Why I think osage is an inferior bow wood...

[RyanY]

Ready for the hate mail!

After seeing the thread on bow wood I thought we could start a nice little debate. In all seriousness I love osage. It's a beautiful, easily workable wood, and can make a great bow. But for a lot of reasons I don't think it's any better than other woods. It's true that osage can make bows of many different designs and take minimal set. But because it's so dense I believe that lots of osage bows are overbuilt, especially in the outer limbs. That density also allows osage to be one of the more sluggish woods out there despite taking less set. I know not everyone out there is in it for the speed but I believe any properly designed bow will be fast and durable for any use and not have to be osage. 

This is a quote from Tim Baker on another property of osage.
"Properly made bows of the same length will be about the same thickness regardless of wood species or poundage, the lighter-wood bow merely wider per drawweight pound than the dense-wood bow. If the outer limb of the light-wood bow is made as narrow as can be for lateral stability, the dense-wood bow will have to be narrowed roughly in proportion to density if it's to be as mass efficient."

"So say a .40sg poplar bow is 1/2" wide five inches form its tip, and that if any narrower it would be unstable laterally. Now make a .80sg osage bow, same length, poundage, etc. To be as optimized as the poplar bow it will be 50% narrower. Osage is about 50% stiffer than poplar, but if the outer limbs are narrowed by 50%, something new comes into play: Reduce width and lateral stiffness reduces by a cubic function. If the poplar's outer limb was reduced in width by half it would become one-eighth as stiff. A wet noodle laterally. The osage's 50% extra stiffness would be insignificant; the outer limb would fold. This is why a best-designed osage bow will be slower than a best-designed lighter-wood bow. Can I get a high five for that explanation?"

Thoughts?

[RyanY]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but you'd have to make me believe that for some reason osage is any more durable or strong than any other wood.   

[JackCrafty]

Osage is beautiful, works well with hand tools, and smells great when heated (a big plus for me).  But I'm with you.  There are lots of other woods out there that are just as good or better.

[rossfactor]

Well. In my limited experience with it, Osage is not my favorite wood, but it is durable. For example, you don't see many 20 year old oak fence posts turning into bows. Ands its hard as a rock.

Gabe

[tattoo dave]

Osage is a great bow wood. There's no denying that. But, it's about damn time somebody on this site said it. There seems to be a lot of folks obsessed with the great golden bow wood. I guess thats fine, but there's a lot of other woods out there that make just as nice of bows. Just my 2 cents.

Tattoo Dave

[RyanY]

Gabe, both valid points but we don't shoot arrows with the fenceposts.

Scott, I understand what you're saying but to say osage is better for those reasons I think needs some backup. If other woods chrysal more easily then I think that's more of a design and building issue than it is wood species. Also I'd like to hear more about why other woods fall short in the summer. Although those are things you've experienced, they are certainly not a matter of opinion and must be backed up by reason.

I believe the reason osage has the reputation it does is because, before we understood the principles of design for all woods, we could make bows out of osage without them breaking. If you make a whitewood bow with the same dimensions as osage and ask it to do the same work it will break. That's the point I want to make in this thread. There are many valid reasons why one can have a favorite wood, workability, color, smell. But to say it makes better bows for reasons other than that needs backup. The most important part of this is teaching new generations of bowyers about design and understand what it takes to make a bow of ANY wood.

[RyanY]

Scott, I don't truly think it makes an inferior hunting bow either. Just trying to instigate discussion. 

[PEARL DRUMS]

I read about others saying many other woods make good bows to, I couldnt agree more. However, I want to know one thing about osage, all things being equal, that makes it inferior to any other bow woods. We all can find one thing about all the other common bow woods that it falls short on head to head with osage. Availability cant be one.

[randman]

Have never used the yeller stuff but I would like too just so I can form an opinion.

[Carson (CMB)]

"So say a .40sg poplar bow is 1/2" wide five inches form its tip, and that if any narrower it would be unstable laterally. Now make a .80sg osage bow, same length, poundage, etc. To be as optimized as the poplar bow it will be 50% narrower. Osage is about 50% stiffer than poplar, but if the outer limbs are narrowed by 50%, something new comes into play: Reduce width and lateral stiffness reduces by a cubic function. If the poplar's outer limb was reduced in width by half it would become one-eighth as stiff. A wet noodle laterally. The osage's 50% extra stiffness would be insignificant; the outer limb would fold. This is why a best-designed osage bow will be slower than a best-designed lighter-wood bow. Can I get a high five for that explanation?"

Thoughts?

Hmm, let me say that I agree that most osage bows are overbuilt in the outer third, but that is not a nock on osage.  I also agree that osage limbs are going to have more mass in the outer third even when the design utilizes narrow tips that maximize the compression strength of osage (i.e. limb tips that approach the point of lateral instability).  Which is another way of saying what Baker says above. 

A possible benefit of more mass in the outer limbs:  While I am not arguing for heavy tips, I believe that the energy stored in a properly made osage bow can be most efficiently utilized by a heavy arrow.  I have noticed that my osage hunting bow (57#) can cast a 850 grn arrow 5yds shy of 500grn arrow.  That is not much difference in cast for a relatively great difference in arrow mass.  I know these dynamics are complicated by a number of variables, but I think those slightly heavier tips transfer a greater percentage of stored energy into heavier arrows.  A distinct advantage for a hunting weapon. 

Thanks for instigating this discussion.   

[Dean Marlow]

Here is my opinion on Osage. I have made bows from Hickory, Locust, Elm. White Oak, Red Cedar, Mulberry, Yew, HHB and there is nothing  wrong with all of these. But for durability and for not quite the best tiller there is nothing that compares to Osage. And yes most Osage bows are over built. But for longevity and thousands of shots Osage is the King. Dean

[bubby]

Here is my opinion on Osage. I have made bows from Hickory, Locust, Elm. White Oak, Red Cedar, Mulberry, Yew, HHB and there is nothing  wrong with all of these. But for durability and for not quite the best tiller there is nothing that compares to Osage. And yes most Osage bows are over built.

in my opinion alot of bows posted are overbuilt of all wood types, including some of mine, Bub

[blackhawk]

I really don't need to state the many many reasons and categories that osage excells in and is best or at least still number three in each one. The only opinion that matters to me and based on my experience in my climate is me..I couldn't care less if someone else prefers another wood. Because not everyone has the same wants in a bow wood as me,and some folks make bows just for the sole enjoyment of making bows. If that were my case then osage might not be number one..wait..who am I kidding it still wood be number one because it can heat shape like no other and hold that shape with the less springback and loss after tillering,and can make ANY design out there and do it well,whereas a lot of other woods are limited and more "design specific" and limited to what they can take and do.

Ryan we need to take you out on some serious hunting,and it'll change your mind..lol

LONG LIVE THE KING!!!!!!!!!

[RyanY]

Pearl Drums, I think osage's greatest strength, it's density, is also it's greatest weakness. It will make slower bows than other woods.

CMB, There is no logical explanation for why heavier tips would more efficiently cast a heavier arrow farther. Think of it this way. If you hit a golf ball with a golf club it'll go very far, but hit it with a slow moving train and it wouldn't go nearly as far. The train has more energy but slow is slow no matter what the object being moved is. As for why your results differ logically, there are just too many variable to be sure that your results are an accurate judgement of the phenomenon.

[RyanY]

Dean, you'll have to explain to me why a well designed bow of other woods would have less longevity.

blackhawk, I think the limiting factor with other woods as opposed to osage is length. It is able to make shorter and heavier bows due to its density. Other woods can too but must be a lot wider. Osage can definitely take shape well but I'd like an explanation as to why it can hold that shape better. Marc St. Louis makes many white would bows that retain tons of reflex.