Author Topic: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows  (Read 37568 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

half eye

  • Guest
layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« on: January 30, 2010, 11:13:01 am »
     Here is how I lay out mollegabet type bows....they are the same with this exception: if you want to go shorter than 60" overall length then you have to change the fades (D & E) to 1.5 inch not two....AND you should push the working limb length toward the tip by 1 inch.....otherwise "same, same".
     Any questions or help please let me know.....the pics are because I find it easier to "see it done" than to "hear it done". The second pic refers to a "standard Mollegabet bend...that means a lot of pressure at the grip fades....more even bend is just what it says....can add two more pics to illustrate if you want that too.
half eye ;)

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline Tractor

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Mike Hettinga
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2010, 11:42:43 pm »
Half-eye,

Does the width of the working limb stay constant and is there a specific width?  Also, on the static limb, it looks like the width tapers to the end but the thickness remains constant.  Am I seeing that right?

Thank You,

Mike
Parker, Colorado

half eye

  • Guest
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2010, 09:53:01 am »
Tractor....sorry I missed your question..... Yes, the working limb is conatant width...I have made these bows with limbs as narrow as 1.5" (to about 40#) for kids bows. 1.75" wide for bows to the mid 50#'s, and 2" wide for all of the above up to 80#. They look real nice (proportionally speaking from 1.5 and up).

The static limb width narrows from 3/4" at the fade to 1/2" at the tip (rough-cut) and the thickness tapers from limb thickness + 1/4" min. at the fade down to 1/2 inch at the tip....the thickest part of the static end, is at the working limb to static limb fade ....then fades away slowly to the tip.

hope that is what you wanted to know....I should have posted that in the beginning, so thanks for the question.
half eye ;)

Offline okiecountryboy

  • Member
  • Posts: 502
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2010, 01:10:24 am »
HALF EYE
I DO MOUNTAIN MAN AND NATIVE AMERICAN RECREATIONS. I AM A SURVIVALIST, TO SAY THE LEAST. >:D >:D I POSTED UNDER THE BOW SECTION, PENOBSCOT BOW. I WAS LUCKY TO HAVE A GRANDFATHER THAT WAS NATIVE AMERICAN. HE TAUGHT ME A LOT!! BUT HE DIED WHEN I WAS YOUNG. I HAVE BUILT EMERGENCY SURVIVAL BOWS, BUT WANT TO BUILD A PENOBSCOT BOW....MY FIRST BOW.. I CAN TRAP, TRACK, HECK I CAN TAN MY OWN HIDES(PREFER BRAIN AND SMOKING METHODS). I WANT TO BE PRECISE IN MEASUREMENTS, ETC... I COULD PROBABLY WORK THROUGH IT, BUT WOULD LIKE HELP.
CAN YOU LEAD ME IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?

PLEASE HELP!!!
THANKS
God, honor, country, bows, and guns.

radius

  • Guest
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2010, 06:59:27 pm »
aren't these holmegaard bows?

half eye

  • Guest
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2010, 09:59:15 pm »
OK folks,
       Just so I dont kicked around anymore I'm posting museum bows and drawings from the people who dug 'em up. You all can call them what ever you want to......
half eye

[attachment deleted by admin]

radius

  • Guest
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2010, 05:14:47 am »
i guess if we'd found Mollegabet first, we'd be calling this style "mollegabet" from the get-go...


Offline Tractor

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Mike Hettinga
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2010, 12:33:51 pm »
I think the answer to my next question is found in Radius' last post but I will ask it anyway.

Are the names Mollegabet and Holmegaard from the archaeological sites?  And if so then are those sites near each other geographically and historically?  I know that is not exactly a build-a-long question but it is of interest to me.

Thanks, Mike
Parker, Colorado

radius

  • Guest
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2010, 02:31:43 pm »
as far as i can tell...the Holmegaard bow comes from a dig near a place called Holmegaard (in Denmark???).   And then i think that Mollegabet is an actual village which has only recently been unearthed (???) ...  something like that.

half eye

  • Guest
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2010, 02:40:00 pm »
Tractor,
       I believe that these bow types were named for the nearest town/ location where they were foung....These two are both in Denmark....nodoby has stuck a name to the short bow found in Sweden recently (not yet that I know of).
       The boarders of Scandanavia were not like they are now...basically the "Vikings" were all lumped together (like when the white guys couldn't keep the Native Americans straight) But it is my understanding that some of the Danes, Norwiegan, and some of the Swedes were "southern or western Vikings (they went south and west (England, New World, Iceland etc.) And some of the Swedes and Northern Norweigans went east (called Rus) and settled in what's now Russia and were in contact with people all the way to the eurasian steps, constantanople etc.
       I understand that the "Vikings" themselves were divided by aleigences to various warlords and kings more than geography.

Offline Tractor

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Mike Hettinga
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2010, 03:48:58 pm »
Thank you both.  But it does bring up another question.  If these get tiresome let me know.

Were the Holmegaard and Mollegabet bows brought to England and then morphed into what we call the English Long Bow?

And, my limited knowledge suggests a lengthening of the basic bow shape as you go north geographically and forward historically.  At least with respect to Europe.  If I am not wrong and I know that is a big if, then do you think that was a response to the different wood types or even a result of going from horn to wood or do you think it was another example of man's fascination with bigger is better?  Kind of like a monster truck or a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

Like I said if these questions are bothersome or would be better asked somewhere else please let me know.

Mike
Parker, Colorado

radius

  • Guest
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2010, 05:56:59 pm »
Tractor,

I think that the english long bow is NOT a derivative of the flat bow style.  They are very different.  The ELB bends all the way through, tip to tip.  The Flatbows like H'G and M'G only bend through the inner portion of the limbs, with the outer limb acting as levers and the handle being stiff.


half eye

  • Guest
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2010, 06:02:17 pm »
I really do not believe that the ELB and Viking bows are related at all. All the Viking bows that I am aware of are of the "flat bow" type....even the newly found bow from Sweden. Also Of the Viking bows where the wood can be identified it is elm....the rest they are not sure about.

I think the Elb would be more closley related to some of the Germanic and/or Frankish styles that were quite long and had more "rounder" cross sections. Also I believe (personal opinion) that the ELB type bows are easier to mass produce, allbeit by skilled bowyers, than are the flat type bows. The English had large standing armies of well trained archers who practiced from childhood to handle the enormous (weight) of their war bows and so Quasi-mass production would be a benifit. The English also had a "tax" on spanish wine that consisted of 2 YEW staves per barrel imported.

The last reason is simply age. The Holmegaard and Mollegabets are in the range of 9,000 years old and the Elb were in their heyday between the 1,300/1,400 era.

That's why I dont believe they are related, but thats simply my opinion and we all know what that's worth.

Offline Tractor

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Mike Hettinga
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2010, 11:08:26 pm »
Thanks again to both of you.  My knowledge of bows is meager to say the least and I feel embarrassed to say I never actually considered the bow shape when I was wondering about the relationship between the Mollegabet and Holmegaard type bows and the ELB.  And I had no idea that 8000 years separated the two in History.  I think the reason I am interested in this is that the Bow seems to me to be such a non-intuitive weapon.  It isnb't throwing a rock or a stick.  It is taking the stick and using it in a whole new way.  I mean sure a person can bend a branch and maybe intuit that there is a stored energy there but the idea of stringing the two ends together and then using that instrument to fling another seems hard to just dream up.  I guess we are lucky early man was smarter than me.

Another thing that just amazes me is that the bow could be an apex weapon for ten millennium.  In this day and age where change is rampant I can't believe that a single technology...yes, as I have learned today it shows up in many shapes, but that a single technology could suffice for so long.  Good gravy, think about the car.  Here we are sure that some day we will all have access to a starship.  But what if the car is that kind of apex technology and five thousand years from now people are still stuck in traffic trying to find something other than the farm report or Rap music to listen to.  Shudder.

Thanks again and I apologize for hijacking the thread.  If it is any consolation I yearn to build a Holmegaard, a Mollegabet, an English War Bow, a character bow and a laminated wood RD.  But first I have to finish building the workshop.

Mike
Parker, Colorado

Offline square shooter

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
Re: layout dimensions for Mollegabet bows
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2010, 02:24:00 pm »
 ;D. Just want to add that the Vikings are said by some to be from the Israelite tribe of
Dan. Scan din avia means across the land of Dan. Also, many writers out there have
convinced some that carbon dating, and a few other types of dating, are not accurate..
As soon as I can find some quotes ill post them.