The Bronze Ring Trick

Our Sarmatian ring in bronze. Our design was actually modeled after a 1-2nd century AD artifact, one of if not the oldest metal archer’s rings ever found. The original too was cast in bronze.

Bronze rings are fantastic. Beautiful color and lustre, durable at heavy poundages, and historically authentic. But depending on how they’re worn, and the sweat chemistry of the wearer, they can stain the skin beneath them. As much as having a green thumb may be the hip new thing kids are doing these days, most of us would find that undesirable. But there is a super easy trick to prevent this. We didn’t invent it, not even close, but a surprising number of people are unaware so we thought sharing it might be helpful. It is, in short, nail polish.

Nail polish is easy to apply, is self leveling, coats thinly, has good adhesion, but is easy to remove if you make a mistake. It also is readily available, if you don’t have it your housemate/significant other probably does. Water-clear formulations are also very very common, and are nearly invisible when applied.

Step one is to use some nail polish remover to clean the inside surfaces of the ring. It doesn’t strictly have to be nail polish remover, most cleaning solvents work too, but if you have nail polish you probably have nail polish remover as well. The point of this step is to remove any dirt or oils from the inside of the ring, to set up good adhesion between the nail polish and the ring.

Next simply paint the nail polish on the inside of the ring. (clear recommended) Go for a thin coat, and take your time around the edges. Any drip or mistake can be cleaned up with nail polish remover. Work your way around the ring, and allow the nail polish to cure. A second coat can be applied if desired, although isn’t strictly necessary.

And that is it, you’re done. Simple, quick, easy, and you probably already have all the necessary materials in your home. Now you can enjoy your bronze rings, or any oxidizing metal for that matter, without fear of it staining your hand.

Product Introduction - Shark Leather

Here you can see a shark leather background. Atop it sits a Hybrid ring and a bow with stingray leather grip and arrow pass.

Lets get the obvious out of the way first: the ethical concerns regarding sharks and shark products. Sharks are are absolutely critical to our oceans’ ecosystem, many of them are keystone species. That said, not all shark species are endangered or threatened. Our shark leather is exclusively from non-endangered, non-threatened, non CITES shark species (specifically P. glauca.) and are bycatch from lawful fishing. No sharks were harvested for their leather, it is strictly a byproduct. As such, it is not consistently available.

What makes shark leather special? Sharks have tiny tooth-like structures on their skin called denticles, which are common to elasmobranchs. Unlike our stingray leather however, where the denticles are quite large, on our shark leather they’re so small you may need magnification to see them. This gives the leather a glossy smooth, yet rugged finish. It is difficult to photograph, but take our word for it, you’ve probably never handled leather like this before.

As an introduction to this exotic leather, we’re offering leather ring inserts made from it. On average it is just a little thicker than our typical leather, although there is some overlap. Leather, being a natural product, has some variability. For those more adventurous, we offer custom cutting in whatever shape you require. If you have such a project, please message us.

Stingray leather kulaks

Goodbye 2020

It has been one heck of a year, not what any of us expected for sure. I wanted to finish off this year with a quick new product announcement and a HUGE thank you to all of our customers.

Our polymer ring decoration has always been popular, and is a great way to get a beautiful ring. Why not on our premium metal rings though? Good question. We now offer metal ring decoration as a standard option. As with our polymer rings, this process physically cuts into the ring surface. Many options are available, from our standard patterns to text, to fully bespoke artwork. Message us if you have something in mind we don’t offer.

And finally, all of us here at CTR want to say a huge thank you to all our customers. It has been a tough year for everyone, between shipping disruptions, lockdowns, and a global pandemic, I don’t think 2020 was what any of us were expecting or hoping for. But we made it through together and so, from all of us to all of you: THANK YOU!!! We wish all of you and your families health and safety in 2021!

Bow Performance Project - Simsek Cagan

If you follow our blog series, you’ll be aware of our Simsek Turkish style bow, which performed well but broke. This should not be judged too harshly, anything which exists so close to the edge will have a failure rate, and all good bows exist close to this limit as a result. What if a bow doesn’t exist close to this limit, wouldn’t that be better? No actually, it would not, because it would mean it has latent performance, it could have been better; performance is maximized by sitting close to that edge. I digress. The Simsek Turkish style bow pulled up a splinter on its belly, a compression failure, which progressively grew larger and it was clear would continue until the limb catastrophically failed. A shame, because it was a beautiful bow.

Simsek though handled the situation, and said they’d replace it. Given the comments in our review regarding the merits of a Tatar style bow, Simsek asked if we’d like their new not-yet-released Tatar style bow? A few months later and we had one of the new Cagan bows in hand.

First impressions are that the bow is still very much Simsek. Limbs are very narrow as are siyahs and grip. The bow, again, feels very slight and delicate in the hand. And both unstrung, strung, and at full draw it possesses absolutely sinuous curves. It is a very shapely attractive bow. This bow though, instead of having its back covered with leather and painting and its resin and glass belly exposed with voids visible, is almost entirely covered in what Simsek confirms is some sort of synthetic material. It looks rather like black painted cork. As it abrades away at the arrow pass, it reveals some sort of woven underlying structure, perhaps a cloth integral to the wrap? If I were to guess, I’d guess it is some sort of patterned vinyl wrap. Only the Siyahs are exposed, which have a better quality of finishing than the previous bow. New style larger nock inserts and more rounded string bridges are welcome improvements as well, reducing string fraying.

Upon first drawing this bow, there were some truly heart-stopping popping sounds. I’m not sure of their origin, and these sounds have diminished significantly as the bow has been shot, although they still occasionally occur. It is possible they are, not the fibers of the bow structure, but the fibers used in the covering. This is just a guess of course, but I have two reasons for suspecting this is the case. The first drawing was quite dramatic, with many popping sounds, and that was never repeated. First, surely these bows must be drawn for tillering and testing before shipping, and if it were the working part of the bow that would have already been gotten-over-with. However it is possible Simsek covers the bow as a final step, thus the covering hasn’t been fully stretched and would produce these sounds. My second reason for thinking this is that the original Turkish, which I believe has the same functional composition, didn’t do this. Third and finally the bow hasn’t shown any physical signs of failure or degradation, so it seems unlikely they originate from the working part of the bow. We will of course update the blog if any of this changes.

Shots from this bow, again like the Turkish, have an effortless quality to them. While the grip really increases the perception of force in the hand in all respects, arrows glide out with seemingly effortless accuracy. It is pleasant bow to shoot, requiring little effort or input to deliver arrows right to the target. They don’t seem to have any great sense of urgency though, and at range seem to always land low.

All this is brings me to really the first significant complaint about the Cagan: its maximum draw length. The previous Turkish bow indicated an optimal draw length of 28-30” with a maximum of 32”. The Cagan cuts off those last two extra inches, capping it at a mere 30.” And that really puts a pin in the style. Let me offer a somewhat simplified explanation.

The philosophy behind the Turkish style of bow was an optimization for arrow velocity, with some sacrifice in absolute efficiency and power. This evolved into a bow which was unusually short and fired arrows on the short-side of things. The Ottoman military used Tatar soldiers though, and so there was demand from Turkish bowyers for their style of bow as well. The Tatar bow was still a fast bow in the global scheme of things, but used longer heavier arrows and a greater focus on ultimate efficiency and kinetic energy delivery to the target than its Turkish counterpart. In that regard, it was more akin to the Korean military style of bow, and I think it no accident the two ended up rather similar in profile and size.

Why does that matter here? Well the Simsek Cagan has a shorter maximum draw than the Turkish bow it is replacing. And that lack of power stroke really hinders it. If we assume draw force were even (it isn’t), the specified brace height of the Cagan is about 6.7 inches (17cm), so you get a power stroke of about 23” and that is about 10% less than the Turkish. And even if you were to assume equal draw length, the bow is 2.4” longer and 7% heavier, at 362 grams. Once again little space or mass is wasted in the grip, so these don’t bode well for the bow’s performance. So one would have to ask, other than for style, why would you want the Cagan compared to its Turkish cousin? We did put this question to Simsek before publishing and their response was “…no bow design is better tnan the other. All have their advantages and disadvantages...” [sic]

But enough speculation, how does it actually perform? The bow was specified at 45#s, and it appears to be quite close in that regard. Initial draw weight is quite low, and having a measured brace height of about 8” doesn’t help put on those early pounds. I should mention, there are different points to measure from when indicating draw length. We measure as if it were the arrow, which is to say from near the rear side of the arrow pass area. Based on the specified 6.7 inches, I’m guessing Simsek measured from the rearmost part of the grip which would likely account for part of the discrepancy. Neither way is right or wrong per se, just different methodologies which produce slightly different results. Never the less, it isn’t unusual for a bow to have a brace height of greater than 7 inches, as our charts clearly show.

View fullsize

View fullsize

Where the Tatar style starts to shine a bit more is in smoothness, particularly in regards to those last couple inches of draw. The slope of the line for the last 2” of draw are better than average, though some of this could be attributed to the bow’s relatively low draw weight. The total percentage of the bow’s poundage gained in the last two inches though is just about average, which is good. There is a subtle issue indicated here though which isn’t obvious from force-draw analysis alone.

View fullsize

View fullsize

Total stored energy is 43 foot pounds, which is actually the lowest of any bow on our list. Without context though, that is meaningless. Higher poundage bows store more energy, so energy storage relative to the draw force is what matters. Here the Simsek manages 0.988 foot pounds of energy stored for every pound of draw force at full draw. That is actually better than the the Simsek Turk, which managed only 0.963. (keep in mind Turkish style bows tend to do worse here, as they’re not optimized for energy storage) It is however below average, which currently stands at 1.05, and about 10% behind AF Archery’s Tatar style bows. There is also some indication that the bow is in the early stages of stacking, and had we drawn the bow past the manufacturer’s specified maximum draw length, performance would have declined rather sharply. And this is what I hinted at in the previous paragraph. If you look at the Energy Stored/Poundage chart, you can see there is something of a pack of the highest performers. The Cagan starts out at the bottom of that pack, but sticks with it managing to stay ahead of the KTB Kingdom, Grozer, and natural materials bows. At 25” draw length, it is still hanging in there with the group, albeit still at the bottom edge down with the Simsek Turk and one of the AF Tatars, but then things start going wrong.

View fullsize

View fullsize

In this graph, stored energy/poundage, you want as steep a slope as possible for maximum performance, because you want to store the most energy possible for a given strength requirement, but the Cagan’s is never that steep and worse yet between 25 and 27” the Cagan’s slope starts to level out. It is in this range where the other bows’ siyahs start kicking in to provide leverage and make this curve steeper. Look at how the JZW Manchu, the monster energy storing machine, has those siyahs working against you early in the draw to produce high early draw weight, and then start to kick in flattening the force-draw curve; the bow gains a only 13#s of draw force across 12” between 15 and 27” but gains 16 pounds in the early 4 inches of draw between 9 and 13”. That is huge, the most clear cut example of the power of siyahs I have. The Cagan though deploys this leverage poorly, not creating a high enough early draw weight and kicking in too early reducing stored energy and then running out of steam. By the time we get to 29” the Cagan has leveled out even more. But the last hurdle is always the last two inches where stacking is the enemy, and bows can lose a lot of performance here requiring a lot of extra force to draw just a short distance. You see most bows level off here, some even drop as their stacking dramatically increases required draw force with minimal energy gains. So for those reading this and saying “over draw the bow, damn Simsek’s specifications” I’d point out that doing so probably wouldn’t help. Given the flattening of the curve at 29”, I suspect we’d see a negative slope at 31” leaving the bow’s performance even worse than stopping at 29”. Also, give Simsek a little credit for knowing their own design. If a manufacturer tells you to stop, they may not be wrong, and the data certainly indicate they knew exactly what they were doing when they limited it to 30”.

So how does this translate to actual shots? Sadly, pretty much as predicted. Average arrow velocity was just shy of 160FPS, about 30FPS slower than the Turk with the same arrows. Now granted the Turk had slightly higher poundage, ending up at 8.7gpp, and the Cagan at 11.5gpp. So how about efficiency, since as we know higher GPP confers large efficiency advantages? Unfortunately, efficiency was poor as well despite the advantage of high arrow mass. The Simsek Cagan managed only 65-66% efficiency depending on how you measure it. (output energy/#s@full draw and output energy/stored energy respectively) Ideally this figure would be over 70%, the AF Archery Tatars managed 76-86% by comparison, one of them at a 7.8gpp. The Simsek Turk did better as well, managing 70% output energy/stored energy. Sadly at 65% this is actually the second lowest performing modern-materials bow we’ve tested, better only than the Grozer Turkish by less than 2%.

View fullsize

What happened here? When you get right down to it, I think there are a couple spots where the bow went wrong. The bow is just physically larger, and 7% heavier than its Turkish cousin. And if you’re going to spend mass in a bow, it needs to do something, and that something is typically to store energy. This bow just doesn’t store very much energy relative to its poundage. I have to speculate here, but I believe this is symptomatic of the siyahs both being relatively short and having a not-particularly-aggressive angle. Checked against a couple other bows hanging on the wall, it is less acute than the Simsek Turk, Grozer Turk, all of the Koreans, etc. It is about on par with the AF Turk actually, which was another surprise not-high-performer. (not that it was a horrible performer per se, but given the screaming performance of AF’s Tatar bows, we had expected more) The aggressive reflex in the grip area, with no compensatory deflex, doesn’t seem to have accomplished the desirable high early draw weight either, perhaps because the siyahs come into play providing leverage too early. The result is a bow which is pleasant to shoot and has beautiful curves, but sadly lacks in the realm of performance.

What would I experiment with to improve things, were this my bow? To be clear, I am by no means an expert bowyer and these suggestions could certainly be completely wrong, but here are my thoughts:

• Move the nock closer to the tip of the siyah. Currently it is approximately 1-1/8” from the tip of the siyah. Mass in this area must be accelerated to the maximum velocity of the bow limb. Moving the string closer to the tip would provide additional leverage during the mid part of draw cycle and increase draw length by increasing effective bow/string length. All at no extra cost.

• Increase siyah angle. Peak leverage seems to be kicking in too soon, not just relative to other bows, but relative to the elastic limits of the material, in turn reducing early and mid-draw weight. It also means the bow, even if the material could tolerate it safely, would likely not draw smoothly beyond 30”. Increasing siyah angle could increase early and mid-draw weights while reducing late draw weights, exactly what you want. The tradeoff here is overall bow stability. Simsek seems to be able to manage this with their Turkish style though, so why not here? That leads neatly into the third bullet point.

• Add deflex to the limbs. Simsek’s extreme reflex is a selling point from an aesthetic perspective, certainly, but it doesn’t seem to be doing its job all alone. Early draw weights are quite low for the bow’s poundage, and maximum draw length is quite short for this bow style. Adding a little deflex here as a compromise could increase bow stability as a nod to both a more aggressive siyah angle and a longer maximum draw length all without increasing limb mass.

And that is it for this test. I hope it was an informative read. Catch you all at the next blog post!

Bow Performance Project - Simsek Turkish and YMG Korean

View fullsize

It has been far too long since we updated this project. So on the review block today are two bows, a Simsek Turkish Hybrid+ and a YMG.

Simsek is a Turkish manufacturer of all-resin (non-laminated) Turkish style bows. They’re going through something of a surge in popularity at the moment. They have sinuous curves, and are one of very few Turkish designs out there which, at a slight distance, could pass for an authentic horn-sinew composite unstrung, strung, and at full draw. They also offer painting or tezhip, to further beautify their bows. A lot of manufacturers show pictures of bows so decorated, but actually ordering one with it is another thing. With Simsek, it is a standard option. It all comes together to form a package which is probably one of, if not the best looking Turkish style bows on the market.

View fullsize

View fullsize

For those who don’t already know, a quick primer on bow technology. Most of the bows out there are laminated, meaning the working parts of the limbs are formed by pressing and bonding dissimilar materials together, ones strong in tension for the back, strong in compression for the belly, and light weight and shear-resistant for the core. This minimizes limb mass and increases bow performance, but is more expensive to do and very broadly speaking tends to be less durable. Laminations on bows tend to fail at the glue joints, and so they are a common failure point. Examples of laminated bows include original horn-sinew-wood composites all these bows are based on, the YMG we’re testing below, and the AF Archery bows we’ve tested before. All resin bows are not “laminated” per se. The working part of their limbs, or in some cases the whole bow like this Simsek, are made of a single piece of material usually cast, extruded, pultruded, injected, or or in some cases laid up manually. It is still a composite material, a blend of resin and some other material to increase strength typically fiberglass, but the cross section of the limb is essentially the same density throughout. In the case of Simsek, the bow is likely made by placing strips of fiberglass or carbon fiber cloth into a mould and painting resin on, adding more and more until the mould is full. The primary advantages to this are much lower manufacturing cost and much better durability. However this comes with a major design challenge, which is increased limb mass that in turn results in slower speeds, lower efficiency, and handshock. The Simsek weighs 336 grams, which is actually quite light. The bow itself is physically very small and slim. Compare that to the bigger bulkier Grozer, of similar poundage, which is a more portly 530 grams. Three examples of “resin” bows we tested were the Elong Yuan (retracted; bow is not recommended), Grozer Turkish, and JZW Manchu. All three were notable for their comparatively lower efficiency, although in the case of the Manchu, high efficiency is already not expected and much of the limb mass is in the siyahs rather than the resin working limbs anyway. It will be very interesting to compare the Grozer to the Simsek as they are so similar in style, design, and construction. I digress.

ref. Simsek Bows 2020

In shooting, the Simsek draws draws with remarkable smoothness for such a short bow. Keep in mind, strung, this bow is 43” tip to tip yet boasts a 32” maximum draw. It is only a little bit longer than the arrow itself. It also draws quietly, without nock creak or leather squeak. Arrows head down range straight with little effort on the part of the shooter, and with what seems like real urgency. The grip is slight, delicate in the hand, just enough to hold onto. More than any other bow I’ve shot, you really feel the draw weight in your grip hand. There is a slight almost metallic “clink” as the string comes taught at the base of the siyahs, with no residual vibration. There is hand shock, as there is with all bows due to the residual energy needing to go somewhere, however the perception of it is likely greater than the reality, simply because the grip is so slender and the bow appears to waste little mass to the grip section. It really has great dynamics and is a pleasure to shoot. I’m guessing it will buck the trend for efficiency.

Base price is about 420$ for the Hybrid S delivered (to the United States, at time of writing), however that is before you dive into the options list which can start to make your head spin. Want leather covering on your Simsek Hybrid? That is another 60$. Want more than ~40-45 pounds draw? Add another ~60$ for every 5 pounds draw all the way up to “+100#s.” Want decorative panting called Tezhip? Add another 110$. Want to jump to the shorter, and presumably faster, Sipahi and you’ll have to add another 170$. So, as you can see, the price can climb quite steeply here with options. Simsek noted in a post on their facebook page that they can build 250# bows. This is huge. Very few companies sell war weight bows at all, and a lot of this has to do with the failure rate. Simsek’s willingness to make such powerful bows could be seen as a testament to the design’s durability. We opted for a Hybrid S+ with tezhip specified for 41-45#s. After all, if the shape of the bow is to be beautiful, why not the rest of it? For this we paid a total of 540$, which included a 10% promotional discount from another reviewer (thank you Armin Hirmer, if you are not subscribed to his youtube channel, you should be), without which the price would have been about 600$.

This price, much of it paid for aesthetic features, lends itself to a little closer scrutiny of the bow. Overall the bow is exquisite. There are a lot of very beautiful details. It is slender, almost dainty, in character. Limbs are deliberately thin, presumably for efficiency and so are the siyahs. It is curvaceous in all the right ways and places. It really is one of, if not the only, Turkish style bow which looks like it could be a horn bow both unstrung, strung, and at full draw. The belly also appears to use a different color resin from the siyahs so the former looks more like horn while the latter looks more like wood.The painting was also beautifully executed. And now we get to my only negatives about the bow. It falters somewhat in a handful of flaws visible on closer inspection, bubbles on the belly, rasp marks/rough finish scattered around the bow, and a little fiberglass poking out of one of the siyahs. On a base model these don’t affect function and would hardly bear mentioning, but on a highly decorated bow one would display, they aren’t particularly desirable. There are two other things to note as well. There are a couple sharp edges around the nocks, and where the string contacts the belly, and after just a few shooting sessions the serving had started to fray. These can be relatively easily remedied by the user, but are worth noting. And, more worryingly, after testing was completed a splinter appeared on the belly. Another shooting session saw that splinter grow, and so for safety reasons use of the bow had to be discontinued. We chatted with Simsek about all this, and they determined that this was not expected from the bow and they plan to replace it. We’ll update this review when the replacement arrives. *update the replacement arrived 9.9.20, in the form of a new Tatar style bow. We’re in the process of evaluating it now. That will become a new blog post when completed.* I should note here that Simsek were great to deal with. It is important to understand that bows exist with very little margin for error, or what is called “safety factor” in engineering. That is to say they innately exist very close to the edge, and are there deliberately as it improves bow performance. This means that, irrespective of quality or brand, there will be a certain failure rate. So one must not judge harshly any single bow failure, especially as the bowyer was happy to replace it. Below is a gallery showing these issues. As you can see, all require closer inspection to notice.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

But looks are nothing without performance, so how does this bow perform? There is unfortunately relatively little data out there on the subject, and what is available can be a bit confusing. Take draw length as a case in point. On Simsek’s website they have this to say:
“We make our tests and measurements at 28″ standards, So our recommended Draw Length is 28″. But Draw Length is within safety tolerances in 28″~30″ range. Maximum Draw Length is 32″.” Meanwhile their pictograms, as shown a bit further up the post, indicate 28-30” max 32”.

What does all that mean, exactly, and as a tester what are you to take away from it? I would expect it means the bow begins to stack in the 28-30” range, what it was optimized for, however can still safely be drawn to 32”. The plan then is to test this bow at the same 31” draw length and using a thumb ring as we do with all our other tests as it is within the range provided by Simsek. To sacrifice draw length would put the bow at significant performance disadvantage. Additionally, finger draws act like a longer draw length by about an inch and a half at this extreme string angle as you have a larger string displacement. Using a ring, which we obviously do, gives you a little more room to draw as compared to what manufacturers tend to advertise.

We chatted with Simsek a bit on the subject of performance as well. They provided two examples of other performance tests. First was a post by Ivar Malde, an accomplished horn bowyer and flight shooter. A quick summary was that bow produced 46#s at 27” draw, and produced 258fps using a 200 grain arrow or 4.3gpp. The associated picture indicated this was done on a mounted flight shooting rig, with an overdraw device, and I presume was a peak measurement as is typical of flight bow tests. Simsek noted that this was also a special bow made for the purpose, not a standard model. The second example was from Dr. Murat and was much more comprehensive, albeit in Turkish. The data is still in the “universal” Arabic numerals though, and indicate that the bows are about 65% efficient at 8gpp and approaching 70% efficient at 10gpp. The produced velocities of about 170 to 190 FPS again at 8-10gpp. This is roughly comparable performance to Czaba Grozer’s all resin Turkish bow, however Simsek again added the caveat that the design has been updated (twice) since then and the performance should be better still. The most recent review by Armin Hirmer was a bit more casual, but again indicates performance is in the 170-180ish FPS region which is roughly in line with that of Dr. Murat.

---

We’re no stranger to YMG bows here. We’ve tested two before in this series, this makes the third. So why is this here, why three? Simple: it is a personal bow, picked up for recreational uses, and as we’re doing testing on the Simsek why not simply include it? So we’ll breeze through this bow a little quicker as we’ve already covered the subject, but for those unfamiliar, YMG bows are available under a variety of brands now, and no wonder: they are reasonably priced, durable, have exceptional performance, are available in war-weights, and are very very beautiful. I went out and purchased this bow with my own money for my own personal use purely because I love them. They are quiet shooters, smooth drawing, and are truly, properly, fast. They are also very authentic looking, having curved and polished synthetic on the belly which looks like horn, rounded edges which look a bit like the mounding of sinew, and are covered in natural beautiful birch bark. Both strung and at full draw it takes an experienced eye or closer inspection to tell them from a horn-sinew composite. Replacing the rubber strike pads with leather is a quick and easy way to take it even further. Grip wrapping varies and options range from scouring pad material to dimpled rubber to various leathers. It is easy to redo, however in this case I stuck with my preferred dimpled rubber which provides a strong and comfortable low-wrist grip, a nod to practicality over authenticity. Perhaps some day I’ll replace it with a highly textured exotic leather of some sort. This grip texturing is very much necessary by the way, as these Korean bows require active archers. While the Simsek above effortlessly spits arrows straight, these Korean bows make you work for every shot. Get your form right and you will be rewarded with beautiful straight arrow flight with incredible smoothness and speed. Get it wrong and you can find your arrows wildly fishtailing and wide of the mark. These bows really are shooters, and that is why I shoot a YMG more than all the other bows we have combined. Oh and did I mention they’re available in war weights? (see our previous tests) I do dearly love these bows, and this one has been no exception. Having shot this YMG a fair bit before this test, I’m not expecting it to disappoint in the performance category either. Total price paid for this bow was 380$ delivered to the United States. This makes it more expensive than most of the Chinese made laminate bows and entry level Korean bows, but less expensive than many of the “special” Korean bows most of the American or European made laminated bows.

View fullsize

As I have three essentially identical bows here, I want to take another brief digression and talk about lamination and the power of composites. As you can see from the chart below, at a draw length of 31” they are 106, 71, and 52#s respectively. That is quite significant. What about differences in mass though? Putting all three on a precision gram scale, without their strings, I got masses of 362, 353, 347g respectively. That is HUGE. The most powerful has twice the draw force and stores twice the energy but has almost identical moving mass. And all that comes down to bow construction. I strongly suspect the material, likely glass and carbon fiber, laminated to form the back and belly of these bows is the same for all poundages. The only difference, as far as draw weight is concerned, is the thickness of the wood core. That slightly thicker wood core places the primary load bearing laminations further from the neutral plane and so they do more work. This means that, for equal gpp projectiles, the higher draw weight bows will be more efficient. Conversely, it means this YMG should be the least efficient of the three I own. How exactly that will play out given that arrow mass remains constant is harder to say.

---

Force Draw Data

View fullsize

View fullsize

Here the Simsek is at a disadvantage, as are all Turkish style bows. Favoring both a shorter optimal draw length and a higher brace height, these bows just tend to store less energy and stack more in these tests. That is no fault of Simsek’s, just part of the style. And it does come with its advantages. If you’re optimizing for shooting very light arrows very fast, a shorter arrow of equal cross section will have both less mass and a higher spine. Stiffer means the projectile can be further thinned, and lighter arrows require less spine. In short it is a feedback loop which can significantly reduce arrow mass. Higher brace heights and that thin grip are also major contributing factors to why the Simek effortlessly produces beautiful arrow flights while the YMG makes you work for it. The Simsek clearly would prefer to be drawn about 28” but even at 31 it is still performing admirably with a slope for the last 2” of just 4.5 and gaining just 16% of its total poundage there. Not bad at all for such a small bow. I should note here that the entire draw stayed relatively linear before the stacking kicked in. More reflex and a more aggressive siyah angle could change this, increasing the pre-tension (early draw weight) and further flattening the middle of the draw curve, but would also further stress an already extreme bow design.

The YMG was, somewhat surprisingly, in the same ballpark as the Simsek starting to stack a little at the end with a slope of 4.3 and gaining 17% of its total poundage in the last 2”. “Ideal,” if you consider a bow with a linear draw ideal, would be 6-7% of total poundage gained in the last 2”, although of course the JZW Manchu is the only one which manages it. This is a somewhat dismaying performance for the YMG, I would have expected it to be smoother, as it sure feels it.

Stored Energy

View fullsize

View fullsize

This is an interesting metric, total stored energy at a given draw length, and illustrates well why I decided to push the Simsek a full inch beyond its “recommended” draw length. Almost 20% of its total stored energy comes from those last 2”. It actually stores more energy than the YMG next to it, despite a late start (higher brace height) and the same nominal poundage (45#s at 28”)

Stored Energy/Poundage

View fullsize

View fullsize

Here is where the playing field gets leveled and bows of vastly differing poundage can compete on a level field. For those unaware of how this works, you essentially divide the chart one section above (energy stored) by the first chart (draw weight at length). The result is that bows of dissimilar draw weights can be compared on equal footing, and the question of how efficiently they store energy can be answered. Both the Simsek and YMG end up toward the bottom of the pack here. The Simsek has all the aforementioned excuses, while the YMG does not. The Simsek was doing quite well until it passes 27,” again a nod to Simsek for knowing what they’re talking about and their bow performing basically as advertised. It is only after that point that the stacking begins and curve flattens out. The YMG does better, and is technically within margin of error of 1.0, my “standard” if you will, but for a bow designed for the long Korean draw which in some cases runs out to 34” this was less than stellar. I should mention again that the Simsek is several inches shorter than the YMG here. More surprising though is that the Grozer, about the same length and with even more extreme reflex unstrung, did almost 5% better. That I did not see coming. I’m not making comparisons to the AF Turk here simply because that bow is more of a homage to the Turkish style more than it is a real “turkish style” bow. It possesses a greater length, less reflex, lower brace height, and was clearly designed for a longer draw.

Chrono Work

View fullsize

And finally, here we are, where the rubber meets the road. How does it sling an arrow? Well the YMG managed a respectable 180fps average and a respectable 70% efficiency. I also have to say, this is where the Simsek genuinely surprised me, managing a 70% efficiency as well. That is good by any standard, but for an all resin bow that is surprisingly good. Contrast that with the Grozer’s 64% efficiency, the best comparison as another leather covered all-resin bow, and you can really see the magnitude of what Simsek accomplished here. All this was accomplished at 8.7gpp. These numbers are roughly in line with Dr. Murat’s above, although it appears Simsek did indeed find a little more efficiency somewhere.

There is one other thing worth mentioning here. The Crimean Tatar style of bow has a history of being manufactured by Turkish bowyers. This traces back to the Tatars being used by the Ottoman military, thus they needed to be able to equip them. (for those unaware, war is a largely logistical institution) If I might be so bold, Simsek could bring this tradition forward and produce their own interpretation of the Tatar style bow. It is a style which has great performance potential, but is a little less extreme than the Turkish style having a more generous grip and longer draw. If Simsek can work their high performance all-resin magic on that style of bow, they may well make a winner which appeals to an even broader audience than their Turkish style. After all, many other military horn bows find themselves similar to the Tatar style. Just a thought.

Thanks everyone for reading. I hope this throws a little more light on the mechanical performance of bows and their design.

Manchu Arrow Project (part 7)

In our previous episode (Manchu Arrow Project part 6), we were making some more practical Manchu arrows. The goal was to get a complete set of wood arrows which were heavy enough for a max draw weight JZW Manchu (~60#s@36”), to do it in a manner accessible to those who do not own tools, and to keep it all within a budget of what a dozen finished Gold Tip Traditionals would cost (137$). Where we left off, this had already failed, if you truly own no tools, the ones you’d have to buy would push you up to 194$ so far. With arrows almost complete though, how much worse could it get?

First though, a quick digression. Quality insights on Asiatic artifacts are surprisingly rare. Even rarer is quality photography. Peter Dekker reliably produces both. While browsing one of his websites, Mandarin Mansion, I stumbled across the following account:

“…The tanged point is inserted at the front, wrapped with sinew and covered with black peach bark. Such a construction is incredibly strong, I've shot accurate replicas of such arrows into walls and they remained intact where a socketed arrowhead would break right behind the socket…”
(ref. https://www.mandarinmansion.com/item/sirdan-or-manchu-war-arrow)

While this may seem a small detail, or even obvious to some, it is the first authoritative account I’ve come across which notes the superior strength of tanged arrow heads to socketed ones. And the account makes a certain amount of sense, after all anyone who has shot arrows with socketed heads know they reliably fail immediately above the socket. A mounting system which creates a longer transition between head and shaft could avoid the stress concentration of a socketed head and provide higher durability. Food for thought. Sadly, tanged arrow heads are hard to come by, and can be more challenging to install. Never the less, an interesting insight. And now, back to the action.

Acquire feathers. Feathers can be had pre-cut, if you’re looking to save as much money as absolutely possible, but for arrows you’ve made yourself going that little extra distance for a little more authentic spice I think is very much worthwhile. I should also add that arrows this long and heavy can be more difficult to steer, and so the typically larger feathers of the Manchu isn’t unreasonable. One should also note, full length feathers often are about the same price as their pre-cut relatives, so your savings is mostly going to be in the tools used to shape them. At this point you might ask: left or right wing? Some people will tell you it matters, for one reason or another, but in all my years doing this I’ve never seen a single scientific study showing one to actually be better for some specific application to another. So just get what you like.

So lets say you went with the splurge option of uncut feathers, how to make them consistent and beautiful? Well, as it just so happens, we manufacture and sell templates for this application quite specifically. Our full snarling Manchu template is quite a thing, however is actually longer than many uncut feathers. Because I didn’t want to have to cherry-pick feathers to get ones long enough, and because it is still more than adequate, I opted for our Manchu Mini. Use is incredibly easy. On a cutting board, place the quill in the template’s groove, and firmly press down. Then take a rotary knife and run it around the outside of the template, starting at the distal end of the feather. Keep your movement smooth and slow, and your force even.

So now you have beautiful feathers, how to attach them? There are a lot of products here, however I specifically selected a gelled cyanoacrylate which could be reused for feathers. This is far from the only option, there are a wide variety of adhesives on the market, the easiest of which to use is, in my opinion, fletching tape. Either way we’re going to lay these on by hand, because they are too long for most if not all commercial fletching clamps.

This process is made easier with some sort of jig though to ensure consistent spacing. Whether you go for three fletch or four fletch, you’ll want your feathers consistently arrayed around your arrow. This template can be done with something as simple as a piece of paper. Place your arrow on your bowstring, and make note of where you want the rear of the fletch to start. Make a small mark on your shaft at that point. Then, from your nock, cut a piece of semi-rigid material (paper is sufficient) to the width between the nock and where you want the fletching to start. Wrap it around the arrow, and make another mark where the ends meet. Lay this piece flat and measure it, marking it at even intervals for the placement of your feathers. (thirds for three fletch, quarters for four fletch) Roll it up again, and slide it over your arrow shaft, taking care to align the marks correctly with your nock orientation. You now have a jig that gives you a consistent position for the rearmost part of every fletch. Mark this carefully and discretely on your arrow shaft with a pencil or marker, then remove the jig.

From here, with the aid of a clamp to hold the arrow shaft down, apply each fletch. A word on the adhesive: use it sparingly, it wicks readily and can climb up and onto your fingers which is not a big deal, but is better to avoid. After the fletch is secured, you can always go back later and lay down a larger bead of glue. Cyanacrylates cure with exposure to moisture, so doing this in a lower humidity environment will give you more working time. Orient the spot for a specific feather upward, so it is visually obviously when it is aligned properly. You can apply spiral here, though it is traditional not to. Press down the rear of the feather on the mark you made, and lay it down moving forward pressing firmly on the quill. Hold it until the adhesive has tentatively set, typically 15 seconds, and then rotate to the next one. Full strength cure is typically achieved in 24 hours. It really is that simple and easy. If you’re really struggling, a big potato chip bag clip, given a quick coat of wax, can help hold the feather straight while you lay it down.

So it is far from necessary, however wrapping the front of each fletch can add durability, beauty, and a little spice to the whole affair. This can be done by hand, but so long as you got a drill, why not use it? Clamp the arrow LOOSELY in something, such that it can freely rotate. Attach the drill chuck to the point, and make the first few wraps of thread by hand. Then gently apply power to the drill to spin the arrow and form up an attractive wrap. A few half-hitches followed by a drop of glue complete the wrap.

And before you know it, that is it, you’re done. Give everything a final once over, use the palm of your hand to give the arrows one final straighten if they need it, then take a step back and admire your work, or better yet GO SHOOT!

One more final prickly subject, the budget.

Everything so far has totaled 194$:
9$ points
25$ board
47$ doweling cutter
11$ Veritas sockets and adapter for dowel cutter
36$ skill saw
15$ C-clamps
21$ Corded Drill
5$ hacksaw blades
7$ arrow taper tool
4$ Bohning Point Glue
6$ Nock Glue
8$ Flax Oil (finish)

To that we’ve added:
30$ Feathers

So, the full damage is 224$ for what ended up being 15 beautiful arrows against a proposed budget of 137$ which would buy you a dozen finished Gold Tip Traditionals. That is a less than stellar 40% cost overrun, if I’m honest. Split another way, it is 14.93$ per arrow while the GTTs are 11.42$ per arrow. However I want to again repeat the huge caveat that, if you wanted to make more than just a dozen arrows, or just owned a handful of these tools already, that could quickly reverse. A few quick numbers crunched and you could rip out 30 arrows for about 288$ which brings the price down to 9.60$ per arrow. And so the relative cost would continue to drop as more and more arrows were made. At the end of the day, this is a fun project, a great way to spend rainy days or time in COVID-19 lockdown. I hope this was entertaining and informative, if nothing else, but really I hope I showed making arrows yourself doesn’t have to be hard or too expensive and can be a ton of fun.

New Product - Rayskin Arrow Pass

Rayskin arrow pass seen here with an Ottoman ring in sterling silver, a majra, an arrow made with our Ottoman pattern fletching template, and our siper.

Stringray leather is one of the most incredible natural materials, long prized for its unique texture and exceptional durability. No surprise it was used for all sorts of things, not the least of which were protective pads where the arrow contacts the bow. The material is actually structurally like teeth, made of dentin and enamel, which makes it very challenging to cut as it eats steel tools!

We’re pleased to offer it now in convenient and attractive shapes, perfect for fitting to a bow. Custom cuts are available on request, and if this product proves popular we may well add to the lineup offering both more styles and colors. (other historical colors were both white and green)

For a limited time, as part of the product’s introduction, we’re offering these at 25% discount. Get ‘em while they’re hot.

Manchu Arrow Project (part 6)

In our previous episode (Manchu Arrow Project part 5), we were making some more practical Manchu arrows. The goal was to get a complete set of wood arrows which were heavy enough for a max draw weight JZW Manchu (~60#s@36”), to do it in a manner accessible to those who do not own tools, and to keep it all within a budget of what a dozen finished Gold Tip Traditionals would cost (137$). Where we left off, this had already failed, if you truly own no tools, the ones you’d have to buy would push you up to 164$ so far. The worst of the tool acquisitions over though, just how trim can we keep the budget? That is what we aim to find out here.

But first, a brief digression. What with COVID-19 tearing a path across humanity, our email inboxes have been flooded with usually well intentioned advice to self-quarantine blended with a little self serving promotion. In some cases this is more hamfistedly done than others. While this project didn’t start out as something to do with the long evenings and weekends alone, it certainly could be a wholesome way of doing so. Nothing here requires more than a little space in which to work and a steady table. There is a real joy and satisfaction from making something beautiful and useful with your own two hands. Regardless I just want to say, to our cherished readers and customers, we at CTR all wish you and your families health and safety in these uncertain times. And now, back to the action.

So the board produced 17 shafts out of a hypothetical 24. That is not bad for a board with a big blemish in it. Now each shaft must be cut to length, and those square ends have to go too obviously. If you have a saw of some sort this is easy, but what if you don’t? Well everyone owns a knife, and here is a little trick. Take the knife, hold it perpendicular to the shaft on a cutting board (or other cutting safe surface), and while pressing firmly downward roll the blade forward and backward. The knife will work its way through the shaft, cutting it clearly and squarely. Nifty eh?

The next step is nocks and points. The points were covered in the previous episode, and have the standard 5 degree taper. Nocks are something we’ll get to, but commercial ones use an 11 degree taper. I do want to pause briefly here to mention these taper mounted points are NOT authentic. My understanding is Manchu target points were done tang style. Both the point, and this style of mounting, can be accomplished at home with little more than some BIG nails, a drill, a file, and some time. The process is simply to drill the center of the arrow, file the nail into a point and tang, and then chucking the point in the drill use the tang to ream the hole drilled in the shaft to a perfect fit. Another option is to combine a few refractory bricks with a blow torch, a hammer, some pliers, and an old piece of railroad track to forge your own. It is also a surprisingly simple process. And, finally, authentic points can be purchased from just about anyone who has a forge, as they’ll need only a picture and some time to do the work. Tanged practice points are surprisingly easy and quick to forge, which is probably no accident. Almost nobody is sufficiently fanatical to go to these lengths though, hence the brief paragraph on the subject and then we’re back to the action.

Before cutting tapers on your arrows, you want to pick the point and nock ends of your arrow. What does it matter? Well think about failure modes, how would you like your arrow to fail, if it had to? Would you rather it fail when it hits the target, damaging only itself, or would you rather it blow up on the bow potentially damaging the bow or injuring you the shooter? (google carbon fiber arrow injury sometime if you want to have nightmares. This is why you always flex your arrows before shooting them, natural materials or carbon.) Circling back to the point, 10 out of 10 sane people would say they’d rather their arrow blow up on the target, and so want the orientation for optimal strength on the bow. This means, before picking which ends to put point and nock tapers on, you want to pick the “stronger” end of the arrow to go toward the nock. Why? The simple image I can provide is a flight arrow, or any other barrel tapered arrow. That taper isn’t uniform, it is biased toward the nock end. This is because every part of the arrow need exert the force to accelerate all of the arrow in front of it. At the very tip of the point this is nothing, but at the nock end this is the ENTIRE mass of the arrow. Barrel tapered arrows are thickest roughly around the middle because the effective lever arm exerting force on the arrow is at its peak roughly at the middle of the arrow upon release. So take a good careful look at the grain and for any blemishes. If one end has less grain crossing and no blemishes than the other, put that end toward the nock.

So if you’re trying to do this on the cheap, you have a decision split here which is taper mounted nocks or self nocks. Commercial taper mounted nocks are cheap and easy, no two ways about it. As you’ll notice from the pictures below though, 3/8” arrows are a little big for them though. Self nocks are trivial to cut. A pair of hacksaw blades (5$) can be taped together and used to cut the groove. From there is can be dressed up with a little sandpaper and a knife or a file, really whatever you’ve got kicking around. So for absolute minimum cost, this is a great way to go. Fancier self nock options can involve all sorts of glued on pieces, wood reinforcement, etc. Traditional Manchu arrows display the full range of flavors, from attached bone or horn nocks, to insert reinforcements, to wrapping in natural materials, to plain carved self nocks. So pretty much whatever you choose to do here, there is some historical precedent for it. Should you want to go down this path, there are thousands of instructionals for whatever flavor you like best. It also really isn’t that complicated. In general though, I personally recommend some sort of reinforcement for self nocks. Wrapping is incredibly easy, do it and then apply finish (lacquer, varnish, etc) to turn the whole thing into one solid unit. A simple groove cut perpendicular to the string orientation and a piece of thin hardwood inserted and glued in sideways (strong grain orientation) is also a nifty trick.

This leads to another important point though, which is grain orientation. Irrespective of insert nocks, cone nocks, or self nocks you want to control the grain orientation on your arrow. If viewed from the back, you want the wood’s growth rings to run perpendicular to the bowstring. There are two reasons for this. First is that, particularly with a self nock, you want the arrow to possess maximum resistance to splitting. Wood splits most easily along its grain boundaries, so aligning the string 90 degrees opposed to this provides maximum resistance. The second reason has to do with arrow breakage. Again wood tends to fail along grain boundaries. When the bow fires, the arrow flexes. That flex tends to be outward. With a wood selfbow, you typically follow growth rings on the back to prevent this. On an arrow this is not practical, so orienting the grain 90 degrees opposed to its maximum direction of flex is a prudent way to increase strength. The two images below I hope showcase what I’m trying to explain, using maple’s distinctive if slightly unusual grain appearance. If you’re wondering why the arrow has a crudely glued on plastic nock, the reason is because, before embarking on this whole wild goose chase and potentially leading all our readers astray, I cut one single shaft and took it all the way to (rough) completion and tested it. Shooting fletchless arrows is a great way to look for issues, both with form and dynamics, and this arrow worked great thus the whole blog series was started. You didn’t think I was totally winging this did you?

View fullsize

View fullsize

Circling back to nock selection though, my case is a bit of a smoke-em-if-you-got-em sort of situation; I decided to make custom taper mounted nocks. What are the advantages of this? Well, the big advantage of taper mounted nocks is that, if you break one, you can relatively easily replace it. And that is great. While they also have a relatively high initial investment cost if you decide to make them yourself, they’re also comparatively easy to churn out once that is done. I did 7 in purple, 7 in black. The black is obvious in its intention, to be a horn analogue. I’ll sand them as part of the process of blending each one into the shaft, and then polish to create that horn like lustre. If you’ve ever worked with horn, you know immediately what I mean, that beautiful polish which, somehow, you can’t quite describe why it doesn’t look like plastic but it is immediately apparent that it doesn’t. The purple ones are inspired by an article from Peter Dekker on the subject where a number of arrows shown have a beautiful almost tyrian purple to them.

There are a wide variety of commercial nock variants that can function in this application, so don’t be daunted by my choice here. There are perfectly functional modern nocks that can be had for pennies each, and of course there are the aforementioned self nocks.

So the next step is applying said tapers. Even if you don’t plan on using taper mounted nocks, most points use a taper. Points typically use a 5 degree taper while nocks an 11 degree taper. There are a number of ways to achieve this. With standard wood shaft diameters, there are tools available. The sanding ones tend to be the best, as they produce quick and consistent results across a wide variety of shaft diameters. There are commercial versions available, but they’re easy to DIY with some scrap wood and a protractor. All you need is a power sander of some sort and a couple clamps.

But what if you don’t have a power sander? And I haven’t forgotten about the goal of the project. For the absolute bottom budget option, it is hard to beat a 7$ arrow taper tool. 3/8”=24/64” so the 23/64” variant you’ll probably be able to get away with, maybe needing a little modification. Be careful and go easy with these plastic taper tools, they’re meant for cedar and other softwoods, not maple so be gentle. If you plan on doing this a lot, a more robust metal taper tool might be a better option, however sanders are so cheap these days simply buying one and building your own taper tool might be the best option.

Next it is time to attach points and nocks. For whatever reason I generally attach points before applying finish, and nocks after. In this case though, for cost/accessibility reasons I want to use a wipe-on finish (instead of dipping laquer) and I want to try and integrate and “blend” the nocks into the arrow shafts a little bit. As a result, I intend to attach both nocks and points before applying finish.

So attaching points is straightforward. Pick the adhesive of your choice, apply it, and go. It is a bit generic as far as advice goes, however I’m partial to Bohning Ferr-L-Tite because it holds points firmly but also is reversible. (heat the points and you can remove them) It is important here you use a clean flame source. An alcohol lamp is really preferred because it is low enough temperature you’re not going to burn adhesive or anything else, but produces no soot or oil or wax when it burns. Natural gas (methane), propane, MAPP are all good as well. Butane (what is in a typical bic lighter) works but is not preferred simply because it does not burn quite as clean, and some lighters burn it cleaner than others. I recommend against candles, as they produce a great deal of waxy soot which can inhibit bonding. I should add making an alcohol lamp is easy, almost trivial, and you almost certainly have the materials laying around to do it. (it can be as simple as an upturned soda can, although here is a more thorough article on the subject)

The procedure with Ferr-L-Tite is quite simple: heat the stick over the flame and apply a little to the taper. Then, gripping the point with pliers, heat it thoroughly. You’ll see condensation appear on the surface and, as you continue heating, you’ll see it disappear. This is a process you’ll see in chemistry called flame drying, and is often used on glassware which must be dry for a given reaction. The adhesive meanwhile will have gotten cold and hard on the arrow taper. Don’t worry about that. When the point is properly hot, place the tip against a solid surface and press the shaft into it. The adhesive will soften and squeeze out around the base. Continue pressing firmly while you release the pliers (no longer necessary) and apply a wet cloth to the point to cool it rapidly. Once the point is cooled the adhesive will be set and you can release pressure on the shaft. Once they’ve all cooled, a disposable blade knife can be used to clean up the excess glue. There is no need to clean this obsessively, the points will see a lot of wear in their life and so little bits of excess will wear off fast, you’re just looking to get the big chunks off.

Nocks are a similar affair. Some people use no adhesive at all on their taper mount nocks, simply pressing and twisting them into place. In my personal opinion this is only convenient if you’re using commercial nocks which are so cheap as to almost be free, and if you intend to carry a supply of them in your quiver. A lower temp hot-melt-adhesive is an easy reversible way to attach them. I’m partial to a cyanoacrylate adhesive though, so that is what I used here. Such glues are available EVERYWHERE from your local hardware store to Amazon to archery supply stores. I’m not a huge fan of Gorilla products, but this 6$ option should be adequate. As an added bonus, this glue can be used for fletching. We’ll get to that. Simply apply a little to the shank, orient the nock the way discussed above, and press firmly into place. Hold in place for a 15 count (varies based on humidity, temperature, and glue brand) and then release. The adhesive will continue to cure over time, but is now sufficiently hardened to hold the nock in place as long as it is treated gently.

So here is where I pull another, albeit smaller, rabbit out of my hat. I want my nocks to look like they “belong,” and I don’t particularly want them to have that “perfect” gloss of a cheap injection moulded plastic nock. So I’ll kill two birds with one stone here by carefully chucking each arrow in the lathe and sanding it. The drill from the previous episode can be use here just as well if you don’t have a lathe. This sanding should start just above the the point, move to the shaft, blend the nock into the shaft, and finally the body of the nock itself. I also, while stationary, give a quick sand to the top of the nock both to clean up the mould sprue marks and keep the finishing consistent. Then I wrapped the shaft in a little painter’s tape to mask it from the polishing compound, which can both stain the shaft and prevent the adhesion of finish later. Applying polishing compound to the nock, buffed it to the aforementioned gloss. Sort of a round-about-way to achieve a specific effect, but hey these are my arrows. I should add this trick only works on nocks which are radially symmetric, which at the time of writing all our nock designs happen to be, so if you want to go all presentation-grade on your arrows, you can. Historical nocks also tend to be radially symmetric, which is a natural shape to cut and finish by hand, spinning the shaft between your palm and leg.

If you cut self nocks, or used glue-on nocks, now would also be an opportunity to blend them in, clean up areas around the taper, or simply cut/sand a taper in. You can also, as mentioned above, readily use one hand and your thigh to spin the shaft while the other applies a tool if you don’t want to use a drill.

With shafts sanded and nocks polished, it is time to apply finish. While finish isn’t strictly necessary, some historical arrows went without it, the expectations of modern target shafts are such that finish is highly advisable. Sealing out moisture will help keep the arrows straight and in good condition, help seal the pores against dirt and staining, so on and so forth. The “typical” way this is done today is with laquer and a dip tube. I used to make arrows like this, and it is fast, creates a thick finish, and quite durable, however it makes an appalling smell and mess. This is just not suitable if you’re doing this in an apartment for example, not only will the fumes drive you out, it’ll drive your neighbors out as well. Part of why it is so bad is you have to deal with the fumes, not just off the arrow shafts themselves, but off all the dripping as well. So you can brush on lacquer which is a little better, or go with shellac for that matter, both are fine options. The issue, again, is these relatively low viscosity fast-drying finishes can be a bit fickle to apply and will run (drip) if you’re not careful. They also will show every fuzzy, lost bristle, and unlucky insect to come across their path in finishing. They also want to be a relatively glossy on-top-of-the-wood finish. At the other end of the spectrum are natural oil finish products such as tung oil, flax seed oil or boiled linseed oil. These are polymerizing natural oils, which are often pre-polymerized to some degree to speed curing. Flax and linseed oil are “the same thing,” but really aren’t as they differ in extraction process, functionality (that is what the boiling in boiled linseed oil is all about, to pre-polymerize it), and safety. Be cautious when selecting a brand, especially when it comes to “tung oils” as anything that doesn’t advertise 100% pure is likely an oil-varnish blend, which is a different animal. These natural oils are super duper easy to wipe on, however they require a lot of coats and really only penetrate rather than build up like a shellac. This leaves the natural feel of the wood, however it provides less physical protection. They also tend to take much MUCH longer to cure, weeks in some cases, although coats can often be applied mere hours apart and gentle heat can speed the process. They also have comparatively little odor, essentially no volatile content, so if you are somewhere with limited ventilation and are averse to strong smells, this would be my recommendation. Flax seed oil specifically is food safe, so makes for the safest option here. An oil varnish blend (often called Danish oil and sold under various brands the most famous of which is probably Formbys, also often called “tung oil” even though it is only partially tung oil) can go on a little easier and provide a slightly glossier and harder more protective finish. It is something of an in-between. Be careful though, it still can run, wipe it on in light coats. I would also put the popular Tru Oil in this category, even though it is part linseed oil and part “secret sauce,” as it behaves much like an oil-non-oil blend. As an alternative, a gel varnish like Bartleys is made to be wiped on in several coats, won’t drip, and is incredibly easy. It is probably the most all-around user friendly yet fairly durable finish option here. For the running price though, I’m going with flax oil simply because it is inexpensive, easy, and can work in any environment for anyone. (refinish your spouse’s wooden kitchen spoons with it or you kitchen knife handles, it is food safe, multi-purpose, and making your significant other happy never hurt anything)

Whatever finish you choose, before you start applying it, give everyone one final check to ensure you’re happy with the sanding, give it a quick straightening using the palm of your hand to flex the arrow, and then wipe it down with a clean cloth to remove any sawdust. Wipe the finish on in thin coats preferably with a lint free cloth. You may find a gentle rub with fine sandpaper or steel wool between coats is necessary where the grain has been raised by the finish. If, upon applying your first coat, you start to see spirals running up the shaft, fear not. These are scratches from your coarser sandpaper grits which weren’t rubbed out with the subsequent finer ones. (it is also why you’ll hear woodworkers constantly berate you for sanding across the grain, because doing so cuts the fibers and leave these marks which are harder to rub out) You can go back and sand more, or simply not bother as they don’t really harm anything beyond appearance. Keep applying finish until you’re happy with the results, in general that is a minimum of two coats but you may want to do 3 or more. You may be surprised how “thirsty” the wood is on the first coat, but this should diminish as the pores become filled, and is a good way to judge how “done” you are.

Wiping varnish on these arrows I remembered why I love doing this just so much. There is a real joy to making something beautiful with your own two hands. Even though this is clearly not the cheapest way to get arrows in most cases, nor are these the most authentic Manchu arrows possible, there is something unquantifiably special about this process. It is much the same thing that leads people to build their own bows. I know in the previous episode I promised fletching would be here, however this post has already gotten quite long and the finishing process has curing/drying steps involved so it’ll take me a while to get to fletching. Thus, we end here.

So how are we doing on our total? Well last time around we had the following items which totaled 164$:
9$ points
25$ board
47$ doweling cutter
11$ Veritas sockets and adapter for dowel cutter
36$ skill saw
15$ C-clamps
21$ Corded Drill

To that we’ve added:

5$ hacksaw blades
7$ arrow taper tool
4$ Bohning Point Glue
6$ Nock Glue
8$ Flax Oil (finish)

That was only 30$. See, I told you the worst of the buying-stuff was over. This brings the running total to 194$. And only fletching is left. Not bad. We’ll scoot in under the price of two dozen Gold Tip Traditionals easily, and if you’d started out with two boards instead of one and a few extra points you’d be on track for three dozen arrows with only a slight cost increase. So there we are. Stay tuned for the final episode where we fletch and shoot!

COVID-19 UPDATE

The global pandemic caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus is, inevitably, causing disruptions and necessary changes in practices. We are still accepting and shipping orders, the stock on our website is live, however we’re making a wide variety of changes to reduce exposure and maintain health and safety.

How does this affect you?

First, effective immediately, orders will be shipped M/W/F, rather than the usual next-business-day.

Second, please understand that carrier transit times are longer than usual. With panic buying, workforce disruptions, and people generally staying home, we’re seeing an increase in transit times. That is to say the time from when we deliver the order to the carrier, and when the carrier actually delivers it to you the customer, is increasing. We’re also seeing an increase in “unusual” tracking activity, that is to say scan events which may not be accurate or representative of what is actually happening. These issues tend to resolve themselves, but we have to ask for your patience and understanding as we all work through this.

Thank you everyone. Please stay safe and healthy. May we all get through this together. :)

Manchu Arrow Project (part 5)

JZW Manchu Bow shown with one of our Manchu rings (thick) in GITD green (looks a lot like jade) and some of the ~1200 grain arrows from the previous episode of the Manchu Arrow Project.

In our previous episode (Manchu Arrow Project part 4) we finished some very nice war weight, 1200 grain, arrows for the beastly JZW Manchu bow. But it has been a couple years, and it is not only time for new arrows, it’d be nice to make somewhat more practical arrows. I also want to make this project accessible, whereby someone following along who owns no tools and lives in a small apartment could feasibly do this themselves, and do it for ideally less than the price of a dozen Gold Tip Traditional arrows. As I write this, I genuinely have no idea if that is possible, I have no idea if it can be done for even what two dozen Gold Tip Traditional arrows cost, but as I go through I’ll provide information on alternatives at a lower price so someone without any workshop or tools at all could get this done. At current, the price for Gold Tip Traditional arrows are 137$ per dozen fletched with inserts at 3Rivers. It is going to be really tough, maybe impossible, but that is the is the goal.

Before we get started though, what exactly was impractical about the old arrows? Well a number of things. First off, many ranges aren’t terribly thrilled for you to be punching 1/2” diameter holes in their targets. They’re not as bad to the targets as broadheads, but many if not most “self healing” targets are based around the idea of punching a very small hole around which the material simply stretches and then returns to shape when the arrow is withdrawn. This isn’t so much the case with a 1/2” diameter shaft, you leave stonking great holes in most foam targets (polyethylene) which another lucky, or unlucky as the case may be, arrow could find. Then there are quivers, most won’t happily take 1/2” shafts, and if they do they won’t take a full dozen. And then there is the interesting pickle of point of impact. This ~60# JZW Manchu isn’t powerful enough to flex these shafts as they pass around the bow, at least not to any significant degree. Heavier points might help, but lets be realistic, the arrows are war weight and the bow is not. This compounds with the fact that, at 1/2” diameter, the physical angle of the arrow with the string at rest is actually very different than that of a “normal” diameter arrow. The result? You have a POI shift. It is consistent and repeatable, but it makes switching from one bow to this one with these arrows quite challenging; your instinctive point of aim need change and that is not as simple as clicking a sight a couple mils left or right.

So the goal, to be completed (hopefully) over the next couple installments is to go over the process of making arrows of a more practical nature for this, or any, Manchu bow.** One might ask: why not just buy modern arrows? The problem is, this is not so easy. Sourcing shafting which is the full 38” in length is hard, weighting modern carbon arrows to meet the minimum mass requirements of a Manchu bow is not so easy, and getting arrows which are stiff enough is not so easy. Taken as a sum, this is one of the major challenges of Manchu bow ownership, particularly if you’re interested in the heavier draw weights.

And that leads conveniently to the first challenge: minimum required mass. The bow in question is a Jia Zhiwei (JZW) Manchu, which pulls ~60#s@35”. These are one of, if not the best, Manchu replicas on the market, possessing the aggressive forward siyah angle of the originals (most replicas lack this), a very smooth powerful draw, a full 36” draw length, good efficiency (for the style), good durability, and a lot of beautiful little detailing around the bow. To my dismay, in researching for this project, it appears both the European and American distributors of these fine bows have disappeared. ManchuBows.com in particular was a good resource, no longer available. Thankfully we saved a copy of the website, so should owners have questions in future, the relevant data on the bows can be seen in the gallery below.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

So there it is, in short, 12GPP (grains per pound) is the minimum, however the recommended range is 13-15 grains per pound. This is on the good-end of typical for modern reproductions of this style of bow. So that is 720 grains minimum, but 780-900 grains ideal.

View fullsize

A simple formula for the weight of an arrow in grains given the density of the wood (w) in kg/m^2, the length (l) in mm, and the diameter (d) in mm.

First stop on any project like this is a little napkin math, a back-of-the-pizza-box calculation to ensure this project will end up in the performance ballpark necessary before we begin. That starts with a wood density chart and total volume calculation. For reasons we’ll get into below, lets say our arrows are going to be 3/8” in diameter (9.5mm), and that they’ll be 38” in length (965mm). We all know the area of a circle is equal to pi*r^2, but for unit conversion reasons it is easier to convert from mm to meters so do that first. Then you get the cross sectional area, which is .000064 square meters. Multiply that by the length, and you get .000068 cubic meters. Then you need only convert from kilograms to grains (one gram is 15.43 grains) and there you have it. Confused yet? I put it all together into a simple equation so you can easily run the numbers yourself.

Circling back to the wood density chart, the most commonly available woods (available at your typical home-improvement stores) in North America that are straight grained, strong enough for arrows, and not obviously light softwoods are poplar, maple and red oak. Poplar was used on original Manchu arrows, and would result in a mass range of 370 to 530 grains. Not quite enough. Poplar does make great arrows I should note, quite robust, but not suitable density for this application. Most of the oak seen in home improvement stores is red oak, discernible by its very open grain structure. I’ve made arrows from it before, and while it works fine, this open grain is something to keep in mind it doesn’t always play nicely with dip tubes and prefers extra finishing steps to raise the grain and ensure you don’t get splinters later down the road. By the chart, it would produce arrows of 780 grains. This would work nicely. Maple is 650 to 790 grains. This will work nicely, and save the extra care of oak. You’ll notice all these numbers are at the low end, however keep in mind this is before we’ve added points, feathers, nocks, and finish. A thick dipped on lacquer can do a surprising amount to increase arrow mass, and points are easily had in excess of 100 grains. For this particular project in fact, I picked up 23/64” 190 grain steel field points, which at the time of writing are 8.50$ a dozen at 3Rivers. That combined with even the lowest density maple would easily get these arrows above the 720 grain minimum.

The next step is board selection. Don’t grab just any board, take a close look at the grain. Tighter grain tends to be denser, stronger, and you want nice straight grain with no knots or flaws. The level of knot/flaw/grain-crossing an arrow can tolerate is primarily determined by three things:

1) How much weight you put up front, both arrow length and point mass.

2) How violent your bow is to the arrow. Slower bows impart a lower impulse force to the arrow in general, so a slower bow will flex/stress the arrow less.

3) Grain boundary strength. Wood is an isotropic material, which is to say it has different mechanical properties on different axes. An easy way to highlight this, the example of a wood wedge being used to split logs. It is EXTREMELY unusual in the materials world for a wedge made of a given material to be able to split that same material. So consider this when looking at just how great the grain crossing distance on your arrows are; woods with greater grain boundary strength can have a great deal more grain crossing and still produce a viable shaft.

Be cautious of boards which show a significant and consistent curve curve to the grain as well, as this can indicate what is called reaction wood, wood which grew under stress and will release that by bending once cut.

Not from this project, here is an example of a cedar board being planed so the grain aligns perfectly longitudinally with the shaft. Lighter weight woods tend to have weaker grain boundaries and so straight and aligned grain is more critical.

For this project I selected a less than entirely ideal 1x6x8 board with only one major blemish, a knot. It was the best available though. At 8 feet in length, I’ll easily be able to cut it in half and get twice the arrows. I paid approximately 25$ for it, and in theory it will yield 24 arrows. Keep in mind most tablesaw blades are 1/8” kerf, combined with a 3/8” blank that gives you 12 arrows per half, 24 in all. This never ends up being the case though. Why? Well, for a start, after cutting it in half, you’ll want to potentially plane an edge to ensure the grain is aligned axially with the arrow shafts. Boards sometimes come close enough that this isn’t necessary, but often the best can benefit from a little realignment. The other thing is you usually want to cut the blanks a little larger than the final round diameter.

A less than ideal maple board displaying relatively straight grain, but one unfortunate blemish (seen in the middle). This area can not become arrows.

The next step is to saw the boards into blanks. This is done on two axes, first ripping them to width, and then to height. It is worth noting here that if you’re deft, and want 5/16” diameter shafts (which is a standard size), you can double the number of arrows you get out of a board because when flipping the blank horizontally you’ll split it perfectly evenly with a 1/8” blade kerf. Both halves can then become arrows, whereas anything larger and your off-cut will end up as a stirring stick for glues/paints/etc. And this is the real crux of “cheap and easy,” because it is hard to get a tablesaw cheaply without resorting to using a buddy’s. The most entry level tablesaw on Amazon is probably this one for 263$. Not exactly ideal. A track saw can be had for about 160$ and can do the same job, but that is still a bit over the project budget. A track saw though is basically just a fancy name for a circular saw with a proprietary guide. A circular saw with a cut width guide clamped to the base can do the same job a track saw can, but with even less setup between cuts. And a circular saw, or skill saw, can be had for a mere 36$. Add another 15$ for a set of C-clamps, and are you’re in business. To be clear I’m not endorsing any of the above tools or brands, they’re simply reasonably reviewed and modestly priced options within a category on one of the largest global marketplaces. Please do your own research before selecting one of the above tools.

View fullsize

Showing how to clamp a guide to a circular saw for consistent width cuts.

Setup for putting a guide (in this case a scrap piece of pine) on a circular saw can be seen at left. The guide should be firmly clamped to the saw, and the primary width of the base be on the board. Depending on the saw, the automatic blade guard may be disabled by the clamping of the guide, and if this is the case extra caution is necessary in using the saw. Firmly clamp the board to a solid surface, such as a table or workbench, align the saw, and make your cut. This can be repeated until the saw reaches the edge of the table. At this point a second board can be used, in any of a variety of clamping techniques, to hold the first and continue cutting until it is mostly expended. This is not as easy and quick a process as a tablesaw, however in the interest of budgetary and space constraints, it is much more compact to use and store and much less expensive.

Spinning arrows round, and then sanding them smooth, on the lathe. This is a MUCH faster and easier process than using a hand plane.

Now you have long, straight, square blanks, but how to make them into arrows? This is where the magic happens! The traditional way is to use a hand plane and a jig, painstakingly planing them from four to eight to sixteen to thirty two sides and then from there sanding them round. I did that for years. The problem with it? It is absolutely agonizing. So I’m going to show you a little trick I use. The purists will argue that this is not only inauthentic, it results in arrows which require more straightening, but those of us with day jobs will appreciate you can rip out two dozen shafts in an evening like this, rather than 3 or 4. And that magic tool is a dowel cutter. There are two primary flavors, inexpensive (47$, used here), and not-inexpensive (385$). They are basically a big pencil sharpener on steroids. I’ve been running the Veritas dowel and tenon cutters for almost two decades now, since long before their doweling tool proper came out. They work great. If you have machine tools, they can also be modified to custom larger sizes, but not smaller. So if you want smaller diameter arrows, or sizes not available, you’ll need the “proper” doweling kit.

Once you have this tool though, you’ll find yourself making a lot of arrows. It really takes the pain out of the process and is incredibly fun and satisfying. This leads though to the somewhat prickly issue of how to spin the arrow blanks. This can be done on a lathe quite easily, as is shown here. Set the speed fairly low, wear heavy leather gloves, wear your face shield, and hold the blank loosely to stabilize it with one hand while you run the doweling jig up and down the shaft. Keep in mind that if you spin a shaft too fast, it can whip out of control and break. But also keep in mind that this tool will apply a not-insignificant amount of torque to the shaft, which can also cause it to break. An advantage of this is it stress tests your arrows before shooting them. This is also why heavy leather gloves and a face shield are a necessity. Once that is done, a scrap 2x4 piece drilled and with sandpaper glued in the bore makes for an equally quick and easy way to sand the shafts smooth. Really, this is another one of those tools which makes things a snap.

But what if you don’t have a lathe? Well they’re great tools, but the micro benchtop wood lathes start at about 200$, plus another 50$ for a chuck, and before you know it you’re really in for quite a lot more than that as you’ll want one with a bigger headstock, lathe tools, multiple chucks, a handful of live centers, a morse taper jacobs chuck….. the list is basically endless. It is a great tool to own, and incredibly fun to use, which is why it is worth investing in one of reasonable size and quality to start with. However this isn’t a helpful discussion about staying in budget. The alternative is an inexpensive corded drill and this socket adapter and square sockets. Given the utility of a corded drill, I genuinely would encourage you to splurge your way up to something with a keyed chuck and a little better quality in general, but this project is on a tight budget here and I’m trying to stick to it so this machine it is. Simply clamp the tenon cutter down to something, and use the drill to slowly feed the shafting through. It can then be used, if you’re so inclined, to speed the sanding process as well.

And that is it for this blog post. Next time we’ll take the raw shafting to finished arrows. That’ll be nocks, attaching points, fletching, straightening, and finishing. It sounds like a lot, but the “hard part” for those who don’t have tools is now over. It is all downhill from here.

And where do we stand on the budget? Well the original budget was 137$, the price of a dozen Gold Tip Traditionals fletched and with inserts. Against that we’ve got:
9$ points
25$ board
47$ doweling cutter
11$ Veritas sockets and adapter for dowel cutter
36$ skill saw
15$ C-clamps
21$ Corded Drill


That totals 164$. So I’ve already blown the budget. I’m also not sure where something could be trimmed out either. The big ticket items on this list are already pared down more than they should be.

**This process isn’t specific to Manchu arrows, it could be applied to any wooden arrow, however what you’ll find is that the margins on commercial wood shafting are surprisingly thin and the commercial tooling quite efficient. As a result, unless you’re making arrows for the love of it or to fit specific requirements not met by available commercial shafting, you’ll typically find minimal if any price advantage to building wooden arrows rather than buying them.

New Product - Nocks

Our current nock styles, in order from top left to bottom right: Korean, Mughal Speed, Mughal, Manchu Mini, Manchu, and Ottoman

Nocks, we all need them and we all use them. Typical carbon arrows come with perfectly nice nocks, but ones which are like no historical Asiatic design. Recently there has been a flood of pseudo-Asiatic nocks, ones which vaguely reference a historical design at least in name, but often still are rather lacking in terms of authenticity. Just as an example, historical designs are overwhelmingly radially symmetric not counting the string groove. This was likely practical, as spinning an arrow shaft with a tool or even against one’s leg (as we see Korean fletchers often do) is a quick and effective means for shaping a nock and blending it into the shaft.

We offer 6 styles, of varying levels of authenticity. The Ottoman, Manchu, Mughal, and Korean are all proportioned to the greatest extent possible off dimensions pulled from historical examples. There are necessarily limitations to this as modern arrow shafts and strings being much slimmer, but otherwise are as on-point as possible in terms of form and function. The Manchu Mini and Mughal Speed are homages, altered to fit modern practicalities and sensibilities. In the case of the Manchu Mini it is simply practical, making the large Manchu nock a little smaller. In the case of the Mughal Speed though, things become more interesting.

Mughal nocks were, simply put, MASSIVE. This was to accommodate similarly massive bowstrings. They had little flare at the mouth, but there is a trick: with a sufficiently large nock and bowstring, the target (nock groove) is quite large while the string acts as the wedge to guide itself into place. So, from a functional speed-nocking-perspective, is it more authentic to omit the nock flare as historical designs did, or is it more authentic to provide a roughly comparable target to speedily push the string home? It is an open question, but one which we’ve tried to provide an answer for those asking with our semi-authentic Mughal-Speed style nock.

Out of Office 12/23/19 to 12/27/19

Happy holidays to everyone! We all will be out of the office from 12/23/19 to 12/27/19. During this time period we will not be able to process orders or respond to inquires, please accept our apologies. Service will resume as normal 12/30/19.

Sugakji - Korean Male Ring

A sugakji with bronze coating over weave pattern and one of our leather ring inserts

The Sugakji, or Korean Male, type thumb ring I feel is an underappreciated ring style. It is quite simple and easy to use, it is robust, and it is quite comfortable as it has large load bearing surfaces. This is further enhanced by the use of a leather insert, which tightens the ring front to back after it has been slipped on, substantially increasing the already generous load bearing surfaces of the ring. In short, I’m a fan, and it is no surprise this design is very popular in Korea. What is surprising though is the design’s lack of popularity outside Korea. I digress.

There is a great deal of diversity to this style of ring, however the major fork in its lineage comes in regard to string placement; some designs have a string guard to physically push the string away from the thumb while others do not. While it seems a subtle difference, the resulting change in mechanics are not. That string guard pushes the string and arrow further away from the thumb, necessarily increasing the length of the *cough* “male portion” of the ring in order to permit sufficient purchase of the index finger. This also changes the balance of the ring, increasing the effective lever arm on the thumb upon release, while also increasing the load on the index finger. This was our original design, based upon a design request from the imitable Armin Hirmer of Malta Archery.

However, more recently, I had the itch to play with the design and remove the string guard, replicating the other common style of sugakji. The result was also an exceptional ring, and one which as a matter of taste I actually prefer. As it turns out, the sugakji feels very secure in the hand, unlike many other ring designs, and so the desire to clench the hand to prevent premature release is dramatically lessened. It also is easy to balance the string on compared to many other ring designs. In short, personally anyway, I see no need for said string guard. And its removal allows a number of notable advantages. First, it allows the string to be moved further toward the thumb. This allows the stronger thumb to bear more of the load, which is particularly useful when it comes to war weight bows. Second, it allows the shortening of the male protrusion, which reduces the effective lever arm on the thumb upon release, while maintaining the same purchase with the index finger. This created the new “short” variant I’m introducing here. Thus, I personally prefer this ring design. And, conveniently, we now offer it for sale.

So, if you haven’t tried this style of ring, we highly recommend it. If you’re just starting out, this also is a good type of ring to try. The only word of caution here is that this style of ring is sufficiently different in technique, it is not necessarily good practice for the other common styles.

Seen here our two styles of Sugakji (Korean Male rings), at top the long variant with string guard, and at bottom the short variant without.

Christmas Sale!

Give the gift of perfectly fitted rings this Christmas. For a limited time, all ring sizers are 75% off.

Out of Office 11/28 - 12/1/19

A very happy and bountiful Thanksgiving to everyone! In observance of this holiday, and giving thanks to our friends and family, we all will be out of the office from 11/28 to 12/1/19. During this time period we will not be able to process orders or respond to inquires, please accept our apologies. As a small thank you, we’re offering a 15% discount, site-wide, just enter the code “NWYEKVG” at checkout.

Fu Hao Tomb Ring

The Fu Hao Tomb find was significant in many regards, not the least of which was that it contained one of the earliest thumb rings yet discovered. We, of course, had to produce a functional replica of the design, right down to that puzzling asymmetric string groove.

Our friend ryddragyn was a little faster to publish his initial findings than we were to finish the photography and copy for release, but better late than never. On that note, I thought I’d add that rings, generally, are difficult to photograph; their complex curved surfaces make them appear substantially different depending on the view-angle. This ring in particular though is difficult. For example, simply tilting the view from the front can make it look tall and narrow or short and squat. (the latter is seen in the B&W photo above)

Patterned glow-in-the-dark ring

Every once in a while some little project or custom order comes out really really special. This is one such case. It was requested we make a ring which glows in the dark, coat it using our coating process, but then carve it. The result is a stunning mask that really shows off the patterning. And this is exactly that.

Under daylight, you’d never know this ring’s secret trick, the underlying material looks somewhat like recently cut ivory, in that it has a clean off-white character. That doesn’t make it ugly, far from it, we’ve done limited runs of carved rings that look much like it in our ivory colored polymer which are fantastically beautiful, but just wait until night to see this ring really shine. This was a fun special little project.

Product Announcement - Ring Sizer Range Expansion

Custom Thumb Rings bespoke ring sizers - the full line

Our Ring Sizers have been raucously well received; finally there is a reliable and inexpensive way to figure out your ring size. We recommend everyone looking to get into a ring start with them.

Our original two ring sizers covered the majority of thumbs and sized for our circular and elliptical series rings. Unfortunately there was a small subgroup of customers, <5%, whose thumbs fell outside the range of our original sizers. These were predominantly men with very large hands at the big end, and dainty women or children at the smaller end. To remedy this we’ve tripled the sizer lineup to offer expanded options for people with very large or very small hands. The round aperture sizers (Manchu and Nubian) have also been switched over to alphabetical sizing to avoid confusion with the regular (elliptical) sizers.

Labor Day Weekend Sale

A biocomposite ring, our favorite Manchu ring material, shown here with a dragon carving.

From now until Monday at midnight we're offering 15% off all our exotic material Manchu style rings. Happy labor day everyone! Use the code BHMKLX7 at checkout.

New Product - Dragonfly Patterning and Manchu Rings

Ottoman rings bronze and silver over metallic copper with dragonfly patterning

This blog post is a little late in coming, but better late then never perhaps? Our carved rings have been incredibly popular, however most of our patterns paired best with our middle-eastern rings and we wanted to add another pattern which would go well with our Asian styled rings. The dragonfly inhabits a special place in Asian art, and the patterning in their wings is incredibly striking, so we thought to combine the two and a new design was born. There was a question of orientation though, how should the wing be laid across the ring, and so we created the two above samples and put it to a vote. Longitudinal, the style on the right, won and so was added to our lineup.

On a related note, we’re now patterning our Manchu rings circumferentially, that is to say the pattern covers the surface the entire way around the ring. This might make it an excellent canvas for the aforementioned dragonfly pattern. Just a thought…..

Manchu ring silver over noctural blue, weave pattern.