Author Topic: MR sidenocks  (Read 48014 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rod

  • Guest
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2007, 10:15:33 am »
That same Roy King piece was probably in The Glade some few years ago. Ted will know which issue.
Why a side nock? Probably so that, as with a flush nock, you don't get a hernia trying to get the loop over a nock that increases in diameter just when you are straining to make that last inch or so as you struggle to brace your war bow.
Mind, Chris Boyton once smiled as I struggled to brace a heavy bow and told me it was just a matter of timing. And proved it by effortlessly bracing a bow that was making me turn puce around the gills...
Rod.

Offline adb

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,340
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2007, 06:56:18 pm »
Hi,
I was in Portsmouth this summer, and visited the Mary rose Museum. It is my understanding, from information there, that the "side nocks" exist because the staves were tillered first, and the horn nocks were added later. The side nocks were for the tillering string. No horn nocks survived, only evidence of their existance.
Thanks.

Offline Kviljo

  • Member
  • Posts: 488
  • Archaeologist, Antitheist
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2007, 07:41:23 pm »
They must have forgotten to update the exhibit.

The top nock, is an original MR horn nock :)



Most of the iron age longbows had sidenocks, from roman times, through the viking age, and up to the english longbow.


I've used my ~90# yew sidenocked MR-inspired longbow for a while now, and they work great together with the knot Yeobowman suggested.



sagitarius boemoru

  • Guest
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2007, 05:42:07 am »
Rather baggy transition from nock to wood......

Jaro

Offline alanesq

  • Member
  • Posts: 175
    • my webpage
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2007, 04:35:30 pm »
I have just converted my 120lb longbow to side nocks (with help from kviljo) after learning of the side nock found on the Mary Rose
and I can confirm they work great :-)

I use Dacron string so the timber hitch both ends works ok for me

I suspect that the idea of the side nock is that the string also helps hold the nock onto the wood (as the groove goes right through to the wood) as they didn't have Araldite ;-)
if you cut such a deep slot both sides of the bow it would weaken it too much

btw - when using a timber hitch its almost possible to shoot the bow without any kind of nock, as the knot tightens on the taper of the bow and so doesn't slide down
so you dont need any more than a simple groove on one side just to help keep it in place

« Last Edit: October 17, 2007, 04:51:42 pm by alanesq »

Offline Yeomanbowman

  • Member
  • Posts: 283
    • warbowwales
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2007, 06:39:42 pm »
Hello Mark,
This perhaps explaines why Ascham talked about whip tillering a bow once shot in.
I'm not sure he was talking about whip tillering, which is a 20C phrase?  From memory he mentions ‘whipping round’, and it's a separate action after shortening and pyking, all post shooting-in.  a common practice seems to be having the bow 'dressed' after it was shot-in but maybe only for private, not livery bows?
Are you going to Sandon Hall?
Cheers,
Jeremy 


sagitarius boemoru

  • Guest
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2007, 08:51:42 am »
Ascham also writes about "cunning heatynge" the bow shall get, so here goes the ide they werent aware of benefits of heat treating wood.
The appeareance of symetrically notched nocks do seem to corelate with some things.
On continent its recirving tips on longbows, for any kind of twist, even small one is deadly to recurve. The other seem to be introduction of recreationall archer, means amateur who only does it occassionally for fun...That strangelly also corellates with appearance of glued (backed bows) - and by that I mean the moment where the need to shoot in any situation and weather was no more.

Jaro

Offline D. Tiller

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,504
  • Go ahead! Bend that stick! Make my day!!!
    • Whidbey Island Soap Co.
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2007, 12:50:46 pm »
I still think they were using a loop on one end of the string though. In millitary sittuations it would be much faster to string the bow having one end with a loop. Though, I do think it was a tight fit on the loop and that they may just have lifted the string completly off the tip instead of sliding down the limb to unstring it. Just a bit of suposition on my part but I think it could be an argument for loops.

David T
“People are less likely to shoot at you if you smile at them” - Mad Jack Churchill

Offline Yeomanbowman

  • Member
  • Posts: 283
    • warbowwales
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2007, 05:44:49 pm »
That strangelly also corellates with appearance of glued (backed bows) - and by that I mean the moment where the need to shoot in any situation and weather was no more.
Yes, that's a good point Jaro, I'd always assumed that was largely due to good yew becoming scarce in the 16th C.

Offline markinengland

  • Member
  • Posts: 698
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2007, 06:43:14 pm »
Jeremy,
when you say "I'm not sure he was talking about whip tillering, which is a 20C phrase?  From memory he mentions ‘whipping round’, and it's a separate action after shortening and pyking, all post shooting-in.  a common practice seems to be having the bow 'dressed' after it was shot-in but maybe only for private, not livery bows?" what do you think he meant then?
When I read that part, as it was talking about "dressing" the bow to make it a fully finished bow suited to the archer it seemed to me that this was talking about fettling the tiller, length, strength and cast of the bow to suit the archer. what does whipping a bow mean? Binding with thread? I am sure there is wording that really does seem to talk about tillering and lighteneing the limbs to get extra cast.
Mark

Offline alanesq

  • Member
  • Posts: 175
    • my webpage
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2007, 04:14:02 pm »
I still think they were using a loop on one end of the string though. In millitary sittuations it would be much faster to string the bow having one end with a loop. Though, I do think it was a tight fit on the loop and that they may just have lifted the string completly off the tip instead of sliding down the limb to unstring it. Just a bit of suposition on my part but I think it could be an argument for loops.

I was planning to experiment with a loop on mine but once I saw how well the knot grips the taper of the nock it seems to make so much sense that I no longer felt a loop likely to have been used on side nocks, a loop would not tighten around the nock so I am confident it wouldnt work.

if you have a knot on your bow string try it slightly up from the nock on your bow (on the tapered wood), it grips so well its possible to draw the bow even though there is no slot at all to hold the string in place (I wouldnt pull it too far though as it could damage the bow)

My first try at making a side nock was not tapered and it didn't work at all, the taper is very important for a side nock to work
« Last Edit: October 19, 2007, 04:26:08 pm by alanesq »

Offline Yeomanbowman

  • Member
  • Posts: 283
    • warbowwales
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2007, 07:51:21 pm »
Jeremy,
when you say "I'm not sure he was talking about whip tillering, which is a 20C phrase?  From memory he mentions ‘whipping round’, and it's a separate action after shortening and pyking, all post shooting-in.  a common practice seems to be having the bow 'dressed' after it was shot-in but maybe only for private, not livery bows?" what do you think he meant then?
When I read that part, as it was talking about "dressing" the bow to make it a fully finished bow suited to the archer it seemed to me that this was talking about fettling the tiller, length, strength and cast of the bow to suit the archer. what does whipping a bow mean? Binding with thread? I am sure there is wording that really does seem to talk about tillering and lighteneing the limbs to get extra cast.
Mark
Hello Mark,
Well obviously we are working on the premise that our ‘theories’ can only be informed guesses.  However, I think it’s safe to assume that he is not referring to binding but who knows.  I posted this a while back…

What Ascham mean by pyking and shortening seems to be quite straightforward.  But then he talks of 'whipping' as well.  This is not a reference to either of the above as it's mentioned as a separate action and right after the other two in the text.  Is this a reference to recurving the tips?  As Jaro states in another thread, it seemed a common practice to have a bow 'dressed' after it was shot-in.  If the bow tips were recurved when purchased any later shortening would reduce the effect.  It could also be done to a straight limbed bow to counter string-follow.
There is limited evidence of this practice, but it is a theory Chris Boyton espouses, and is also mentioned by Hugh Soar in his last book (however how serious he considers this I don’t know).  The point is what one means by whip tillering.  If it’s re-tillering and lightening the limbs to get extra cast, yes.  Deliberately making the outer limbs do too much work, no.

Offline D. Tiller

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,504
  • Go ahead! Bend that stick! Make my day!!!
    • Whidbey Island Soap Co.
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2007, 08:16:07 pm »
Makes sence actually! If you pike it you will take away the thin tips. Then "Whipping" would be steaming or boiling the resulting tips and bending them then reshaping them. Could force more work from an already shot in bow and increase the range it could shoot. Otherwise taking a flaby shot out bow and making it servicable again if not better.

David T
“People are less likely to shoot at you if you smile at them” - Mad Jack Churchill

Rod

  • Guest
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2007, 10:41:46 am »
I think a more likely explanation of Ascham where he writes of whipping the tips would be that having a basically tillered bow, having shot in the bow and had it come round or broken to the string, if the tips are still unbending the tips would be "whipped" meaning that the tip tiller would be refined so that the tips also came to bend a little at full draw.
The final classic tiller would result in a full drawn shape where ALL of the bow does some work, ideally least at the tips and in the handle, most through the mid limb.
In the context of Ascham, whipping the tips and having the bow come to the string are related aspects of maximising the working of the final tiller.
Rod.

Offline alanesq

  • Member
  • Posts: 175
    • my webpage
Re: MR sidenocks
« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2008, 06:15:21 am »
I paid a visit to the Mary Rose last week, had a good study of the sidenock there and I have now made as close as I can an exact copy of the nock
see   http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.blackham/warbow/nock/

The Mary Rose nock: http://www.alanesq.com/temp/sidenock%201.jpg

There were two things surprised me about the nock;
1. It looked very big (I estimate 76mm long and 20mm wide at the base)
2. There is a lip on the lower edge of the string slot

As you can see from the pictures it doesnt look overly big when fitter to a bow

After some pondering I now suspect the lip is because its a lower nock and this lip will hold the bow string in place when using a stringer (as I have experienced problems myself of the stringer pulling the bow string out of the slot when stringing my bow)
I dont think the top nock would have one as it would make it difficult to de string
(this is all just guess work on my behalf though)

I have not tapered the bow enough (in the pictures) so the mark made by fitting the nock to this bow is too close to the end, but apart from that I think you will agree its a good match for the marks on the Mary Rose bows

Here is my 120lb  bow with the replica nocks fitted:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.blackham/warbow/nock/120lb/
« Last Edit: January 24, 2008, 07:17:31 pm by alanesq »