Questions for MB bow.

[lurz]

I'll be starting a couple of new Moshcheveya Balka based bows soon. This time I will try something closer to the originals than my first attempt at an hornbow. And I have a lot of questions.

I hope to make two bows, one in the 50-60 pound range, as a target bow, and one at some 80+ pounds to get closer to the original. One core will be made from local maple. (that is probably Acer platanoides or Acer pseudoplatanus here), the other from ash. I also have hazel available. Anyone have experience with that for hornbows? A norwegian shot 325m with a hazel selfbow!

One bow will have a steambent handle as in A in the drawing below. (that will have to be ash, as that is the only core I have that is long enough) The other bow will have a spliced handle, as in B? Any comments on construction and materials? Witch of the bows should have the highest draw weight? Ash with bent core or maple/hazel with spliced core? What handle type is most historic correct, and are there strength issues?



Siyah construction. I am planning to use steambent siyahs, instead of v-splice, and to work from Andrew Halls drawings posted here (thanks a lot!). But I have been unsure of siyah construction. I had imagined it had to look something like A in the siyah drawing below. But then I became aware of the picture Dusan posted of one of the MB-bows in the series of pictures from Russian museums. http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... n&start=90
When I look at the lower siyah, I think it looks more like in B? Anyone have thoughts of what is most correct, stronger? (A lot of interesting pictures btw, thanks Dusan!)



Also, what bending radius should I try for the siyahs? And should the working arms of this type bow be even thickness or tapered?
Thanks for any help!

[Andrew Hall]

Lurz

The originals used bows plates at the sides of the grip, so either construction could be used for either weight without problems. The choice is more to do with the woods available. Unfortunately I have no experience of hazel in composites, but if choosing between maple and ash, I would use the maple in the heavier bow (glues well and ring-porous wood is more consistent).

It is uncertain how the siyahs of the originals were constructed, as the only information on them seems to imply that they are one piece with the limb (which could be done by either selecting naturally bent pieces of wood or expert bending). I have used your option "A" without problems. Option "B" has more risk of the limb wood peeling away from the siyah piece under load (although this would be a slight risk with bone side plates and a sinew backing).

I suspect that the photo looking more like "B" is due to seeing the bone plate.

The radius of bend will depend drastically on the thickness, grain and your technique. Try some experiments on some off-cuts. I am not an expert at bending wood, but one thing I have learnt is to keep the wood fairly consistent in width and thickness otherwise the bend will ignore the form and concentrate in the narrow or thin sections. The smaller MB bow has quite curved limb/siyah joints anyway.

I would put some taper into the limbs to spread the bend down the limb.

Andrew

[lurz]

Thanks a lot!
Clear answes to all questons!
But I forgot one. I was considering to make the belly of the core very slighty convex, at the same time keeping the horn flat. That way I was hoping to get better distribution of the pressure when gluing with the rope metod. The parts will be grooved, but not matching. Good or bad idea?

[Bede]

Andrew,
I think Type B is the normal siyah construction for antler eared bows in Xinjiang, at least in the earlier period. Though I qualify that by saying that the last few centimetres including the nock were pure antler without any wooden core. Bone or antler strips have been excavated with a bifurcated construction, i.e. split from the base almost to the nock. I have no measurements only archaeologists' drawings. From the shape, I would guess that they were for smaller eared bows.

[lurz]

I decided to try both constructions in the first post, and have finished two cores.The first (lower) is made of maple with handle like "B" in the first post. (norwegian maple, probably "Acer platanoides") Both bows have steambent siyahs. The first bow have siyah constructon like "A" I plan to make this bow pull around 60 pounds. (Unfortunately the angels of the bows crept back a little after bending, I would have liked them a little steeper.)

The second (top) core has a handle like "A", and I decided to experimented by making the core of hazel. (There has been good results with hazel self-bows, and another post here suggest maybe trying new woods) This second bow have siyah construction "B". Thinking of the forces, I have started to wonder if this acualy looks stronger than "A"? This bow I plan to make maybe 80-100pounds.

I have now glued the horn on the first (maple) bow. clamping with the rope metod. To get good glue pressure I made the core (very) slightly convex, and the horn flat. But as Adam warned in his book, I got some lengthwise cracks in the horn. Horns probably not warm enough? Except from this the gluing looks good. Question is, will this harm the bow much? Should I take the horns of, trow them away, and make new ones? Or can I go on with the bow?


While on the subject of MB bows. I have made a simple bowquiver in impregnated linen based on the picture above, posted by Dusan, (thanks!) and others I have seen. But it is hard to see from the pictures what material it is made of. And the round thing in the middle that looks like leather, is it decoraton, or for practical purpose? Has anyone seen this or know anything?


Also, do anyone know of an open Quiver that would match an MB-bow? I have made a quiver like the above, based on, I think it was, Bedes pattern, but I suspect it don't really match a MB-bow, beeing more turkic. Would something like this, also posted by Dusan, be right? Any suggestions?

[Dusan]

Hi lurz, i like you use pics from me. Because this i post pics . Balka bowquiver is from leather.Hazel core is... maybe bad choise.Hazel is not that wood. I try some years ago vith bad experiences. But who know, maybe northern hazel was better than ours.
I dont know how from Balka bows is your replicas example, but that from mi pics haevnt high reflex handle like you have. Here is pic about handle stile gluening one from Balka bows:



another pic :




Here is Balka arrows quiver :



Your ears are in small angle, i think. And if you closer see- Original Balka ears are in another shape too...

[Bede]

Regarding the open quiver:
It is a very nice job. It has excellent proportions and decoration.

When you make a quiver like this, it is always best to make a belt with it. The buckle or belt hook should be on the same side as the quiver since this is where the most weight is and it is easier to hold the buckle and thread the tongue of the belt through. There also should be some method of fixing the support straps in place on the belt, either slots or metal fittings.

The style of the quiver is 16-17th century and might be too late for the MB bow, but it is a good quiver and practical to use.

[lurz]

Dusan, thanks, the bowquiver is leather then. I'll use that when I make one for real. Also found Bedes post on the end of this thread:
http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1876 Real helpful!
Nobody knows what the strange, round leather-looking thingy in the middle of the bowquiver is?
Also, I have seen the closed quivers, and know that they are right for a MB-bow. I was just wondering if there had been found any short open quivers from the same time/region, maybe something like the picture I found in your post?

Bede, thank you, yes the quiver is ok in use, it was made before I decided to try for a MB-bow, and I suspected it was not right period, so I'm trying to find something a bit more correct now. Oh, and please disregard my belt, it was just an old one I found and used for testing at the time. But I'll consider making som metal fittings!

The bow I know is not quite right. I started from Andrew Hall's drawings, and the picture Dusan posted, but the siyahs strightend out a little after steam bending, and I can see I have not got the handle right. But I don't think the angle between thw arms looks to far off? And the siyahs is not shaped yet.

But my most important question:
I have glued the horn to the core, clamping with the rope metod. To get good pressure I made the core very slightly convex, and the horn flat. Unfortunately I got some lengthwise cracks in the horn. (as warned against, probably horn not warm enough?) Except from this the gluing looks good. Should I take the horns of and trow them away, and make new ones? Or can I go on with the bow? As I think Persian bows was made with strips of parralel horn strips? Anyone know?

[Bede]

Some Persian and some Indian bows were made with parallel strips. At least one Hunza bow I saw had gaps between the strips of 1-2 mm wide. I think Adam might have some good ideas on this question. The Persian and Indian bows had sinew on the belly too, but the Hunza bow was more roughly made.

The problem I would worry about is whether the horn has bonded successfully to the core.

[Bede]

On quivers: there are some open quivers know of the approximate age of the MB bow, give or take a hundred years. One is shown on a mural in a palace from the Umayyad period. It has two suspension points on the leading edge and covers 3/5ths to 3/4s of the arrows' length exposing the fletching and a small part of the shaft. It has the nocks facing backwards.

The standard Sasanian quiver was worn vertically with the nocks of the arrows at or below waist level. Most or all of the fletching was visible. There were three evenly spaced suspension straps attached to the inside edge of the opening of the quiver. This is almost certainly a military quiver and was used from the 220s until almost the end of the Sasanian period in the 600s. Towards the end of the dynasty, closed quivers appear in the rock art at Taq-e Bustan.

[paku]

Lurz
I think it was a mistake to make the horn flat and the core convex. The surfaces must be almost perfectly matching (concave-convex). The best is to round the outer surface of the horn as much as possible (thinner at the edges). The core should be wider than the horn to take the highest pressure exerted by the rope. Even in this case the horn can crack. If the cracks are small (you should hardly feel by your nail) you can go on. Post a picture of the crack.
S?ndor

[lurz]

Thanks for answers both of you. Sorry I have been slow to reply, but I had taken a picture of the cracks, but got problems uploading.

It was obviously a mistake to make the horn flat and core convex, but I thougt it was so little it would be ok. The crack is about 0.3mm at the widest, so it is quite easy to both feel an see. I think the glue bond is good, but I do not like that one crack is not quite straight. So all together I have decided to play it safe and discard the horns. Thanks for the other tips on gluing Paku, will try that next time. And Bede, thanks for quiver tips.

[lurz]

So!
After a long time, and some mistakes, my second hornbow is finally shooting.
It's made from the bottom core in the picture of the two cores posted above earlier, the one whit the splice in the handle.

The core is made of maple, a little less than 4mm thick, horn is about the same, total thickness at midlimb, 10.5mm. NtN along the belly unstrung is 122cm. String length on the picture is 115cm, It weighs 480grams, and pulls about 53 pounds @ 28", about ten pounds less than I was aiming for. Draw length in the bottom picture is at 28". Core and horn is glued with the rope method, and with non-matching groves.

It has so far shot a little more than ten arrows at full draw.
A question would be if the ears should have been angled a little more, to be a little closer to parallel with he string in the strung position?
Any comments welcome!

[jack farrell]

Lurz; This is a really grand bow. My congratulations on an authentic build. The strung shape looks good to me. There is every variation in space between string and ear, as seen in artwork. Because of the problematic nature of the overlaid grip and the reflex there, many Hunnic type bows have a sinew wrapped grip. The same goes for the bend at the ear.

Builders of Turkic type bows disfavor this detail but it is a common element in archaeological finds. V splicing balances the core joinery better but this had not been discovered yet, had it?

Nice bow.

[Uli]

congratulations, good work
I also think the MB bow had a slightly steeper angle, but anyway you have proved one possible original design.