I've e-mailed back and forth with a MR. WAYNE Nicol of Trueflight archery in CANADA. Sounded like getting the FORGEWOOD MACHINERY to their FACTORY was a difficult trip. They will have to expand or get more room to their factory for all of the equipment. I told WAYNE that THERE are people interested in seeing if the FORGEWOODS will be back. Did caution him that there might NOT be an OLYMPIC sized crowds. I am hoping that A: There will be enough people for it to be economically feasible to bring back the OLD ARROWS B: Tthat they can get things working. He mentioned that the spine tester was incredible. Just saying that THERE MAY BE A CHANCE?? No GUARANTEES! BLESSED BE! BATMAN PS? They do mfg some kind of HEX SHAFTS.

Count me in for a lot!

I'd love to build some forgewood arrows!

That would be nice. I currently have about 15 dozen forgewood shafts and will run out at some time. I would like some 70-80 lb spine. Mine are in the 50-60 and 100-110 range. Very little in between.

The problem is the availability of the proper material to make the shafts out of.

Bob Burton and others have discussed that here before. Not just any wood will actually work for the application.

While I do hope that the new owners are capable of getting the shafts back in production, I have reservations as to whether or not they will be of the same quailty and durability.

A laminated shaft now......that's a diffferent thisng and can be produced from more easily obtainable materials.

Then compress hexshafts for bombproof shafts

The wood is compressed while in board form, not after the arrow shaft is doweled. Bill Sweetland worked with many woods but found very few would do what he needed.

I've still got some. Both those made by Jack Harrison and some Sweatbands I got from my father-in-law.

You can really see the original shaft if you lose one and find it after moisture has swelled it.

I believe Sweatband use a lot of Port Orford cedar.

For those of you that think forgewoods will once again be made, I would suggest you go to You-tube and bring up "Forgewood compressed cedar arrows Bill Sweetland" The sound is not the best but you will see how they are made.

Bob

Trueshaft not trueflight archery right?

HI FOLKS, MY BAD! NEWELL38 is correct. TRUESHAFT! My fingers got a head of my feeble mind!

Don't know if I'd consider them forgewoods if they're not made out of POC, which is what Bill Sweetland used. Can compress other woods, of course, but the the result isn't the same.

The Alaskan conifer(can't remember the specific species) that Jack Harrison and his partners compressed with the equipment they bought from Bill Sweetland was physically heavier than POC of the same diameter.

Given the lighter poundage bows that most folks are shooting nowadays, it may be difficult to get a compressed shaft that will yield an arrow under 12-14 gpp.

Okay folks...I've been following this thread and while I did get distracted a time or two I also watched the video and while impressive?...maybe I missed something but here's my end thought...

"It sure seems like an awful lot of effort and expense to achieve something mother nature already produces."

My pointed question?...

"Instead of processing P.O.C. into a condition that mimics hardwood...wouldn't it be more sensible to just use hardwood?"

Here's some stats I compiled comparing Sitka Spruce, P.O.C. and Hard Rock Maple...and it's looks like Maple would make for one tough shaft...

*********************************

"Sitka Spruce" Average Dried Weight: 27 lbs/ft3 (425 kg/m3) Specific Gravity (Basic, 12% MC): .36, .42 Janka Hardness: 510 lbf (2,270 N) Modulus of Rupture: 10,150 lbf/in2 (70.0 MPa) Elastic Modulus: 1,600,000 lbf/in2 (11.03 GPa) Crushing Strength: 5,550 lbf/in2 (38.2 MPa) Shrinkage: Radial: 4.3%, Tangential: 7.5%, Volumetric: 11.5%, T/R Ratio: 1.7 ************************************************ “Port Orford Cedar” Average Dried Weight: 29 lbs/ft3 (465 kg/m3) Specific Gravity (Basic, 12% MC): .39, .47 Janka Hardness: 590 lbf (2,620 N) Modulus of Rupture: 12,290 lbf/in2 (84.8 MPa) Elastic Modulus: 1,646,000 lbf/in2 (11.35 GPa) Crushing Strength: 6,080 lbf/in2 (41.9 MPa) Shrinkage: Radial: 4.6%, Tangential: 6.9%, Volumetric: 10.1%, T/R Ratio: 1.5 ************************************ "Hard/Rock Maple" Average Dried Weight: 44 lbs/ft3 (705 kg/m3) Specific Gravity (Basic, 12% MC): .56, .71 Janka Hardness: 1,450 lbf (6,450 N) Modulus of Rupture: 15,800 lbf/in2 (109.0 MPa) Elastic Modulus: 1,830,000 lbf/in2 (12.62 GPa) Crushing Strength: 7,830 lbf/in2 (54.0 MPa) Shrinkage: Radial: 4.8%, Tangential: 9.9%, Volumetric: 14.7%, T/R Ratio: 2.1

**********************************

so what might compressed P.O.C. have over just going with Maple?

It stays straighter Bill, without heat. It is easier to straighten when it does get out of sorts, and it's more consistent in weight versus spine for the most part. Those are this layman's experience from shooting both...and even ash which I think makes a decent shaft but is a pain in the ass to keep straight. Guys like Bill Sweetland found out early on there was a market for the small diameter shaft of cedar that was more durable and had the mass of a bigger diameter shaft. Not sure if that market is there now.

I think a good maple arrow shaft can be made but few seem interested enough for anyone to go into them en masse.

Jinkster:

unfortunately you can't judge an arrow wood with stats. How an arrow performs out of the bow is what divides superior arrow woods from the rest, also weight to spine ratio is important. That factor is why Sweetland made the point end thicker than the nock end before compression.

Bob

GDS: Thanks...I never really caught the part about easier straightening.

Bob: Thanks but it begs another question (where again I may have missed it as my youngest came visiting in the middle of things) so?...

Was the thicker point end more for durability, spine or weight forward or?...all of the above?

I have a dozen maples coming from Kevin soon and I ordered them stiff so I can use heavy points/efoc as I want a heavy arrow off my Hill bow so it seems?...for much the same reasons as compressed P.O.C.

I have to say i have great luck with breasted shafts for the fatter front reason myself

Bill:

The thicker point end was to create a self-footing, that gives the shaft a denser compression on the point end.

Bob

Bob: Thanks again (and a duh moment on my part) as it sure explains the brand name..."Forged"wood

BATMAN: So am I to understand that someone is going to try to build up a head of steam and get these presses rolling again?

I like the Forgewoods, but I think sales might be hurt by carbons, because carbons solved the toughness problem POC had, they're straight and don't need straightening, and they're a lot cheaper. I once picked up a half dozen Easton PowerFlight shafts for $11.98. I can weight them to where they fly great, and they're tough.

Joe

Bill: I think "try" is the key word, as I think #1 their too labor intensive which will make them expensive. #2 to keep the spine to weight ratio close it needs to be done with POC and that's not going to happen from Canada. It will be kind of like trying to make a replica 1957 Chevy. and selling it for a $1000 it ain't going to happen.

Bob

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here