Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design
I appreciate your response, over 1,000 yards and that is serious work.
The reason I asked is that over the last 35 years or so, I have watched with some considerable interest as the lowly bipod made its way through yet another series of metamorphoses . We had come a long way, passing some important milestones, from the M21’s step the spike into the ground aluminum and steel mono rests, the FNLAR’s attempt to fold it all away, to the WA2000’s then groundbreaking suspension. We somehow have ended up with this, the latest period, with its current crop of spring loaded, button rich bipods hanging off various makes and models that for the most part look like 1950 TV antenna’s. IMO, a low point in design and more importantly integration.
I was please to see Trigger’s work on the EDM WIndrunner platform (there is, IMO, no Cheytac platform, there is a cartridge and work on the original EDM bipod stud.) Trigger’s work was important as the real issue at hand is not yet another bipod “add-on” but a more profound integration into the rifle system so that it is there when needed, solid in all regards and lastly, and most overlooked, able to get out of the way when not.
.
In short, from this….
.
.
To this…..
.
.
To Triggers fine solution seen earlier and elsewhere in this section. Yes, I understand the issues with the longer stud, or Triggers longer tube with handle, or as seen here custom barrel and shorter tube, or the magic of instant left hand receivers via photoshop.
The point is made and Trigger’s understanding of the problem and execution of an elegant solution sets a good solid standard that has already led him to this….
Note: Free floating rube to bipod integration was first attempted in 1896 and well understood and integrated into military arms by 1932. Lets not go there now.
I have always felt the solution IS integrating the bipod design into the receiver engineering. And I have also always felt that not doing just that requires that one dance around that mishap with solutions that do the best they can.
Currently it gets as simplistic as universal models that do what is required and make engineers cringe.
.
If you give up completely..
.
.
Or..
.
.
And quickly runs up to the newest crop of what benchrest shooters now see…
.
.
With few exception, the heavy benchrest rifle crews have seen it all. You show me a rail mounted, stud mounted, adhered, channel set screwed design and its all a big yawn.
Universal adaptability is where I start getting worried.
Need a rock solid rest, fully adjustable and made of space age materials? As any serious benchrest shooter will tell you, any skilled retired machinist can do that, it takes real skill to integrate it into the platform, otherwise it UHF time.
Show me a rifle company producing a 1,000 yard + capable rifle that has thought through the bipod as well as the trigger and I start to get interested.
All meant in the best of spirit.
