String tuning

    "A straight -end longbow that follows the string slightly, with good cast, carries a heavy string,..." wait, what?  Those words from Hill in his Hunting the Hard Way book get overlooked by most archers who have read it.  "Carries a heavy string".  Now what's that supposed to mean?

    Back in the days when Hill wrote that, target archery was going strong and archers were using lighter and lighter equipment from bows to arrows. The bowstrings were just as fine and light, to better help the light bow limbs cast the light arrow with minimal jarring. But Hill was writing about hunting with the bow and in our efforts to follow his teachings, we must always remember to decide between hunting method and target shooting method. It's a constant self-check.

    The linen strings of his day weren't as strong as the string was materials we have now. Then Dacron was developed and most bowstrings were made of it, but they were still made as lightweight as only necessary for the lightweight target bows.  The idea being promoted as too much physical weight on the string was a bad thing. Strings hummed and twanged and somewhere along the way string silencers were developed to allow hunters to take those noisy bows into the woods.

    Nowadays it seems that most hunters are still thinking of strings as target shooters have thusly influenced the sport.  Where is anyone using a heavy string?  Back in the 70's through early 90's when most longbows were of a straight limb style, due to the heavier bow weights being used and larger diameter 11/32 arrow nocks, 16-18 strand strings of B50 Dacron were the norm. Then along came assorted synthetic, low stretch string materials that were stronger and lighter, allowing shooters to use less and less strands of bowstring material... For supposedly faster arrow flight and with less hand shock in their bows.

     However, this trend began allowing bow makers to build all kinds of various bow designs, some of which had a horrible tendency to shoot poorly and if a low stretch light string was put on the bow, it would usually tame it down. People started accepting this as a normal thing.  Lost was the idea of the good aspects of a heavy string on a Hill style straight limb longbow.

      I've generally used pretty heavy strings most of my life. 16-20 strands of B50 work well for me, and yes, I have tried various brands and types of low stretch string materials over the years.  I dislike terribly the high pitched hum they produce after the arrow is shot. I gather most other longbow shooters using the same, also dislike the hum and pitch because now it's in vogue to wrap half a beaver pelt on the string. Tongue in cheek of course...

   When I shot with John Schulz, he didn't use any silencers on his strings and the bows shot very silent. I studied his strings on his lighter bows around 40# and the strings were just as thick as mine. Obviously that would have made his 5/16" Mercury nocks not fit the string but that was solved by his filing out the nock throat with a mill bastard file to fit the string. Every nock was filed the same, every nock fit the string the same. That was one of Hill's secrets he said. Hill used a shallow Midnoc arrow nock but filed them out to fit his thick strings.  This is a photo of a Hill-filed Midnoc and a Schulz-filed Mercury nocks.

    So the arrow nocks were adjusted to the string. A vastly different approach from today's longbow shooters using strings made to fit the arrow nocks. Why didn't Hill and Schulz just use skinnier strings? Surely they knew about the advantages of skinny, lightweight, lower stretch strings?  But were there the perceived advantages?

     I did some testing recently with a few of my longbows and a couple of other well-known longbow builder's models. Using 9 grains per pound of arrow weight on average, and using 16 and 18 strand B50 versus skinny strings of Fast Flight and BCY 8125, and D97.  I found that with my deep core string follow bows and the deep core reflex bows I tested, the 18 strand B50 shot arrows as fast or faster than when using 16 strands. On some bows the 18 strand B50 shot as fast as 8125 and D97 and only 3-5 fps slower than Fast Flight.  All testing was done with no silencers on the strings.  Where was the tremendous advantage preached to me over the years from the target shooter influenced instructors?  I saw no real advantages, except...

     With the thick Dacron string I got less string noise, better arrow nock fit, weaker shooting arrows, less pressure on my fingers, and a quieter shot with no need for silencers.  What would happen if I went to 20 strands? Even less noise, arrows acting even weaker (allowing me to shoot stiffer spined arrows) and less hum.  How could that be?  Well, a thicker string is stronger, and stretches less, just like a rope. You want a stronger rope, you get a thicker rope of the same material most of the time. Thicker strings/ropes have more surface tension and friction, causing strength. Strength means less stretch in a bowstring.  Hill's words coming back again... "Carries a heavy string"... 

    It seems that a thick-cored Hill style longbow is less affected by a heavy string and in some cases will shoot vastly better using it.  Obviously Hill thought so and so did Schulz.  I know I sure like mine and for those out there who've been subjected to the skinny string and must-have silencers teaching... How about getting a thick heavy B50 string on that bow and see how it does?  If your bow is tillered and timed well, you won't have to worry about the string and silencers masking poor construction. 

    For me, no skinny string will work on my bows because I prefer the type of string Hill did.  A thick heavy string...and my bows carry them just fine.  How do yours? 

     Next we'll look at broadhead sharpening the Hill way, until then, 

       Shoot Straight