tiny tiny rings

[Axes bows n knives]

What should I do if I have an osage stave with literally tiny rings. I can almost barely tell them apart? How do I get to 1 ring for the back?

[Art B]

A friend of mine made a bow from such wood. He heavily sinewed it and took his first selfbow deer with it. He gave me some scraps to build a kid's bow and I won't even use it for that.

Sounds like a job for your cabinet scraper. Good luck...........Art

[hova]

you could do as art said. you could also decrown it and back it.

-hov

[John Scifres]

A good thing about thin rings is that splinters don't seem to carry as far  

Really, I would chase a ring the best you can and back it with rawhide or sinew.

[Walt Francis]

2x what John siad.  I chase the ring then back with sinew.

[Pat B]

3x what John, Walt and Art said! I love thin ringed osage. You just have to improve the back strength with rawhide or sinew.

[Osagetree]

X4  

[Eric Krewson]

I back these types of staves with bamboo, glue in 3" of reflex and they make exceptional bows.

[SEMO_HUNTER]

Yep all the above, scrape very gently and get some really good lighting straight above your work area. Like the rest have already said, this one would be an excellent candidate to put a backing on. Let us know what you decide to go with for the backing, I'm interested in this myself.

[Aznboi3644]

I'd decrown it and make a self bow...no backing.

Try it out.  It can be done...keep it wide.

There's a picture in one of the bowyers bible with a decrowned osage bow...no backing.  Looks beautiful.

[ber643]

Not to hijack a thread but to further clarify, and perhaps help Axes more. Just curious for opinions - would this qualify in that category? Sometimes I think the pictures make the rings look wider than they are but then i wonder if me eyes (and fear - LOL) makes them look thinner when i look at the actual stave. It is actually both ends of a very old, dry stave, and I've done a little work on it already. Oh, also it's not very deep - after I took the bark and a little of the under layer off, the depth is only about 7/8" at the small end and 1 3/8 at the larger (second picture). So what may appear to be wider rings to chase are actually too low in the stave, if ya know what i mean. I may have to add wood for a handle as it is - LOL.

     

     

[Art B]

Those thin rings of yours Bernie would be heaven compared to what my friend made his bow out of. No late wood what so ever was visable. Rings were not readily distinguishable in his wood.

And this from a notiable Osage seller. Who would have thunk.........Art

[ber643]

Wow!

I just took a couple comparable pictures, as it is now, to show the depth better and will post in a few minutes.

[ber643]

Here are current pics with a tape measure (taped) across the ends to show where the rings are within the stave ends. The tape measure is set with the 2" mark at top of stave (but of course the measure curves out some). Don't know if it helps or not but does show how thin the stave would be getting if I "chase" down very deep.

   

   

[Art B]

Maybe took 'er on down another 1/2" or so Bernie. Or down to what you thank is an exceptable back ring. Thin rings don't really mean all that much as long as the early/latewood ratio is still good. Which yours looks like it is. Some type of backing is an option as is adding a handle piece if you decide to cut down to larger rings......Art

[ber643]

Sounds good, Art. I really would like to take it down a little more, and see how it looks, while staying in the thinner rings. That'll get rid of some old worm holes also. I'd just as soon stay away from backing if possible though, as I love the look of Osage. (I do have a roll of rawhide if it becomes a needed item, however - LOL). Not a big thing about using a handle piece, one way or the other, if I need to.