Author Topic: "Second String" woods?  (Read 39918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

duffontap

  • Guest
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2008, 12:11:31 pm »
Oh, you can make a fine weapon out of vine maple to be sure Steve - it's just that I have a love/hate relationship with that wood  :D

That is EXACTLY what I was going to say after reading your first reply.   ;D  You put up with a lot to get the occasional bow of mind-boggling strength. 

         J. D.

Offline George Tsoukalas

  • Member
  • Posts: 9,425
    • Traditional and Primitive Archers
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2008, 01:08:47 pm »
Against my better judgement because I thought we put this to rest about 400 years ago (Sudbury bow; found circa 17 the Century; made from hickory; stored in Harvard's Peabody Museum). Pat I think your remarks were outstanding. Osage and yew do not grow around here. They are great bow woods. However, there are other bow woods that also work really well. I've used a variety of woods. In fact, I've made bows from all of the standard woods and then some.
JD you said:
"Yew and Osage:
1.  Work well with traditional hand tools.  Cut, scrape, rasp and sand easily and efficiently.  (So do whitewoods.)
2.  Are very elastic, strong in tension, and strong in compression (all at the same time) making them: (True enough for osage) Yew is elastic but medium in tension and compression; one's design for whitewood bows should compensate for med. elastic tension and compression; make them a little longer and wider; whitewoods poor in those factors should not be used and usually are not).
    -Forgiving to tiller. (so is hickory)
    -Adaptable to many different designs. (please elaborate; that hasn't been my experience).
    -Longer-lasting. (see comments on Sudbury bow)
    -Consistent performers. (please elaborate; consistency may be a relative term).

3.  Are very rot-resistant. (As is black locust which really isn't a white wood; see initial comments regarding the Sudbury bow.)
4.  Perform better though a wide range of moisture contents.  (May be but a hickory bow at 5% will perform better than an osage bow at 5%. The osage bow may break at that level. Too low for osage.)
5.  Are especially BEAUTIFUL. (I do like watching osage's color change. But so many stain osage bows because they ca not deal with its initial pale color; white wood bows can be us as pretty.)
Final comment- The bowyer should fit the design to the stave and not the other way around. :) Jawge
Set Happens!
If you ain't breakin' you ain't makin!

Offline adb

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,339
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2008, 01:15:13 pm »
Traditionally, yew and osage are king... first string. All others are second string. Interesting debate here. That being said, if someone offered you a choice, what wood would you use? I'd pick osage or yew, because they make the best bows.

Offline Badger

  • Member
  • Posts: 8,119
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2008, 01:22:43 pm »
Jawge, I think good black locust would most certainly deserve a spot as a 1st string bow wood, I personally have not done so well with locust but I have seen some others bows that were nothing short of phenomonal. Thinnest bows I have ever seen were made from locust. I am working on one right now that needs some straightening but is down to about 1/4" thick and feels solid as a rock still, just barely starting to flex when I really lean on it. Steve

Offline Gordon

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,299
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2008, 01:58:01 pm »
Quote
You put up with a lot to get the occasional bow of mind-boggling strength. 

Amen to that JD. But when you get a good one out of vine maple, it is really something. I had one that was runover by a truck. It suffered multiple fractures and deep gouges all along the back. I patched it back together and I swear it looks and shoots better than it did before. Named it "2nd chance". Vine maple is some tough stuff. Here's a picture of that bow.


Gordon

tpoof

  • Guest
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2008, 02:00:11 pm »
In some locations second string woods ARE first string woods. :D

Offline Ryano

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,578
  • Ryan O'Sullivan, North Western Pennsylvania
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2008, 02:20:34 pm »
I agree you gota use what you can get your hands on, and some very fine weapons can be made of most white woods, but if you've ever have the opportunity to work much with Osage, I guaranty you you will see the difference. It is hands down easier to get a good shooting durable weapon out of Osage then it is with white woods. Thats just the way I see it. Thats not to say I don't enjoy toying around with other woods just as much as the rest of you, but when it comes down to it, I'll pick Osage every time.
Its November, I'm gone hunt'in.......
Osage is still better.....

duffontap

  • Guest
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2008, 04:15:04 pm »
Hey Jawge,

I can appreciate what you're saying here brother, but are you trying to understand me here?  I can't help but think that if you had read all I wrote carefully you wouldn't have bothered to reply.  Clearly we agree. 

My whole point is that certain woods have collections of desirable characteristics that make them logical first choices for making bows.  Yew and Osage make the domestic first string cut because they have so many of these desirable qualities.  Other bow woods share these qualities and others to different degrees making them more or less adaptable to bow building.  As you wisely said:  'one's design for whitewood bows should compensate for med. elastic tension and compression; make them a little longer and wider; whitewoods poor in those factors should not be used and usually are not.'  To my mind you are saying exactly what I am saying.  Some woods are better than others.

         J. D.

Offline snedeker

  • Member
  • Posts: 905
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2008, 05:24:36 pm »
Its been a long time since I've actually read every post in a long thread, but that was fun. 

That list of woods Tim Baker came up with is a good concept. A big group of bona fide bow woods, like all the ones mentioned above (A-Z, Apple - Zelkova) and then some reachers - like Tupelo or something.
Dave

a finnish native

  • Guest
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2008, 07:05:22 pm »
Never had any real problems with Rowan. Bird cherry on the other hand is very weird. I have a bow that was 66# and took a lot of set and so I dropped it down to 50# and heat treated the belly. It cryshaled even though a good tiller. now it is still on one piece. I have tried to break it, but it just bends and bends and is very lazy.
The weirdest thing is that the best bow if mine is from bird cherry also. no chryshals 56# and 2" of set after 2 years of intense shooting.
I consider Rowan a first string wood. you just have to know how to deal with it. bird cherry would also be one, but the one bow makes me think. I have never shot a bow made from Osage or yew. I have only made bows of birch (definitely 2nd or third string), Rowan, bird cherry and maple. I see no need to even try Osage or yew.

Offline DanaM

  • Member
  • Posts: 9,211
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2008, 09:12:57 pm »
So it comes down to use what ya have available ;D Up here in northern michigan, no osage, no yew, some locust in peoples yards >:(,
So in that sense they are not 1st rate bow woods because they are unavailabe. Can't even buy ipe or boo up here. So what I'm getting at is
what is first rate for me is different then other folks, The common factor is use what ya have and do the best ya can with it.
"Prosperity is a way of living and thinking, and not just money or things. Poverty is a way of living and thinking, and not just a lack of money or things."

Manistique, MI

Offline mullet

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 22,885
  • Eddie Parker
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2008, 10:21:37 pm »
    My, My, this one keeps coming up like a drowning fisherman. I have a different problem with wood. Between all the trades over the years and wood purchases,I have a hard time decideing which wood to use. If I'm lazy, I'll use white wood,like hickory. I've got to be on a mission to chase a ring on Osage. But like a lot of people I like my hunting bows made from them. Lately I've been playing with Ipe and I'm trying all kinds of variations of it.And a soon to come; bend it as much as I can Ipe bow build along or blow up.I have Cascara I keep looking at along with Pacific Dogwood,and more Vine Maple. After one VM I thought I'd take a break,never sanded wood that much to get tool marks out.  And I'm still looking at that telephone straight ELB Eastern Red Cedar stave. Like Dana and a few others said, you got to try different stuff and experiment,don't get stuck on one wood or style of bow.
Lakeland, Florida
 If you have to pull the trigger, is it really archery?

Offline Justin Snyder

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,794
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2008, 10:33:21 pm »
HMMM.  I don't know JD, I think chasing a ring on Yew with a scraper is a horrible task. I would much prefer mulberry. Mulberry is so similar to Osage that it isn't funny, but was still considered a second string wood, I must defer to Hillbilly's first post. Justin

I'm illustrating a point that you're affirming Justin.  We choose bow woods on a much wider set of criteria than what can be summed up with a single word:  'cast.'  You like mulberry because it possesses qualities so similar to Osage 'it isn't funny.' 
The point is, there are qualities that make some bow woods better than others.  There are theoretical opposite ends of the quality spectrum.  Those woods which contain the most advantages for bow builders have been dubbed 'first string.'  Bow woods that have fewer desirable characteristics have been called 'second string.' 

       J. D.


The problem with your theory is that mulberry has the same basic characteristics as Osage, but it is still considered second string or alternative bow wood.  If it were just characteristics, a lot of other woods (mulberry) would not have been overlooked.  I think the concept of 1st string woods was created by people who had never even tried most of the woods we use today because they had a plethora of Osage and yew.

You really must consider climate.  Some woods just get to dang dry here, while hickory does great. If it don't do well when its super dry it is 3rd string here.  Justin
Everything happens for a reason, sometimes the reason is you made a bad decision.


SW Utah

Offline Ryano

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,578
  • Ryan O'Sullivan, North Western Pennsylvania
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2008, 10:41:12 pm »
Justin, I've only made one mulberry bow but it was less than impressive compared to Osage. Yes, it's similar but not the same. It fretted up on the belly on me and eventually blew into three pieces, and it was sinew backed and well tillered! maybe I just got a bad piece I don't know but I was not impressed.
Its November, I'm gone hunt'in.......
Osage is still better.....

Offline mullet

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 22,885
  • Eddie Parker
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2008, 10:46:20 pm »
  I,like Justin, love Mulberry. It is the best wood that grows in my area that is similer to Osage. We have plenty of hickory, which,depending on the rain or humidity can go from #1 to #4 wood quick. So I don't bother with it without backing with bamboo. and then it's questionble. It's just that I have so much Mulberry that I like trying wood from other places. Justin,The Mulberry We have in Florida I would consider 1 st string. But some I have gotten from other places does not have the density as what grows here.
Lakeland, Florida
 If you have to pull the trigger, is it really archery?