bows in progress

JJ; Lots of work! And it is always good to have a peek in someone's workshop.

How did your Turkish bow fare in Korea. There was so much going on that I did not see. -j-

Good luck JJ ! I like strong bow ! :lol:

Thank you Jack and Dusan! I?ll try my best ;-))

Jack: I think KPY (Master bowyer Kim Park Young from Bucheon) was quite surprised to see my turkish composite, but he seemed to enjoy it...

JJ

Time for an update on the Manchu bow...

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

The bow has now 3 layers of sinew on it, a total of approx. 95 gram sinew was used. Weight of the core befre sinewing was 632 grams, now its around 770 but every day it becomes less from drying. I?m not sure if I should put on more sinew. I want to be able to brace that bow;-)) I think I wait until the weight becomes stable to find out how stiff the limbs feel at that time before putting on more sinew. Any advice on the amount of sinew on a 1,80 m Manchu bow?

Best regards, JJ[

Impressive! Is this already the final length of the ears?

Regarding the amount of sinew, I'd go for a 3mm to 4mm thick layer. Maybe you can calculate the amount of sinew by taking the ratio of sinew to equal the ratio of sinewed section length. Suppose you have 70 grams on 100cm length, then for e.g. 140cm sinewed length you'd need 70*140/100 = 98 grams. This assumes laying an even thickness and neglects width taper.

Daniel, thanks!

Yes, that?s supposed to be more or less the final length of the siyahs...

95 grams of sinew are already on the bow and it feels a little soft right now, when I push the ears back a little, but I think there?s some water left in the sinew layer. So I wait some days before I decide what to do.

JJ

yes, its look like monster :) . Why so small reflex JJ ?

Dusan, I think the big Chinese or Manchu bows didn?t have too much reflex because high reflex would make them very difficult to brace. It?s 1,80 m long... The long siyahs tend to make this kind of bow a little unstable, so less reflex is appropriate for them. And I never saw one manchu or recent chinese bow with high reflex.

Best regards, JJ

JJ; Greetings. This bow looks good. Can I make a few minor points?

The reflex is OK but you can certainly allow for more. The shape now is of a Qing bow which has been conditioned, strung, and shot but not seen too much use. They almost straighten out in bows who have seen a lot of service. But this is an advisable amount of reflex to begin with. Peter can advise.

About the ear; the horn should make the belly curve and be flat for just 1 or 1 1/2 inch. The bridge just rests on the feathered edge of the horn or else the bridgejust touches the horn. This makes for a smooth bend. To economize on horn, a grip piece of horn or bone up to 3 or 4 inches was used.

In Mongolian bows the horn ends at an angle of the bend giving the bow an angular look at the ear. One might imagine a lighter weight in the Qing method, whereas shorter horn could be used in the Mongolian.

Was there not enough width in the siyah core to create the bridge platform?

Old bows were consulted for this comment. Overall a commendable effort. -j-

Maybe this reflex is not a standard , but i like reflex in hornbows...

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

Dusan, thank you, that is really a high reflex . Must be a nightmare to brace this bow.... I had not seen one like this before. I guess I will put on another layer of sinew with increased reflex!

jack, I saw too late that the horn bends around the edge of the siyah. Unfortunately I have no chinese bow at home... But when I visited a friend who owns one last week I noticed it. But I had already glued on the horn 3 weeks before;-)

I don?t think it makes any difference in the use of the bow, as the ears and the splice won?t bend at all. Maybe I round up the corners a bit to change the look.

It was also quite late when I realized that the limb extends quite far onto the siyah, so I glued on some additional side-pieces. The wood for the ears was a little narrow. On the place for the bridges the ears measure now 3,2 cm in width; I hope that will be enough.

Thank you again,

JJ

:) vith pleasure JJ. Maybe you know about it , but here in Atarnet must be in archive pics from 2cm sections of chinese bow, its maybe help you. Good luck.

Dusan, I had seen the cross sections done by Stephen Selby, but had forgot about them.... Interesting to see the double splicing of the siyah. I did that too because the natural curve of the wood did not match on both siyahs.

Best regards, JJ

Nice work and nice looking bows, good luck with them. I would like to ask you a question. I was interested that you are using hickory for the cores. I want to make another bow and I am looking for wood for the core. I do have some hickory, but I was worried it would absorb to mush moisture from the sinew ?? I have experience that hickory loves to take in water. Do you think that this is no problem?? have you used it before? because it would solve my problem if I used a hickory core, but I was uncertain not having heard of it used before as a core for horn bows.

If you have another good white wood (maple) its better. What is important- lighter- better working vith glue wood than hickory. For me is hickory too haevy wood. I dont know why JJ use this wood ? Big bow like this , vith haevy wood must be very slow shooter vith haevy arms... Bamboo is another and historical corect material.

Dragonman, Dusan, I use Hickory mainly because I have lots of hickory waste from bow making workshops. I can select the straightest grain pieces for horn bows, the remaining is used for barbecue;-) I think it?s not so bad, and I experienced no problems with glueing so far. Hickory is extremely tough and resilient in bending, so for the limbs it should be a good choice. Some Hickory is heavy, but that?s not always the case. My Manchu replica is relatively light weight: an original manchu bow of the same length owned by a friend weighs 1 kg, compared to my replica which is now around 800 g. The ears, which are most sensitive to weight, are not Hickory, but pearwood;-))

Best regards JJ

Thats your choice JJ :) , i vish you all best. I personaly dont work vith hickory in hornbows. I have hickory and made some time ago fue flat bows. Mine is very haevy wood. Maybe because this is hickory tree from Slovakia, not from USA. I havent experiences vith import wood .

JJ I agree with you about the weight. I have experience with heavy woods and light woods and I always weigh my bows. I find that with heavy woods you simply need less of them to do the same job. Maybe when used as a as a core things do change, but my last bow had a thin ipe core ( Ipe is very heavy), but the finished bow , was not heavy because the ipe only needed to be very thin!!!??. I was mostly worried about moisture problems with hickory. . But I do not have enough experience to say much about cores with certanty

Time for another update on the Manchu bow!

Shaped the siyahs a little more, inserted horn tips and made some antler bridges.

[external image]

[external image]

Weight of the bow is after corrections of the shape and horn thickness around 760 grams only...

I was ready to brace it last week, made some tepeliks and put them on, but when trying to brace it finally, it became apparent that the limbs were not bending equally. So I begun putting more sinew on one of the limbs at the place where it bends too much. A longer sinew layer will be added to both limbs later.


[external image]


Before I pulled the bow to even more reflex ;-))

JJ

Jurgen,
Why did you not want the limbs to bend equally?

Nice! That's a huge thing. Looking forward to further updates on this one :)


It looks like you have not covered the ridge on the back at the siyah bend with sinew? Is there any reason for not covering the ridge, or are my eyes tricking me?

Bede, I simply mistyped, I meant that they didn?t bend equally, and I want to give them the correct similar curve ;-)

Kviljo, the upper part of the ridge I didn?t sinew because I think there it is not necessary to put any sinew, as it doesn?t bend. This way the siyah has less mass, too.

JJ

Happy New Year!

Finally the Manchu bow was getting braced for the first time;-)

After sinewing the place where one of the arms bent too much and about two weeks drying time, during which the bow got more reflex (hello Dusan!), I put on again the tepeliks and braced it finally. Surprisingly the curves appeared quite even and almost no sideways bending is visible.

The bow seems relative strong at drawing, but so far I only drew a few centimetres...

Here some pics:

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

I guess the string is a little too long, as it touches the knee of the siyah. Does somebody know the correct brace height for a Manchu style bow?

Best regards, JJ

Cool, J?rgen, es ist sehr sch?n geworden! :)

Zolt

I think if you can't place the tebkes a little bit closer to the arms, you have to make a shorter string.

Z

Awesome! What a cool bow! Really nice reflexed shape!

Will we get to see a picture of it after it has just been unstringed?

Congratulations! It's beautiful!

Daniel

Reflex looks no bad, JJ , but can be more... :lol: your string bridges are in right place ?

Dusan, thanks ;-)

I?ve got to check the position of the bridges again, but I think I took it right from an original bow... I guess the brace height of this kind of bow must be very high.

JJ

There is a picture of such a bow in Traditional Bowyers Bible 2. The bridges are placed like on yours, and the string height seems to be quite the same, even though the string is just barely touching the knees on that one.

Very nice work. Impressed thoroughly with the bow. Great work you have done.

The upper bow is Qing, the one below is Mongolian of recent vintage. You can see that the bridges are in two different locations.

JJ, this is very nice work and congratulations. But I am sure that a clever fellow like yourself would be able to carefully make two cuts on each siyah core to remove the offending piece of material, apply some heat to bend the horn to conform to the new curve and glue into the correct position. Surely the cast will be better without the excess material.

The reflex is good, the brace height is good.

Kviljo take note. -j-

Thanks, Jack!

You?ve made the point... I?ll round the knees, then the string will get some more distance to them.

JJ

Note taken :D Is there any chance of having a picture of the whole bow? I do see the striking resemblance. I think I should change plans for the bow :)

Kviljo,

the Manchu style bow did not regain it?s full reflex. After taking the string off, the ends of the bow began quite fast to move into reflex again. That movement slowed down a bit after some minutes but continued more slowly, and after around two or three hours it looked like on the photograph on the right.

[external image][external image]

Note that the bow was only strung for a period of maybe two hours, but not drawn much further. After full draw it may lose more of its reflex...

JJ

...the physical weight of the bow is 797 grams now. I don?t think that it is overly heavy. Of course the birchbark, paint, grip material etc. are missing.

JJ

Very nice work.

It did keep it's shape better than mine. Looks like you have distributed the stress nicely along the limbs.

Per Kviljo's request, two Qing bows.

Tips;

Jack,
the bridges on the quing bows seem to be tied on? not pegged?
I replaced the bridges on my old Grozer Mongol with ebony, pegged. the originals were just glued on, and only as wide as the siyhas at that point, thus providing no margin of error if the limb twisted. which it did once. I was able to re-align it with an electric heating pad. I'd post a pic, but unsure how.[/img]

Alright, I have reserved my two largest horns for a Qing bow 8)
Thanks for the extra pictures, Jack!

Both of these Qing bows have conservation. The loose bridges are held on with strings.

The original method is to glue an antler bridge. The center soft material is drilled through, sinew bound and the lashings are covered over with birch bark as is the rest of the bow.

Pins or dowels are a great rarity on bows because the material, always kept to a minimum, is then weakened. -j-

Jack,
no pegs or dowels.makes sense. the lashings don't seem to take up much space, as there doesn't seem to be much or any kind of lump/ridge on the back of the siyhas.

The siyah is triangular at the place where the bridge is attached.

Truly, the nuances of the changing cross sections of horn bows is not fully appreciated without handling an original.

A Qing (Manchurian) bow has no kasan (ridged section on the upper limb) but it has this triangular section above the bend. It is like the crab bow in this manner. -j-

I only just now discovered about this thread, I should check the forum more often! Great work on the bow, it looks really nice. I'm excited to see Qing bows brought to life again. What is its draw-weight?

Some comments:

Reflex
Seems about right. As other have commented, Qing Bows are found in various stages of reflex, it is hard to say how they were made as they widen from use and curl up when drying out. On average they are just a little more reflexed than yours but there is no telling whether that is just because they are dried out.

Brace height
The brace height of these seems to have varied according to different construction parameters. As a rule, the surface to which the string-bridge was glued should be parallel to the string. So the deeper the "knee", the higher the brace-height.

Horn positioning
It seems that this was usually done in one of two ways:
1. The horn is joined at the grip and extends to the base of the knee, like on yours. One one bow I have the horn stops about three inches from the knee.
2. The horn starts on either side of the grip, and goes around the bend into the ear, up to the string bridge.

I would think that the first method makes a better bow because it reduces weight in the ears. Also, when a bow suddenly becomes unstrung due to twist or a snapping string the forward momentum of the ears will rip the horn off either side of the handle. I've seen this on several antique bows. Construction 1, which has the horn join at the handle, will prevent this.

Here a picture of that bow, with the horn stopping well before the knee:
[external image]

And another showing horn going around the bend:
[external image]

Bow weight
To give an indication, here the weights of three bows I just put on the scale:
A light target bow, estimated 35-40 pounds weighs 300 grams.
A military bow of average thickness, estimated 50-60 pound draw-weight, weighs 390 grams,
A monstrous military strength bow (for the exams and preparation for these) weighs a staggering 1375 grams. Estimated draw-weight above 200 pounds.

Cross-section
Although Qing bows don't have a kassan as we know it from Turkish bows, some do have a more or less pronounced ridge running from the ear to about one third down the limb. Others don't have this feature at all, and have an ovoid cross-section from a few inches from the "knee" already. Here is such a ridge on the heavy strength-testing bow:
[external image]

Bridge construction
As stated by others, these are usually just glued on. There is a group of high-quality bows that have a somewhat different construction that incorporates the use of sinew going through a hole on the bridge. I have no idea what it wraps around, the sinew seems to disappear into the ear. It is covered with birch-bark. This construction is old and seen on very early Qing bows to those from the mid. 19th century. Bridges on other bows also have this hole, but no sinew. On those the hole is probably just for reducing weight. Here some pictures:

[external image]
[external image]

[external image]
Here the place where this bow lost a bridge a long time ago. No indication of anything else but a glued connection.

I hope you find this useful, although the information might come a bit late.

-Peter

Peter; As I understand the brown horn is Ox rather than water buffalo? So nice to see.

Hi Jack,

The horn on this bow appears to be water-buffalo, but a very rare type of horn. It has white chevrons on black near the base, fades into a milky-grey with a very fine pattern, and then into amber and honey with black stripes nearing the tips. Such color schemes and black / honey transitions are often seen on imperial bows. For example, nearly every bow owned by the Qianlong emperor had such horn, so it was apparently a prized commodity.

There is mention of horn with three different colors and qualities in the Rites of Zhou. I wonder if this is the horn discussed there. (See Chinese Archery by Stephen Selby, page 93 for the original text and his English translation.) The Qianlong emperor was very familiar with the Rites of Zhou as he often cites it. So even if it is not the special horn mentioned there, the emperor may have found it to come close enough. :)

My bow probably isn't a Qianlong-era bow, probably later. But judging from the designs and quality of workmanship it is on par with those from Qianlong's workshops and follows a decorative pattern first introduced by the Qianlong emperor in the mid. 18th century that is not seen on any bows other than a few published examples of Qianlong's bows.

I think it is later because it bears features that none of Qianlong's bows had, but were more common on later bows, such as the ray-skin covered ears. Perhaps it was made under a later emperor, such as Daoguang, who still had an interest for the Manchu way. It also bears some similarities to bows meant to be carried by the Imperial Guard during the ceremonies at the Temple of Heaven.

Ok I think I'm drifting off-topic here!

-Peter

Some additional pics of the peculiar horn of this bow:
[external image]
[external image]
[external image]

Hi Peter!

Very nice photographs and interesting information. Could you add the length of the bows for which you indicated the physical mass? 390 grams sounds extremely light for a military strength full length Quing or Manchu type bow... A turkish bow is supposed to have the same mass which seems impossible... Or can it be an extreme drying? The strength testing bow with 1400 grams will not have approx. 1 kg of sinew on it. As I understood it from the Chengtu investigation text, the standard bows of different strength differed only in the amount of sinew used in them.

A friend owns a 1 kg 180 cm Quing bow which I would estimate at around 100 pounds.

[external image]

My bow had only 60 pounds at 32 inches, which was a bit disappointing. However it felt surprisingly fast when I shot some arrows with only 28 inches of draw. The levers do their work. It feels like some kind of modern Compound bow when drawing it. The last ten inches or so increase the draw weight hardly;-)

I must say that I put on most of the sinew when it had almost no reflex, which was for sure a mistake, but I wasn?t aware at that time how reflexed the original bows were. I was afraid that stringing a strongly reflexed Quing bow would be a nightmare, too;-) Only the last layer was glued on with a considerable reflex.

[external image]
reflex at the time of the first two sinew layers...


So to increase the draw weight I reflexed it near to be a circle but it is still awaiting more sinew, because of other things to do...

[external image]
bow waiting for more sinew...


Regarding the horn position in the center, I think a wrapping can prevent the horn coming loose in the case of a string breakage. On the securing of the bridges with sinew: it seems that the wrapping is bound above the sinew backing but underneath the bark cover. It must be spread very evenly on the back of the bow (somehow extending to the sides) because it is not visible as a raised spot under the bark.

What I didn?t see so far was the "Rattan lining" on the sides. It is mentioned in the Chengtu report and in several postings on ATARN, but I could never recognise it on an antique bow (well I didn?t see too many, I have to admit).

Best regards, JJ

Hi Jurgen,

When thinking about the weights again they didn't make sense to me either. I pulled out the scale again and guess what, the military bow weighs 758 grams. The light bow weighs 541 grams. I had the scale on a corner of my table, I think one leg may have been off the edge so it didn't display the item's full weight!

JJ wrote:

As I understood it from the Chengtu investigation text, the standard bows of different strength differed only in the amount of sinew used in them.

Interesting. I don't have the book yet, but coincidentally just ordered it. There is quite some variation in limb width when looking at antique specimens, but perhaps because different makers had different standard widths, or that this habit described in the book may have not been standard throughout the country.

Talking about sizes, what is the thickness and width of your limbs, when measured mid-limb?

As for my bow sizes: the middle bow that weighs 758 grams measures 186 cm over the belly, from tip to tip. The light one measures 172 cm. The heavy strength-tester measures 190 cm.

JJ wrote:

My bow had only 60 pounds at 32 inches, which was a bit disappointing. However it felt surprisingly fast when I shot some arrows with only 28 inches of draw. The levers do their work. It feels like some kind of modern Compound bow when drawing it. The last ten inches or so increase the draw weight hardly;-)

That sounds like how it should be! I have been looking for that feeling ever since I pulled an original.

The synthetic Korean design with long ears comes closer than anything, but still is nowhere near the smoothness of a real horn bow. There is something about how horn builds up weight in a more gradual manner, that can be effectively countered by these ears. Change the limb material, and the ears also need to be redesigned. I think this is the failure of traditional Asian bows made with modern materials, the ears were originally designed to counter a different draw-weight buildup entirely, and thus they will never feel like the originals.

How is the release, does it have a lot of shock? These bows are designed to shoot long and heavy arrows, and may be left with too much energy to spare when using light arrows. The typical Manchu arrow is about 90-95 cm long and weighs about 50 - 60 grams. Military arrows are longer, often exceeding a meter and weighing around 90 - 100 grams. They are more like small javelins than arrows, it would be interesting to do penetration tests with them.

-Peter

By the way I have one with that rattan sealing but can't find good pics of it. I'll remember to make some pictures of the details of that tomorrow in daylight.

-Peter

Peter,

against all expectations I did not feel the incredible shockwave when shooting it, despite the light weight of the arrows (28 g). I used my normal 29" competition arrows with antler points. I remember feeling no shock at all, but that may have been due to my surprise;-)

Now I made some heavier, longer arows arrows (94 cm/ 37", 48 g) but I have the bow not in a shooting condition...

[external image]

[external image] [external image]

J?rgen

PS: I made a chinese shooting ring, too. Using it for some shots with a lighter bow, on the last shot the ring went off with the arrow... But in the opposite direction ;-)

JJ wrote:

against all expectations I did not feel the incredible shockwave when shooting it, despite the light weight of the arrows (28 g). I used my normal 29" competition arrows with antler points. I remember feeling no shock at all, but that may have been due to my surprise;-)

That's good to know. I only pulled an antique before without shooting it, and shot Stephen Selby's 35 pound horn bow. Never a horn Manchu that was in the 60 pound range, so I'm wondering. My long eared Manchu replica surely has more shock than the short eared one of the same construction, but that may be more due to the materials used. Horn appears to be a great shock absorber.

Nice looking arrows! There is a "horn tipped arrow" in the Qing military regulations, who knows it may have looked like these.

JJ wrote:

PS: I made a chinese shooting ring, too. Using it for some shots with a lighter bow, on the last shot the ring went off with the arrow... But in the opposite direction ;-)

That sounds familiar! I still find them hard to shoot with the higher draw-weights. They don't fly off anymore, but somehow I have less control over when I am going to shoot compared to the lipped rings. In the end I do think the ring can give a crisper release.


Here some pictures of the rattan lining. The strip is about 3 mm wide and runs from the handle to the narrow part of the ear.

[external image]
Here is where it starts, unfortunately the rest is lost here.

[external image]
How it runs along the horn. With these rattan-lined bows, the entire width of the horn is visible.

[external image]
Rattan following the contours of the base of the ear. It ends where the birch-bark ends as well. It is hard to see because of the thick patina, but the black on the left is the elm wood of the ears showing through.

-Peter

Peter, thank you again for the superb photographs. I have to visit you some day to see your wonderful bows;-)

Is this rattan lining a rare feature on chinese bows? Can something be said about chronology? Or why it was made? I don?t understand how this could "protect" the side of the bow, as is stated in the Chengtu report. I see that the bark cover on the bows without rattan lining extends over the transition Sinew/ horn so that moisture is kept out.

On the Chengtu report: It is clear that the things said in this text refer only to the bowmaking tradition of Chengtu. In other places the manufacturers for sure had slightly different techniques/traditions. Problematic is that the people who made the report could be there only for a short time and thus could not see all procedures, as they were done at different times of the year. So they had the people of the shop tell them about the other works in the teahouse. It is possible that not always everything was fully understood this way... Another problem is that the shop did not produce many items anymore and some of the tradition was maybe already forgotten.

Maybe it gets better with the Chinese ring with more practise. I remember having problems with the lipped rings in the beginning, too.

By the way what is true about the statement that these modern chinese thumbrings were not used by professional archers and that they preferred leather thumb guards (I read that somewhere)? Regarding the pain I experience witha 50 pound bow, it is hardly imaginable that these rings were used with really strong bows.

J?rgen

Today I sinewed the bow again;-)

[external image]

JJ wrote:

Peter, thank you again for the superb photographs. I have to visit you some day to see your wonderful bows;-)

Thanks! And you're always welcome.

JJ wrote:

Is this rattan lining a rare feature on chinese bows? Can something be said about chronology? Or why it was made? I don?t understand how this could "protect" the side of the bow, as is stated in the Chengtu report. I see that the bark cover on the bows without rattan lining extends over the transition Sinew/ horn so that moisture is kept out.

I personally haven't seen too many of the rattan-lined ones compared to the others. This doesn't have to mean much though. It could be that these were made in moister regions, which Chengdu is, where they will more easily perish when not cared for. In the dry Beijing climate, bows tend to stay pretty well-preserved and that may be the reason why we see many bows from Beijing makers, but hardly any from other regions.

The rattan is aligned as to cover the seem between the core and the horn. The core is actually a tiny bit wider than the horn on these bows. I can see how it would have helped, but it wouldn't be "sealed off" for modern standards. Perhaps it is better when coated with tung oil.

JJ wrote:

By the way what is true about the statement that these modern chinese thumbrings were not used by professional archers and that they preferred leather thumb guards (I read that somewhere)? Regarding the pain I experience witha 50 pound bow, it is hardly imaginable that these rings were used with really strong bows.

As per my understanding, cylindrical bone thumb rings were the norm at least during the Qing. The emperor had many sumptuous jade examples but on paintings where he is seen shooting, he wears a standard bone one with a black line just like everybody else. These rings are also seen on portraits of officers and soldiers, all serious archers whose equipment is often simple and practical. Same for the few pictures left for us to study, they all show the same cylindrical thumb rings.

I experience the same as you, it gets really uncomfortable with higher draw-weights. I have no idea if that's because we're doing something wrong, or whether they were just more hardy. In any case, they were rather hardy riding around without gloves at temperatures of minus 30!

Also, Manchus knew at a very young age already whether they would become a warrior or a clerk, the only two professions they could have. The Chinese army was usually drawn from strong young men from lower classes that often had hard lives in construction or agriculture. Our modern hands may just be too feminine.

The bow is starting to look good! Will you take it to Korea next time? We'll revive the Qing dynasty, at least for a few days.

-Peter

Nice bow JJ, very close to mine, shoot light arrows will shake to death, I just make some 80 g arrows, great penetration but still fly slowly, Qing bow only show it?s efficiency on heavy draw weight bow????? Peter, I want to cry, your bows are so beautiful.

The Manchu / Qing bow is indeed not a very efficient design. But it is made to shoot the largest arrows by having a long draw length and the greatest amount of stored energy in the limbs (for a given draw-weight) of all traditional designs.

Another advantage is that, at least in theory, it has more constant arrow velocities as it transfers most of its energy nearing the end of the string movement, instead of in the beginning like most bows. So drawing an inch or so further back will not result in as much of a deviation in arrow velocity as it will on most other bows. This makes is more accurate on the vertical plane, as it filters out some of the archer's errors.

But to be honest, I have practically zero experience shooting real horn Manchu bows. It's you guys that can do the actual testing now! I will join the club end june when my bow is finished. I wish I had the skills you guys have, one day I would love to make my own but I still have a lot to learn.

As for getting more effective when they are heavier, I think you're right. Because of the weight of the limbs it will become more efficient per pound of draw the heavier it is made. When speaking of the height of Qing archery in the 18th century, military bows were typically about 70 - 100 pounds. 130 pounds was the minimum for officers who wanted to go hunting with the Emperor. Some of the Kangxi emperor's own bows were up to 170 pounds even. Qing accounts mention a tournament winner that competed with a 240 pound bow. Imagine the power, and the javelin-like arrows tis guy must have shot. He was a Manchu soldier. Compared to these standards, the 50 - 60 pound range is not very heavy.

Another reason could be that they really minimized the weight of the ears on the old ones, increasing the efficiency. The ears on yours may be a bit too bulky for its draw-weight, which is understandable as you don't want them to snap. The old craftsmen had generations of experience while you guys need to sort it out again from scratch.

Thanks on the compliments on my bows. I don't have many but I kept to a few that I found of good quality or very interesting. If there's any info I can help you with regarding measurements of old bows, let me know. I also got a few arrows.

-Peter

By the way, what's that fantastic large feather you got there and what does a guy need to do to obtain 18 of them???

:lol:

-Peter

Guys, let?s shoot our bows in Korea at Wtaf.... I definitely try to come again this year;-)

Peter, who is making your Manchu bow?

I want to finish mine as an earlie Manchu bow rather than a later Quing period one. The Skokloster bow seems to be an example of this style. Anything peculiar that I would have to observe besides the style of ornamenting? Are there technical differences?

JJ

Regarding cylindrical rings,my research agrees with Peter's conclusions. It seems that the Manchus introduced cylindrical rings. I have seen no references to them using leather rings. The Mongols certainly were using leather rings in modern times and there is no doubt that they used them in the past too, though not exclusively.

Having met a rock climber who could draw a 60 pound bow just by his thumb alone with no protection so I am not surprised when authors such as Taybugha suggest shooting without a ring is an advantage. To someone like this, a leather ring is the height of luxury. There are ways of making comfortable leather rings for bows over 60 pounds for ordinary archers like us, but it is arguable whether it is worth the trouble.

Cylindrical ring training is based on shooting with light bows to control ring retention and drawing heavy bows to learn ring positioning. I have drawn 80 pound bows with a Qing ring and, aside from a little discolouration of the thumb below the nail (caused by the rupture of small blood vessels), found them comfortable. Their symmetrical shapes could be an advantage in hunting and warfare. With a lipped ring you do occasionally have to check its orientation because the thumb becomes desensitised after an hour's shooting.

To properly control a cylindrical ring, I suggest practising with a full follow-through of the drawing hand as in the Qing manuals. In many ways it is a superior ring when drawing behind the head.

The bone ring I have with a band of colour around the middle is resist dyed in green. I think this was the normal colour. It degrades to greyish black if the surface of the ring deteriorates.

Hi,

Would be great if we can form a little Manchu group next year! We will have to set a minimum ear length for folks to join.

My bow is being made by Jaap Koppedrayer. He will visit Germany nearing the end of June and will take my bow with him. The decoration will be based on that of an antique Yongzheng bow, a black and white camouflage pattern of the early 18th century in birch bark. Can't wait!


As for decoration, good choice to go for the earlier ones. Late bows are generally more fancy but I just love the understated grace of the earlier work. Here an overview of the most common differences:

Handle
Bows of the 18th century and earlier frequently (but not always!) have an entirely cork-covered handle with a little patch of green ray-skin for the arrow to pass. For later bows, most common on those of the 19th century, ray-skin was wrapped around the bow just above and just below the handle, often with a design inlaid with a contrasting color.

A Style common during 17th and 18th centuries:
[external image]

A style emerging from the mid. 18th century and becoming popular in the 19th century:
[external image]

(Bows are from the collection of the Young Yip bow and arrow museum, Korea.)


Ears
On old bows there are almost always covered with white birch bark, the use of ray-skin on ears didn't pick up until the mid. to late 18th century and by then still only in elite circles. Seams would run on the front and back side. Transition from limb to ear would be demarcated with a simple oblique line. This line became rounder, and somewhat more artistic later in the dynasty.

Ear geometry on old bows is more strongly angular than on later ones. There is a parallel with Chinese sabers, whose scabbards went from strongly angular to more rounded during the same period.

Black nocks at the ends of the ears would be shorter on old bows.

An early 18th century bow ear:
[external image]
(Palace Museum, Beijing.)


Decoration
Early bows usually have plain birch bark, black birch bark, or camouflage patterned limbs. That camouflage pattern also enjoyed popularity up to the end of the dynasty. The early camouflage pattern was often more random, and naturally looking. Later it became a more standardized, geometric pattern that repeats itself.

A wonderful Manchu bow of the Grayson Collection, probably early-mid. 19th century, with its typical geometric, repetitive decoration:
[external image]
[external image]


The more natural, non-repetitive decoration typical of earlier work. This being one of the Kangxi emperor's bows. (Kangxi reigned from 1661 - 1722) Being a frugal man not into show, his bow differed only from the common bow of the time by the superior quality of its horn and sinew.

[external image]
(Palace Museum, Beijing.)


For more inspiration, I would highly recommend this book:
http://www.cp1897.com.hk/product_info.p ... 9620753596

It lists a good number of bows, from the early 17th century to the 19th century. You may want to order it from http://www.paragonbook.com/
It is not in their regular listings but they can probably get it for you.

-Peter

Hi Bede,

Thanks for your input. I surely still need quite a bit of practice to get my cylindrical ring shooting right! But it is about time I give it more practice. The lipped ring feels like "cheating".

Bede wrote:

The bone ring I have with a band of colour around the middle is resist dyed in green. I think this was the normal colour. It degrades to greyish black if the surface of the ring deteriorates.

I got one with a red line, and one with a black one. Paintings of the emperor and his men usually show a black line. I wonder if there was something to the colors. My red lined one is very narrow, the one with the black line very thick. But it could be just coincidence.

Hello Bede, Peter,

any photographs of your rings with this line? I?d like to have a line on mine, too ;-)) Could you describe the shape of the drilled hole (cross section)? I?m not sure if I have done it right. On mine it is straight with slightly rounded ends. The hole is not concentric, but a little bit oval. So I can put the ring on and turn it afterwards on the thumb to get a better fit.

Do I find this follow through technique in Stephen?s books?

Peter, the decorations of the early bows I like very much. Can something be said on the black paint that was used for the camouflage pattern? Is it somehow transparent or not? It seems the lines are very straight and abrupt (looks like the bow was painted black and then pieces of bark ripped of...), was it a special painting technique?

The ear angle on my bow seems to match the ones on earlier bows;-)

Our history museum cooperated with Beijing museum last year, so I got the opportunity to look the Yongzheng bow closely, the shape is much different from what I imagine, it?s high reflex, marked 4.5 Li (60 pound, Yongzheng was not a strong guy) but looks like only about 550g, maybe lighter. The limb is narrow especially close to the string Bridge (leaf shape), and the edge of limb is very sharp, it means the bowyer removed all the unnecessary materials. So the physical weight is critical, a top quality Qing bow is extremely hard to build, it?s a trade of between tear risk and efficiency. I?m start to make a new one, hope I could see you in Korean.

It?s Argus feather, top quality feather, you should know it Peter.

Wencheh, thats a key - weight. I always talked about it.

wencheh wrote:

Our history museum cooperated with Beijing museum last year, so I got the opportunity to look the Yongzheng bow closely, the shape is much different from what I imagine, it?s high reflex, marked 4.5 Li (60 pound, Yongzheng was not a strong guy) but looks like only about 550g, maybe lighter. The limb is narrow especially close to the string Bridge (leaf shape), and the edge of limb is very sharp, it means the bowyer removed all the unnecessary materials. So the physical weight is critical, a top quality Qing bow is extremely hard to build, it?s a trade of between tear risk and efficiency. I?m start to make a new one, hope I could see you in Korean.

Thanks for this very interesting information! Yongzheng's bow must have been top-quality, I bet it was great to be able to examine it up-close. I'm sure you'll have a better eye for these because you're also into bow-making. There are so many details one doesn't pick up until you start to replicate something.

I will examine my bows a little closer and see what I can find regarding weight minimizing. As a general rule, the further the weight is near the tips the more it is going to matter for the bow's efficiency. Most ears have a quite noticeable taper. I messed around with a synthetic bow and thinned the 29 cm long ears of my 55 pounder to a mere 5mm at where the nock is and it works fine. It depends a lot on the wood though, this one is acacia if I am not mistaken. And a horn insert further helps to make it thinner without it breaking. But it's a risky experiment to thin these parts down, you won't know when you've gone too far until it breaks!

Also, your heavy arrows may be too heavy for this bow. The weight is found among old arrows, but perhaps they were made to be used with heavier bows. Just a thought.

A last reason I can come up with for its decreased efficiency may have to do with the curing. You didn't cure it very long, while in the old days some bows were cured for a year or more until used. I can imagine that lightens the whole, and makes the bonding of the glue tougher. A drying cabinet may help as well, as Taiwan is pretty moist if I am not mistaken. But you've probably already tried such a thing.

wencheh wrote:

It?s Argus feather, top quality feather, you should know it Peter.

Thanks you just solved a little mystery of mine! Qing regulations describe arrows fletched with "phoenix feathers". Some portraits show feathers exactly like yours, as well as another type with stripes and spots. Turns out they are all argus! They look stunning.

-Peter

Argus (Eye) pheasant.

Hi Jack,

Now I remember you dropped that name as well in Korea!

J?rchen,

The rings are cylindrical. Some have slight deviations but that's probably more due to their handmade nature than on purpose. So they don't "lock" when turned like many lipped rings do. You lock them by bending the thumb. Bede can explain this method better.

As for cross-sections, there are some clear depictions of different ring cross-sections in Stephen Selby's "Chinese Archery". That explains it better than words.

Here two pics of my striped ones, the paint has largely worn off though:

[external image]
[external image]

Wencheh,
Here are my measurements of one limb of my mid. sized bow. Oddly, it's not so much different than yours in dimensions, but I wonder then why it is so much heavier. Perhaps the limb cross-sections will give a hint. I'll see if I can make drawings of that later.

[external image]

-Peter

The rings are grainy like antler rather than bone. Whale bone is grainy.

Jack, I don?t have the impression that antler is grainy, as long as you are using the outer compacta. The inside of antler, the spongiosa is quite grainy but somehow different than bone. Its cells are larger and orientated longitudinally. Bone has smaller grain that is more nondirectional. Its grain extends into the compacta, while in antler it doesn?t.

Peters second ring could maybe be antler as its outside seems clean and smooth, while its inside has a grain like antler. But I see some grain in the outer material, too... The upper ring can?t be antler; its structure is full of nondirectional grain typical for bone throughout.

[external image]
deer antler (brown spots are remains of outer bark)

[external image]
reindeer antler (this piece is very white, sometimes grey or reddish colurs can also appear)

JJ

When it is said that Qing string bridges are sometimes made from deer antler, I wonder what species of deer that is. is it Red deer? Axis?

In my place shed antlers quickly oxidize and degrade on the surface. Different species of deer antler have different interior and surface grain. Some experimentation is in order to try to replicate this grain pattern.

On Peter's two rings the orientation of the grain is at 90 degrees to eachother.

I have attached a photo of two rings, one antler and the other ivory. The left one is proximal end up. The antler has been cut so that the spongy central part runs at right angles to the hole for the thumb. In the antler rings I own, this is the normal method of construction. I do not know if it is for strength, aesthetics or economy.

The ivory ring has a dark band that was originally green. It has oxidised since I bought it and now you can only see the green tinge from certain angles.

The surface is a piece of green ray skin I bought for making tabla covers for a siper. After Peter's comment, I shall use the off cuts for arrow passes.

For JJ, generally the rings were perfectly cylindrical on the inside. The proximal end was tapered on the outside and the distal end was tapered on the inside. The thumb was inserted until the back of the knuckle was centred inside the ring. By bending the thumb until the knuckle pushed against one side of the hole and the pads of the proximal and distal segments pushed against the other side, a very strong hold on the ring is created. Done correctly, you should not be able to pull the ring off with the other hand, no matter how much force you use. Straightening the thumb will cause the ring to drop off. Obviously, the reason you practice technique with a light bow is to develop a release that is based on the proximal joint of the thumb, pivoting from the base of the digit instead of straightening it.

Jack, what is this ring of yours made of? It looks very thin compared to the others, and there are these grooves and something
that appears to be a hole. What period ist it supposed to be?


Thanks, Bede...
It?s not what I would expect in an antler ring;-) So the ring must be cut transversely out of the antler tine? Extends the spongic layer round the ring or is it restricted on two opposite ends? If it is going round I would guess that the base of the antler was used. If not, it was cut transversely through the tine.


[external image]

I tried to get more detail out of your picture but I can?t see exactly if the spongic area extends over the whole ring.

JJ

JJ,
You guessed right. The spongy structure is on either side of the ring, not all around it. The ring was cut from a tine of the antler with thick solid walls. I will try to take better pictures. I did those in a hurry when I remembered where the rings were.

I have one like that that fits me. I will try to get a picture in use.

Jurgen; I made this ring 30 years ago when i did not know better. Wanted you to see the grainy surface.

Peter

My bow is lighter becouse it's only 168cm(a lucky number of Chinese), and the limb of your bow is thicker close to the handle which will not decrease the efficiency, and who knows, maybe your bow is 10 pounds heavyer than mine.

I find something interesting from your data, it seams there is an indistinctly kasan eye(the thinnest part),your other antiques all have this characteristics?

Hi,

Wow Bede, those look like some top-quality rings! Surely the best of bone rings I've seen so far.

wencheh wrote:

I find something interesting from your data, it seams there is an indistinctly kasan eye(the thinnest part),your other antiques all have this characteristics?

I'm not sure what you mean by kasan eye. Could you explain? I will see if I can find similar features on other bows.

-Peter

Nice work JJ! The more I see you folks building these bad a$$ bows the more tempted i am to try making one myself. Is that I good idea? :?

I don't know how to discribe, this is the kasan eye,the thinnest part of the bow. Pic is taken from Adam's book.

[external image]

I have decided some months ago to remove all the sinew from the Manchu and the second turkish bow to put more reflex into them before re-sinewing. Now some layers of sinew are in place and dried.

[external image]

I braced both bows some days ago, they appeared very good in shape, but I had to put more sinew on some places because of tiller unevenness. Guess I will brace them again in some days.

JJ

:lol: Thats it JJ .

Beautiful! It would be nice if you could also show a picture or two of the bracing procedure.
I assume you used Tepeliks? How did you know how to make their curvature? I need to do this soon to and I am wondering about this.

Daniel

Daniel,

I used a bowyer?s bench "Korean style" and tepeliks. You just form the tepeliks the way you want your bow limbs to bend.

[external image]

That?s a pic from last year with an earlier version of that same bow ;-)

JJ

Thank you, JJ, great picture! I get it now.

Very nice work. What kind of glue you are used with horn ?

The good attractive bow, is really the clever artisan, wishes you to become the bow