Kviljos Chu-ko-nu/repeating crossbow

Nice! Good luck. I love these weapons. :-)

I just found this interesting conversation:

http://atarn.org/chinese/yn_xbow/zhugehtm.htm


And also this:

http://www.arco-iris.com/George/chu-ko-nu.htm

I got some here, so let me know if you get struck on data. There's also a cut-away illustration in my 'Archery Traditions of Asia'. My only old one is made in Shaanxi in the 1950s and the only metal in the whole construction is the points of the darts.

S

Thanks for the offer. Feel free to comment on my/Payne-Gallweys model. I found that even from simply measuring his drawings, though with a calliper, they gave a fully functioning weapon. I don't think that can be said of all the drawings in his book, so it seems quite likely that it has been drawn while having an original at hand.

The only unclear constructional feature is how the widened base at the front of the stock (to secure the sliding "barrel" sideways) was actually widened. I also angeled the bow more upwards to reduce the friction and wear on the string.

I shot a few birch dovels with it tonight using an unserved, unvaxed hemp string, (which only lasted for those few shots). It is really an impressive weapon. I don't think my bow is heavy at all - perhaps 60 pounds, and pulling the lever back is very easy, but it still shoots better than I would expect. It would be no problem fitting a slightly overbuilt version with a 200 or perhaps even as much as a 300 pound bow. It would be a hefty combination. Are there any hints in the archaeological or historical accounts of what draw weights the originals were?

What you said about the quill-reinforcement of the string in the e-mails published in the link above seems like a very good idea. The stuff is almost like teflon and must prolong the life of a string greatly. I made one and cut it lengthwise and simply cramped it onto the string, but that one didn't even survive one shot. It has either to be glued on, served on or simply threaded onto it in a whole piece. The larger goose feathers does have the correct size I think, even for a raw hide string.

It has been shellaced by the way.


What a brilliant toy* :lol:

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

That's a good bit of handiwork. As to the goose quills, a good deal of goose grease will also be needed.

To keep the thing from jamming, make sure that the points to the darts are quite massive and heavy. The darts have no fletching, so the heavy point adds stability.

Here's one I did based upon a Korean reproduction:

http://koreanarchery.org/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=74

Awesome! Your model looks like it has a much longer power stroke, which probably means it is shooting better. Is the bow fixed to the stock, or can it twist a little to prevent the limbs from being twisted?

Heavy points seems like a idea. Also, perhaps the bolts should not be too sharp so that they may snag in the front of the magazine. Such a jam would not be any good I think. I read about another way of it jamming, which resulted in the bolts jumping out of the magazine. Such a constructional flaw is not present in Payne-Gallweys model anyway, as the bolts can not fall behind the string groove and thereby letting the string slide under the bolt.

The prod is not fixed to the stock, but it does have a notch so that it fits in the stock at a certain angle.

I see. I should probably add some padding to the bow too, although I am not sure my bow deserves it, hehe.

Do you have any thoughts on when such a simple bamboo bow was used most commonly? - or rather, is it likely that such a simple bow was used when the weapon was at it's height of use as a military weapon? Is it a representative bow for a representative Chu Ko Nu? Perhaps you also have some thoughts on the draw weight the bows could have been?

That is not to say that I am not impressed with the simple bamboo bow, as it shoots very well and is probably much shorter than any selfbow could be. However, it would be nice to fit a more labour-intensive and heavyer bow to the weapon.

What a grand toy. I love my crossbows, which are somewhat legal here (somewhat meaning not in the woods, except...)

Just one hint for tuning. The string should come to rest just ever so lightly touching the stock. The string should not bend at all at this point. The bow is angled upward to facilitate this and the limbs are also bent upwards somewhat.

In archery terms we would say that the string lays severely above center. This is natural for a cross bow. I suppose that the bow is torqued at draw but this somehow works itself out.

Kviljo wrote:

Do you have any thoughts on when such a simple bamboo bow was used most commonly? - or rather, is it likely that such a simple bow was used when the weapon was at it's height of use as a military weapon? Is it a representative bow for a representative Chu Ko Nu? Perhaps you also have some thoughts on the draw weight the bows could have been?

Look carefully 8) Doesn't seem to have done them much good, though.

Just keep in mind that that picture was staged by Beato; he did the same thing in Korea in 1871 (and the body layout is even similar).

[external image]

That one certainly looks like it has a bamboo bow, but I would imagine the weapon was more important some hundred years before this? There's no clue in the written records that they were fitted with horn bows, or some other type of bow?

Thomas, the original that you were replicating, it looks like that one has a horn bow? Anything suggesting that it was common in earlier times too in Korea?

I could easily imagine, since the bow has got such a central and visible position in the picture, that it was put there as a "haha - look they used lame weapons, it is only right that we defeated them".

Congratulations, good work. I remember Arsilian made same crossbow.

Kviljo wrote:

Thomas, the original that you were replicating, it looks like that one has a horn bow? Anything suggesting that it was common in earlier times too in Korea?

Kviljo, it was only an "original" in that it was a model I used for making mine. It was made by the son of Intangible Cultural Asset fletcher Yoo Young-gi. The prod is a cut-down laminated bow. I have seen pictures of examples of original prods that look like they might have had horn bellies. I'll see if I can find any.

scemdonmez wrote:

Congratulations, good work. I remember Arsilian made same crossbow.

Thank you :)

I spent some hours on it today, exchanging the birch axels with some made of oak. I also made a thicker rawhide string for it, as the one shown in the pictures failed. It seems the nock-type with only a hole in the tip wears quite much on a single-ply rawhide string. Perhaps a three-ply would last longer, but I'm not sure if it is worth the effort.

I will finish and test it properly tomorrow at the archery range. My bolts are 10mm birch with only 125 grain fieldpoints, so it will be fairly interesting. Some proper arrowheads will arrive some day soon I hope.

Thomas Duvernay wrote:

Kviljo, it was only an "original" in that it was a model I used for making mine. It was made by the son of Intangible Cultural Asset fletcher Yoo Young-gi. The prod is a cut-down laminated bow. I have seen pictures of examples of original prods that look like they might have had horn bellies. I'll see if I can find any.

Ahh, I see. But his model was still based on an original?

Brilliant! I think making a horn bow for it would be good practice for the more reflexed and unstable hand bows, as it seems crossbow prods usually are made a little more overbuilt.

I don't suggest you waste the effort of making horn and sinew prods for such a bow. Why not just make a self wood prod, since the draw length is so short?

I saw one "C" shaped bow for a crossbow in a museum in Seoul where the lacquer had disintegrated and the sinew bindings had slid down the limb, It looked like a wooden belly. Personally, I would try horn bellies because I don't think we know enough yet to select the right woods. While modern Korean bowyers know a lot, I am sure no one would dispute that old ones knew even more.

i see some sinew horn bamboo imprecatory by bowyer, the sinew thread seem no glue but each thread like the steel thread more hard and elasticity on a crossbow, it is impossible you can make the same effect use hide or bladder glue for sinew, impossible bamboo only fiber and node exist,the horn limpidity,

so i agree stephen, don't try do it , never see it, this is best ,realy

Thomas Duvernay wrote:

Just keep in mind that that picture was staged by Beato; he did the same thing in Korea in 1871 (and the body layout is even similar).

Quite right: he did arrange the scene. (Good CNN reportage technique). But I doubt that it occurred to him to import a repeating crossbow into the site if had not been there in the first place.

Stephen Selby wrote:

Thomas Duvernay wrote:

Just keep in mind that that picture was staged by Beato; he did the same thing in Korea in 1871 (and the body layout is even similar).

Quite right: he did arrange the scene. (Good CNN reportage technique). But I doubt that it occurred to him to import a repeating crossbow into the site if had not been there in the first place.

Lucky for history that he did have it in the photo (I'm sure it was already there, too). It's too bad he didn't do a little more of it in Korea in 1871, as there were many Korean weapons inventoried (including chuno), but few things were shown (only a couple cannon and a spear).

I've a seperate question from the topic.i've followed crossbows to india but there is no trace of them in old Persian Empire or in Iran and their neithbour countries.
Does anybody now why?

Maybe the use of conventional bows was considered more in the spirit of the teaching of Islam. In strict Islamic teaching, shooting with the bow and riding horses were the only approved sports. In the Hadiths, the Prophet taught that 'No man while he is in good health shall give up practice with the bow.'

Or perhaps these countries put more military reliance on cavalry, where the use of crossbows is less practical.

I should be interested to know from those in your country who profess expertise in Islamic teaching whether the crossbow is considered inferior to the bow and arrow. (And if so, what the status of the now popular gun is?) :?

Crossbows were definitely used in the Middle East. Taybugha has extensive comments on them including names, uses and problems. They were used in Iran too and are depicted in the Zafarnama where Timur's troops are shown using them against fortifications.

Taybugha considered them useful in sieges and on ships. He does mention how to brace one on horseback. They were particularly popular in Islamic Spain and North Africa. There was some religious dispute about the possible Christian shape, but since they looked more like a "T" than a "+" this died down.

The negatives that applied to crossbows elsewhere were commonly cited in the Middle East too. Taybugha did not think that they were much use in "desert" operations.

The Sasanian Persians were noted for their siege warfare and it is possible that they were more familiar with cheiroballistas than real crossbows. There is little evidence that their main enemies, the Romans, were using them much at this time either.

Stephen, i haven't seen in islamic text any thing about crossbows.maybe because they didn't care about it and it was not very precious.
[Edit: Stephen's trying to keep you alive :) )
Bede what's the name of Taybuga's book?and which book of Zafarnameh you have mention?

Taybugha's book is Saracen Archery. Crossbows are also described and discussed in Arab Archery. I read the translations, the originals are in Arabic. There is an old discussion in Henry Beveridge's article, Oriental Crossbows though it is now out of date. He was unaware that the nawak in his transliteration was in fact an arrow guide. Khorasani's glossary has many crossbow related terms with references. Many can be directly related to the Arabic manuscripts and since they are often Farsi words it looks like the terms passed from Persian to Arabic.

The Zafarnama I was referring to is a history of Timur written after his death but probably started while he was alive. It was illustrated in the fifteenth century. I can find out where the manuscript is if you wish.

I think the lack a references might be because of the preponderance of the hand bow in everyday use.

[Edit: Stephen's trying to keep you alive Smile )

haha, i see what hcspng say, you need careful it realy, stephen , are you know what war start by Buddhism or Buddhist?

Kviljo, maybe it can help you use hornbwo on your crossbow,
http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/ ... sults.html
[external image]
[external image]

[external image]


A crossbow I once bought very cheap on a flea market ;-)

It had a customs mark of Hong KOng on it and it has a composite bow...

JJ

Hehe, that's awesome :) Is it as small as it looks, or is it my eyes that trick me?

Does the "customs mark" imply that it was a more or less mass-produced item once?

The length over all is about 73 cm.

Customs mark was a seal of Hong Kong customs office, that means it was there before being brought toEurope....

That's just a little smaller than mine, but then I might have scaled mine up a little more than I should have. It is fairly amuzing to see that they are so similar.

I will definitely make a similar composite bow! It looks like it has a single horn laminate, and that it is perhaps 65cm long? From the relative simple design I would assume that it bends pretty much like a circle? - or does it have some glued up shape to it? Any estimated thickness at midlimb?

7, 8, 9 or 10mm bolts?


What could the lower "handle"/oval hole in the stock be used for? I'm having trouble seeing how it could be used when shooting. Perhaps it is simply a way of lightening the stock?

I remember that repeating crossbow from Hong Kong. The customs mark was to show that the export of a controlled weapon was permitted. The transverse dowel on the stock was missing. I think that the hole at the bottom was just to hook the thumb to give more purchase.

I think this was an old (say 1930s) Shaanxi product. But they were also made in the 1950s for Chairman Mao's campaign against 'pests'.

Stephen,

I bought this thing about ten years ago on a Belgian flea market... You remember seeing it in Hong Kong?

Peter Dekker told me he thinks it is of Korean origin because of the oval hole (which is certainly a grip hole), the separate slit for the movement of the arrow magazine, and the wavy bottom.

Length of the bow is 59 cm ntn, thickness in the middle 1,45 cm without the sinew layer (sinew is almost gone). Mid-limb is ca. 1,3 cm. Thickness of the horn is at the nocks 4mm, in the limbs it seems a little less because of tillering. From the shape I guess it bent mostly in the mid-limbs. I can only guess but this little bow could have been quite strong...

Kviljo, good luck with your reconstruction.

JJ

Awesome! Thanks. It certainly sounds like it has been fairly heavy. Oh, joy :D That was just the thing I was looking for 8)

A friend made me aware of an old chinese repeater on Young Jip?s Arrow Museum site: http://www.arrow.or.kr/bbs/board.php?bo ... d=1&id=eng.

It resembles in some ways the fashion of my crossbow, although it differs somewhat in the front part, and as you will see, in the function as well...

Good stuff. How does it differ in function from the others? The shape is a little different, but it should function just the same, as far as I can see?

It shoots bullets with blackpowder, as stated in the description ;-)
But I don?t understand how it works. Maybe Stephen or Thomas can help...

Sounds interesting :shock:

My browser seems to have problems with interpreting the page, as it will only show me the pictures.

JJ wrote:

Stephen,
I bought this thing about ten years ago on a Belgian flea market... You remember seeing it in Hong Kong?

Mmm... maybe my memory's faulty. I recall being offered a very similar one in Hong Kong over 12 years ago, also with the end of the stock missing. I passed on it at that time because it was expensive (and the police would almost certainly not have given me a license for it.)

Your's could certainly be from a different source; but the design is identical to Chinese ones, and I have seen the loop in the base as well.

Haha, I rember paying 50 Deutschmarks for it at the time. They did not know what it was....

What about the blackpowder gun inside the crossbow from the Youngjip link? Stephen, do you know something about that type of weapon?

JJ

No, sorry.

What I do have is a pellet bow version of the repeating crossbow. It has the appearance of a rifle barrel and stock combined with a bow. The action is similar to that of the Zhuge Crossbow; but a magazine holds pellets and they are fed into a chamber and propelled down the barrel by the bowstring.

I have no doubt that this was no more that a child's (or grown-up's) toy.

I have decided to leave this one as it is, and make a new one with a horn bow and an optimalized stock.

8)


[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

Kviljo; Were you able to relieve the pressure of the string on the mechanism at rest? Are the bamboo bow slats oriented correctly?

An excellent repro.

I haven't done anything with the angle of the bow. In most of Gallweys drawings, the bow is not angeled up at all. In a regular crossbow I would definitely do it (and have done) like you suggested. However, I do think that there should be a little downwards pressure against the "barrel" to keep it in place when the string is loosed. As it is now, the string goes to the center of the bow at full draw.

I will probably make the next one run a little smoother while still keeping a some downwards pressure.

Perhaps the inside of the bamboo has been the back in the originals, as with some self bamboo hand-bows? I have not been able to see how they were made. It does not show in Gallweys drawings or writings either. Any suggestions? The way shown in my repro is definitely the safer one, but having them the other way around might be necessary to keep the oompf in a humid environment.

Check this out;

http://www.ashokaarts.com/non-edged/no- ... chery.html

Scroll down. Has a bamboo bow!

Hehe, fantastic! A double repeating! - and with a bamboo bow. Thanks for sharing the link.

To those of you who have experience with different kinds of bamboo: could this bow be made from some species of bamboo that is stiffer than the "regular" bow-backing material that we get to buy at 3R or Dick Tools?

Does/did the picture at the end of the page show on your computer? I'm only getting a red cross. From the text it seems to be fairly interesting.

Oooo Jack ! Its mi first known Uzbek composite :lol: . Can you say us more about it?

Dusan wrote:

Oooo Jack ! Its mi first known Uzbek composite :lol: . Can you say us more about it?

Yes, Jack. What's this?

http://www.ashokaarts.com/non-edged/no- ... khand.html

This is another bow which does not fit neatly into any of our known types.

The owner, Stephen Domony, bought this bow from a German collection. He claims that there is good provenience from the previous owner who traveled in the area.

The decoration is consistent with Persian type decorations which are seen in the area. The Kasan is sub triangular and bulky similar to some seen in Tibet. The bridges are reminiscent of Qing Chinese, rather bulky. The bow tips remind me of short ones seen on Buryat bows from Southern Siberia. I would say this was made in a country workshop by the somewhat indelicate kasan and rustic decoration. The presence of a Kasan puts the bow into the Turkic sphere of influence.

So take your choice. It is also a first for me. There is nothing to compare to.

Andrew Hall's note to me about the "Uzbek" bow;

The side view of the siyahs shows resemblance to the Tibetan bow in the Pitt-Rivers - long straight ridged section with low reflex to ear and huge bridges. This bow is shorter, wider, less reflexed, much more decorated and the ear splices are smoothed off (the Tibetan does not have triangular cross-section ridges).

Kviljo; There is no final illustration. Maybe there was a copyright issue and was deleted (read text).

To my eye the bow could be wood sandwiched between two slats of bamboo. This would make a very stout bow esp. this short. There is one good closeup.

Sorry for the diversions.

Thank you Jack. Interestik new disain in ours galery. Maybe now i show this image in some Russian forum. Uzbeks must be happy. Middleasians only starting teaching his archery history.

Dusan; I posted many other Uzbek bows here in 2007. These were a Qing Chinese import bow and a Hunza bow in the Amir Timur museum, Tashkent, A colossal war bow from the Ark museum in Bukhara, a stout war bow from Khorezm now in Samarkand, and a pebble bow in the Textile museum in Bukhara. The Bukhara Ark bow is probably the stoutest professionally made bow posted to ATARN.

This Uzbek bow is not so similar to any of the previous bows. But the decoration is familiar. I agree that Uzbekistan (Not necessarily Uzbek) seems a good attribution. You have posted a Kazakh bow and I do not see the similarity.

Good material exists in the state museums of Russia but it costs by the hour to research these.

Yes i remember. But i counted like reliable mostly that , what you measured. Chimese and Hunza bows are little out .Peble bows vith stone bullets was "succesfull "use in Afghan borders to this days(like i wrote). Anyway , this bow is interesting.

Jack, I don't think I was around when you had posted the other photos, would you mind re-posting them? I'd be interested in seeing them
Thank you!

Image album...

...the image album is great! Lots of good stuff there. Among other things, this repeater:

And another, Korean?

http://198.170.107.188/photo/showimg.ph ... /rcbow.jpg

Bows and arrows Museum, Seoul, Repro.

It was taken in 1900... The coalition troops break through Da-Gu battery in Tianjin China ... Right up there is a "Repeating crossbow"..

Chinese Army Using this gear against Rifles?? !!! Are they crazy or what?

The result is very clear... What a appalling ... Turkey shoot!

jack farrell wrote:

Bows and arrows Museum, Seoul, Repro.

This is interesting. I've read about a Sassanian weapon known as the "panjagaan" but no information about it other than it fired 5 arrows (or whatever ammunition it used) at once. Do you think it might be related to this?

Multiple arrow shooting machines were well known. They shot several arrows simultaneously. The Alexandrians had a repeating ballista that had a complex repeating mechanism. As far as I know, this is the only repeating bow like machine used in the West up to the Middle Ages.

The simultaneously shooting crossbow machines were documented from Egypt to China. Each missile shared part of the power of the machine. The result was that they had reduced range.

yokhua wrote:

It was taken in 1900... The coalition troops break through Da-Gu battery in Tianjin China ... Right up there is a "Repeating crossbow"..

Chinese Army Using this gear against Rifles?? !!! Are they crazy or what?

The result is very clear... What a appalling ... Turkey shoot!

Actually, it was taken August 21, 1860 by Felice Beato.

yokhua wrote:

It was taken in 1900... The coalition troops break through Da-Gu battery in Tianjin China ... Right up there is a "Repeating crossbow"..

Chinese Army Using this gear against Rifles?? !!! Are they crazy or what?

The result is very clear... What a appalling ... Turkey shoot!

chinese modernization was started since 1900 about after losing many battle failed with many europain countries ,even chinese army was so brave and stiff,and i see the histroy that show many chinese army to use bow and big knife to fight with rifle and gun without any hesitation and afraid ,(even in korean wars,chinese army is so corage and never leave 1 inch land even battle to last 1 person,and even usa army have very modern weapan and strong force,they have to sign the agreemant with chinese comunist party:to share korean into 2 parts,they respect chinese brave and stiff spirit)but poor weapan lead many battles failed and also losing many land and have to open many cities for trading and than during 49years of many civil wars with janpnese and with usa in korean wars and mainly is between guomindang and communist part now,and form now china political situation,many peopl don't know why only china is communist control:as china have 4000-5000years empire sociaty and never have democracy culture(not like europain start democracy 2000years ago) in china histroy, and in the early of 1900,sunzhongshan want to change china become like western political countries,but failed at end,as chinese histroy is so longer and culture is so inside each chinese blood and bone;people refuse to democracy instead of to eat food,and china communist part is show most chinese that if people follow chinaese comunist part,they can eat and have a work.
i understand 1 points:democracy is formed by force,not offer freely by people speech,china now situation have its histroy and culture lead,sometimes i think human beijing like animal world,who have strong muscle and strong mind who is the king,i am not expert on this,but also i am often feel sadly to see now chinese's situation,now chinese like baby: many eople less exprence how to stand durng the world pridely.how to live well together with other people ,it is not easy and simple in this world,it is too complex.very badly is many chinese become very weak and losing mind and become very puzzled for his life