Feed-back on batmunkh bows

I shoot vith this mongol todays product. If you are bow colector, and you haevnt in your colection nothing from mongols- than buy it. But if you hope good target or hunting bow - dont buy. Its long - too heavy (i mean mass) - slow speed not very master crafts job bow.If you haeve lucky your bow can be good balanced , but more of them was very unbalanced angels (arm, syahs..) and you haeve big problem vith every time head treating.

Dont forget - This bow dont represented in any variation historical mongol (Temudzin era) bow ! - its only another chines bows variation and bad shooter...

OK Dusan, thanks for this advice.

Agreed, the best REAL yuan mongolian bow you can get is from lukas novotny.

I have a similar bow (35-40lbs only) and its not the best shooter (too heavy). For good perfomance you will have to use one with 60-80lbs or so at draw length at 32-34.
I have recently seen a bow of a much better design (short and tatar-like) from mongolia but I dont know the bowyer personally. And I didnt string and shoot this bow because it was in winter. If you want I can put you in contact with someone who should know him. But in any case you can never know what you buy before you got it (from as far as mongolia).

I have a Batmunkh bow. I haven't shot it yet (a little too heavy ... although as summer is coming in it has been getting easier to pull). I estimate it will be over 70 - 80 at 31 inches.

I can't comment on how well it shoots, but I can say that it is heavy, and has a very slight twist in one of the limbs. The siyahs taper slightly, but I think they could have been narrowed a little more without sacrificing too much strength.

I like the bow, but it won't be my main shooting bow. I like it because it is authentic and a nice cultural piece to have in my (small) collection. And for $250 it is pretty good, considering it is made of horn and sinew.

Uli: could you post the details for the guy who knows the other bowyer? Is it by any chance Mr Boldbaatar? (http://www.atarn.org/mongolian/dulaan/ltr_jul99.htm).

This is a comment about Mongolian bows in general.

They never made sense to me until I started shooting their contest. Heavy bow, heavy arrow, distant target. Actually the equipment is well suited to the type of contest.

But this is not a contest of sticking an arrow at objects at various distances, elevations and conditions. It is a one purpose golf club.

I own one of these bows and it is not ideally suited to target archery in general.

When one sees the Mongolians shooting, for instance in Korea, one notices that their bows are of differing qualities. Some are actually sleek, well made, and not heavy. Others are so clumsy as to make the observer embarrassed. I have seen some which would make a better bludgeon than a bow. No Mongolian is shooting one of these overweight bows but are offering it for sale.

Keep in mind that the price of a Mongolian bow is approximately the average yearly per capita income in the country. One would think, given all this that it would be a Stradivarius but I am afraid not. The question is why not?

Well, Jack, I think you answered your own question: their bows are horses for courses.

Here's a little bit of extra history (I mentioned a few years back.) By the 1950s, all ability to make bows in Mongolia had been lost. The Manchus banned all archery among the Mongols, save those enrolled in the Mongolian Banner, who used Beijing-made Manchu bows. Munkhtsetseg's father, Choijelsuren, led a delegation to Beijing in the 1950s and bought a large quantity of bows from Ju Yuan Hao, who made the bows more or less after the fashion that they make them now, save some difference in the siyahs, which had a tear-drop cross-section.

After the Sino-Soviet split in the 1970's, people repaired these old Ju Yuan Hao Mongolian bows. (I believe you yourself own one, Jack.) By the time I first went to Ulaanbaatar, the bows were being made locally; but still following the 1950s Beijing model.

S

When was archery revived in Mongolia? Was Nadaam a going concern in the 1950s? Was archery reintroduced to Nadaam at that time?

Jack,
There is an early National Geographic article on Mongolia with archery shown. I think it is in the 1960s. I have other books with pictures of archers going back to the 1950s. I don't think shooting died out, but as Stephen wrote, bow making may have stopped for several decades at least. I knew someone who grew up in Manchuria after the Second World War and he remembered seeing Mongols practising archery. I also know someone from Hungary who saw Mongol mounted archers in the 1950s or early 1960s.

Dr Grayson told me that the two walrus ivory tipped arrows (1995-0743B-C) in his collection were from the 1920s or 1930s and presented by some Mongol archers at an Olympic Games. they might have been representing the USSR at the time.

I think that sur shooting has had a continuous uninterrupted history. It is unlikely to be a Manchu contest since many of them are illustrated. Peter Dekker might know if there was a similar Manchu contest.

Some film I saw from Mongolia shows a bow maker using basic techniques that don't seem, to be copies of the Chinese approach though they might be an adaption.

1.) From personal communication with many mongols I can assure you that neither bowmaking nor shooting ever died out in Mongolia. There has never been a Naadam without archery. Even some people of my age (30y) that I spoke to have experienced bowmaking by relatives, fathers or grandfathers. There are only few bowmakers who do commercial bowmaking in the capital region, and these are indeed of the Manchu type.

2.) What do you think about this bow from Mongolia ? (see pic)
Lenght ntn 49 inches. This is Quing/Manchu style ?

thanks for your comments
;-)

Yes. + big heavy tips... another slow shooter . This tips was big evan if that bow have 140 lb :lol:

It has more reflex than my Batmunkh bow. The tips definitely seem deeper, but I can't tell from the photo if they are wider as well.

Who made it?

Oversized tips are one problem one sees. Mine came that way, already broken and repaired. They seem to be made from soft wood with the grain violated.

Maybe your bow is good otherwise. You cannot judge a violin from a low rez pic, nor a bow.

The bow seems quite small. Is it from the West of the country? It seems to be a 'khagas' (half horse) bow. Apart from the 'gung' bow of the Khalkhas, there is the Tomor and Khagas, which are also used in local naadam events.

S

Does anyone know where I could get one of the higher quality, slimmer mongolian bows? Because all the ones I found on the internet are clunky.

There can be different ideas of what constitutes a 'Mongolian' bow: either Empire period of modern period. If you have a design you want followed, you can ask Csaba Grozer to build you a hornbow.

Or sombody here in Atarnet - who know how build bow like this . Grozer laminat bows was good but sorry Stephen , his "hornbows" was worse than all novices bows what i see here. :shock:

Dusan wrote:

Or sombody here in Atarnet - who know how build bow like this . Grozer laminat bows was good but sorry Stephen , his "hornbows" was worse than all novices bows what i see here. :shock:

Hi Dusan,

This is a strong statement.

How can you technically assess that Grozer hornbows are worst that the novices bows that you see on Atarn ?

When looking at a pic of a finished bow, I can see indeed if a bow looks nice, if its shape is roughly similar to its ethnic family, if its finishing is pretty... but that's all.
To assess a bow, I personaly need to shoot it !

And so far, Grozer bow I have been shooting shot straight and fast enough for my needs and taste.

I'm sure that there exist better hornbows, and I'm sure there exist also many worst - or just broken ones.

Well , in global you are right. Bow must be shot.
First at all - i trust Grozer like very succesfull bow biznisman. When i start 10 years ago interesting about composites i buy some of his bows. To this day i have 6 bows from Grozer production and some people around me have another 20- 30 bows include "biokomposites" and "hornbows". Than i can say - i have personal experience vith his bows.

Two mi friends - one of its was multiple national champion in traditional archery shooting fromCzech rep. -Misa . Last year visit Grozer ranch and shooting from his "hornbows". I talked vith friends . Second- Gator personaly owned Hun hornbow from Grozer.

1.This bows was slow, heavy(mass) bad shooters... thats personal experiences - from trustworthy archers.

2. I can say only from pics mi personal opinion. When you detail look at "hornbows" and his laminated or "based" (polyester ) bows , you must see construction similarity- same shape , same curvature in bending section same wide and thick-haevy material in ka
san eye- where kasan or siah glued in arm
- same mistakes in construction. Its lokks like Grozer only change materials /epoxy ,polyester lamelas was changed vith horn plate and some sinew...) and pressed all in same form. This is no serious komposites technik. This is mass production vithout understant base principals komposite construction !
If you "only" glued horn in wood plate and than some sinew in belly - this is not komposite bow- this is somthing what looks like... - from distance.
If you more read in Atarn , you maybe more understand that tru, good composite bow was very delicate , comlicated thing , where you must go to the extrem borders of materials posibility. And all materials must be in extrem ,minimum waight mass and more and more...
Not only glued 3 natural components . This can do it everybody... Like todays mongols- for example. Or like some Atarns too...
Maybe i help you understand what i mean . Your sentens : "its shape is roughly similar to its ethnic family" i understand like joke .

I have won three international gold medals in horseback archery using Grozer's horn bow (Hungarian style). Agreed that the construction is heavier than some, but it is exceptionally stable in all weathers and temperatures. I have an equivalent horn bow from Lucas Novotny, which is very fast and light; but it lacks the stability I need for a competition bow.

Congratulation Stephen, you are talented archer :D You certainly know old tru, that if sombody long trained vith comon broken brunch he can be a super archer ... Especialy in today modern horsbackarchery- where sportsmans shoot in 5-15 m distance vith 25 lb bows...
You ,like man who was start this fantastic site was in complicated situation :shock: .like historician and archeolog you try know max about best performance old composite bows and i beliew, , you know how delicate and unstabil can be the best from this bows.
In another point - like modern sportsman you dont need quality horn composite bow. More of this - he was bad for you- because in this modern sport was better for you light waight - somthing like- composite bow- stabil - like you say. Or ,in another words- no composite.

Because all composite bows advantage was gon : Heavy weight (more than 80) , long distance shooting, deep penetration, long time string bow vith still ucefull shooting ...
Now is question which person win on you ?

Sadly Dusan is right,
Horse archery today doesnt really need horn bows because horn bows offered more power advantages, while nowadays we arent shooting at targets hundreds of yards away on horseback. The need for tradition is gone.

Bede wrote:

I think that sur shooting has had a continuous uninterrupted history. It is unlikely to be a Manchu contest since many of them are illustrated. Peter Dekker might know if there was a similar Manchu contest.

I think that the sur shooting was indeed a Mongolian practise, and not a Manchu practice. There are numerous references to various Manchu archery games and practices but none describes anything like sur shooting.

There is a Manchu arrow referred to as Mongo yoro in the Manchu language, meaning "Mongolian arrow". It reminds of the arrows used in today's sur shooting but with a bigger and heavier tip. It was described as being used to shoot animals on rocky terrain, killing by blunt force trauma rather than penetration. Other advantages are that these arrows are more durable, and keep the skin of the animal intact so it could be used or sold.

The Mongolians were known to eat small vermin that they shot on the steppe. I think sur shooting may have derived off this form of hunting as it follows roughly the same principle. Even if the arrow bounced, small animals could still be killed or immobilized by them.

On Mongolian bows, indeed they follow a Chinese model and it is suggested that the Qing prohibited the use of bows and arrows by the Mongolians. I personally think many Mongolian tribes put down bow and arrow on their own initiatie, because:

1. When looking at Qing records of captured equipment in fights with Mongolian tribes it amazes me than none of the equipment found in their camps in the 18th century contained bows and arrows. It appears that most Mongolian forces at the time already moved on to firearms that they obtained over the silk road. It seems to me that after the incorporation into the Qing armies, Mongolians once again started picking up bows for warfare.

2. The Qing could only prohibit the use of bows in the areas they controlled. and even then Qing control over Mongolian tribes was not very strict, and often left to local native landlords. On the whole, not much changed for Mongolians on the lowest levels, they were for the most part allowed to remain the same. Those areas that still rebelled against the Qing, and were outside of Qing control attacked with muskets, sabers and lances.

3. Another group of Mongolians was incorporated in the Qing eight banner army where they had eight separate banners for Mongolians. They used native Dzungar spears along with Qing bows and muskets. The native spear tells me they could keep using the equipment they were good with. Then why the Qing bow?

The most logical explanation for the above is that they abandoned the bow themselves (at least for military use) before being re-introduced to it by Chinese.

-Peter

Peter may be right about the military use of bows. My own studies of Qing art representing the fighting against the Western Mongol tribes such as the Oirat have found no illustrations of the Mongols using bows in battle.

This does not mean that they did not use bows, but that the overall impression they made on the Qing was of musketeers. Also one must remember the Manchu obsession with their own archery prowess. It is possible that they did not bother illustrating details that did not agree with the majority impression. However, I would have thought that if archery was still prominent among the Western Mongols, the Manchus would have been happy to show them being beaten by the Manchu horse archers.

There could have been another issue since the Eastern Mongols allied and submitted to the Manchus much earlier. They may still have military archery at the time.

Digging through some more sources I did find some references to bows still in use. A Kangxi era emissary to the Turguts reveals that there was a friendly match between Qing archers and Torgut archers. Also notable is that the emissary was solely armed with bow and arrow, they talked about other weapons with the torgut khan but admitted they did not bring any of that kind. This was around 1712. The Torguts were very interested in the Qing bows, and also inquired about the emperor's proficiency in archery. (With the current emperor being Kangxi, that was rather good.)

Another hint is an Oirat arrow described in the 1752 Huangchao Liqi Tushi. It may have been adopted by the Manchus after their encounters with Oirats in the Western frontier. These battles also spawned Qing interest in chain mail which they brought back as trophy.

But, interestingly, the Oirat arrow is not classified as a military arrow.

-Peter