Quick SD vent/rant.
The average riflestock is not designed for the use of a bipod. Be it Harris, Atlas, Spartan, whatever.
All of the above, irrespective of brand are only as good as their weakest link, which is how they attach to the stock.
The Harris bipod is a sturdy and ultimately good design (they have been around since 1979!) but the genius of it's universal system of attachment via sling swivel studs is also a bad idea when the stock is not up to task.
First of all, the average sling swivel stud is designed to be removable, usually screwed into the stock. Some (mostly aftermarket) stocks reinforce the front sling swivel stud by embedding an aluminum or similar block into the stock where it screws in but the average factory rifle usually has some form of nut and washer arrangement or even nothing at all to hold it in.
So, attaching a 500g+ bipod to a wee stud which screws in and out isn't the best idea, as you can twist it off without trying very hard.
Furthermore, the positioning of the front sling swivel stud, usually near the end of the fore-end of the stock, means you can induce a reasonable amount of flex into the stock if you attempt to induce 'pre-load' (forcing some of your bodyweight against the butt pad to put the bipod under tension).
Some stocks are designed with this in mind, but most are not. By doing what they have seen on a Youtube video, most people who attempt this technique make their rifle shoot worse, or at least inconsistently.
Nathan Foster has developed a bit of a reputation after his 'Hold that forend article' Hold that Forend!
I agree with some of his points, but feel that he skirts around the above issue a little. Once users have acquired a better stock and upgraded their attachment system to a picatinny rail/Arca Swiss then the bipod really comes into it's own for prone shooting.
Another point is having a suitable comb height built up on the stock to match the scope. The fashion of mounting the scope as low as possible on a rifle is not only antiquated but often misguided thinking. However, I'll leave slaughtering that sacred cow for another day
The trouble is that bipods are at their best when the legs are short (and hence stiff), not too high off the ground so you can compliment it with a rear bag, making a very 'rigid' system with little to no lateral play. More often than not, there is too much ground cover or obstacles for these systems to be useful when hunting/stalking, apart from very open/flat terrain.
Anyway, hope this helps some people. Think twice before you blame the bipod!
The average riflestock is not designed for the use of a bipod. Be it Harris, Atlas, Spartan, whatever.
All of the above, irrespective of brand are only as good as their weakest link, which is how they attach to the stock.
The Harris bipod is a sturdy and ultimately good design (they have been around since 1979!) but the genius of it's universal system of attachment via sling swivel studs is also a bad idea when the stock is not up to task.
First of all, the average sling swivel stud is designed to be removable, usually screwed into the stock. Some (mostly aftermarket) stocks reinforce the front sling swivel stud by embedding an aluminum or similar block into the stock where it screws in but the average factory rifle usually has some form of nut and washer arrangement or even nothing at all to hold it in.
So, attaching a 500g+ bipod to a wee stud which screws in and out isn't the best idea, as you can twist it off without trying very hard.
Furthermore, the positioning of the front sling swivel stud, usually near the end of the fore-end of the stock, means you can induce a reasonable amount of flex into the stock if you attempt to induce 'pre-load' (forcing some of your bodyweight against the butt pad to put the bipod under tension).
Some stocks are designed with this in mind, but most are not. By doing what they have seen on a Youtube video, most people who attempt this technique make their rifle shoot worse, or at least inconsistently.
Nathan Foster has developed a bit of a reputation after his 'Hold that forend article' Hold that Forend!
I agree with some of his points, but feel that he skirts around the above issue a little. Once users have acquired a better stock and upgraded their attachment system to a picatinny rail/Arca Swiss then the bipod really comes into it's own for prone shooting.
Another point is having a suitable comb height built up on the stock to match the scope. The fashion of mounting the scope as low as possible on a rifle is not only antiquated but often misguided thinking. However, I'll leave slaughtering that sacred cow for another day
The trouble is that bipods are at their best when the legs are short (and hence stiff), not too high off the ground so you can compliment it with a rear bag, making a very 'rigid' system with little to no lateral play. More often than not, there is too much ground cover or obstacles for these systems to be useful when hunting/stalking, apart from very open/flat terrain.
Anyway, hope this helps some people. Think twice before you blame the bipod!