ATARNarchive

"tatar" replica

15 posts2010live thread
Uli
Hi everybody

I tried to make a replica of a tatar bow (first pic).
it is however not quite like the original except for the siyahs: the grip has not enough reflex and its shorter (I didnt have the figures).
In the strung position it has an interesting outline (not like I expected).
Its still raw without finish. I ll also build a new one.

ntn 120cm, bash until nock 14cm, kasan 18cm.
3-piece green maple sapling core with set-on oak handle (no splice),
naturally grown siyahs are spliced-in
4-5mm flat water buffalo horn, 5mm maple, 3-5mm deer sinew with rabbit glue (all from www.pfeilschaft.de)
"korean" method of horn-wood glueing (thick, non-matched)

draw weight more than 80 lbs@28 depending on pre-heating. I noticed a great increase in draw weight after unbracing and re-heating the bow over the electric oven.
There was almost no tillering necessary but for my next bow I ll have to take more care to prevent sideways twist: the sting in this bow is not exactly along the axis. The string is from a Hwarang bow.

All comments are welcome
:-)
Uli
unstrung
Uli
strung
Uli
"drawn"
scemdonmez
Uli,

Tip is too big for the Tatar bow and kasan/tip angle is too much. I can not see the kasan/sal angle and I see bow bend very near to grip. İt is very normal for the first bow.

Best R.
Cem
Uli
Cem,
Thanks for the tips. You re right in all points :-)
Concerning kasan bend I ll introduce it during sinewing next time.
The next project is already in the making
8) Uli
jack farrell
Uli; I think this bow could be worked with somewhat. Is it strong?

The horn could be thinned out under the kasan and sinew added near the grip if necessary. This might make the limbs bend more agreeably.

The angle of the bend is a bigger problem. Are the ears from natural tree bends? Is the grain parallel to the bend angle?
Stephen Selby
In the left hand side of the photos, it looks as if the end of the horn strip is standing proud of the limb. Is that an illusion?
Uli
fortunately :shock:
the horn is slightly thicker than the horn-"celik" at this place

however after all I wondered that I had no wood-horn-delamination:
I didnt make deep or matching groves, only merely scratches with a hand saw, and I didnt use a rope-binding tool, only bare-hand rope binding
BUT it was the "korean" technique (thick layer of glue on horn and thin layer on wood before final glueing)

:wink:
Uli

jack farrell wrote:

Uli; I think this bow could be worked with somewhat. Is it strong?

The horn could be thinned out under the kasan and sinew added near the grip if necessary. This might make the limbs bend more agreeably.
The angle of the bend is a bigger problem. Are the ears from natural tree bends? Is the grain parallel to the bend angle?

Jack,

concerning limb bending I ll keep your tip in mind for the next bow.
yes the bow is strong (more than my 80lbs magyar)
the ears are from one natural tree bend, the grain is not perfectly parallel in the rigid siyah but in the core lath. the core lath has a 1-2cm bend in the middle that I didnt pay attention to, so the string is not in the middle (darn!).

My problem is to replicate in the kasan bend of crimean tatar bows: I see only the possibility to adjust the spliced core part to the kasan bend more exactly next time.
btw: is it exact that
- the siyah-core splice is essentially identic to the kasan ?

8)
jack farrell
Uli; Of course Adam will be the expert here but I will hazard my opinion. Since these bows require two bends in the recurves, straight grain wood is typically bent into shape. You are unlikely to find a natural bend with parallel enough grain for this particular operation.

There is some small bending required in this section also. It would be problematic to reduce the ones you have without the possibility of their breaking.

Without reducing the weight of these recurves, the handshock will be intolerable.

If you are not planning to reclaim the horn, then you have nothing to loose by experimenting with small improvements to this bow. The experience will be valuable.
Uli
you're right Jack

but it seems we have different concepts of siyah construction:
in my concept the siyah = tip+kasan is totally rigid (mainly because of triangular shape and enforcement resulting from the siyah splice into the kasan part)
on the other hand, the kasan"eye" is flexible

-> the question is if this is correct for the original bows ?
-> so I dont need perfectly parallel grain in the siyahs (provided I dont do steam bending) or ?
Adam Karpowicz
In the Tatar bows I have seen, the kasan section was rigid and the kasan eye was rigid as well (unlike in most of the Turkish bows), judging by the thickness. One can not exclude the possibility that some Tatar bows had the kasan eye somewhat flexible however - there was quite a bit of variation among these bows.

In your bow the kasan is not curved enough, while the tip/kasan angle is a little too acute. You will not get this curvature in kasan by sinew shrinkage alone - it has to modelled in the core. The usual construction was 5-piece, the kasan together with the sal bent in one piece, while the tips were spliced.

Adam
Uli
thats the lesson from the master
thank you :-)
jack farrell
To my eye the Tatar bow, Turkish and otherwise, look mostly like other Turkic type bows. Unless the recurves are reduced to near or at t the point where they will just start to bend, there will probably be too much material in them for the best cast..

The only way to know is to copy one exactly. And then it is only a close approximation.