How much use is the horn in a hornbow?

Stephen,

Interesting question. If you limit it to historic materials the answer may be yes there may be bows that can not be made without horn. If you allow modern materials then obviously any type of bow can be made without horn and I would suggest that they could be made to out perform horn.

For example. The all bamboo bows that people are making today. With the availability of compressed boo flooring it is possible to make all wood bows that would not hold up to the compression using most raw woods.

I am planning to make an all boo bow using multiple layers of raw boo and flooring and cold molding the shape in as the laminations are glued up in a form. I do believe that I can get enough preload on a 50# bow but not too much for the boo to perform well.

My theory (although I have no way to prove it) is that most bow shapes can be achieved with wood and backing alone. Although some of the bows that would be crab shaped if made out of horn would not have that much preload in all wood. Then the question comes up, "Is that much preload really needed?"

Weight per weight I bet the power gained buy reflexing horn that much could be matched buy adding another layer or two in the lay up in wood.

Ray

Take a look at http://www.hornbow.com/pa1098.html

(Note: It is on hornbow.com with the permission of PA Magazine)

Among the three components, sinew, wood and horn, horn is the most resilient material at the stress levels encountered in short bows.

If wood is stressed to the same degree, it will either break or take a lot of set. This is why the fellow who made "no horn" Turkish bows in the Thomas's link above had so much follow in his bows (I believe he introduced the follow to the bows deliberately to prevent breakage). The set will of course degrade performance. If sinew is stressed to the same degree as horn, it will not break, but it will not spring back as fast as horn.

It is true longer, less stressed bows do not need horn, depending on the design. I think for bows more than 55" the loss of performance due to the weight of horn would exceed the benefit of resiliency. I suspect the long Quing-style bows could as well be made with no horn, especially so when the reflex is small.

One can make very short bows without horn. I once made a bamboo-bellied Scythian, 39" long, with a thick layer of sinew and huge reflex. This bow would not break at 26" draw, but took a lot of set and did not have the spring the hornbows have.

Adam

Thomas,

Thanks for the article post. That was similar to what I had in mind only I plan to use all bamboo. I think the pre comressed bamboo flooring and Raw boo backing will let me get away with a little more than just a single strip of wood like he used.

A lamination of 1/16" strips molded on a form I think has potential. I also had a bow about 52" in mind

It will be an interesting experiment. We'll see what happens. If I show up somewhere with bandages on my head you'll know it blew up on me.

Ray

Earlier I made several osage sinew backed reflexed bows. Adam is right, all of these bows developed compression fractures, unless the reflex during sinewing was reduced compared to horn bellied bows and the bows were more than 140 cm long.
The fractures are not visible on the picture but they are there and get larger and deeper with time. At the beginning the performance was not bad, 55 pounds, 177 fps with a 450 grain arrow.
S?ndor

Forgive my ignorance, but if set is an issue, might it also have relevance for how long the bow could safely be left strung?

hi,a often put question by myself when I?m tired of shaping horn-bellies,splicing the fifth sinew,seeing almost ready bows twisting...........till I realized that a well done hornbow is the most durable weapon you can imagine.There are hornbows demonstrably older than 200 years and they shot as well as made yesterday.I really would like to see an epoxy-bow lasting more than 50 years.

The other qualities are well-known:reconstitutional force,springiness,resilience and compression-power.
I don?t know any other type of bow you can adjust so far with heat
Maybe we should add its availibility.You see horned animals all over the whole planet and in almost all cultures.

Finally the great feeling when you shoot such a bow,this is a real bow.I even know very well known epoxy-bowyers who prefer for themselves hornbows.
The only bow without horn that has "a kind of hornbow-qualities" is the korean all bamboo-horsebow.

I?m sure you can?t substitute horn in highly reflexed bows.
It is clear that a horn-bowyer has always to check out the balance of the horn,wood/bamboo and sinew-backing according to the choosed design.

I really would like to see an epoxy-bow lasting more than 50 years.

Give me just a half dozen or so more years and I will have one for you that I still shoot two or three times a week.

I think you sell way short the qualities and consitencies of modern materials. Hornbows may be great but I don't see them taking medals at the Olympics. Even the Koreans, who both have a hornbow heritage and do VERY well at the Olympics use modern "epoxie bows" as you call them to compete with.

I truly believe, if given the same environmental conditions a good quality modern matl bow ( Like a DAZ or hybrid Warf or a good quality target bow) would outlast a hornbow of equal quality. There are still some of the old Medalist target bows around that are still shot competitively on a regular basis.

I like hornbows too. Please understand that I am not trying to dissrespect them in any way, but lets keep things in proper perspective. :wink:

I would be hesitant even to discount a well made all wood bow at the 50 yr mark. Although, I will concede that an all wood bow is not likely to last in a functional state as long as a hornbow due do the crystalizing of the plant sugars and brittleness that comes with that over time.

Just My Humble Oppinion,
Ray

This is the sort of discussion I was hoping for. :)

Would it be fair to say, than, that ATARN friends who are contemplating starting on 'hornbow' projects should make their lives easier at the start by forgetting the horn and concentraining on the really difficult part: getting the sinewing right?

Once you have the expertise in that area, building a bow with a horn belly is a relatively trivial addition.

Comment?

Had the bowyers of former times either compressed bamboo or an equilavent.

Sinewing really isn't difficult at all. The need to make a composite is a bit unecessary I feel. A very good wood based sinew backed recurve is a more than adequate substitute. Composite bows likely arose as a need to produce a bow when good wood wasn't available. The features that enhance performance likely came after that. Nobody seemed to backtrack and see what good wood and sinew is actually capable of.

Patrick,

I tend to agree with your logic. Here in the states many many years ago we had both horn bows made of sheep horn, bison horn, elk antler, and eskimos used carribou antler.

Seeing how there was a large overlap of many of these animals that crossed many people groups (pre European). For example elk covered most of the northern 2/3 or more of what is now the US. But most of these people groups used wood that was readily available. These bows were very servicable. Some of these wood bows were very sophisitcated sinew backed wood bows so we can't blame it on taking the lazy way out.

A lot of people groups had a very "if it aint broke don't fix it" type philosophy. "Dad taught me to make a bow this way and it works so that is the way I will make bows. That is the way I will teach my son to make bows." and so on...............................

It makes sense that the same type of thing would happen on the Asian continent. Once they found a system that worked very well, why go back and reinvent things?

Ray

hi Stephen,the most thrilling thing in bowery to me is that a hornbowyer has to composite three living materials.The quality of the components are depending on very complex operations as for example the quality of the seasons.........don?t take horns from a rowdy-waterbuffalo for your bow....
You can make the same type of hornbow with the same drawweight 10 times and you have 10 different bows.
The job of a hornbowyer means not to composite horn,wood/bamboo and sinew,this is really easy to do with not to much knowledge.His job is to found out the correct composition and design of the materials he actually has.It is self evident that a bowyer is always checking out how to get as much energy as possible from a minimum of mass and at the same time to keep a bow stable.
To make and to shoot nowadays hornbows is a state of mind and I?m sure that no other traditionally made bow could outperform a hornbow.

Many horn bows have more than three natural materials: horn, bamboo/wood core, sinew, glue, wood siyahs, backing (such as birch bark), and leather.

Redhawk,

Outperform in what way? Vilocity, Accuracy, Distance, Durability.............

By what Criteria? Pound per pound of draw weight, bows of the same draw length, bows of the same physical length/string length.........................

Ray

I'm sure there are plenty of simple wood bows and more complex wood sinew bows which could outperform some composite bows in every way. Not every Composite bow is a raging success. Particularly lower weight ones. The mere fact that a bow is made of materials that CAN store more energy does not mean that it does store more energy.

I'm pretty sure that last year, Bede Dwyer came close to the world flight shooting record using a self bow. Bede?

........of course a hornbow is made of more than 3 materials,but horn,bamboo/wood,sinew and I should add the glue are the essentials......

......outperform other bows as a whole:velocity,accuracy,range,durability,beauty........

I?m very much interested in flight shooting world records but what?s about the durability,handling,beauty......of these bows.

Hornbows are horsebows:can anyone imagine a harder dedication for a bow?

hey wake up you hornbowyers,I?m not the only one left here on this planet in 2005............????

Sounds to me like we need to collect some data compile it and see what the results are.

We can argue subjectives all day long and it mean absolutley nothing. If we really want to find out.... what we need to do is take a one or two year time period Make three hornbows and three all wood bows, each based on a traditional design (no wheels or gadgets just traditional recurved, longbow or flatbow designs and no fiberglass or carbon fiber.) and run them through the gamet.

They would have to all be the same draw weight at full draw. For example if full draw for one bow was 28" then it would have to be 50# at 28", if another bow's full draw (that it would be shot at) was 32" then it would have to be 50# at 32" and so on. Whatever draw length the bow would be shot at that is where the 50# standard would have to rest.

We could chronograph them with a standardized weight arrow (say somewhere between 400 and 500 grains). to test vilocity.

Shoot for distance with the same weight arrows.

Put each in the hands of competent archers to shoot for accuracy at various distances.

Is anyone interested in doing this? If so give your input.

It would be an intersting experiment. I think the all wood bows would perform much better than you think.

Is Bede on vacation? I have not heard from him in all this.

hi Ray,great idea,I?m in.....

when I saw this topic for the first time I was sure that it will turn out to be a wild thing.Wise men put wise questions.

I don?t agree with you on the discussion till now,it has not meant nothing,you said.You see now what could happen.

I agree on the drawweight.Not to use artificial fibres is a must for me.
The whole thing should run 2 years,but it should be possible to post bow after bow when it will be ready.So we will have a lot of thrill.
Should it be possible to use bows yet ready?

For testing the durability we are maybe to old!?But we will have successors and they will really benefit from our experiment,cause we could make an outstanding collection of data.

I think it would be pointless to compare a Composite made in longbow or flatbow fashion with a wooden bow. Horn and Sinew have to be reflexed to get the best out of them. I think a good comparison is any type of wooden bow or wood/sinew bow versus a composite. Same draw weight and draw length. I don't think you can say a Composite is more accurate in any event.
How about if people just throw out some numbers on how far they have shot various bows or how fast they shoot? Give some specs. Bow type, materials, draw weight and length and type of arrow used. Let the bows be different rather than trying to make them the same.

The flight shoot that I took part in was for 50 pound American long bows. The record at the time was 325 yards. This year it was exceeded by Giancarlo Marchisini who reached 358 yards 1 foot and 9 inches.

I was 9 yards short of the old record with a bow lent to me by Dr Charles Grayson. It was made by Jack Harrison and was a modern composite designed for hunting so it wasn't a purpose-built flight bow.

Bows are designed to do different things. Flight bows are not meant to be accurate ant target bows were not design for maximum distance. Modern flight archery is clearly split up into classes so that you compare like objects. In fact there are now categories for target bows and traditionally made bows.

Patric and Bede,

The initial concept as I understood it is that hornbows make a better bows than wood bows, not that composite is better than longbow or recurve.

My contention is that if you take a bow made of horn that is designed to get the best out of the horn (such as an Asian composite design) and take an all wood bow that is designed to get the best out of the wood such as a reflex deflex long bow and compare the two you would find that one does not drastically overshadow the other.

My intent was to build 3 bow of each type.
One built for accuracy of both types
One built for distance of both types
One built in a static revurve (most bows with shiyas are basically static recurves) of some sort so we could compare the materials in similar style bows.

I bet that the horn would not put the wood to shame if designs were allowed that took advantage of each materials properties.

It would be interesting to find out.

One point about sinew-backed bows (with or without horn) is that they can be flexed quite drastically over a relatively short length. That means you can put meaningful siyahs on them and take advantage of the lever effect of the siyahs so that the bow stacks less than the a wood bow as you aqpproach full draw. In 'Archery Traditions of Asia', I explained the physics behind that (with a a significant contribution from Adam Karpowicz).

hi Stephen,

my experience is that you can overdraw a sinewed bow with horn more than a sinewed bow without horn..........

Which experience did you mean that leads you to this topic?

Where could I found your article:Archery traditions of Asia,with Adams contribution.

Dear all,

I assume Stephen refers his comment to his book "Archery Traditions of Asia", page 19, with footnote to Klopsteg, 1947, 2nd edition, page 154.

Further I propose to check B.W. Koois studies, he wrote some interesting publications and prooves the efficiency of wooden bows and horn bows. Horn bows are superior to wooden bows (check: http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/) .

What's all about is - "the archer's bow is a machine whose purpose is to impart stored energy effectively and accurately to propel the arrow. A mathematical modelling of different bow types shows how their engineering characteristics define their performances."

Fore thoseone's this seems to be too complicate, please feel free to read the Article "Bow design and Performance" by Tim Baker in The Traditional Bowyer's Bible, Volume One.


Ray, I look forward to reading some publications from you, which disproves B.W. Kooi's modellings or Tim Baker's article. :wink:

Reto

I dont' think you guys understand my stance. I am not saying that wood bows are better than horn bows. I am saying that wood can make a fine bow that will perform respectably with a horn bow.

Reto, you will in a box and dusty before you see me publish anything. I frankly am not a writer and I have no reason to disprove Mr Baker or anyone else.(I have read that section of the TBB)

I happen to beleive wood can make a very fine bow and should not be discounted just because it has no horn.

Ray

Reto,

Do you have a newer link to that article? All I get is a"page cannot be found" error page when I try to use the link.

Ray

Ray, try this one http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi
(same link, just without brackets :oops: )
Reto

I just finished my second bamboo/bamboo lamellate. It's not an asian design but rather a longbow-flatbow.

The handle is macassar ebony, placed between bamboo lams. No fibers, no sinew.

(the arrow pass is mother of pearl, the handle lacing holds with a scythian arrowhead used as a bead)

I'm quite happy with the performances (it's over 60 pounds) but despite the long design (the length is approx 175 cm) there is a clear string follow.

My Vinson Miner bamboo / maple / bamboo recurve also followed the string but the recurve more than compensate for it.

Maybe the bamboo on the belly is weak compared to the same bamboo n the back of the bow.

Romain, is length expected to counter or reduce string follow?

What is draw weight, at what length?

You can read that in The Bowyer's Bible, the longer working limb length, the less stress, the more tension and compression are spread and you have less risk of breakage (back failure) and less string follow (belly compression).

The draw weight is in the 60 or so. I will have to recheck after a few hundred arrows and with a higher fistmele.