History of wood laminated bows

[Brumbies Country]

This may or may not be the right section to post this question, but its getting warm enough down here that I can start making bows again in the shed. I want to persue the historical bow thing again having briefly gone back to a fibreglass/wood longbow and shot like a dog .

I shoot bows in the low 40lbs range and need to therefore get everything I can in the way of cast/speed, In the Bent Stick, Paul Comstock prefers sinew backed bows to wood laminations but does refer to Horace Ford and other English archers as being devotees of wood laminated longbows. I want to be able to validate that laminated wood bows were shot by Ford and others before 1900. Reckon somebody like Grahame would be able to validate that. Next question relates to bamboo being used for backing. Is their proof that bamboo was used to back wood bows before 1900. Any proof that Native Amercans used wood laminations? The reason I use the 1900 reference is that ABA uses this as the reference d
time and you ned to validate that a historical bow type was actually in use before 1900.

Cheers

Simon

[ichiban]

sorry mate bu i dont think hat he american indians laminated timbers, im not sure why other than the time involved, they had access to hide glue. the goo news is that the english did experiment with laminating timbers through the 1800's (i belive, correct me if im wrong), how ever they used hide glue which as we all know is water soluable. i think it was saxon pope who saw potential in laminated bows but recomended binding them at regular intervals up the limb.
in the witchery of archery murice tompson also wites of "fancy backed bows".

so it seems to me there is some history in the fancy backed bows but i dont know that the world is ready to accept them as traditional. can you imagin looking down the lines and seeing highly strained laminated deflex/Reflex designs, and having those being counted as traitional? (i know the deflex/reflex can be made traditionaly, but i mean the highlystrained ones we are all accoustom, which is best accive though thin lams)

[Len]

G'day Simon. The English were backing bows ( ash backed yew ) as early as the 16th C. and I've seen photos of laminated/backed bows from the early to mid 19th C., . There are a couple of pics of laminated elb's from early 1800's in Hugh Soars book The Croooked Stick which would give you all the evidence you need for comps.

[Brumbies Country]

Thanks Len and Dave

Grateful for the information. Len, my Lionheart ELB gets more distance then the flatbow and ELB I made from hickory though the three are all round 40lbs. Thought it might be worth thinking about laminations to get a bit more distance again. The laminations you describe are relevant to ELBs. Wonder of anyone knows of laminated faltbows that were round before 1900.

Simon

[ichiban]

donno about flatbows mate, but you could deffinately use a more rectangluar cross section and argue that its an elb, as many of the mary rose bows had a more rectangular cross section where as others had the arched belly.

[Brumbies Country]

Good point Dave and thanks

[GrahameA]

Good Morning Simon

The Badminton Library
ARCHERY
By C.J. Longman and Col. H. Walrond, 1894.


Chp 17 - The Bow.

Bows are of two kinds 'self' and 'backed.' The first when of yew, is made of two pieces, grafted or spliced in the middle, each limb being in one piece; the latter is made of two or more strips of wood fastened together.

http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/bad ... r17_1.html

The Witchery of Archery
By Maurice Thompson, 1879.

Appendix - The Bow

What are called "fancy-backed bows" in the catalogue of dealers are beautiful weapons and shoot with surprising power. The best of these are made of snakewood backed with hickory.

http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/wit ... dix_1.html

Archery, its theory and practice
by H. A. Ford, 2nd Edition, 1859.

Chapter III
Of The Bow.

I now come to the second part of my subject, namely, the backed bow. From all that can be learnt respecting it, it would appear that its use was not adopted in this country until Archery was in its last state of decline as a weapon of war, when, the bow degenerating into a mere instrument of amusement, the laws relating to the importation of yew staves from foreign countries were evaded, and the supply consequently ceased. It was then that the bowyers hit upon the plan of uniting a tough to an elastic wood, and so managed to make a very efficient weapon out of very inferior materials. This cannot fairly be called an invention of the English bowyers, but an adaptation of the plan which had long been in use amongst the Turks, Persians, Tartars, Chinese, and many other nations, more especially the Laplanders, whose bows were made of two pieces of wood united with isinglass. As far as regards the English backed-bow (this child of necessity), the end of the sixteenth century is given as the date of its introduction, and the Kensals, of Manchester, are named as the first makers—bows of whose make are still in existence and use, and are generally made of Yew, backed with Hickory or Wych-Elm.

The backed-bows of the present day are made of two or more strips of the same or different woods glued and compressed together, as firmly as possible, in a frame with powerful screws, which frame is capable of being set to any shape. Various woods are used, all of which make serviceable bows, though differing much in quality, For the back we have Lance, Hickory, American and Wych Elm, Hornbeam, and the sap or white part of the Yew; for the belly, Yew,

http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/for ... r03_2.html

[Brumbies Country]

Good morning Grahame

Was hoping to hear from you. That reference is just the sort of thing I was looking for. Just about to depart for research planning exercise but will print his off and read tonight.

Simon

[GrahameA]

Good Morning Simon

Good morning Grahame
Was hoping to hear from you. That reference is just the sort of thing I was looking for. Just about to depart for research planning exercise but will print his off and read tonight.
Simon

Using those examples resolves any argument and makes for an excellenet reference. It is a Primary reference for your argument and the date of publication removes any objection to the use of such.

I expect to see said bows in operation post the Xmas sojourn.

Addenda

If you want to use bamboo as a backing material you may not only need to show that the Bamboo was used as a backing material but also that it was in the style of bow you are replicating.

Given that most of the material refers to bows of the English style - that is what was used - you may be in for an interesting time.

[longbow steve]

Hi Simon, why dont you look at a smaller Yumi design?
Ichiban, my deflex reflex bows are under no more stress than any other bows. It is all about design and when you choose to access the draw weight that is available from a bow ie tillering to have the bow bend near the handle creates a faster bow than whip tillering etc. My bow has less reflex forward of the riser than you are presently experimenting with. A yumi bow carries a massive ammount of reflex but it is how they have designed the bow to be most effiecient for the job at hand. Would you have a problem with a Yumi lining up against you on the line more so than if I made one of my designs in all wood materials? Steve

[GrahameA]

Good Morning Simon, Steve and Ichi'

Give how Simon is restricted. I would ask the question if someone was to turn up with a bow:

but you could ... use a more rectangluar cross section and argue that its an elb, as many of the mary rose bows had a more rectangular cross section where as others had the arched belly.

and it was laminated to prove that it was historically correct.

The question is not that it was or was not done. The question is that the archer needs to be able to show evidence that the bow he is shooting is historically correct. Thus while a squarer section may be correct you need to be able to show that a laminated bow of that section is correct. Unfortunately the references I have listed are only applicable to Victorian era bows. Now, whilst it may have been done earlier - Simon will need to have proof that the design of the bow he is using does meet the requirements.

[Brumbies Country]

Good Morning Simon, Steve and Ichi'

Give how Simon is restricted. I would ask the question if someone was to turn up with a bow:

but you could ... use a more rectangluar cross section and argue that its an elb, as many of the mary rose bows had a more rectangular cross section where as others had the arched belly.

and it was laminated to prove that it was historically correct.

The question is not that it was or was not done. The question is that the archer needs to be able to show evidence that the bow he is shooting is historically correct. Thus while a squarer section may be correct you need to be able to show that a laminated bow of that section is correct. Unfortunately the references I have listed are only applicable to Victorian era bows. Now, whilst it may have been done earlier - Simon will need to have proof that the design of the bow he is using does meet the requirements.

You are correct in what you say Grahame and the onus is on the archer to prove the historical correctness. To be honest I'd would be surprised if the people who were doing the assessment would generally know if the bow was historically correct or not but you do have to allow for the fact that they just might.

Simon

[Brumbies Country]

Hi Simon, why dont you look at a smaller Yumi design?
Ichiban, my deflex reflex bows are under no more stress than any other bows. It is all about design and when you choose to access the draw weight that is available from a bow ie tillering to have the bow bend near the handle creates a faster bow than whip tillering etc. My bow has less reflex forward of the riser than you are presently experimenting with. A yumi bow carries a massive ammount of reflex but it is how they have designed the bow to be most effiecient for the job at hand. Would you have a problem with a Yumi lining up against you on the line more so than if I made one of my designs in all wood materials? Steve

Thanks Steve

I do not have significant knowledge of the Yumi design but it sounds re the reflex, that it would be quick.
Will look into it

Cheers

Simon

[longbow steve]

Hi Simon, I dont think a Yumi would be particularly quick, I was just making a point that somthing that looks different shouldnt be frowned upon.
How far do the rules extend, do you have to construct said bow out of materials used historically or can local timbers be used?
Graeme K made a Holmegaard/Adaman bow from brigalow a while ago and it shot 179fps with 10gr/lb. This is only 5 fps slower than my def/ref bows. This design is favoured by the flight shooters for the above reason and may be worth a look/study. Steve

[Brumbies Country]

Thanks Steve

When I think about it, I do know what a Yumi bow is, and I agree that something that looks different shouldn't be frowned upon. Local timbers can be used as long as the construction type can be authenticated to be in existence before 1900. Graeme K's Holmegaard made from Brigalow sounds just the ticket and that's an impressive speed. Re native woods I've seen a couple of flatbows made from Arcacia doratoxylon (Commonly known as Currawong) and it looks particularly good. I must admit to thinking also about bamboo backing. It would undoubtedly have been used on Asian bows pre 1900 but finding written validation is not so easy. You'd have to also think about an all wood horse bow. I don't think my skills are up to the latter yet. Interesting exporing all of this.

Simon

[longbow steve]

Hi Simon, I have good supply of Madake bamboo that is the bamboo used in Yumi' if you want to have a go.
As for one piece bows, Doratoxylin (lance wood) seems like the best option in the southern states. I will see if I can find the thread on Greamek's bow. Steve

[longbow steve]

http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7176
MMM it wasn't a Homelgaard but the speed is there, look how it is bending in the first pic. Steve

[GrahameA]

Evening All

Graeme K made a Holmegaard/Adaman bow from brigalow...

Steve amd Simon
You could build a Holmegaard or a an Andamon. However a hybrid woukd not be acceptable as it is not authentic. An example of a Andagaard bow.

I think I have claimed before that Brigalow is a great timber for bows. However, I would go for a timber laminate over a self bow if I had the option. My current thinking would be Hickory backed American Ash. (Yes, I have been thinking about it.) There is a comment in those references that the glue used to laminate some bows was Isinglass (aka Fish Glue).

Yumis can be of a laminated construction of both Bamboo and timber.

I await your building of one and please keep accurate measurements for my future use.

Now WRT Asiatics. There are documented examples of Asiatics that were made before 1900. Thus you can use them as a prototype which you are replicating. Opinion - short Asiatics are not an inherently accurate design. So you may find yourself trading of one attribute for another and in effect gaining nothing.

As an example:

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/visible_bow/visible.htm

A parting thought. The usual reason people are chasing a faster bow is to get a flatter trajectory. I would humbly suggest that Pareto would suggest that you might get a better return by spending some effort on your arrows.

[Brumbies Country]

http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7176
MMM it wasn't a Homelgaard but the speed is there, look how it is bending in the first pic. Steve

Steve, that is a nice looking bow of Graemes and the speed is impressive. Really appreciate you digging that out.

Simon

[Brumbies Country]

Grahame

The cross-sections of the Chinese bow are really interesting. What a tremendous amount of work although the bowyer then might have had fewer competing interests .

Re arrows I take your point. I take it you are suggesting looking critically at weight. Just made some sitka spruce arrows with 30-35 spine at around 335 grains all up including 100grain points and they came rather nicely out of a 38lb ELB with dacron string. They allow dacron but not FF in the historical division.

Simon

[rossy]

This may or may not be the right section to post this question, but its getting warm enough down here that I can start making bows again in the shed. I want to persue the historical bow thing again having briefly gone back to a fibreglass/wood longbow and shot like a dog .

I shoot bows in the low 40lbs range and need to therefore get everything I can in the way of cast/speed, In the Bent Stick, Paul Comstock prefers sinew backed bows to wood laminations but does refer to Horace Ford and other English archers as being devotees of wood laminated longbows. I want to be able to validate that laminated wood bows were shot by Ford and others before 1900. Reckon somebody like Grahame would be able to validate that. Next question relates to bamboo being used for backing. Is their proof that bamboo was used to back wood bows before 1900. Any proof that Native Amercans used wood laminations? The reason I use the 1900 reference is that ABA uses this as the reference d
time and you ned to validate that a historical bow type was actually in use before 1900.

Cheers

Simon

ABA, can get stuffed. Should be called ATA (Australian Target Ass) .
Yeppers!!!!!!!!!!!! IMO

Dickie

[ed]

Not a lot on the net about Japanese bows outside of the kyudo standards, some on history of the laminating though - try starting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yumi I think that sort of length of history should keep the ABA happy...

As for timbers, some of my friends in Japan are kyudo nuts and tell me the earliest Yumi were bamboo backed mulberry. Very thin bamboo at that with the wood wider than the bamboo, and not until they put bamboo on the belly did the bamboo become full width.

There is also another variation called a "han-yumi", which is like two lower half of a normal yumi. "Han" means half so it looks half the size almost and more similar to a korean bow in all. It was also part of the history of some ninjutsu clans and often quite high in draw weight.

[ed]

some more on the Japanese half bows - here called hankyu as a proper name.

http://l5r.wikia.com/wiki/Hankyu

http://www.trocadero.com/MONTES/items/5 ... store.html

[ichiban]

for the yumi a good refrence in kyudo in most traditional yumi forms including the selfbow version is a book called kyudo: the way of the bow however exact bow demensions are hard to come by.
as per the yumi, it is a quick design if used properly, the 36" draw makes good use of the very long bow and the foot of reflex, and i can prove it is historicly accurate.

lonbow steve,
i never said i have anything against bows that look diffrent, but if you have to prove historical accuracy i am just saying you would have a hard time proving that the "modern" laminated D/R is much considerably older than fiberglass. and of cause you could argue that its based of the 5000 year old itallian yew shown in one of the TBB's, but there really only cousins arnt they?
in addition they are a high stress design, think about the relitivly small aria that the bend is taking place and tell me that, that section of the limb isnt highly stressed. feel free to discuss it more with me in the D/R thread in trad tackel so we stop hyjacking this tread, belive me id love to be wrong on this one.

cheers,
D

[Brumbies Country]

Thanks Ed

I have to admit that my knowledge of Japanese bows is pretty deficient so I'm grateful for the information. It's interesting how one can concentrate on certain areas of bow history. I've read alot on the Elb, chased up a fair bit on American Indian bows but have largely left the Asian side of things alone apart from getting greatly immersed in Mongol bows tactics and training via the Conn Iggulden trilogy.

Cheers

Simon

[GrahameA]

Good Morning Simon

Re arrows I take your point. I take it you are suggesting looking critically at weight. Just made some sitka spruce arrows with 30-35 spine at around 335 grains all up including 100grain points and they came rather nicely out of a 38lb ELB with dacron string. They allow dacron but not FF in the historical division.Simon

Yes, that would be a good start along with the actual arrow design.

A chap I regularly shoot with uses a 50lb Martin "Stick". For his arrows he uses POC with 70 grain aluminium points. (I just gave him the last dozen I had as they are rare now.)

The end result is his arrow have a very flat trajectory out to 40 yards in comparison to mine.

If I was in your position I would also go to the minimum fletching (and I would sacrifice height for length, i.e. long and low as compared to shot and tall) I was allowed to use and barrel all shafts. Just to minimise drag.

As an example I use 2" fletches for some of my arrows - much better for those 70m shots.

The downside of this is that your bow efficiency will decrease and you may find the bow becomes unpleasant to shoot. And with little fletching poor releases and mismatched arrows will fly like "dogs".

However, the velocity increase may be easier to gain through arrow design rather than through bow design finessing.

[Brumbies Country]

Good Morning Simon

Re arrows I take your point. I take it you are suggesting looking critically at weight. Just made some sitka spruce arrows with 30-35 spine at around 335 grains all up including 100grain points and they came rather nicely out of a 38lb ELB with dacron string. They allow dacron but not FF in the historical division.Simon

Yes, that would be a good start along with the actual arrow design.

A chap I regularly shoot with uses a 50lb Martin "Stick". For his arrows he uses POC with 70 grain aluminium points. (I just gave him the last dozen I had as they are rare now.)

The end result is his arrow have a very flat trajectory out to 40 yards in comparison to mine.

If I was in your position I would also go to the minimum fletching (and I would sacrifice height for length, i.e. long and low as compared to shot and tall) I was allowed to use and barrel all shafts. Just to minimise drag.

As an example I use 2" fletches for some of my arrows - much better for those 70m shots.

The downside of this is that your bow efficiency will decrease and you may find the bow becomes unpleasant to shoot. And with little fletching poor releases and mismatched arrows will fly like "dogs".

However, the velocity increase may be easier to gain through arrow design rather than through bow design finessing.

Evening Grahame

What should be poets day became a day of arduous labour , Started replying this morning, and here I am . I went down the barreled shaft route and 70 grain points late last year, and shot a + 180 FITA field out of an ELB. Trouble was I couldn't repeat it, so returned to 100 grain points and regular shafts of much the same weight. I think with the wisdom of hindsight that my form and general technique went backwards at that point also. Still have the barreled shafts and 70 grain points so I will give them another try. Absolutely agree with you on the long and low fletches and saw some interesting but effective manifestations of that in the recent World Masters clout.

I think my next step will be a laminated ELB, a revisit of arrow types, and after that a flatbow, with, for authenticity, a sinew backing (the glue will be interesting). I need to also read up on Ed's suggestions re bows that I haven't investigated before. No lack of objective for this summer . A world compete with archery goals is not such a bad place.

Simon

[GrahameA]

Good Evening Simon

Absolutely agree with you on the long and low fletches and saw some interesting but effective manifestations of that in the recent World Masters clout.

Yes, the long low fletch is a better choice for clout. It presents a smaller area for the wind to blow the arrow off-course.

The recommendation from the clout experts is along the lines of; "mass for the range so the approach angle is close to 45 so the arrows sees the largest target and small area presented to the wind to minimise deviation of the arrow". One of these days I must invest a few hours into playing with Clout.

I have a set of clout arrows that I intend to refletch in the near future and they will have low fletches.

The downside of small fletching, etc, is that you are punished severely for a poor release.

[GrahameA]

Morning Simon, et al.

An addenda

For those who are interested in drag this is a worthwhile thread to read.

http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?t=1182

[Brumbies Country]

Good Evening Simon

Absolutely agree with you on the long and low fletches and saw some interesting but effective manifestations of that in the recent World Masters clout.

Yes, the long low fletch is a better choice for clout. It presents a smaller area for the wind to blow the arrow off-course.

One of these days I must invest a few hours into playing with Clout.

I have a set of clout arrows that I intend to refletch in the near future and they will have low fletches.

The downside of small fletching, etc, is that you are punished severely for a poor release.

Morning Grahame

Can recommend playing with clout for anybody with a curiosity for aerodynamics. Bit different to your flight trials but interesting never the less.

We had the ACT Clout championships yesterday. Really enjoyed this clout, given a faultless spring day,and unique challenges the discipline poses. With a longbow you get that feeling of reanacted history together with the challenge of getting the best out your arrows to arive as close to the clout as possible. Just enough breeze to make things interesting. Pity it's a bit of an anathema to the majority of target shooters. I'd like to shot quite a bit more of. Focuses arrow considerations at a different level.

Simon