R.I.P. 56" Mulberry

[Mulberry River]

Finally returned to finishing my stave.  Got down to 55# @ 26" with very nice bending, although slightly stronger on top. Was coming along well until I tried to weigh it on my scale setup....  Hmmm; 55# @ 26; thought it was lighter.... Wonder what it is at 27???
Firewood!!
Oh, well, I have a nice Black Locust and a nice Red Elm stave to start on...........

[Pat B]

56" is pretty short for a 27" draw and especially with a rigid handled bow. An excellently tillered wood bow should be no shorter that 2 times your draw plus 10% at least. A bit more, the better.
  Sorry for your loss but if you learned from it, it isn't a complete loss.

[Jim now in Kentucky]

Lots of folks seem interested in short self bows. This is the danger. PatB's formula is an old one and the one I have always worked to for rigid handled bows.

Jim

[Mulberry River]

I know, I know.....
I needed to omit a gnarly knot; therefore it became 56". I actually had reduced the correct dimensions proportionally, such that the handle was shorter, fades shorter, etc., and it was working out very well. Just had a moment of inattention... I KNEW I shouldn't have pulled it past 50"! What was I thinking??  

[JEJ]

Mulberry, chin up and get going on that Black Locust or Red Elm, or both! My bow making history has usually been something like “hunting bow, oops! bow for Scout Troop ceremony, dang! kids bow, doggone it! oh well … firewood

[artifaker1]

Even if the short bow doesn't break it will take a ton of set, being drawn that far, and then develop string follow far sooner than it should.
Make'm plenty long.

[Pat B]

If you do have to make a bow that short, make it bend throughout the entire bow from tip to tip and through the handle...and for safety sake add a layer or two of sinew.