Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

[Noel Carlson]

I debated what heading to post this topic under. The "Beyond 1000" was chosen for two reasons;

- Even considering my limited number of posts, anyone looking for my comments could expect to find them here.

- The shooters most interested in an accessory item, of this quality and cost, could be expected to frequent this corner of the Hide.

In preface to anything which follows; drawings, commentary/explaination, material specifications, etc. are explicitly <span style="font-style: italic">public domain</span> information. I give my permission for any, and all, of what I post in this thread to be used by any individual, or manufacturer, that feels so inclined. Provincialism, and territoriality, occasionally impede development of even the simplest firearms accessories. The "Bipod", for reasons which remain unclear to me, appears to have fallen victim to this.

As I see it; a functional light-weight, bi-axial (vertical self-correction, and traversing axis capability), is a threshold requirement to progress in re-design of this component. I will post drawings soon, and invite reasoned criticism, comments, and suggestions.

In the interim, enumeration of collective complaints on existing designs would be helpful to me. Feel free...

"<span style="font-style: italic">What has been will be again, and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun... </span>" Ecc 1:9-14

Best,
Noel

 

[The Mechanic]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Waiting patiently......

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Be wary of anyone who starts out a discussion with legal sidestepping and very large words.

Trigger

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Be wary of the wary.

 

[BLAWTON]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

word!

 

[jasonk]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Is there an advantage to having forward and back movement in a bipod, I guess this would be linear movement, to allow some sort of free recoil of the rifle?

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Jason,

I think you are right, there is an advantage.

My thought is that a titanium memory alloy, such as the one which I plan on using in the lower leg, flexes with recoil, then problems associated with mechanical binding are entirely circumvented.

 

[jasonk]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Noel Carlson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">titanium memory alloy</div></div>

I would like to see the catalog of metals you have access to, I'm guessing it contains cool stuff I never knew existed. Stuff like Titanium memory alloy

 

[BLAWTON]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Noel Carlson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">titanium memory alloy</div></div>

I would like to see the catalog of metals you have access to, I'm guessing it contains cool stuff I never knew existed. Stuff like Titanium memory alloy

</div></div>

Word!

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Jason,

Cool yes, but not-so unheard of. You may be wearing it.

They make eye-glass frames out of it (among other things like surgical drill mandrels).

 

[.375Mojave]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

You are talkative today.

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

NotaGuru... Word, is that some new age response used on the babblenet these days?

Noel, you're talking about superexotic metals and designs on something that is controlled and managed by a human, there is a point of diminishing return, Colt saw that and is still seeing that in the M16 vs. AK design. I'll take an AK anyday, over a Colt anything, or anyone else's knockoff.

Forward and rearward motion, in addition to the already happening forward and rearward motion in a rifle, so we'd compound that problem? Not a good plan, manage rearward motion with brakes and cans. At some point, if a design were found that worked, it would degrade because of friction or that nasty little dust n crap that WILL get into the works.

KISS, a lost concept these days.

How are those bullets flying?

Trigger

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Trig,

If you want to participate in reasonable discussion, I would enjoy that.

I am going to repeat my position. You can not make off-board threats, and ascribe questionable motives, followed by placid on-board baiting without calling into question your own motives. You are coming across as some sort of bipolar doppelganger.

Any continued interaction will require an answer to a question which you have twice evaded;
What is the basis for your accusation that I "knocked-off" your ideas?

I will add a follow-up;
Why do you believe you are not a "knock-off artist"? Please be specific.

"Forward and rearward motion"... , we are talking about bolt guns, not semi or full auto systems. Nitinol is expensive, even "superexotically" so. The price of these bipods is equally exotic, and the profit margin more than justifies inclusion of the relatively small amount of material each bipod will require. I chose this alloy due to it's gentle/even spring-back properties. It is very much unlike spring steel, and is impervious to the drawbacks of an equivalent mechanical system... you can not get much "simpler".

I would have a difficult time patterning precision rifle construction based on the full Kalashinikov design philosophy, but to each his own.

The magazine compatible 6.0 caliber ZA projectiles are performing very well. I recall you being something of a detractor of Gerard Schultz's "drag band" concept.

At just over 3,000 fps the current 276 grain ZA338/6.0-M hits .5 to .7 mils higher than the 300 grain Scenar between 800, and 1,300 meters. At 3,300 fps it recently produced stable, half-minute, groups from a 1: 10" barrel even though the ideal twist falls aroung 8.8".

A number of, better suited, linear-gain barrels are soon coming on-line, and the 6.5, and 7.0 caliber projectiles will leave a much larger dent in the performance disparity with existing projectile designs. I am pleased with the aeroballistic performance these have demonstrated thus far from constant-twist barrels, even though the velocity has been limited.

-Noel

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

And what "threat" exactly are you talking about?

 

[XLR]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Not that I am trying to get into a intra-fight, but there are some things that are bothering me. Trig, you claim that you despise "knockoff" artists and you also claim to have co-developed the cheytac. When I look at the Cheytac, I see an M16 boltgun. The tubular forearm seems to be a knockoff of the M16. The grip also seems to be from a M16...both from Colt origins. So, where do you draw the line. I feel your sarcasim towards people is a little out of place considering the rank of respect you hold in the shooting comunity. I respect and envy your shooting experience. However, lets not bash people that are trying to improve this awesome sport. Now, back to bipods!

 

[cybersniper]

KISS and why bipods work

Noel:
I have been consulting for VERSAPOD for several years now and have been invoilved in the development of some new designs that HOPEFULLY will appear soon.
I am a practical guy, VERY practical actually.
I like to have a ROLEX in my wrist when i go with my wife for a dinner or to a party BUT when i go to work I wear a 5.11 HRT.
less glamourous but much more practical.
SO:
DESIGN PARAMETER 1: Bipods are there to give you support for shooting on a variety of positions and from a variety of surfaces.
PARAMETER2: weight is a premium, the lighter the better
PARAMETER 3: How it recoils with the weight of the gun over (or under) it is a must. A transmission of the forces directly inline and BACKWARDS is a desired feature.
PARAMETER 4: Adjustability of each leg and locking of the position once adjusted is a desired feature.

All the rest of specs are just gizmos.
COST is not an issue as it will only affect weight. You can make a fully functional bipod in steel and an exact copy in carbon and titanium and they will function just the same. Until you start running....
If you can get it done in 100 grams better

Rubber on the feet or hard feet is a controversial issue.
I´ll go with rubber.

I cant post here our designs, but I can say that if you go to youtube and check the many videos there are, of rifles being shot with bipods .....you will see what I mean by inherently stable bipod system.

Certainly not most current commercial designs. It is matter of center of masses and center of forces.

Eduardo

 

[jasonk]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Don't change the titles please.

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

RATOUTAHELL and others... you're all right, Noel, My apologies, long long rough week at the hospital, longer week the week before.

I lost sight of why I started writing in again, internal struggles and such.

Please accept my apologies.

Trigger

 

[ds]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

On 308 and 338 I have used Harris and Parker Hale / AI for a least 15 years. Recently I bought a Henry Rempel ski bipod. This is the most stable bipod I have or have used.....to date.

In terms of KISS the ski feet, in fact the whole bipod is excellent - rifle comes directly back with recoil, no hop or bounce. The wide foot print gives stability and the cant lock works well - holds an AI AWSM with USO sn9 on top no problem.

That said it will be a month or two before trying it on an AI AW50, however at the moment I like it - very well made, simple design, quick detach mount and not that expensive.

It is not compact but then again nor is an AW50.

As a 'best of breed' this could be a reasonable starting point when evaluating a new concept. If a design can offer the same level of stability, build quality, quick detach method,whilst offering addition feature - foldability and compactness - then that could be a winner.

David.

 

[strictlyRUM]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Cool! I too have looked up to you(trigger) in the past for long range shooting input. I too have been working on a bipod system. I have been working on it for the past 2 years now that I have lost the day job it is taking center stage. As well as a chasis system. All of which were inspired by the Cheytac. With years of lean engineering and programming and leadership in precision machine shops I was hoping to bring a very stable versitile and dare I say modular system for a price the average guys can afford.
All I am trying to say is that we all bring something different to the table. Different views angles or experience. There will allways be the cheytac 200 and your bipod system. Now why cant we act as a design group and integrate what we can into other platforms.
I have been working on alot of my ideas for a while now but was starting to think of myself as a knock off artist?

Jason

JasonK---not on this topic but I skelletonized an AICS for a guy and that thing lost like two pounds. If you do it right it didnt loose any rigidity either. I tested it with everything my feeble little mind could think of. Sorry I just saw somewhere else you were saying how heavy your AICS is.

 

[cybersniper]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't change the titles please. </div></div>
UPS!!!
Sorry
ed

 

[cybersniper]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: strictlyRUM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">-not on this topic but I skelletonized an AICS for a guy and that thing lost like two pounds. If you do it right it didnt loose any rigidity either. I tested it with everything my feeble little mind could think of. Sorry I just saw somewhere else you were saying how heavy your AICS is. </div></div>
I see it as the current trend, too heavy equipment.
AICS is unnecessarily heavy, a Mcree system is much leaner.

Same goes with Parker Hale bipods. Too much.

I have seen some carbon fiber bipods out there VERY promising.
The problem is that for any company to make any profit with them they would sell for over 500$.

I think the trick is to be minimalistic.... less is more.

Eduardo

 

[110len]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

From my limited knowledge, carbon fiber strength/durability is largely dependent on how it is "laid down". It can also develop stress fractures with repeated shocks (recoil). Perhaps alot can be learned from the cycling industry where the combination of carbon buttressed with Ti has achieved flexibility and strength combined with durability.
Len

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Trig,

I understand how life's pressure can create a very misrepresenative picture of who we <span style="font-style: italic">really</span> are in these small web postings. As far as I am concerned, our little clash never happened.

Eduardo,

We are reading from the same script. Thankyou for the detailed feed-back.

The way my head works, every design parameter is initially placed into a "workable" system, and then the excess (read complexity) is pared away until what remains functions as desired... but no less than desired. The finished product can still be pricey. This is especially true where weight minimization is high in priority. I was unclear as to what the target weight should be, and you answered that. Thanks. What adjustments would you make for systems (minus bipod) in the 30+ pound range? I know you are going to say "as light as possible", but there must be some expectation of what "acceptable" would amount to.

The strut feet remain an issue for me. I see the value in retaining both "ski", and rubber configurations. The "complex" version retains both options. If I had to choose one, or the other, I am reading you to say "rubber". Is that correct?

Best,
Noel

 

[cybersniper]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 110len</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From my limited knowledge, carbon fiber strength/durability is largely dependent on how it is "laid down". It can also develop stress fractures with repeated shocks (recoil). Perhaps alot can be learned from the cycling industry where the combination of carbon buttressed with Ti has achieved flexibility and strength combined with durability.
Len </div></div>

I have seen the application of carbon fiber arrows from EASTON as legs for bipods.
Eduardo

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

I have some experience with fiber/matrix composites.

The historical pattern seems to be that whenever a structure, which imparts strength/durability/resiliency to a composite is found, similar microstructures are incorporated in superalloys.

The metal option almost always has an advantage for any given property/weight.

 

[C.K]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

I feel your going to be way ahead if you stick with metal legs, Carbon fiber is good for stocks and arrows but impact resistant it is not.

 

[lrs50bmg]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

From my standpoint, I would look for the following:

1. As light as possible.
2. As stable as possible.

My interest in a bipod for ELR purposes is different than in shorter range tactical uses. ELR shooting is not going to be leading moving targets, or engaging multiple targets in short order. I am looking to make accurate/consistent hits at long range. This requires consistency and repeatability. This means I am not interested in a bipod being able to "pan." I do want it to support the rifle in a perfectly vertical plane. I do not want any play in the bipod legs. I want the rifle to "slide" perfectly rearward under recoil. The Rempel and Sinclair bipods are pretty good at this, but do not suspend the rifle under the bipod. The excellent aspect of the CheyTac Bipod design is that it allows the rifle to pivot to vertical with the center of mass of the rifle tending to self center AND it eliminates almost all other movement within the bipod. The only draw backs, and they are a reasonable trade off, are the bulk and weight.

In ELR shooting we have rifles in relatively large calibers that are going to have significant recoil energy, despite the use of muzzle brakes or suppressors. The rifle will always move. The object is to get it to move as consistently as possible. That means as little movement in any other direction or plane other than the direction of recoil.

My 2 cents...

Scott

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Scott,

A single axis suspension is much less complex, heavy, and costly than a suspension/traversing axis combination. I noticed that the under-barrel bipods, which you referenced, use "ski" feet. Is that a feature you would like to see carried over?

The issue of adjusting mechanisms has not been mentioned. I like the idea of cam-locks on the legs. Any thoughts on the utility in a field environment?

Let's do both single, and dual-axis bipod styles. It sounds as though the dual-axis version needs to be only robust enough to handle, up to, 338 caliber.

 

[ds]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Is there any way to retain the best features of the Remple bipod - height adjustment on a centre screw - so legs are solid but height adjust in relation to leg spread - think car jack (the Remple bipod has as much height adjustment as my Harris or AI bipod) but as a one piece leg is much more rigid.

But...make it like a Sako TRG bipod with the leg pivot points over the barrel. Add a quick detach system and its a winner (sort of a cross between Remple and Sinclair bipod features). No need for pan - it would be a large bipod for 338 and up. The ski feet if designed right do away with the need for a suspension system - AI bipod ski feet do not do this - nor were they designed to (too wide). The Remple ski feet however work very well in letting the rifle track well. A long V shape also would work.

On a related note if anyone is designing a trick suspension system I would think about mounting it to a tripod - like a Manfrotto carbon legged 190 series tripod - if you can get rid of the jump and loss of position after the first shot, that could be real interesting. More shots aparently are taken from other positions than prone. Something on the lines of a head with a sledge system with return springs maybe.

David.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

<span style="text-decoration: line-through">Good topic.

I think that the current mainstream bipod has so many flaws in it that I consider it at best a mixed blessing, and maybe even a detriment to good accuracy. Yes it can be accomodated, but training and practicing to work around its pernicious tendencies does not sound like my kind of fun.

My design would be different.

It would have a rigid mount to the rifle, extend upward to above the sight axis with a window for that view, and pivot parallel to the bore axis, but around an axis several inches above that bore. It would also slide fore-aft supported by bearings, and th mounting for the legs would allow them to rotate around a verical axis. The legs would be triangular, inflexible, and broadly spread at the top alongside the fore-aft rail, tapering to pod-claw feet that pivot on a pitch axis, allowing the muzzle up/down freedom.

This would allow a fore/aft freedom to recoil parallel to the bore axis, but without any leg flex or other instabiities to impart deviations from the POA, and still provide 3-axis freedom of motion.

I don't really giveashit how much it weighs, as long as it does the above things well.

My legalese is shorter. Any novel and unique concepts of my own devising contained herein are hereby bestowed directly and immediately upon the public domain, without any claims or requests for compenstion or recognition on my part.

...However, if it ever does become a commercially viable and successful product, I'd be appropriately grateful for a few examples to use and share with a few friends.

Greg Langelius (to make it legal)</span>

OK, I'm guessing there are no takers to my offer, so without prejudice, it is hereby withdrawn. If nobody wants to make it, then I guess I'll just hang onto the intellectual property part of all this for myself.

 

[C.K]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Noel, why you say cams are you talking about the lever lock cams that are used attach equipment on rails??

I like skis with a foot print like the sinclair, and no claw type feet. Rigid and strong legs with zero slop forward or aft when supporting the gun.

The only pivot you need is to keep the rifle level.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

David,

I like your thinking. The only reservation I have is height/footprint ratio.

Assume the lowest bipod height setting places the bore parallel to the ground when the butt is planted. How much "up" adjustment is needed, and what is the minimum footprint dimension desired at that height?

I am looking at fabricating ski-feet from 7/16" diameter Nitinol bar stock. If a slight castor angle is built into them, they will tend to "float" over an uneven surface during recoil. Replaceable Teflon, or rubber "socks", pulled over the skis, would supply the desired gripping properties for various substrates.

Greg,

Extending the pivot above the sight window, assuming use of optics, would require bipod placement very close to the objective bell to preserve the light-gathering capability of the scope. I have considered this, but believe the shortened stabilization span will compromise sighting precision, and amplify off-axis recoil force vectors.

I expect to duplicate the "fore-aft" function of the bearing mechanism you describe in well designed ski-foot geometry.

Chad,

The cam-locks would be for leg extension on the bi-axial unit only. My reasoning is that this would be faster, and more ergonomic, than the position-specific "indents" sometimes found on more expensive bipod leg designs.

Best,
Noel

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

I am receiving the message loud, and clear, that not everyone is willing to sell a kidney to finance the subtraction of a few ounces from their bipod.

The prototypes will be made from aluminum, and stainless (with a small amount of bronze for bushings).

This should bring the cost down to a range that will not engender marital conflict.

The titanium versions will follow for those that really need, or desire, my best effort.

Thanks,
Noel

 

[Master Diver]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Noel,

That sounds like a good plan, Rolex do sell more watches then Patek Philip or A. Lange and Söhne

Sometimes the very best is not always the best product for the market.
I look forward to seeing the drawing of the 3K Bi-pod system.

Cheers,

Master Diver

 

[ds]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Hi Noel,

The Rempel bipod feet subtend 38cm at a max height of 24cm and 49cm at a min height of 13.5cm. By virtue of a cantilever arm the ski feet are alays in a vertical position no matter the height / distance of the bipod. Not sure this feature would be needed with a larger diameter ski than the Rempel one.

Is this idea worth a second thought.....think of a Manfrotto tripod again - just the rachet system of the legs where it joins the center yoke. Could a rachet system be used to vary leg spread and height on a bipod? The idea being to make a yoke something like a more solid version of the TRG bipod, where the legs would attach to the bipod yoke / pivot points above the barrel. The pivot points in this case would be where the legs with rachets joined the yoke. It would also fold down fairly compact. Attachment to any rifle stock by quick detach plates - a more solid version of the Manfrotto QD plate. Allows one bipod to be used on any rifle ( this feature is also on the Rempel bipod - it is a lot easier to justify the price of a bipod when it can be used on several rifles).

David.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

David,

I agree with you about the dual-strut cantilever leg feature. It is gratuitiously complex. A cylindrical "ski" cross-section achieves the same purpose.

I looked briefly at the Manfrotto website, and did not see the rachet adjustment you mentioned. I envision something like an automatic drum-brake adjuster. Is that what you are thinking?

For a "quick" release, I was contemplating a picatinny mounted spring-loaded cant axis pin. If Manfrotto has something simpler, and more adaptable, I am interested. Can you give me a link?

 

[ds]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Hi Noel,

The pic I have of my Manfrotto is not good - if wanted I am happy to do more detailed pics.

At the top of the legs can be seen two silver buttons spring loaded I think. These ride in slots in the triopd yoke, by changing the slot you change the leg angle and height.

[/img]

The Rempel quick release is more rugged than the Manfrotto release but same principle of a cam. I think the release would need to be stronger than on the Manfrotto.

I would be tempted to try and kill two birds with one stone - quick release with tilt system as per AI / Parker-Hale or Versa Pod bipods - a spiggot into a hole that can be locked by a thumb screw.

David.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

David,

I am having trouble visualizing the "rachet" function from your photograph. Would it be possible for you to do a partial disassembly, and then photograph? My gut feeling is that we may be looking at precisely the type of mechanism that does not fare well in an abrasive environment... unless it can be easily sealed.

I think the "spigot/hole & thumbscrew" quick-release is not so far from the spring-loaded axis pin which I was mentioning.

Noel

P.S.;
By "slots in the yoke", do you mean horizontal, single direction, engagement teeth arranged in an arc following the pivot?

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

On a few minutes worth of reflection, this could only be unidirectional gear/rachet-arm engagement mechanism (just like you said ).

The problem I see with that design, aside from contamination susceptability, is the nonsymetrical deployment. I am envisioning a counter acme-threaded rod above the pivot shaft, which when rotated, rapidly deploys, and retracts the legs. It would do so symetrically, which is what I believe we want on a single-axis bipod.

What do you think?

Noel

 

[takeaim1st]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Noel, Nothing personal but, BULLSHIT!

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

takeaim1st,

Nothing personal taken.

 

[Redmist]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Joining the debate late, out of my home country for a week or two with no access to my own or anyone elses firearms - forgive me.


I like the quick deployment of the harris, I also like the stability of Rempel / Sinclair design - especially in situations where absolute stability is required.

If you desire / need a portable system for hunting (two or four legged animal) then weight has to be a concern. Not necassarily an issue when one may drive to a range and decamp from the four wheel drive when shooting targets.

The Sako TRG system is very stable when set up, similar in style to the Cheytac - both are suspended designs - well that what I percieve to be a suspended design.


Now instead of mounting the bipod from a spigot undeneath the forend, why not have a dovetail / lock system on either side of the forend where each leg could lock into and rotate to vertical (shooting position) - both legs could have a tie rod attachment that is ajustable in length - similar to stressing ties so one would still retain some degree of height ajustment.

These are just thoughts out loud (typed of course)

The side mounting would allow a "suspended" structure using the forend for strength (again may not be feasable with some stock designs)

The "stretcher" would have to be removable to allow portability.


The kind of thing I am thinking of (loosley) was used on Steyr Scout rifles a while ago - obviously I am thinking heavier duty and made of alloy over plastic....for those who cannot see where I am coming from.

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

More of nothing personal, but you're proposing the space shuttle for a canoe job. Threads don't work in an icy, frozen, crusty environment. You need big tolerances, durable, simple, and STRONG. You know what I mean, trim the fat, make it simple, etc.

Trig

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Is this getting wierd or what?

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Redmist,

That mount idea is very similar to what we are doing with the AI forestock.

What would you consider to be the maximum allowable weight for a bipod sufficiently stiff for high stability, and intended for field use.

-Noel

P.S.:
The ZA338/6.0-H hunt bullet will be available for public sale next week, and delivered in two to three months. Range reports will be posted soon.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Trig,

I did not see you there. I realize that threads do not like debris. When you see what I am talking about, I believe you will understand why I am not worried about it.

-Noel

 

[Redmist]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Noel

I would suggest anything from 1 to 2 lbs maximum.

Preferably similar or less than the current standard (Harris)

Not sure how that would be achieved - hollow tube legs, or solid light alloy would be the way to go, using materiels that would take the abuse of deployment, recoil and carriage in testing conditions.


I imagine you have ideas already of which metal / composite will work best for this task...


Re the solids - I need to obtain the required Export Licence soon then. Would one be required for non exp solids (from the US)

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

Redmist,

Thanks for the bipod weight estimates. That gives me a pretty good idea of how to get to the finished design.

I have a basic understanding of the process based on early preparations for shipment to Austrailia.

There is a U.S. State Department form (DSP83) which you will need to download. A licensed UK importer will then fill it out, and then forward it directly to me. I must then submit it to U.S. Customs with the shipment. It basically gives an assurance to the U.S. Government that the projectiles will not be re-exported from Britian. I am sure there are a separate set of rules, and paperwork hurdles at your end.

Best,
Noel

 

[Redmist]

Re: Bi-Axial "suspension" Bipod Design

I already have a DSP83 for a barrel company waiting to submit on my return home.

I will speak with you via e-mail and submit a similar application, I just have to clarify something with UK authorities (regarding the technicalities of importation)