputation in the course of archery history. At this point the depth of the limb needs to be reduced to an approximate 1:1 relationship with the width. It will be reduced further as the section begins to take shape, but for now it is better to have too much wood than too little.
You may proceed as usual with your band saw now, but be very cautious—ruining a good Yew stave is a high crime. As I was saying about understanding why Yew has gained its favored reputation throughout history—grab a draw knife and no further explanation need be given. Working a good piece of Yew with a draw knife yields long, sweet-smelling curls of wood and leaves behind an almost polished surface. Those of you who have primarily worked white wood may have wondered why the draw knife and spoke shave are part of the bowyer’s toolkit at all. As you shape your Yew stave with just such tools, those questions will well be answered. Conservatively work the limb depth down to match the limb width, or just under.
The limb tips should be perfectly round and will eventually finish out to 12mm (just barely under 1/2”). It is a good idea to use a dial caliper to help shape the tips down close to their finished size. Follow with a 1/2” hole drilled in a piece of scrap to check for roundness. A perfect fit with the horn nock (mandatory) is achievable only with a perfectly round limb tip (a few tips on horn nocks Wednesday).
When the limb tips are round and close to their finished size, you can proceed from there toward the handle. At this point you will be rounding the edges of the back and belly and will have to decide on a cross-section. Although the limb section of English bows is generally referred to as a ‘D-section,’ there is flexibility offered in the range of sections on the Mary Rose samples. For the most part the Mary Rose bows were about 38-40mm wide in the handle and 33-35mm deep. This establishes an approximate 7:8 depth-to-width ratio, but slight divergence is permissible as the small surviving sampling of medieval war bows shows that there was latitude for bowyer’s preference.
If you have the Traditional Bowyer’s Bible Volume Three, you should take the time to read the section on war bows in chapter 3. This is a fairly good explanation of the advantages of the D section.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Photo138.jpg)
Another valuable resource for understanding relative tension/compression stresses is the following thread on this site:
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,490.0.html
Some Mary Rose-like sections and their advantages may include:
Semi-rectangular: Most working wood. High energy storage and low set. More vulnerable to a tension break.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Semi-Rectangular.jpg)
Semi-Oval: Lots of working wood. No vulnerable ridges. Even stress distribution. Good section for a stave with a high crown.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Semi-Oval.jpg)
Semi-Round: Similar to oval section but with a higher crown. More vulnerable back.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Semi-Round.jpg)
True-D: The narrow belly becomes the ‘weak link.’ The back is wider (thus stronger) than the belly, so the belly is more likely to fret or take set than the back is to explode. A good section for cautious bowyers, or in cases where the back looks vulnerable to breakage. Also, a good choice for Pacific Yew in general.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/D-Section.jpg)
In the case of my own replica, I have chosen to use a true D section and a depth-to-width ratio of 5:6 (1 1/2” wide by about 1 1/4” deep). I have done this partially on Pip’s recommendation to keep my bow wide, as Oregon Yew is not as dense as European Yew and thus benefits from the extra width in the back to share the tension strain. I chose to do a deep D section because I wanted my bow to have that classic shape, and because I wanted to use the section that would make my bow less vulnerable to breakage. I was willing to allow for a little more set to keep this bow from blowing up at a 30” draw. Also, my stave came from a 10-12” tree, so the back is very flat, and a round or oval section would require violating too many growth rings on the back (not a huge problem with Yew, but I’m being very cautious here).
We’ll begin the tillering process tomorrow. Until then…
J. D. Duff
-
REALLY interesting thread Josh....!!...and can´t wait to see your WARBOW replica finished.... 8)....
Best regards and all the best mate...!... ;)...
Asier.
-
Thanks,
I should be posting the finished pics in just a few days. It turned out really good. I shiver when I think about how cool war bows are.
J. D. Duff
-
AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH! Stop teasing, let's see it ;D
-
That was some real goo info JD, it can be tricky trying to ballance draw weight and limb ratios, makes a bowyer slow down a bit, very enjoyable work these long bows, Steve
-
skeaterbait,
If I showed you, I would have to kill you. My bow is currently the first line of defense for the otherwise vulnerable North Oregon Coast.
Badger,
The thing I love about the PA forum is that I'm always learning stuff. I try to do a post once in a while that requires a little effort on my part. This was a lot of effort. I'm about done. Thanks for following along.
J. D. Duff
-
Hello again,
The bow is finished, and while it waits for its armor-piercing arrows, you have a couple days to finish your own and meet me on the beach for a Medieval flight shoot. For those of you who wonder why this is taking so long—let me tell you—a bow like this is not easy to build. Since it is a replica bow, lots of rules must be followed and rushing has not been an option. Well, let’s finish this up.
Step 6: Tillering a Heavy
Tillering:
Many bowyers, particularly newer bowyers, have trouble hitting their desired weight. They may be shooting for 50 lbs. and end up with 33.5 lbs. This problem increases as higher weights are desired. So, when faced with the task of building a war bow of 100# plus, the risk of the bow coming under weight should always be on your mind. A couple things that helped me a lot:
1. Dial caliper: the Medievals didn’t have this tool but I didn’t have a 5 year apprenticeship. Check everything twice with a dial caliper before you take wood. You can ruin a heavy with one misguided stroke of a drawknife. I can tiller a good 60# hunting bow in a couple hours. This bow took me days.
2. Tillering String: The first picture shows me pulling on my war bow with a tillering string I made. I’m pulling really hard to get this 3” of bend! It’s easy to forget, this bow will be too stiff to floor tiller in the regular fashion—unless you’re much bigger and stronger than me.
3. Card scraper: The most versatile bow-building tool out there. If you don’t have one, they cost ten bucks at the most and they’re easy to sharpen. I had a luthier show me how to sharpen my scraper once and it’s my favorite tool now. I wouldn’t trade it for a bow scraper. I must have tillered about fifty pounds off this war bow with a scraper, removing long, transparent sheets of wood.
4. Bend, Caliper, Scrape, Sand, Repeat. After you’ve gotten your section perfect and all the tool marks scraped and sanded, the real tillering begins. Never let a heavy bow get to the point where you have to take ten pounds off to fix the section or get tool gouges out.
If you make it through the floor tillering process with enough wood to still make a war bow, you’ve survived the worst. At this point I added temporary nocks and shot my bow from an 18” draw to work it a little. I was a little displeased at how much is was following the string so I put it in my drying box for a week at 95 degrees to dry it out a little more. Then I added the horn nocks. Many of you who are reading this have successfully done horn nocks already. If you’re had any trouble, look at the pictures for a simple tool you can use to check the taper of your bow tip. When you get a perfect fit, you can glue the tip on with almost anything. I’ve used epoxy, wood glue, and super glue. Five drops of super glue will work as well as anything and sets fast.
It’s my day off and I need to get busy making arrows. I’ll post the finished bow on a new thread on Monday. Thanks for hanging around everyone. My knowledge about these bows has grown immensely since we started. It’s been a lot of fun, too.
Oh, yeah—I’ll post a video before too long of the flaming arrow and thatched roof. Give me a little time though!
J. D. Duff
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
JD, this has been tons of fun, informative, and very generous of you to take so much effort and time on this topic.
I was wondering if you are going to address the string you plan to make or buy for this bow? Linen, Dacron, etc.? Endless, Flemish? What is marginally or safely safe for such a powerful bow?
As well, how about arrows, and where you sourced your broadheads, bodkins, etc.? I kind of think of all this as a weapons system, before maybe the term was invented.
Thanks,
Dane
-
Thanks Dane,
I was wondering if anyone was still listening. ;D I'll cover arrows and strings, too then. I'm working on arrows today, so I'll take pictures as I go.
I'm currently researching strings and talking to some other war bow shooters about what they're using. I'll include my string choice in the next couple of days.
Thanks.
J. D. Duff
-
LOOKIN GOOD JD! :D i JUST MADE THE SAME TOOL AND INSTALLED THE HORN NOCKS ON MINE! WOW, YOU GOT TO LOVE THE SMELL OF HORN GRINDING ! :P NOT!
-
Thanks Dane,
I was wondering if anyone was still listening. ;D
J. D. Duff
I have been listening for quite a while, the problem is I always wind up having to read it anyway. ;D Thanks for keeping on working, we all appreciate this post. Justin
-
Keep posting on this subject-me thinks lots of people listening-bob
-
Josh, This is an excellent thread. We need it archived for future reference. When you are completely done, maybe we should move it to the "how to" section. I know when I get started with my yew ELB(I'm not sure what weight to go with so I won't call it a war bow) that I'll be asking you lots of questions. Thanks for all you are putting into this project and for what you are shareing with us all.
By a card scraper, do you mean a thin rectangular piece of metal. When I started useing a scraper for most of my tillering, my bows improved 100% and I didn't screw up as much. I saw that Grizzly Products has a scraper set for $11.95. The set has 5 or 6 differant scrapers of differant configurations.
For those that don't have and can't find a scraper, this set would be a great stocking stuffer for Christmas. Pat
-
Thanks everyone--lots,
I'm so glad to be of some practical use around here. I've been reading a lot on what's going on in England and it's a bit of a bummer that war bows haven't caught on in the states more. There are many talented bowyers on this forum who are more than capable of building these bows, and most people can work their way into them over time. Europe seems to have more shooters but fewer bowyers. I would love it if a couple years from now we had a few more events for war bows. I think I'll bring mine to the Longbow Safari this year.
I spent the day yesterday hand planing some hardwood shafting to the dimensions of the Mary Rose artifacts. They are something scary! Should I post the arrow info on this thread or on the arrow forum?
I wanted to work up something a little more specific on the Mary Rose horn nocks. I'll try to post that soon.
J. D. Duff
-
Thanks everyone--lots,
I'm so glad to be of some practical use around here. I've been reading a lot on what's going on in England and it's a bit of a bummer that war bows haven't caught on in the states more. There are many talented bowyers on this forum who are more than capable of building these bows, and most people can work their way into them over time. Europe seems to have more shooters but fewer bowyers. I would love it if a couple years from now we had a few more events for war bows. I think I'll bring mine to the Longbow Safari this year.
I spent the day yesterday hand planing some hardwood shafting to the dimensions of the Mary Rose artifacts. They are something scary! Should I post the arrow info on this thread or on the arrow forum?
I wanted to work up something a little more specific on the Mary Rose horn nocks. I'll try to post that soon.
J. D. Duff
JD, a few thoughts about why the war bow is more popular in Europe, and presumably, England. These are thoughts, and if I take some flak, so be it.
For one thing, it is much more directly their history then ours. If you have ever gone to Europe, you literally stumble on ancient things. The raillroad bed of the small line that I took from Augsburg to the village near my kaserene was literally built for a ways on an old Roman road, and for the rest of the trip, you could see the remnets of the road from the train window. Hop in a car, and you can be at the Hastings site from anywhere in England in no time. Again, near my kaserene, there was a place called the West Woods. Ther are dozens, possibly hundreds, of burial mounds there from the defeated Magyards that Otto slaughtered. Could I find one guy in my unit who cared to go visit them with me? It was only two or three miles by foot.
Arguably, many of us of European ancestry here in the states have direct blood ties to all that history, but hey, Americans are not much for history in any case, our own, let alone from a culture 1000 years in the past. I recall from my US civil war living history days how little the general public knew about our own great conflict. I argued myself blue one time trying to convince these two guys in their 30s that the Confederacy lost the war, not the other way around.
I think that legal issues might have something to do with it, as well. A friend of mine was discussing it with me a while back. Insurance must be horrible to have an English or European longbow shoot. Lawyers grow well in our soil.
-
Good thoughts Dane. I think it is important that we don't steal someone else's history. I guess the way I see it, as an archer and bowyer, everything that relates to archery history is part of my archery heritage. The English war bow represents one of the most powerful man-powered weapons ever devised. We as bowyers and archers can learn a lot from that history.
I just want to share the joy that I have had exploring bows and arrows beyond the hunting context. I'm a hunter, and I love hunting. But, I've very much enjoyed the pleasures of other forms of archery as they stretch beyond the close of one hunting season and the preparation for the next.
J. D. Duff
-
Interresting perspective. But I have to disagree that Americans are not interrested in history. The problem is it is not being taught in our schools! Crying shame too. >:( Though I have met a number of Europeans that have no idea about their history either. ::)
Now as for English history not being a part of American History, I really disagree. My ancestors were English at one time. This country was founded on many English ideals and by the English. If it was not for the revolutionary war we would still be...English! Yes, today we are a mixed smorgosborg of many differing nationalities melding and re melding into what we call "Americans". But at the heart the central ideals and history of this GREAT NATION are the ideals and history of Great Britain. English history, up to the great split with this colony, is OUR history. As for the reason the English longbow is more prevalent and used in England than it is here, well I put it down to being more of a fad and rediscovery of the longbow based on the Mary Rose being found and all the info. on the longbow comming from its discovery. Here in the states we are surrounded by lots of native American archery and so we end up replicating that. Though back in the late and early 1800's English archery and bows were the most likely to be found on the archery range. Everything just seems to be a cyclical nature of rediscovery.
I bet you ten to one that the Longbow is being rediscovered here on this website and will become and is becoming the next big thing in archery...again!
Each generation just rediscovers what the previous one happened to forget! There really is nothing being done today which is not either being rediscovered or being built upon something invented in the past! ;D
D. Tiller
PS: I love the English Longbow!!!!
-
Very well said JD. I like it all. The site of an arrrow in mid flight and watching it strike the mark, wether it be a target spot or the side of a critter brings fourth emotions in me that cannot be described by mere words...
Sparky
-
Great discussion. I was going to add step 7, but I'll refrain until tomorrow in hopes that more of you will voice your own opinions. Let us know your thoughts on the English aspects of our archery heritage.
I'll be reading!
J. D. Duff
-
I think it really depends on how you see the situation. No question english doctrine affected and maybe still does affect american archery. Native american archery is what was common on this continent for countless centuries-so depends on where you stand and how you see the subject and what you identify with. Nothing new in archery I agree, we are really just rediscovering what was commonplace-like in other things that date back 2000 years -- were forgotten and now are being rediscovered and are touted as new wave-bob--good subject!
-
Interresting perspective. But I have to disagree that Americans are not interrested in history. The problem is it is not being taught in our schools! Crying shame too. >:( Though I have met a number of Europeans that have no idea about their history either. ::)
Now as for English history not being a part of American History, I really disagree. My ancestors were English at one time. This country was founded on many English ideals and by the English. If it was not for the revolutionary war we would still be...English! Yes, today we are a mixed smorgosborg of many differing nationalities melding and re melding into what we call "Americans". But at the heart the central ideals and history of this GREAT NATION are the ideals and history of Great Britain. English history, up to the great split with this colony, is OUR history. As for the reason the English longbow is more prevalent and used in England than it is here, well I put it down to being more of a fad and rediscovery of the longbow based on the Mary Rose being found and all the info. on the longbow comming from its discovery. Here in the states we are surrounded by lots of native American archery and so we end up replicating that. Though back in the late and early 1800's English archery and bows were the most likely to be found on the archery range. Everything just seems to be a cyclical nature of rediscovery.
I bet you ten to one that the Longbow is being rediscovered here on this website and will become and is becoming the next big thing in archery...again!
Each generation just rediscovers what the previous one happened to forget! There really is nothing being done today which is not either being rediscovered or being built upon something invented in the past! ;D
D. Tiller
PS: I love the English Longbow!!!!
D. Tiller, I didnt mean to sound as dour as perhaps I did. I agree with you 100 percent, history is not being well taught in schools across the US, based on my own horrible history teachers from grade school through college. However, I came from a family that loved reading, encouraged hisotry, and it just was part of my life from as far back as I can remember. So, no matter how bad my teachers were, I still enjoyed each course.
You are right about our English heritage, in overt and subtle ways. I myself have ancestors that were English, Welsh, Scottish, French, German, Dutch, Italian, and Scicilian. Our language is English (though if you speak to an Englisman, sometimes it seems we speak a very differnt language!). Our laws are based upon English law.
But, 1,000 years ago is a long time, and one of the great stengths and perhaps weaknesses with American character is it's youthful outlook, optimism, and so on. A fifty year old building is very old here in the states, while a 900 year old church is considered a new building in England. I cant count the number of times a great old building was torn down, to be replaced with a strip mall or whatever, and then that bit of heritage is lost forever. Perhaps that is part of why I think Amerians are as a whole not interested in history. But, yes, many Europeans are exactly the same way, and I am assuming that is true in Korea, China, Romania, and Brazil and everywhere else.
The longbow is a piece of wood, and a magical thing. But, so are just about any style of bow. That the longbow is perhaps coming back is no surprise, but like you said, it is cyclical. The warbow and it's fans maybe can be thought of as a subculture within a subculture?
Oh, JD, thanks, and I would love to see you put the arrow stuff on this thread, or make it clear where you are going to continue, if you post it in some other area, such as arrows.
Dane
-
Great thread, JD. Seems like you are enjoying the process. Thanks for sharing all that great info. Jawge
-
For those of you interested in such things, here is a quote from a facinating book, The Description of England, by William Harrison. (Publisher is Dover, ISBN 0-486-28275-9). Now, the longbow was in its decline at this point, but this book, written in 1587, gives a detailed description of life in Shakespear's England. This is from Chapter XVI: Of Armor and Munition
In times past the chief force of England consisted in their longbows. But now we have in manner generally given over that kind of artillary and for longbows indeed do practice to shoot compass for our pasttime, which kind of shooting can never yield any smart stroke nor beat down our enemies as our countrymen were wont to do at every time of need. Certes the Frenchmen and rutters, derided our new archery in respect of their corslets, will not let in open skirmish, if any leisure serve, to turn up their tails and cry " Shoot, English!" and all because our strong shooting is decayed and laid in bed. But if some of our wars with France, the breech of such a varlet should have been nailed in his bum with one arrow and another feahtered in his bowels before he should have turned about to see who shot the first. But as our shooting is thus in manner utterly decayed among us one way, so our countrymen wax skillful in sundy other points, as in shooting in small pieces, the caliver, and handling of the pike, in several uses whereof they are become very expert.
He goes on to descirbe artillary pieces, armor, and other neat stuff. In fact, the entire book is worth reading, and gives you many insights into life in Tudor England, which is not that far in the future from the days of Agincourt, etc.
So JD, are you going whole hog and outfit yourself as a medival longbowman, with turnshoes, riveted maile, dagger, wollen hose, etc?
-
Excellent contribution Dane--thanks for that quote and thanks to everyone for your thoughts on archery heritage, and history...
I'm posting something on horn nocks momentarily.
J. D. Duff
-
This really has been an enjoyable thread, really adds a lot of quality and class to the sight here. Steve
-
Wow Steve, thanks.
Oh, Dane--I'll take a wollen horse if your offering. I had some glue-stick ponies when I was young that would have been pretty useful for arrow penetration tests, but not much else. I totally blew that opportunity! ;D
J. D. Duff
Step 7 in five....
-
Step 7.2: ?Replica? Horn Nocks
One of the problems we run into with building a replica of a Medieval bow is how to fill the gaps in our understanding of how the equipment was used. A great example of this is the horn nocks on the Mary Rose bows. Every intact bow tip shows clearly that it had, at one time, a horn nock fitted onto it similarly to how we do it today. Similar--but not the same. Limb tips were tapered to a point and the horn was glued on (probably with hide glue) and a single side nock was cut through the horn into the bow tip. The obvious questions that this raises are, ?why horn nocks? and ?why a single side nock??
The Mary Rose bows were not intended to be ornate. The horn tips were not decorative, but were functional parts of military weaponry. Those who have worked with Yew may have already guessed that Yew in very high draw weights will not survive very long without horn tips or their equivalent. While tillering my own replica, I filed a set of temporary nocks into the wood, and it wasn?t a few minutes before the string deeply gouged into the sapwood on the back. OK, so the ?why horn nocks? question is answered easy enough.
But how does a single side nock work? Many believe that the bowstrings that were used in Medieval times had no loops and were tied to both ends of the bow with two timber hitches. Living in this day, where we primarily use strings with two plaited loops, the single side-nock begins to be less practical. Here?s the conflict: closer replication, or more practical function?
My original plan was to use the single side-nock that was present on the original bows, but once again, not knowing exactly how these worked, it is difficult matching the originals. I want my replica bow to be a functional, regular shooter. After consulting Pip, and a few others in the mother country, I have decided to use more modern grooves in my horn nocks. I have also resisted the urge to make them fancy. I chose to match the horn nock replica on the Mary Rose web page (pictured below) as it seemed the only slightly-better-than-completely-arbitrary style of horn nock to copy. It struck me as being a good example of rugged, practical, military functionality. I forced myself to comply to this simple standard.
Another note: many of the notches in the bow tips revealed that the horn nocks had two grooves on the same side. This could have meant that they were made to be used with a bow stringer, or as an easy adjustment for brace height. I chose to include this double-groove in my nocks to facilitate the use of a stringer. I can string a bow that draws 100# at 30? but not one that?s 80? long.
The first image below shows a Mary Rose bow tip without the nock, the only horn nock to be found on the Mary Rose, and a replica that I kinda modeled my horn tips on.
The second image is of me working down my own double-groove horn nock.
Questions welcomed.
J. D. Duff
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
JD are you going to shine up the horn on the bow? I really like what your doing with the project. Thats turning into a bow to be really proud of. Looking at the horn nock on the Mary Rose bow and the replica it looks like the one found on the Rose was really rustic compared to the one shown in the replica. Was the replica an actual repro of the Mary Rose or a more fanciful version?
I like what your doing with those knocks!
D. Tiller
-
DT,
Yes, I'll shine them up and coat them with tru-oil for protection. The replica on the Mary Rose webpage is not exact by any means. It's just a good example of simple functionality. I could get really fancy with a horn tip, but that would be a departure from replication.
Your questions spotlite the inherent problem with any replica project: replication vs. functional or aesthetic preference. I'm trying to stick closer to the replication side of the fence, but I need a bow that I can shoot any time without an expert to string it for me--hence the slightly more modern nocks.
As to whether or not the one surviving original was more rustic: it most likely was, but I suppose it is at least somewhat deteriorated from all the years under water. I haven't seen it (other than in the picture) so I don't know if it is very close to being perfectly intact.
Thanks for the continued interest,
J. D. Duff
-
What kind of cows there were in medieval England? What kind of horns they had? Maybe they were long and narrow?
Some role play:
If I was a horn tip maker (50-100 tips per day) I'd use the last inch of a horn, the very tip of it and just cut it and drill a cone shaped hole into it. Then some rounding and string grooves. No polishing! Why would I do that, why would I waste time (at least 15 min per tip) and energy for that? It's for army, they don't care. For bows for private customers and nobles I would polish them well and charge more of course. The rest of the horn pieces I would sell to my neighboring fletcher for arrow inserts.
;)
-
True Matti, although a course, unpolished string groove in horn can saw through a Dacron string in a couple of shots--it could do much worse with a linen string. There had to be some detail work. Rugged functionality may mean an absence of decorative touches but does not mean 'quick and easy.' I would think that Medieval 'cow tippers' would be given adequate time on each bow to insure that it was as good as it could be for the battlefield.
J. D. Duff
-
I would lots rather spend the time to polish 15 horns than the time to cut, match, glue, then remove the tips just to start over. Without polishing you cannot get a true idea if the horn has cracks or splits. Even a hairline crack could explode under the stress of a 130# draw. If your talking about 15 minutes to polish or an exploded bow the 15 minutes was well spent. Justin
-
I hadn't really thought of that. Good point.
Hey Justin,
I have 320 posts and you only have 313. Slacker. ;D
J. D. Duff
-
You have more usefull information. ;D We need to go back and count from the old board I think. ;) BTW that is 314 I'm catching up. Justin
-
Wow Steve, thanks.
Oh, Dane--I'll take a wollen horse if your offering. I had some glue-stick ponies when I was young that would have been pretty useful for arrow penetration tests, but not much else. I totally blew that opportunity! ;D
J. D. Duff
Step 7 in five....
JD, maybe I made a typo? Wollen hose, as in the stuff you protect your legs with.
-
No typo--that was totally a brain failure on my part. I was wondering what you were talking about. There's nothing like when someone misreads what you say and then thinks you're crazy! ;D
As far as protection, I think I'll just surround myself with sharpened stakes.
J. D. Duff
-
Folks,
A few points,
Both the English Red Devon (sometimes called the milking Devon) and the Irish Dexter cattle have fairly narrow well shaped pointed horns easy to work. Having raised the Dexters for 10 + years, i can testify to this. All cows were horned. the polled one did not come into popularity until we started to mess with the genetics and did a lot of linebreeding.
second, as late as the 1780's there was an occupation (profession? skill?) of hornsmithing, similar to gunsmith, blacksmith, silversmith etc., which worked in and with horn, doing everything with the horn that we do today with plastic.
My point is simply that the equipment and skills were there.
Living History programs and reenactors are a great resourse.
Backwoods Preacher
-
Very nice looking bow josh nice horn tips thats a war bow ;D ;D
-
Justin,
When did you pull ahead in the race! This post makes it a tie at 323.
Backwoods preacher,
Thanks for that necessary contribution. Hornsmith--who'd ever know.
Thanks Marlon,
I shot my finished bow today for the first time. Thanks to the exercises I'm able to (barely) pull 100# now. Triple didgets!
Everyone,
I'll be posting a few bow pics tomorrow.
J. D. Duff
-
J.D. I finally got caught up on this..I really like the shot of you bent over during initial tillering. :o Having been there myself.. ;) I'm sure the finished pics. will be worth waiting for..
Rich
-
Thanks Rich,
I was hoping you'd drop in.
Finished pics coming up in a few minutes.
J. D. Duff
-
Hello Everyone,
I wanted to thank you for your patience with me as we've taken the slow road on this bow. I want to continue here for a little while longer with strings, arrows, and shooting style--but for now--I think you're probably ready to see the finished bow. I took it to the beach yesterday and shot it for the first time. Conditions were windy and lousy, but it felt good to draw (try to draw) the finished bow.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/StandingWithBow.jpg)
The original Mary Rose bows were marked in the center (as the had no handle or rest) with a bowyer's mark. This is the mark I burned into my bow:
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/BowyersMark.jpg)
Top horn nock:
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/TopTip.jpg)
Bottom horn nock:
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/BottomTip.jpg)
Cross-section:
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Section.jpg)
My first shot with the new war bow:
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/FlightShot.jpg)
The bow draws 100# even at 28" which should project to about 120 at 32". 28" is as far as I can currently draw but is longer than the sortest arrows on the Mary Rose so it is a legitimate 'replica' draw.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Tiller.jpg)
When unbraced after first shooting the bow showed a 3/4" set which was much less than expected. At rest the set lowers to 1/4". I expect it to eventually rise to about 1 1/4" after being shot in. My wife spent half the day taking pictures and helping me with tests on the bow. She was even good enough to hold it upright for the unbraced shot. After testing the draw weight again she said, 'hey you should check the rpms on the vacume cleaner.' I did.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Unbraced.jpg)
Thanks for checkin' in. If anyone has problems viewing the pics--send me an email and I'll shoot them off to you.
More on arrows soon!
J. D. Duff
-
outstanding duff :) fantastic bow ;) well done
a winner for bow of the month i think,excellent :)
ps. im so jealous ;D
-
Excellent work JD. This has been a very educational thread. The bow looks great.
-
Whoo-wee-What a bow-bob
-
Awesome bow and pics! These bows must be the coolest there is 8)
Nice to see the ocean too. Good place to practice flightshooting. Approximately how far did that arrow go?
-
That was great JD, beautiful bow, stunning!! I am impressed drawing that bow 28". One of the best buildalongs I have seen on primitive archer. I hope we will be ssining more of your work soon, I am still plugging along with my lighter weight longbows, may stop in a week or so and do some finishes on them, where do you buy your horn for the tips? Steve
-
Excellant, Josh. Like I said before, this thread needs to be archived for posterity. Looking forward to your arrow and string posts.
What was the RPM on the vaccume cleaner? Pat
-
Nice pose! I love the look on your face at full draw! :o Nice job on the bow and the build along. Im having trouble getting my 75 pounder back to 28" lol.... :P
-
Super bow JD!...excellent build as well. I have been building along with you. Your posts have been very informative for history as well as dimensions. Mines a "mini" ;D ;D
Great job!
R
-
Once again J.D. that is one beautiful bow. I just cannot stand waiting to see it at FULL draw. Maybe you should send it to me and Ill keep it exercised until you can work up to it. ;D LOL Its great and definitely worth waiting for. Ill be waiting for the arrows and string. Justin
P.S. When you get done with the string and the arrows, we all want to see the propper way to make a flaming arrow.
-
JD, that was a fantastic buildalong. The tiller on that bow is outstanding! Well done.
-
JD, she's a beauty!( the bow looks awesome, too. ;D ) Excellent job, thanks for letting us join you on the journey.
-
Josh man thats a killer bow, great workmanship. Keep training you will pull that bow to 32" 8) marlon
-
Ratty,
Thanks so much. You need to spring for a Yew stave and get that bow built! Have you been thinking about buying one of those Italian Yew bows from Stratton?
Shannon,
Thanks for the compliments. Check out the arrow page. I just made up my first arrow (not a war arrow) with some of your feathers--beautiful bird.
Thanks again Pubaman!
Kviljo,
I'm starting to think you may be right. I love these bows. I love the tiller, the performance, the look, the feel, the history, the lethality--they're just amazing weapons. Thanks for hanging around.
Badger,
Thanks so much for the compliments. I've learned so much since I started hanging around this site. I'll be hounding you with questions when I start working up a flight bow.
Thanks Pat,
I'm looking forward to your yew bow. You bow of the month (Osage elb) a while back was awesome. I would be honored if the thread was archived. By the way, the rpms were sufficient to vacuum a weeks worth of wood shavings in the hall leading to my shop. ;D
Ryano,
Are you the Ryan who build the D-flex featured in PA? That was a pretty sweet bow. Your Yew English Longbow is excellent--a bow to be proud of and never let go of. By the way, you'll pick up ten pounds in drawing capability by drawing like I'm doing in the pic. Sit back and let your back do the work for long draws and distance shooting. I couldn't target shoot a 100# bow, but I can get one back war bow style.
Thanks Roger,
I figured if I did the research I may as well spread the info around. There was enough interest to make it well worth my time. Thanks again.
Justin Snyder,
You just have to rub it in that I can't full-draw my bow! ;D Well, I'll post a pic when I get there. Next time your on the Oregon Coast swing by my shop and run a few arrows through it.
George,
Thanks a lot. It took me a long time to tiller this bow. You can see in the unbraced shot that the stave has a bit of character. It's hard to get such a bow to look just right at full draw but I've studied it for days and I think it's right.
Hillbilly,
She is a beauty. Now if she wouldn't embarrass me so badly when we shoot together! Thanks.
Marlon,
Thanks a lot. I'm doing the workout you gave me every day plus some other stuff. How long do you expect it will take me to get those last four inches? I'm working really hard at it.
J. D. Duff
-
Beauty J.D.! Impressive burning your initials in like that..stunning tips as well.. Looks like a great beach for distance shooting..especially with the wind!
Rich
-
What a Master piece! :o This was an awsome buildalong J.D. The tiller looks great, hope to see more pics soon.
How about that flaming arrow?
Alex
-
Very nice JD. You did an excellent job with the tiller. That 100# @ 28" would actually be more like 130# @ 32". How far did she shoot that arrow?
-
Amazing passion, commitment, patience, discipline and attention to detail. Lessons for all walks.
.......and you've achieved "rock star" status as a bowyer. Really enjoy the buildalong.
-
J.D. I'm just having a little fun with you. I don't think I could get it back to full draw either. My breaking point seems to be around 90#. Maybe we can get Marlon to post his work out since we all want to build a war bow now. I'm thinking about ordering one of those fancy yew staves also. Justin
-
great build along, thanks for sharing...great bow!
stunning dude ,just awesome.
are the double notches in the nocks for some sort of stringer?
jamie
-
I HAVE NOT WORDS Josh!!!.....Thats FHANTASTIC!!!!.... :) :) :) :)....
Best regards!..
Asier.
-
Wow. Thanks everyone. Those are some of the nicest things anyone has said to me. Humbling actually.
Badger,
I forgot to mention, I got two horns on ebay for around $14 including shipping. They had long, pure-black tips which was what I was looking for.
Rich,
Thanks a lot. The bowyer's mark was found on all (I think all) the Mary Rose bows. Since these bows don't have a grip or anything I was forced to keep the decor simple. The bowyer's mark was my one chance to decorate.
Far East Archer,
I'll keep my promise to do the flaming arrow video, but it'll take a little time. I need to conscript some laborers from the college-age student body I work with. ;) Thanks for the kind words, too!
Thanks Marc,
Getting the tiller right is job 1. Hearing that from you is very satisfying. Like I'd said earlier, I studied the tiller on this for days and days before I was willing to put finish on it. I'm satisfied at this point. Also--I had no idea this bow would pick up 7.5# per inch! That'll take me some time.
Alvin The Terrible,
You've got the greatest name on this forum. Thank you so much for your encouraging words. 'Rock Star'? I guess I'll have to go off the deepend now.
Justin,
I was just messing too. Hey, 90 lbs is pretty up there.
Michigan Bowguy,
Thanks a lot. Yes, the double notches were found on the tips of some of the Mary Rose bows. Some people think they were used with a stringer on heavy bows. There is a risk of breaking a horn nock off while using a regular stringer, so I added these. They're practical and traditional.
Asiertxu,
Thanks a lot for that. Four smilies is my highest rating ever! I really appreciate you taking the time.
Thanks again everyone. I'm glad everyone enjoyed the build-along. This was the most fun bow building I've ever had. It was good to work though the process with so many talented people.
J. D. Duff
-
This thread along with some of the other recent threads has brought back memeories of earlier PA. That yew bow of yours and the yew bow of ryans are both top caliper bows. I see a good duel for bow of the month comming up LOL. Steve
-
My congradulations are in order, JD. Wonderful work, and beautiful too. Hip, hip, huzzah! Now you just need a war and you are all set.
Can you or anyone post sources for yew staves? Any recommendations on good vendors would be appreciated.
Dane
PS are you naming this bow?
-
Sweet! You should compile this into an article for the magazine.
-
Badger,
If it comes down to a tie between two Yew longbows I would be happy enough. In such a case the winner could be decided in a old-timey archery duel to the death! We just keep shooting volleys of arrows at each other until there is a clear winner. :D
Thanks Dane,
I'll PM you a source for good Yew staves. If I name the bow it will have to be something with the word 'Ye' in it.
jcougar,
Do you think there would be enough interest for a magazine article here? I would be glad to condense it down and submit it if enough people think it's justified. Thanks for the compliment.
J. D. Duff
PS Everybody, I'll start posting about the arrows starting Monday next week. Thanks again, you have made this a very rewarding project.
-
Wow - this has been quite the thread. Very educational. Thanks for the Mary Rose images and historical review. Thei Mary Rose website in England is impressive.
And got this accomplishment bookmarked for November Self Bow of the Month
-
WOW! That is an impressive beast of a bow you made. Very nice tiller and a good job on the nocks too.
This thread has been intriguing and inspiring. I think it could be made into an excellent PA article. The burning thatch would be the cherry on top.
Just....Wow
I need some yew.
Fred
I wonder how many heavies will be posted in December.
-
Thanks OldBow!
Fred_Hagell,
I laughed out loud when I read the part about heavies being posted in December! That's a cool thought. I think a lot of people are going to start realizing that it's not difficult to get into heavy bows with a little determination. Drawing heavy bows is safe too, if you're willing to do it right. And FUN, FUN, FUN to build and shoot. I've said it before--I'm glad to be a small part of the revolution. And, I haven't forgotten the flaming arrow bit either!
J. D. Duff
-
J.D., I don't know what else I could add to the accolades already given so instead, with Thanksgiving right around the corner...many 'thanks' for 'giving' us all a wonderful build along...quite a ride and beautiful work bro! Cheers, P1.
-
I would say there would be plenty of interest in it for an article. Have you shot any arrows for distance yet? I bet you could really "reach out and touch someone" with that thing!
-
Hey this is awesome JD! :) What talent, who knew such a thing ran in the family? This is really cool. Great Job! :D
Your sis,
H
-
Jcougar,
I havn't shot any for distance yet. The day I took the bow to the beach it was too windy to really do any flight shooting. Anyway, that bow will only shine for distance when I can draw it all the way.
M+H,
Thanks for checking in. Do you think I could get a job at Sutter now?
J. D. Duff
-
I meant to say, I'll start on arrows here in a couple hours. I'll do a day on strings and post my progress on getting into a heavy bow. Marlon has been helping a lot with this.
J. D. Duff
-
Mary Rose Arrows: Shafting.
While we have less than 200 surviving examples of Medieval war bows, we have over 3,500 Medieval arrows from the Mary Rose alone. As I continue on in this project, I never cease to be amazed at how advanced the bows and arrows were 500 years ago. The arrows, for example, reveal a pretty thorough knowledge of flight dynamics that aren’t even universally understood today. More on that later. Here’s a sample of what we know of the Mary Rose arrows:
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/andyandarrows.jpg)
Length:
According to the Mary Rose museum, most of the arrows found averaged about 76cm (29.921 inches). The shortest arrow found was 61cm (24.015 inches) and the longest arrow found was 81cm (31.889 inches).
Substance:
Again, according to the Mary Rose museum, most of the arrows were made from Poplar, with others made from Beech, Ash and Hazel. Pip says in his book, Medieval War Bows, that Ash was the favored wood, but was in short supply, so they also used Aspen and Oak. I would suppose that any wood on that list would be fine for replicas with Ash being a good first choice.
Diameter and Taper:
All arrows, regardless of length, were 1/2” at the head and 3/8” at the nock. The shorter arrows tended to be 1/2” diameter for 2/3 of their length (or so) and then tapering to the nock. The bulk of the arrows were around 30” in length tapering evenly from the head to the nock. If 1/2” diameter doesn’t sound big—it is. Compare the tip of this 1/2” war shaft to this heavy 23/64” hunting shaft!
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/BigArrow.jpg)
Weight:
Tim Baker says in TBB vol. 3 that the Medieval war arrows were not likely over 800-900 grains. This may be due to the confusion over war arrows caused by the ‘standard arrow’—an almost arbitrarily chosen set of dimensions that is not based on the Mary Rose artifacts. My experience so far has been that an arrow shaft made from White Oak, to the average length and full, tip-to-tail taper, will weigh a solid 1,000 grains. Add an armor-piercing head and the weight takes another jump. (More on bodkins this week).
Making Shafting:
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Planer.jpg)
I don’t really know an easy answer to this one. The shafts I made I did the hard way with a hand plane. I’ve been able to get my hands on Aspen, White Oak, and Poplar but I’ve only made Oak shafting so far. I simply sawed out 1/2” by 1/2” blanks and planed in the taper. After the taper was right I planed off the corners and made round shafting just like many of you have done. (This process is shown very well by the late Jay Massey in TBB vol. 1).
Perhaps an easier route would be to take 1/2” hardware store dowels and taper the last 10” like many of the shorter Mary Rose arrows were done. However, the best flight arrows would undoubtedly be the longer arrows made with tip-to-tail tapers.
Tomorrow, I’ll talk about nocks and fletchings. Wednesday, or Thursday I’ll do a piece on bodkins—that will be an interesting one I think.
Take Care,
J. D. Duff
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/nickarrows.jpg)
-
They had a clear understanding of arrows obviously, the more forward weight the better as far as accuracy and consistency, also heavier arrows are far more efficient and will be less radical to slight changes in draw length, I think we have a ways to go before we catch these guys of the past. Steve
-
That's just what I'm thinking Badger. As far as I can think, there isn't any way to make arrows that heavy without tapering them like they did. War bows are pretty wide in the handle (about 1 1/2") so there was a big paradox. The taper on those arrows would help the arrow stabilize in flight faster, allowing for smaller fletchings, less surface and fletching drag and an overall longer, more accurate flights. You're the flight expert--you know.
J. D. Duff
-
JD, thank you so much for this buildalong...
Seriously, so many folks have done their own "warbow" things, and not to belittle them... this one is very informative all along the way. (forgive me those that I may offend).
One problem I have always found with the "specs for traditional war bows" of the era from 1100 - 1600 is the assumption is always made that all bows were made for equal height, equal stature bowyers...
Additionally, the assumption that all Yew is considered equal has always drove me crazy...
I am sorry, but coming from England, and my best friends houses having ceiling heights of 5'10" leads me to instinctively (hmmm why's that?) assume the average height was no greater than 5'11. (the houses were built from 1200 - 1500 ad) Unless the builders wanted everyone to stoop all the time.
Someone with a stature of 5'11" would be almost convincingly overdrawing at 30".
Pacific NW yew does not grow anywhere near the same conditions as Italian Yew. "Sorry, been both places many times.... the Pac NW has more in common with western Wales than Italy.... no offense."
Even here where I live, bowwoods from 30 miles west have a consistent and undeniable difference from bowwoods gathered 30 miles east.... every time... Lets not get into semantics 2000 miles across.
To make the bow you have, under the perameters you have, is very informative....
Informative is the key. I have enjoyed this very much. But not to disregard Jaro and others who have specialized in this particular genre of bowyery, there are many more facets to this era than simply meet the "existing eye" so to speak.
I am quite certain that any wood that meet the specs of performing the desired needs were consistently used whenever possible.
Much along my own personal views that the Native americans where I am currently residing consistently used Cascara, Vinemaple, Oceanspray and other easily accessable and excellent bowwoods.... whereas only Yew and the occassional oak remain...
....let 400 years of open air and 20+ inches of annual rain in a temperate environment leave you with as much forensic evidence as dumping a body in sulphuric acid..
Yew survives here, and local history is only recorded verbally....
Not much to stare at.
Not to debunk anyone..
Please do not think this is really arguementative against anyone...
Just my own observations, theories, and ideas, fuelled by a whole bottle of Good Port and 45 minutes of typing and revising...
Either way.. good bow, great work, and fun topic...
Sloshy Milo
-
Good thinking Milo,
I should remember to say more often that I don't claim to be an expert on this subject. I have great interest in these bows and arrows and I research on them daily. I've chosen to show my findings here because it's such an interesting topic and I enjoy what you and others have to say. If it weren't for Pip and Jaro and others like them, I'd be pretty lost.
You raise an interesting point that I've pondered quite a bit. We're always saying that Yew survives so that's why we find so many Yew bows. I've heard that that's the reason why all the Mary Rose bows were Yew (when the ship was supposedly carrying whitewood bows). But, in the case of the Mary Rose tackle, why would an ash or poplar arrow shaft remain in nearly perfect condition while an ash or elm war bow rots away with not trace? In my experience, Poplar will rot in a zip-lock baggy in Arizona. This is not an argument, but rather a curiosity I've had with what survived and what didn't.
Thanks for your insightful post Milo--keeping me thinking.
J. D. Duff
-
The full-length Mary Rose arrows cannot have weighed 800-900 grains, don't know on what Tim based his view (or where he said that in TTBIII, for that matter). I've made a couple of alder shafts to the MR specs, and even they weigh 800 a piece. Add a light warhead and fletching and you're already over the 1000 grain mark. And this with a lightweight arrow wood, similar in density to aspen / poplar.
Tuukka
-
Very, very well done.
I too have not yet fallen for yew being superior, but I've never tried it yet. I took my inspiration 1st off from reading about the Welsh archers and they were said to have used elm. So I too used elm and have been very happy with it. One day I'll get and try yew and compare the results. Anyways just fantastic how you went about this.
-
Outstanding buildalong JD. That is one of the finest yew bows that I ever seen,Your workmanship and skills as a master bowyer are shinning through on that one. I agree with Pat, This thread should be archived for all to see. Thanks for all your time and dedication to share the journey. Keenan
-
Sumpitan,
Tim Baker said that in 'Bows of the World' in his coverage of the English war bow. I haven't tried Alder, Aspen or Poplar for arrows but I'm very familiar with their properties and you're tests confirm my suspicion. My Oak shafts were 1,000 grains and I think Ash may go even heavier. I don't know what a short and light bodkin would weigh but I would think around 300 grains minimum? Long chainmale bodkins would have to weigh 500.
Thimosabbv,
When you work with Yew there is an immediate understanding of why it has been so popular throughout archery history. The performance is good, but it's especially easy to work (important with primitive tools). But, your Elm bows prove that white woods are more than capable of being made into good war bows. The fact that the English used Elm make is a legitimate material for replication. A great bow is a great bow.
Keenan,
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. It's late deer season and I haven't seen so much as a slug in three days. Hunting hard tomorrow.
J. D. Duff
More on arrows today....
-
Medieval War Arrows: Nocks and Fletching
One of the amazing things about medieval war arrows is how much time was put into something that would, in many cases, be shot only one time. Of course, practice arrows would be used until they were lost or broken, but think of the thousands of sky-blackening arrows that were loosed once and never recovered. After the time I spent building five of these arrows—the thought sickens me. Well, I guess war has never been cheap.
Fletching:
If you saw the picture at the end of yesterdays post and wondered what the two bundles of arrows were—I’ll tell you. That’s an artist’s rendering of what the recovered arrows looked like, and what they may have looked like originally. On the 3,500+ arrows that were recovered, only fragments of the quills from the feathers remained with bits of thread fibers.
What we have learned from these is that the feathers (goose or swan) were all about 7 1/2” long, and they were wrapped with red silk thread. A question that should come up immediately is—why were the feathers that long? Pip suggests that the feathers were cut to a very low ‘hogsback’ profile for flight distance. Others think the fletchings were triangular. Most war bow shooters use a shorter, triangular fletching. I’ve done the fletchings both ways and greatly prefer the ease of doing the shorter feathers that fit in my fletching jig. I made a jig that will do feathers up to 8” but it’s not as nice to use as a Jo-Jan.
In the case of the fletchings, I didn’t strive for perfect recreation but rather for utility. I used super glue to get the feathers on, and then wrapped them with nylon upholstery thread—which I couldn’t find in red. I used turkey feathers because that’s what I had on hand and I love the look and quality.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Fletchings.jpg)
Nocks:
The Nocks of the arrows were reinforced with a 2” wedge of horn. They were about 1/8” wide and 5/16” deep. Some sort of reinforcement is necessary and my first war bow shots with a dense, hardwood shaft (Ipe) split the nock.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Nock.jpg)
Finished arrows--ready for bodkins!
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Arrows.jpg)
Bodkins Thursday!
-
Hey JD cpl tips about your arras.
If you wrap farther up the shaft towards the nock you avoid a lot of splitting. I have made Hexshaft self nocks which is gonna be inherently weaker than ash and then wrapped right under the nock yet they have no problems and when you hit the nock with another arrow the wood splits only until the wrapping. Ergo wrapped nocks are good, even with the horn reinforcing slit, wrapping is good.
I notice that you did not extend the feather quills out past the end of the feather and wrapped over. This weakens the wrap job a lot. I leave 1/4 inch front and back so that I can wrap over the quill. And if you cut the projecting quill to 45 degrees along the long axis, it wraps much nicer.
-
Yeah Ragi, but I'm lazy!
Thanks for the tips. I do taper the quills out about 1/8" in the front but I've never done it in the back. As it is, these arrows take a long time to make so I get to rushing the details--shame on me. :(
How long does it take you to wrap fletchings on a dozen arrows? I think it would take me about 3 hours with the spacing on the arrows above. :P
J. D. Duff
-
heheheh I am lazy too. I have carpal tunnel issues in the left hand so figure 20 min per arrow. it normally takes 2 good movies of sitting on the couch to get a dzn done but I also dont wind them as tight as all that. say 1/4 inch spaceings.
I then paint over the windings with hide glue tinted with a little dark green food coloring.
-
JD, again, thanks for continuing this topic. I use linen thread for my fletching, which has been very robust. The fletching on my current arrows has managed to survive a 3D shoot and lots of target practice fine so far.
You mentioned the cost of war being high, referring to how much effort just the arrows are. What is the cost of defeat? Much more so, I think, so the coin spent on arrows for a campaign was cheap in comparision to the alternative.
By the way, I am about to plane some shafts out of probably poplar for a project for Regia Anglorum, a group I belong to. A member is going to smith some Anglo-Saxon period broadheads. Not socketed, but tanged heads, which should be fun to work with. I'm looking forward to seeing the bodkins you are going to use. You don't also smith in addition to your other talents, do you, great one? :)
And before I forget, thanks in advance for vendor names for yew staves. I'll be looking for that. Do you need my email address?
Dane
-
Ragi,
Thanks for the reply. Does the hide glue help much? I should try that.
Dane,
You're right about the cost of war. I think it's slightly amusing that the heavy consumption of alpine yew and arrow woods (let alone labor costs) of the medievals is so similar to how expensive war is these days. It takes me a month to build a good bow and set of arrows, but with war-sized resources, a carefully made arrow was expendable. I would have loved to stroll through those weapons stores and looked at a pile of 10,000 hand-made arrows and 2,000 Yew bows. That would blow the mind.
J. D. Duff
-
If you look at a lot of period examples of arrows, there is evidence of some sort of thick varnish laid on and over the wrapping. it lasts where nothing but the shaft does so it is something significant.
Jaro says is is a mix of hide glue and verdigris, I have spoken to Mr Soar and he says it was pitch and beeswax and verdigris.
the hide glue is easier and works well to hold the fletching down. I cant say I like how it looks with the green dye and it does not really hold if you paint it over the polyurethane finish I use but regardless it adds a period touch to the arrows and it locks the wrapping in place.
-
Ragi, if you dont mind not being authentic try putting some food coloring in the Polyurethane varnish and dabing it onto the bindings. Should hold up really well under repeated use.
J.D. Starting to laminate togethe my Hickory/Yellowheart/Ipe bow. The Hickory/Yellowheart combo warbow is comming along really well. I love how easy it is to make the D profile. Seams like these bows just want to make themselves! Now to tiller the thing and see how it comes out!
D. Tiller
-
I know I promised something on bodkins by Thursday--but--I have to plead 'exhausted' for now. I'll get that post up as soon as I have a chance.
Thanks and take care,
J. D. Duff
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/BlackSmith2.jpg)
-
AN ANVIL YET!!!!-talk about serious and commited-whew-bob
-
Yeah, but I'm in a pro's shop. My shop is woodworking only.
J. D. Duff
'I think I've got the black lung pop.' from Zoolander
-
Yeah, but I'm in a pro's shop. My shop is woodworking only.
J. D. Duff
That is probably best J.D.. Sawdust and hot sparks aren't best friends. My brother came over one day and needed some stuff welded while I was working on a bow. I thought I was far enough away from the saw dust. OOPS. Justin
-
All right, JD, you clearly are moving into godlike status, now that we know you smith as well! Can you just send us a list of skills you CAN'T tackle?
I'm most curious at this point about how you are going to keep the bodkins the same weight, or is that a critical factor for a war bow? I.e., do you start with a hunk of iron that is a certain weight as you smith it, or do you lose some as you work it into shape? That is from a non-smith there, so the question might be ignorante.
Spining and weight matching - is that something you did with your hardwood arrow shafts?
Oh, could you kindly address the string you used for the bow - Dacron, linen, whatever? How fat is it, for such a powerful bow?
And last, how is that hut coming along? You did promise us a flaming arrow. No rush, of course :)
-
dude i just spent the evening reading this post. excellent friggin work. well deserved b.o.m. winner
-
J.D' is gonna get a lot of pm's requesting custom bodkins ;D Cool pic, great show!
Rich
-
JD Nice bodkins I will need 1/2 dozen bodkins soon take care JD marlon ;D
-
Nice J.D. ! Did you see the new video on the Englishwarbow.com site about forging socketed bodkin points. Might want to have a look might give you some ideas. Also, dang I'm jelous! Access to a forge too!!! Those points are looking real good. How much for 500 type 10 bodkins, 30 swallow tail, 300 leaf points and 400 small barbed warpoints? Just kidding!!! ;D
D. Tiller
-
Since the topic of home made bodkins has come up, some might want to read how I make mine. It's on about the last post in the spine tester thread in the arrow section. http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,915.0.html
Steve
-
Ok, ok, I have to admit it--I'm a lousy, beginner blacksmith. As my wife always says, I just go 100% with everything I try. So, I'm trying to forge a bodkin. I'll talk more about that first of the week. Take care everyone.
J. D. Duff
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might..." --Ancient Hebrew Proverb [i
-
SteveO,
Those are excellent looking points. Much nicer than the ones I made. I'll post what I've come up with today, then you can make critical comments from your more advanced prospective. Thanks.
J. D. Duff
-
I'm just a beginner, J.D. I put a forge together several years ago and have been learning by the trial and error ( lots of that) method. It takes me about an hour to make one bodkin so I'm not sure I qualify as an instructor. The only trick, if you want to call it that, that I've discovered is to make the socket first. It's the hardest part to get right and it's easier for me to make it on the end of a piece of metal long enough so I don't have to use tongs. I have trouble making a head light enough for practical use, but I'm still working on it. You'll probably figure it out and be able to tell me how!
Steve
-
Hello Everyone,
If you’re anything like me, you can’t just stop at ‘mostly home made,’ and just have to have your hand in every possible part of the process. I have my limits, but at the very high cost of hand-forged bodkins, I knew I had to find a way to make my own. My first attempt was to make conical bodkins on a lathe. I drilled the socket to 1/2” and started filing, but it was just taking too long. As I moped around the house waiting for an idea, my wife reminded me that there is a professional blacksmith who keeps a shop not two miles from my house. I was on my way.
One of the funny things about archery is that everyone seems to have some connection to it, and some interest in it. Every time I tell someone that I build bows and arrows and follow that with a humble request for a favor—every time—they gladly go way out of their way to help me. Such was the case with John, the blacksmith at Gearhart Iron Works. I showed him a few pictures and he started to work on a piece of scrap iron. After a little trial and error, he told me he would be glad to have me come back for a few weekends to try making bodkins out of steel from his scrap bin. No charge.
After a couple trips to the shop, I have a few rough-looking bodkins with no socket. John recommended that I drill them out on my drill press. I could do that. Or I could grind them down to wedges or tangs and glue them into a V in the end of the shaft and follow with some epoxy and thread wraps. I may do that for now.
While I was trying to figure this socket problem out, I posted a request for information on the arrow page of englishwarbow.com/forum/ and was quickly directed to a most helpful video. It was a 2 1/2 minute video showing a blacksmith making a point from start to finish. You can download this video for free from englishwarbow.com under their video gallery. I highly recommend it to anyone with a hint of interest. I have another appointment this Saturday with John, and hopefully we’ll be able to figure out the sockets together—with the aid of this newfound video.
Following are a few additional pics of my forging adventure. For those with great interest, a simple propane forge can be made for the home shop for little more than a $100. Sounds reasonable to me—maybe some day.
J. D. Duff
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Forge.jpg)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Anvil.jpg)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q35/duffontap/Bodkin.jpg)
-
Looking good J.D.. I have no doubt you will get them finished. By the way, It's not what you know, Its who you know. Justin
-
I have a few heads that are forged. The way to make the socket is to flatten out the back of the heads into a sheet of metal and then bend it around a form of the socket. The form can easily be made from scrap rod.This way helps you to keep the weight down,which seems to be the problem most people have with forged heads.
-
Josh, I had a blacksmith friend of mine work on a some bodkins a few years ago. He figured out that the easiest way to make the socket was to roll the metal around a mandril then shape the point. We never got the bugs worked out and didn't go any farther with it. I have the few he made. On some we tried to drill out the socket but that wasn't very practical...or at least to us. Looking forward to this poroject of yours. Keep it up! Pat
-
I highly recommend the video on www.englishwarbow.com It's a free download and you just need Windows Media Player to view it (Mac OS 10 users need flip-40mac to view it on QuickTime Player).
The sockets are shaped just as Matt and Pat, hmmm, suggested. I took this idea to the local blacksmith and he said we could give it a try this Saturday. He's a high-end iron art dealer, so he has every possible jig--including a large cone that should be perfect for shaping the sockets around. I'll post some pics of that effort as well.
Weight is the main problem. I think a finished point should be pretty near 300 grains for a 1/2" arrow. That may even be a little high, but I haven't found a lot of good information on bodkin weights. Can anyone help here?
I may get around to building a little forge for my home shop this Christmas break. I'll post a brief how-to on here if I do.
For those interested: I have pulled my war bow to full draw a few times now. Now that it's broken in, I think it's drawing something like 110# at 32". I need to measure it again though.
Tomorrow is my first day of Yew cutting for the winter. Looking for the one-in-a-million tree.
J. D. Duff
-
Sounds fun. Remember the higest density staves or billets can come from limbs. Look for the straight limbs.
-
You see one here? ;D There are pretty mixed reviews on the limbs. I have a really cool limb stave that I need to work up. Got to go.
J. D. Duff
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Good job josh pulling your bow did it loose some poundage? Josh on your points 300 grains sounds good. Some points can be from 200 grains to 700 grains depends on the point. take care marlon
-
I don't know Marlon. When I first finished it, the bow seemed to be maxing out my 100# scale at 28". Now that it's broken in, it seems to be more like 100# at 30". I'm perfectly happy in this case. My original plan was to go for 100# minimum, so coming out 10# over is a bonus. If I had been concerned about hitting a very specific weight, I would have 'boken it in' much more during the tillering process and taken the final weight measurements at a point where I was confident it wouldn't lose more weight. Anyway, I like the idea of shooting 110# regularly, and having a couple heavier bows for the days when I feel up to the abuse.
J. D. Duff
-
JD, regarding bodkin weights, I dont happen to know, but it might be worth contacting a museum or organization that has the type of head in their collection and just asking about data, such as weiging the type of bodkin you are interested in replicating. A few months back, at a local gun show, I saw a dealer with a few okay looking medieval bodkins, but he wanted something like 100 dollars each, and that was more than I wanted to pay, nice as they were.
Hector Cole - I've looked at his site, and he does what looks like lucious work. http://www.hectorcoleironwork.com/index.html. Not cheap, particualrly with the dollar rate, but perhaps he would be willing to share information with you?
-
J.D. when you get up this way to shoot with us I will bring my scale out of the closet. Goes all the way up to 200#'s. Tried pulling Scotts 100# bow the other day. Way over my head so far. Think I will work up to it slowly by building progressively heavier bows.
D. Tiller
-
I moved this over here as it was a great build along and should be in this section.
-
WOW just read every post (again!) what a great buildalong and a beautiful,killer bow >:D.
-
Whew....I just read the whole thing.....
Wow JD...that is an amazing bow.....I love all of it...the nocks and all....wow...and the arrows look great too. I've wrapped mine with thread before also. I use silk thread and for the fletching I use a template I cut from a plastic milk jug to cut the wedge or triangular shape consistently. I've not tried a 1/2" shaft but I did follow the BLBS rules for the standard arrow. I'm trying to remember..I think it's close. Felt like I was shooting a telephone pole....LOL's
Thanks for doing this for us....
Would you mind PM'ing me with the yew dealers list?
I've gotta try at least one .....WOW !!!
-
You guys are too kind. These bows are fun to shoot. I have a sister set of these bows so I need to get my friend shooting them with me. My pastor/buddy is one of those innately strong people who can just pick up a 100# bow and pull it to full draw.
I'll send the PM.
J. D. Duff
-
I've not tried a 1/2" shaft but I did follow the BLBS rules for the standard arrow. I'm trying to remember..I think it's close.
Afraid the BLBS Standard is no were near a Tudor War Arrow,the difference between 3/8's and 1/2" doesnt sound a lot but it is ;D.
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,3251.0.html
-
Loki,
I have a 60#Yew ELB that I love to shoot, but never shot a 1/2" arrow .... I know she loves punching those 3/8" arrows out there...
They let me handle an arrow at the Tower of London a few years back...I guess the young man heard me explaining to my daughter the parts of the arrow and just said here... and handed it to me. Largest breath I ever drew in. BTW, thanks for the war arrow pics....
-
Jaro,
Different length arrows in the arrow bags:
I have been guilty of saying this very thing. I suppose I'm the one you're talking about on the English War Bow page. The reason why I said this is because the original leather disks that were in the arrow bag still contained the remains of arrows in an assortment of lengths. If you can point me to definitive, published proof that this is not true, I would cheerfully withdraw my comment. But your 'shoulder injury' theory doesn't change the fact that the arrow bag disks contained a variety of arrow lengths.
J. D. Duff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am so impressed by your very accurate replica MR warbow not caving in to Victorian ideas of what a longbow should be. Like yourself, I try as nearly as possible to re-create the old time objects rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. I have been perplexed about the arriow lengths.
I realize that there was a wide assortment of arrow lengths on the MR. The only arrows made to a standardized measurement seem to have been Edward IV's 3/4 of the standard and the two cubit clothyard while others were in variable fist lenghths. I have thought that the individual sheaves however had only two lenghths of arrows, the long ones for a draw to the ear, and the shorter ones, which were in the proportion cited by Smythe for flight arrows. Unfortunately I have had great difficulty getting information from the MR trust. Also there seem to be two different reports on the shapes and thicknesses of the MR arrows. Can you help me clarify these questions ?
-
WOW what a great bow and a lot of great work putting that all together, what a shame and shame on me that i only looked at it today :'(
Ps what ever happend to JD ?
Regards ian