Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

T

Triggerfifty

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 1, 2005
199
0
#1
Hey,

I've had alot of interest in straight tube bipod cuff layouts. Here's a photo of the potential on the M400 semi-auto 408 rifle (doesn't exist anymore). Am considering a smaller and lighter version made of other than steel materials. If anyone is interested, post your comments please or PM me. Cost TBD. I know what i'm going to ask for these, but am withholding posting that public.

Note that the rotation point for the bipod legs is well above the barrel centerline, placing >90% of the rifle weight below that rotation point. Works very nice.

Later,
Trigger


M400_with_Cheytac_bipod.jpg
 
#2
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Trigger,

Is that the RND M400..? What ever happened to it or the M400 in general?
Seems like it would be a dream rifle.
 
#3
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

now this is what im talking about.. im interested depending on price. The AR10/15 crowd will be excited.


PM sent
 
#4
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Just a clarification;

The balance on this rifle will be similar to a conventional bipod mounting within a few degrees of plumb.

What the truely innovative WA2000 bipod did, later replcated in the DSR1, was create a strong <span style="font-style: italic">righting moment </span> which automatically maintains vertical alignment. If a significant investment is to be made in an aftermarket bipod, why not include this feature?
 
#6
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

I'd have to DA on the Wa2000 setup and the DSR setups. Those are over the barrel bipod units, but they don't have nearly the stability characteristics of the cheytac design. I've shot a few Walter guns and a few DSR guns. Due to their lack of ROTATIONAL motion, they are limited in their stability. A system being merely suspended is only about 45% of the formula. The rest is in HOW it is suspended, and some other trash.

Later,
Trigger
 
#7
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Wait a sec, had to re-read that, are you saying that the CT setup is only a slight gain over the Harris? If so, your observation is very out of wack. Conventional means 100% of the weight sitting ON TOP of a pivot point, usually narrower than the forearm of the stock.

Other than a WA or DSR gun, have you experience with a Cheytac bipod system on a HEAVY gun, or even a light one? I'll give you this, on a 6 lb. pop gun, there's not much gain, but then who needs a bipod? Use a glove and a sling and be done with it
smile.gif


Trigger
 
#9
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Noel,

I'm no scientist, nor a calculator backed engineer. Some of my methods are scientific in approach. Having had the benefit or shooting several hundred thousand rounds of ammunition in all environments, conditions, day and night, in nearly every gun system we are talking about on this site, I can say with a very practiced hand, that Gun #1 is better than Gun #2. It's how test pilots have to fly a plane. The guys with computers and calculators say the plane will do this and do that. Then the pilots go out and find the edge of the envelope. They then come back in the hangar and say, "yep it'll do this and that, but it sucks at this and that".

Know what I mean?

Also, with a less practiced eye, one can see that a rifle sitting ON TOP of a bipod (Harris type) has something in the neighborhood of 100% of the guns weight sitting on TOP of the bipod, as nothing is hanging under the bipod. As well, a rifle that has all but the optical sight hanging below the rotating point of the legs has a great liklihood of being more inherently stable than one sitting on top of a bipod.

The upper leg mount of a cheytac bipod has about 3" of space between the legs, and about 15" between the legs. A harris has about 1.5" between the legs at the top and about 7" at the bottom. Those numbers speak for themselves.

Then there is the method of rotation to consider. The CT unit has a cuff rotating freely around a 2.50" OD tube, vs. a set of legs pivoting on about a 1/4" pivot point on the bipod itself. Greater surface area, bigger footprint, suspended weight, it all adds up. Drag out a calculator, plug in a formula, and the math proves it, but I don't need a calculator to say, like pilots do, I think this airplane is good, or bad.

Make any sense?

Trigger
 
#10
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Triggger,

Experience counts for a great deal, as it will refine an understanding of what you already know.

Innovation is what you are really talking about here, and that can only occur when what you already "know" is questioned.

An <span style="font-style: italic">axis</span> is defined by <span style="font-style: italic">two</span> points. A bipod represents only <span style="font-style: italic">one</span> of those points in rifle stabilization system. The second point is the location at which the rear of the weapon rests. If a line is struck between these, the distance/mass under that axis, in excess of the distance/mass above it (if any), is the stabilizing force. The "90% below", and "100% above the bipod" mass numbers you provided are meaningless in this context. The foregoing is unrelated to the size of the rifle. I choose to use a bipod on smaller rifles, and for the same reasons.

Bipod foot print is relevant, but since that dimension is at the disgression of the designer, this is only true in comparing specific hardware. "Rotation" is relevant, but not for stability. The DSR-1, as I am sure you know, uses a ball-joint suspension. You can not get much more "rotational" than that, and your point about rotational travel is a good one. It is also a remedial design issue however, not a qualitative limitation.

The question is not, "Is this a good airplane". The Piper Cub is a "good" airplane. The proposition you put forth is that of the CT offering being the <span style="font-style: italic">best</span> solution to rifle stabilization, at a reasonable cost premium. I am suggesting that the benefits of thoughtful design have not been exhausted within the price scales I am reading lately, and that even existing solutions have not been fully incorporated into the CheyTac bipod.

Rather than a repeat performance, why not improve? In relative terms, the difference between the CT, and the Harris, is less than the CT, and what is reasonably possible. Stop comparing "Gun#1", and "Gun#2"... build Gun System #3.

That is all I am suggesting.

Best,
Noel
 
#11
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Makes sense, I understand your point, it's a good one. I'm staying out of the design world, shooting mostly too, just being a nurse is busy enough
smile.gif


Trig
 
#12
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Perhaps a bipod mounted on top with a smooth ball & socket joint would be closer to being "underslung," the pivot point being well above the bore line? Of course, that would probably get in the way of optics
wink.gif


Now if only I could figure out how to solve this 250,000 particle sand simulation without a brute force method or resorting to slow-ass Navier-Stokes...
 
#13
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Dogtown,

As long as the scope/rifle are <span style="font-style: italic">true</span> vertical in orientation, this is less of an obstacle than you might think.

What in the world are you simulating the motion of 250,000 grains of sand for?
crazy.gif
 
#14
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Noel Carlson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What in the world are you simulating the motion of 250,000 grains of sand for?
crazy.gif
</div></div>

I do visual effects for movies nowadays and use particle systems and fluid sims along with other procedural methods all the time. Your bringing some physics into the thread kind of made me laugh in that regard.
 
#16
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Only because solver accuracy is ultimately not as important is the result just looking good. In the movie biz "if it looks right, it is right" even though technically everything in the system may be blatantly wrong. A case in point is the 2002 movie "Final Destination 2" where I worked on rigid body simulations of CG logs tumbling off the back of a truck and into a crowded road. To get things looking just right and the timing to work effectively to support the story from the camera's point of view, you'd be amazed just how many external non-natural forces I triggered at various moments to nudge those logs into position. From any other angle it just looks wrong, but from the camera's view it looks just right.


PM me if you want to geek on that stuff, Noel. Sorry for the hijack, folks.
 
#17
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps a bipod mounted on top with a smooth ball & socket joint would be closer to being "underslung," the pivot point being well above the bore line? Of course, that would probably get in the way of optics
wink.gif


Now if only I could figure out how to solve this 250,000 particle sand simulation without a brute force method or resorting to slow-ass Navier-Stokes... </div></div>

Dogtown,

To answer your question and provide data:

No, a bipod top rail mounted (pendulum) doesn't get in the way of the optics. There is zero light gathering interference nor image degredation especially when it is more than 6 inches out past the bell, per the picture below.
54f051.jpg


In my research on the subject, I can conclude it is the optimal solution with the full weight of the weapon finding true "level" with little to no effort by the user. This is far superior to the DSR models (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn38-e.htm) and any other bipod system to date. The reason it is superior and the "gun system #3" Noel refers to, is due to the smooth ball and socket joint that gives this bipod over 40 degrees of cant on each side (read: over 80 degrees total cant) along with easily adjustable, rock solid legs. I was very impressed when I saw this at a range the other week.

PS - the 250,000 particle sand simulation; you're on your own Man.
 
#18
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

MR,

That is the innovative spirit at work... nice execution also.

I was looking closely at the photo, and see what appears to be a monoaxial bearing joint geometry. Are you certain this is a ball-joint design?

-Noel
 
#20
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

That's one of the RND bipod setups, BTW. Lloyd has done quite a few variations using the same legs but different mounting options.
 
#21
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Just for general knowledge, Lloyd knocked that idea off when I sent him back his M400 to have him re-do the recoil rod / spring setup. The gun kept bouncing the bolt carrier out of battery because it didn't have a buffer behind it. (The real reason for a buffer, not exactly to manage the recoil and rate of the rifle).

Lloyd didn't much like that design, and he was ticked that I turned down the tube on the rifle to accept that cuff. It didn't have a bipod on it at all before at all. Just a tube. Very ratty to shoot that way.

Trigger
 
#22
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Ok this is weird to me. You use someone's rifle in your ad and then you put it down when people mention it. Something just smells wrong here. So, to satisfy my curiosity, I found this video of the rifle you have a picture of above, that you say doesn't run:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1I7zaKvbg

Seems like it runs just fine. But again I don't know the history. If anyone else has more info on this I will of course acquiesce to the their knowledge for this is all g(r)eek to me. Which brings me to my point...I have no context of any of your histories. Nor do I care. I am just interested in a viable bipod system along with any ELR system and not paying through the nose for it.

As for "knock-offs" I think you are all bringing similar items to market that are superior to ones developed years ago by others in some similar, but not exact, design. I would call that progress more than "knock-offs". I also believe in capitalism and competition. It keeps the market fair and the prices low. (I loathe communists, socialists and finger pointers)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I can glean, you are not an OEM and I don't think you are on Cheytacs payroll either. But, I/we still totally appreciate what you are doing and anyone like you bringing more viable product to market. Thank you!

Please post some pictures of your actual units for we are very excited to see your products!!!
 
#23
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Mountain Rogue... This is kind of a long story, some here know it already. I was one of the orginal owners of Cheytac back in 2001. I developed the rifle from a base EDM platform into the M200 system you see around now. The major part of that development was the over the barrel bipod, cuff and strut system that is on the M200.

I got involved with CT for a short time in 2005 to work on the semi-auto rifle. That gun was the RND gun that you saw in the you tube clip and the photo on this post. Like I said in the post, I had to modify the forearm tube on the RND gun to put one of those cuff/bipod units on board. I simply was stating that Lloyd's design, while is not the same as the CT unit; is clearly a knock off on an idea that showed up on his doorstep. No big deal really.

The gun was very accurate, but could not cycle ammunition reliably. Also issues with the bolt bounce, etc., lack of a buffer, but a very novel way of doing an recoil system OVER the bolt carrier unit. It could have been developed to a very successful system, but personalities got involved, yada yada yada.

I don't do guns anymore. I'm doing this bipod unit as a one time opportunity for the guys here. Cheytac was advised and I asked their OK to build these units, they have given their blessing. So, I have no "products" per se. Building 6 ea. of the TAC 50 SOE modified stocks is part of that program, and it won't probably happen again.

I also believe in capitalism and competition. I despise knock off artists and design robbers, in fact, i'll pursue them and expose them wherever and whenever I can. It's hardly a "fair" way to market an item, and it has no effect on pricing. Frankly, you get what you pay for... want a 50.00 dollar bipod? They're out there, and they're crap. The good stuff simply stated, is expensive, BECAUSE of the development, precision and process / proofing that is used to develop that component.

The cost of the CheyTac ballistic computer before computer #1 was sold to a non-military customer was in the 100s of thousands of dollars, not an adaptation of a G1 based common formula program, with a different look and feel on board, but making a profit in the neighborhood of 200%, vs. the CheyTac computer which finally may actually be in the black on the original investment and development costs. It is and will for a long time be THE state of the art in ballistic software, but then again, it's not 39.95 G1 program that comes on an IPOD., but then again, it's heads and tails above those programs.

As far as OEM, you could say that I am, and am not at the same time, I designed that BIPOD setup. In fact, that cuff unit in that photo was one of my personal units, from the prototype run that was done some time earlier. I'm not on CheyTac's payroll now, but I do some stuff for them on a consulting basis.

Just to clear the fog a bit...

Trigger
 
#25
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Trigger,

There are all sorts of things which I could say about the "knock-off" phenomena as it occurs in virtually every field of human endeavor, and with all due defference to your assertion; it does drive down prices, and frequently raises quality. This is a good thing.

It is no coincidence that firearms configuration is so easy to date based on collective design details. Some of the innovation was fundamental, and patentable by virtue of genuine novelty. More often than not, when circumstances merited patent protection, it was sought, and granted.

The majority of change happens subtly, and constitutes more a revision/refinement of an existing concept. I would classify the CT bipod as falling firmly into this category. There is nothing truely novel about the design, and it owes much to the ingenuity of predecessors. If someone was to say; "Trig knocked-off a design that showed up on his doorstep... no big deal really.", I will venture a guess that you would have something to say about the mischaracterization.

If it was "The major part of that (M200) development...", then you should have persuaded the Patent Office, as they are becoming much freer with the issuance of patents. In absence of that initiative, it would be good policy to be sparing in the use of the "knock-off" perjorative. It reminds me of some discussion on this board which transpired over <span style="font-style: italic">sling</span> design... of all things. The tripod photo posted by Mountain Rogue is clearly superior to the CT design. If there were no applicable patents involved, you owed it to your customers to adopt it into the M200. There is still room for improvement to the design, and if anyone is interested, I will provide drawings... without restriction of use.

There is so much room for improvement in this field, that it seems petty to get worked up over such trivial issues.

... Just my thoughts.
 
#26
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Quality is .....well Quality. You get what you pay for. Just because something looks/feels nice and appears to be well machined doesn't mean its made of quality materials. Not too many people know the difference between crs, t6 aluminum, 4140, 4150.......... Good luck to all who want to make knockoff parts....Just don't ask me if I want to shoot your gun!

my 2 cents
Aaron
 
#28
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Patents cost too much, and don't stop anything. There is a certain software guy out there that met with us in Arco, then showed up at the next shotshow with his own version of it, claimed it was his own idea, then had his turd of an attorney send other software competitors cease and desist or buy my license order. THOSE kinds of things inhibit good products that should be in our fighters hands, but thanks to turds and lawyers, those products won't see the light of combat day. Be real.

I've played with the RND design, extensively, it is not superior, at best, it gets close. It takes evaluation beyond a flat range, a bench or what 99.6% of most guys will do to it to evaluate it well. It takes weeks, and alot of money to evaluate the diff between the two units. It's not bad, but it's TOO refined, kind of like Russian technology vs. US technology.

Know what I mean? Anyway, that's one of the reasons i'm a nurse now, and not playing on the big heat arena except to shoot something now and then. I don't miss the development game one bit. I saw a certain euro-trash scope builder walk right up to the nightforce desk one time at a SHOTSHOW a few years back, Jeff Huber had a cutaway of his scope setting there. These two turds picked up the scope and starting taking high res dig photos of the guts. I can testify to this as I removed their camera, separated the lens from the body, pulled the chip and pocketed it, then gave them the pieces back. They were then tossed as was that certain euro-trash scope builder. You'd recognize the name as it's a well known company that frankly didn't need to knock off Jeff's stuff.

That was kind of fun actually. Sorry, but in no way will I accept or promote that knock off artists are part of success in any industry, that's why we have security measures to stop them. Ronnie Barrett even had a patent against the use of the M82 as a toy model in the 80s-90s, maybe still, when those GI JOE knock off guys in china built a copy of the gun anyway, then had the toy sold here in the US, he couldn't stop them.

My rant is complete
smile.gif


Trigger
 
#29
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Trig,

As mentioned, the U.S. Patent Office is becoming much less discriminating, and there have always been "scam" artists. I would probably act in the same manner you describe at the trade show incident.

I think where we diverge is in defining a "knock-off artist". Patents are sacrosanct, and <span style="font-style: italic">are</span> very defensible, as are trade secrets, and non-disclosure agreements.

Publicly available knowledge is in an entirely different category. The bipod issues which I have seen are public domain. An idea taken from this pool can not, by definition, be stolen.
 
#31
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Trig,

I am curious.

From the standpoint of basic geometric arrangement, the bipod represented in Mountain Rouge's photo has a 1.3-1.7" height advantage, in a critical location, for suspension biasing beyond that which the CT bipod has.

If I understand the critique of your competitor's bipod correctly, it is solely over-refinement which you see as the design flaw. Presumably, you experienced an environmentally induced malfunction of some sort.

What happened?

Best,
Noel
 
#32
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Hi Noel,

You're right on the failure observation. Ice, snow and freezing temps cause issues with tight tolerances. The tube and setup on the CT design allows an easy breakaway from freeze ups by just twisting the pistol grip of the rifle and breaking all that garbage away. Small tight areas allow crud to build up and get into the tiny little places. Fine desert dust, added to snow or freezing temps, (yep, it happens, reference Bravo 20 in Desert Storm 1991).

Also, bipod legs can get too long. From your knowledge standpoint, which scientifically is smarter than mine, you can only extend a leg so far before it becomes too flexible and unstable, then you have to make larger diameter tubes, etc.

Make sense?

Trig
 
#33
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Trig,

The best way to overcome the rigidity issue is to use thinner walled, larger diameter, tubing. For the price at which these things are going, I would also consider the use of an exotic alloy in strut fabrication.

If the idea is to create a true "suspension" stabilization system, there is really no alternative to the use of longer legs.

On the environmental fouling issue; which specific components seized?

Noel
 
#34
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Noel,

The moving pieces ALL seized, outer legs to the inner ones (wasn't a big deal), and the point where the moving ("cuff", for lack of a better term), are attached to the fixed stud. Desert dust always creeps in, add moisture, humidity, and freezing air, = hard seizure.

I have had the cheytac setup on cheytac guns and my own rifles in some horrid environments, and have never had a problem breaking any seizures loose by giving the P-grip a twist.

Trig
 
#35
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Trig,

There is no reason for <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> of the parts to seize in the first place. Now I understand why the humble bipod is such an issue.

You have got me thinking...
 
#36
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Cool... there are some smart guys on this site, as with test pilots and formula drivers, the communication between the use and the engineer usually wins the day.

Trig
 
#37
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

Trig,

I have been thinking about a bipod design for application to the 3K system for almost three years now. This thread has motivated me to shorten the development schedule.

Full drawings will be completed within the next two weeks, and the first prototypes will be ready within two months. Since mass is an issue, I am planning on the use of Nickel/Titanium through-out. For the cost concious, I will offer some of the sub-components in aluminum.

Any feed-back you could provide on performance specifications, such as your sand/moisture resistance observation, would be greatly appreciated.

Anyone else with imput... feel free. This is the time for it.

Best,
Noel
 
#44
Re: Cheytac bipod setup on straight round tube forearm

i look forward to the end result of all of this.

i would like to see something for a McRees stock and something for a conventional stock with a rail where the sling swivel usually is.

Honestly, i don't care how heavy or what material it is made of if it works. Lifting heavy stuff is one of the few things i am good at and paying $600 for a bipod to put on a $1500 rifle makes me feel like a schmuck.

Let me know where to buy a couple when you are done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Firearms WTS Cheytac M300 Intervention
Replies
68
Views
10K
Moodilistic
M
JohnDeereGuy1996
Geissele GFR Maritime Reconnaissance 6mm arc write up and review
Replies
103
Views
11K
putput30
P
SkepticalTiger
Henry Youth H001Y Range Report and Groupings
Replies
2
Views
660
SkepticalTiger
SkepticalTiger
leeb10
Firearms WTS Mausingfield M5 Shorty in 6 and 6.5 Creedmoor - 0.2MOA with Factory Hornady ammo!!
Replies
4
Views
1K
leeb10
leeb10
I
Beating a dead horse: another rimfire in an L96 airsoft stock
Replies
15
Views
3K
Salinas
Salinas
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts