Chinese crossbow replica

I wonder whether that one would be robust enough to use. Although it moves, it looks a bit corroded and might be too fragile.

I suggest that you ask Ju Yuan Hao to make the prods out of bamboo strips instead of a hornbow (like the repeating crossbows). Also, he needs to have the prods angled downward, just like he puts the prods on his repeating crossbows.

S.

The angle downward, does is have something to do with the crossbow precision ?

About the prod, why would bamboo be better than a horn bow ?

I must tell YANG Fuxi quickly what I want...

Without the downward angle, the crossbow will frequently unstring because when you pull the string back, the bow can't turn as it does in your hand, so it gets torqued.

I suggest bamboo for the prods because (a) it would still be authentic, but (b) it would save making a horn bow which is likely to break very quickly when used as a crossbow prod.

S.

OK Stephen, I understood (I think) for the angle.

If you check your magnificent crossbow stock below, it would appear that the prod on this old crossbow was not angled at all. Drawing a line, that would project underneath the mechanism (line number 1).

So the question is, should the angle of the prod be in line with the mechanism at full draw (line 2) or with the resting position of the string after the shot (line 3) ? Or maybe in between ?

Subsidiary question : how come the old Chinese crossbow do not show any downward angle ?

About the bow potential breakage, I will ask Juyuanhao a guarantee so if the bow breaks, he should fix or change it. Do you think that the reason for early breakage is that the assembly point stock/prod is too rigid ? Should we add some kind of padding ?

:idea:
You might find that the bow position was adjusted with small wedges. The hole might only be a rough guide to the position of the bow.

Excavated crossbows often had just a slightly hollowed area at the front of the stock so the bow position could be varied easily.

Romain,

The angle should be as the blue line (2). I am certain that the old crossbow had bamboo prods, angled up with some sort of wedge (as Bede suggests.) It was also not very string and appears to have shot lead pellets rather than arrows.

You should not ask for makers of hornbows to give a guarantee, as the only ones who would offer it are fools. :roll:

As with Stephen, no horn bowyer I know would give a guarantee on a horn bow. Guarantees are easy to give with bows that are low-maintenance and durable, two things horn bows generally are not. With that said, I know that many horn bowyers would still try to help out, even though they were under no obligation to do so; often, though, a broken horn bow is beyond repair.


T

You should not ask for makers of hornbows to give a guarantee, as the only ones who would offer it are fools.

In fact he told me himself I should not worry as I live so close to his shop. We can maybe do a middle way that will not cost him too much money or time : first a horn prod, and if it breaks, replace it with a bamboo one.

The angle should be as the blue line (2). I am certain that the old crossbow had bamboo prods, angled up with some sort of wedge (as Bede suggests.)

I keep in mind the idea of "tuning" wedges. But I guess in order to use these efficiently, the "handle" of the prod should present a flat side and not a round handle as a bow.

Just wanted to give you an update on my crossbow.

Juyuan Hao first dismounted the mechanism and greased it

He started to build the stock in a log of elm

detail of the casing for the mechanism

Today, I've seen that my crossbow tiller has advanced a lot.

The guard below the trigger is made of horn, bent with heat

It starts to look nice, isn't it ?

A proud future Han crossbowman

I went to Ju Yuan Hao yesterday and saw that a new "old" crossbow was under way...

This time, the mechanism is a simpler / older version without the bronze box around it.

Master YANG will simply cover it with a horn plate.

That crossbow looks so much better than my replica attempt. Admittedly, I am resigned to using wood for the mechanism - that sounds a tad stupid, I realise, but I have no old locks to use, or new bronze to cast (and if I did, I would have no idea how to cast it). In any case, the wood holds up well enough to take 190 pounds of pressure from a bow (I wouldn't keep it like that for too long), and is smooth to shoot. The only major problem with it, I find, is it's lack of a sight with gradations for accuracy. The wood I used was hazel for the stock, ash for the mechanism - I live in southern England, and these woods are common.

Hello West,

On another forum in French (which is named webarcherie) we had a very long discussion explaining how the old chinese mechanism worked. I also posted my replica Han crossbow there.

These early mechanisms are so cleverly designed that a few members went to their working bench and started to build their own renditions.

One made a working prototype with wood pieces, then sent his parts to a bronze caster to have them duplicated in metal.

Two others decided to use steel plates and are very happy with the results.

If you can read French, check these 2 lengthy links (anyway, you can see the pictures :wink: )

http://webarcherie.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4187

http://webarcherie.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4650

Those are top quality pictures.

I can't read French, but my previous experiences wioth webarcherie tell me that babelfish does a pretty good job.

Dave

Just posting here a beautiful mechanism I bought today.

Fully functionnal !

As seen from the top. See that the arrow guide has space for the quarrel feathers too

released

completely knocked-down

the two main mechanical parts (the release and the latch)

See how well they adapt to each other

Just for those who might be interested, I weighted the parts separately and got the following readings (in grams, not grains) :

Release : 380 g !
Box : 317 g
Latch : 130 g
Trigger : 160 g
2 Axles : 143 g

Total : 1 kg 130 g !!!! Must have been designed for heavy bolts.

By the way, the long sighting pin means an archaic or rather an evolved mechanism ? The way the latch and release mate to each other looks rather like a progress compared to the usual small round axle found on other releases.

Very lovely, I like the latest lock Romain.
Stephen; I mounted a Laminated Hwarang bow on the stock/lock you sent me. Sadly none of the indoor ranges here allow crossbows at all!
Even in Texas that whole concept of the Evil Crossbow lives on.
I will try to get out to a friends place in the Country to test it out at range, comparing to my New World Arbalest Finnish Crossbow.
Diana

By the way, the long sighting pin means an archaic or rather an evolved mechanism ?

I think that the sighting pins originally had gradations painted on them. Some had engraved gradations.

Neat, Diana :D Pictures, pictures!


T

Yesterday, I picked up and had fun with my Han Style crossbow. Same as Diana, I could not use it at the club, I had to do it in my backyard.

122 cm wide from nock to nock
72 cm long
16 cm of brace height
61 cm of draw length. That makes 45 cm of working length to push the quarrel.

Leather string without serving. Priority is to make one as the release will otherwise chew the string quickly.

As you can see, the tillering is far from perfect...

View from the side.

The bow was finally made of sinewed bamboo. There is no horn (as Stephen advised...)

The sinew is covered with tree bark. I love the color.

View of the cocked mechanism. It works very smoothly.

You can also see the quarrels, 10 of them. 2 feathers, no nock at the back, they are quite heavy (515 grains or 33,5 grams) and long (64 cm from the back up to the back end of the field points)

The mechanism released

View from the front.

In order to serve the string, I had to remove it from the bow. The string follow is already quite high at about 9 cm...

Maybe this will diminish when the dry winter sets in Beijing, as the sinew should shrink.

A view of my new serving. Not very traditional I'm afraid...

See, the crossbow is ready to shoot but the tillering is unbalanced, I'm afraid the right limb might fail later.

I weighted the bow at around 55 pounds. This is not too powerful...

My first 3 quarrels in the target.

I clocked 10 of these, the slow ones were doing 128 fps, the fast ones were at 130 fps and most at 129 fps.

I plan to try lighter quarrels to see if I gain speed.

romain
whats the draw length on your crossbow ?

Rob: very different from the Europian style, ain't it? Fascinating.

I don't know if you can say "draw length" about a crossbow, but let say that the distance between the nut indentation that keep the string and the tip of the stock is 64 cm -> 25"

Now, the total length where the string pushes the arrow (between the nut and the fistmele) is 46 cm -> 18"

It's because of this long course that the speed of the quarrels is quite decent, considering the low draw weight.

Yes, I wonder why European crossbows used extremely short draws... The longer draw is considerably more efficient, and shoots a longer projectile = higher sectional density (and in theory, greater penetration.) I made a long draw crossbow with a much simpler mechanism of wood and antler, and it can easily outrange and out-penetrate my European style crossbows (of roughly the same kind of mechanism). For comparison, the longer draw, "Chinese" style, had a draw of 14", compared to 8" for the European styles, at around 140# each. (All had wooden prods.)

On a side note, it's curious that your quarrels don't have nocks, Romain. I'd have thought that the advantage of that mechanism, aside from ease of pulling the trigger, was that you could nock the quarrels onto the string prior to shooting.

wery nice crossbow Romain
european popular crossbow 3 kg stell bows = circa 67 m/s bolt 66g
effective draw lenght max 15 cm , draw force circa 1200 lbs

Early European crossbows had a long draw too, but when they changed from wooden to composite bows, the draw became shorter. Later steel bows also had short draws.

Because of the short power stroke, the bows were made heavier (I have seen pictures of bows with pulls over 2000 pounds).

I think the European design was intended to make the crossbows smaller and more convenient in enclosed spaces like castles, but the weapons actually became heavy and cumbersome. The great draw weights meant devices to mechanically pull the string were used.

On a side note, it's curious that your quarrels don't have nocks, Romain. I'd have thought that the advantage of that mechanism, aside from ease of pulling the trigger, was that you could nock the quarrels onto the string prior to shooting.

I have asked advices around and nobody confirmed that I should carve nocks... I might try a few experiments myself, just to be sure.

Surviving Han crossbow bolts have nocks as do the bronze models from the tomb of Qin Shihuang.
Stephen would know if later crossbow quarrels in China were also nocked.

Would you have a picture of these quarrels nocks ?

Romain,
The nocks were straight cut with rounded bottoms. They were little more than slots cut in the ends of arrows. I think Stephen has pictures in one of the Letters.

Bede wrote:

Surviving Han crossbow bolts have nocks as do the bronze models from the tomb of Qin Shihuang.
Stephen would know if later crossbow quarrels in China were also nocked.

Actually, I don't know the answer. :( Quarrels for the repeating crossbow had no nocks.

Actually, for Han quarrels, I cannot be sure. I have two boxes for carrying quarrels dating from Warring States and Han periods. Neither has the original arrows. But they are both consistent in size: 20cm long.

Stephen,
The bronze models with the chariot were said to be half-sized and many of the Han stocks match the size of the Qin model crossbow if it is doubled. There are also surviving Han arrows which are about 66 cm long that almost certainly were for crossbows (because they would fit the surviving crossbow stocks). If I remember correctly the Qin model arrows had four feathers.

Yang Hong's book on Chinese weapons is my source for the Han arrows.

Repeating crossbows need unnocked bolts since there is no way to tell which way they will land in front of the string. There is no advantage to the missile having a nock because its path along the stock is more constrained than in an open grooved crossbow. Of course, the original makers may have had other reasons for their designs.

Your arrow boxes may have been for repeating crossbow arrows (which are quite short). This would be important if it could be proved because it would show continuity through the Han of the concept of repeating weapons from the Chu.

The Romans tapered each side of their ballista bolts so that they would fit in between the gap between the teeth of the lock. They were much shorter than the path of the string so the argument about stabilty along the track did not hold here. I wonder if there eas some continuity of design of bolts between late Roman times and the European Middle Ages?

I doubt there is such a continuity. The mechanisms used on early medieval crossbows and Roman ballistae are totally different. The "rising pin" mechanism is used in early medieval designs of European crossbow, where a wooden peg on a lever knocks the string out of a groove, like a repeating crossbow mechanism. Roman weapons were different, with more complex, and as you say, toothed mechanisms. The requirements are totally different. The bolts for the simpler mechanism would need no nocks, because they are just hit by the string (like the crossbows of south-west China and south-east Asia.) A nock would be no advantage. On a toothed mechanism, the bolt can be attached to the string, allowing for two things; firstly, a more efficient transfer of energy from the string to the bolt, and a more precise idea of how the bolt will fly, because you know the string is going to push the bolt forward on a very central line (as opposed to the simpler kind, where the string just hits whatever part of the bolt is showing above the notch); and secondly, it allows for downward shooting, if necessary, because the bolt will be, as aforementioned, attached to the string and unlikely to move. On the simpler mechanism-ed crossbow, there is no such impediment to movement of the bolt.
Incidentally: it is for these reasons that I believe that Chinese crossbows after the Song dynasty had simpler mechanisms, like those of Yunnan, especially after the arrival of the Jin Ruzhen. The talk in Ming books of quarrels falling off stocks, and dropping bolts, makes sense if the mechanisms are of the simpler kind. The fact that they were made of antler also corroborates this; an antler mechanism any more advanced than a Yunnan style would take many hours of labour, assuming you could even get hold of the antler in the shapes required. Other evidence is pictorial: an illustration of a crossbow in the Wujing zongyao, shows a crossbow of a much simpler design than earlier ones; and the various illustrations in Stephen's "Chinese Archery" - ie, the "mighty shoulder crossbow" and the "composite of three Ming illustrations..." on pages 243 and 245 show quite evidently simpler mechanisms on the weapons. Admittedly, these are pictures, where some things might have been simplified to facilitate easier reproduction, etc.

Romain wrote:

A proud future Han crossbowman

hey romain
I have been admiriring Your fine craftmannship.
I hav also made a Han,crossbow, and I use a mongol bow as bow.BUT the angle the bow has been fastened to the stok make the string to pop a side in the syals.
The correct bow ,the string has to be fastened on top of the bow and will be able to move to the sides whithout beein stopped by the syals.
Can You help?-
maybe I can buy a bow from You.
Greetings axel-denmark

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the problem you had... in any case, I did not make myself any part of this crossbow, Ju Yuan Hao did.

The siyahs on the bow he made for my crossbow are very short and massive.

Romain wrote:

A proud future Han crossbowman

hey romain
thank Ypo for Your reply.
However I have solved the problem (The string had a tendency to slip out of the groove because of the twisted angle when mounted on the crossbow)
You can see the pictures on
" axel.snebaer.dk"
greetings axel

There are some lovely pictures of crossbow mechanisms with rulers close by. As someone who likes to make replicas of archery equipment, I am tantalized by having almost enough info to make one of these mechanisms.

Could someone who is fortunate enough to have one of these use a pair of calipers and post the lenght, width and thickness of each part?

Romain
I'd like to take the time and express my admiration for Master Fuxi and his work on that crossbow. Is is still in working condition? It's a very nice historical piece.

Chris

Hi, I am curious about the range of your crossbow replica.
What's the maximum range that you can shoot?

Also, for the excavated Han crossbows, what wood was the stock made out of? Was it made out of elm like in this crossbow replica? Or was it something else?

Thank you

TheAzn wrote:

Hi, I am curious about the range of your crossbow replica.
What's the maximum range that you can shoot?

Han crossbows are reputed to have been able to shoot over 100 paces. They probably commonly had a draw weight of over 55Kg. My reconstruction did not manage anything like that.

I can't comment on the wood for the original stock. Although I have samples, I never had it analyzed.

S