In my view the most distinguishing feature of the Atlas is the slack that is built into the leg movement. Regardless of leg length, the Atlas design enables the bipod to be loaded with minimal forward pressure of the rifle. Thus will allow about 1/8-1/4" of rearward barrel movement when the rifle is fired. Loading the Harris consistently is more difficult due to the rigid leg design. To load the Harris,the legs are flexed under forward pressure. Leg length, surface, and degree of forward pressure, are variables that require attention which can be a source of inconsistency with POI. I have been able to more easily maintain POI with my 300WM and 6.5-284 whether off a smooth bench, or prone on cement, dirt, grass, etc. This is the feature that I think justifies the the extra cost and switch to the Atlas for me. While the Atlas is very well made, cleaner,lighter, and has more positioning flexability, there are aspects of the Harris that I prefer. It doesn't rattle, the spring loaded legs are faster to get into action, and I prefer the Pod Lock for leveling the scope which I think enables faster, and more positive leveling of the scope. The friction type leveling of the Atlas can be sticky unless well broken in and the tension adjusted properly. IMHO.