Bipod Help

[Trekster]

Howdy all...

Bipod question for those who like to geek out on fractions of improvement. Do certain bipods really make a difference on long range accuracy for hunting situations? Are, say Atlas bipods, worth the money? I'm not after quality of construction, that's another debate. I am seeing if anyone has really tested rifle accuracy amongst the different bipod manufacturers. I'd also love to hear if anyone runs the unmounted tripod system seen on the Best of the West show. I get this concept and probably buy in but just can't see the reality in most hunting situations.
Thanks.

 

[Trekster]

Thought I'd bump this to see if anyone had any insight. Thanks in advance.

 

[ShtrRdy]

I've only used the Harris and an Atlas so my experience is limited. The Harris has stiff legs so it's sometimes difficult to "load" the bipod without the feet sliding. On the Atlas I have the mechanism has some rocking movement available so I can lightly load the bipod and have some rearward movement available during recoil. It sounds like more recent versions of the Atlas don't have this characteristic.

 

[Trekster]

I've only used the Harris and an Atlas so my experience is limited. The Harris has stiff legs so it's sometimes difficult to "load" the bipod without the feet sliding. On the Atlas I have the mechanism has some rocking movement available so I can lightly load the bipod and have some rearward movement available during recoil. It sounds like more recent versions of the Atlas don't have this characteristic.

Thanks for responding. Have you ever tested the accuracy of your rifle with the 2 different bipods? Im just wondering if that stuff makes a difference.

 

[Tangent]

Bipods matter. They do not increase the mechanical accuracy of a rifle. A Harris will make you work harder. But a more stable bipod (like the Atlas Gen2 CAL) will let you focus on more important things. I started running a Harris over two decades ago, and I still own a couple. But they are backups to better bipods nowadays.

 

[Trekster]

Bipods matter. They do not increase the mechanical accuracy of a rifle. A Harris will make you work harder. But a more stable bipod (like the Atlas Gen2 CAL) will let you focus on more important things. I started running a Harris over two decades ago, and I still own a couple. But they are backups to better bipods nowadays.

Thanks for this. Do you care to share any examples? I run Harris now, notched legs and have for years. My use is solely hunting. They are second nature for me, I can lay down, extend legs, make small adjustments and fire away. I am trying to decide if an upgrade is warranted. I hear about all of this "loading" the bipod, and I guess I just don't understand, but want to. Maybe I'm just trying to talk myself into buying a new tripod. Haha. As I type that, it could be true. I have a fair investment into a custom and then a $75 bipod. Maybe it just feels a like a disconnect? Who knows.

 

[BallisticsGuy]

A bipod is a shelf, nothing more. Used properly it shouldn't be able to have an effect on group size.

What I do notice is there's more slop/play in certain bipods than in others. Accutac are rigid as hell with no slop. Harris have spring loaded slop in one direction (because of the springs and leg flex). Atlas had slop in all directions except down but as soon as you load it at all that slop is taken up and it goes rigid again. Accutac seems best for fully static positions. Harris seems best where you need a little elevation but windage is pretty static. Atlas is great when you need to move your POA across the horizon and up and down.

What's poison to a bipod is spongy-ness. The Magpul offering I tried was spongy. Some others like Caldwell knock-offs of Harris were spongy. Good bipods cost a lot for a reason. They have to be engineered to take serious abuse while being light and rigid. A tough order.

If Harris is serving your needs now, you won't find much benefit in dropping 300 bucks more for the next level up. I have them all, still prefer old notch leg harris for most work.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Howdy all...

Bipod question for those who like to geek out on fractions of improvement. Do certain bipods really make a difference on long range accuracy for hunting situations? Are, say Atlas bipods, worth the money? I'm not after quality of construction, that's another debate. I am seeing if anyone has really tested rifle accuracy amongst the different bipod manufacturers. I'd also love to hear if anyone runs the unmounted tripod system seen on the Best of the West show. I get this concept and probably buy in but just can't see the reality in most hunting situations.
Thanks.

I think its important to note that the purpose of loading a bipod is to take up any slack. Bipods like harris, by design, do not have any slack in the legs, so loading them is unnecessary. loading bipods on a flimsy stock can also cause the stock to come into contact with the barrel effecting accuracy.

Harris is awesome for hunting - they are quick to deploy, quicker than an atlas.

 

[Trekster]

This is good stuff...

 

[Dozer83]

While my experience is limited with Harris and atlas, and not while hunting. I have found I shoot better with the atlas, not because the Harris is subpar but the the atlas gives me more adjustment, I'm short so with the Harris 6-9'' I never could get as comfortable behind the rifle, still to inexperienced to say what's the best for your situation but as long as you find one that your comfortable with iy is probably going to be fine.

 

[Tangent]

Just look at the geometry between a Harris & Atlas set start the same height. Atlas is wider and barrel sits within 'triangle'. Harris is skinnier and barrel sits on top of 'triangle'.

 

[Trekster]

There's a video out the by Lewis Frost on YouTube. All likes no dislikes. He talks about the importance of "loading" the bipod. Thought it was going to be insightful. IMO, there was absolutely no difference in the rifle recoil. Loaded vs not loaded. Just trying to learn and figure this stuff out.

 

[Trekster]

Just look at the geometry between a Harris & Atlas set start the same height. Atlas is wider and barrel sits within 'triangle'. Harris is skinnier and barrel sits on top of 'triangle'.
View attachment 167009
View attachment 167008
View attachment 167007

View attachment 167006

I appreciate this... good stuff

 

[BallisticsGuy]

There's a video out the by Lewis Frost on YouTube. All likes no dislikes. He talks about the importance of "loading" the bipod. Thought it was going to be insightful. IMO, there was absolutely no difference in the rifle recoil. Loaded vs not loaded. Just trying to learn and figure this stuff out.

Of course there won't be a difference in actual recoil, that's a matter of generated forces. Perceived recoil is another story and can be helped by loading harder but only to a point and only in certain situations (like the rifle is so light and hard kicking that it's basically slapping your shoulder). If you can't see your impacts, load harder or get a better brake. All bipod load does is help keep the scope closer to being on-target and help keep the front end of the rifle from jumping off the ground. Basically you're just keeping the target visible. This is why PRS guys want 6mm's at 2900-3000fps and ridiculously effective brakes on 21lbs rifles. So they can free recoil and still be able to spot hits/misses.

What would be ideal is to not load the bipod at all or not to have a bipod at all and instead to have the rifle in a return-to-position sled that eats up recoil forces before precisely returning the rifle to battery. 100% free recoil. Loading puts stress on the stock which puts stress on the action which can cause all kinds of induced imprecision or variability. Not loading anything lets the bell ring how it's going to ring.