Precision Rifle Gear Tripod mounts

[dm250]

With how popular camera tripods and ball mounts have become I was just wondering why no one is using gimbal mounts like the Wimberley WH-200?

I know RRS and social media does a great job of hyping RRS tripods and arca ball heads but having shot wildlife photography for years I can tell you that most professionals are running Gitzo tripods (even more expensive that RRS if you can believe that and personally I think much better quality) and WH-200 gimbal mounts for big/long lens. Having spent countless hours behind a long lens on a WH-200 I can tell you it is worlds more comfortable to use and adjust than a ball head. My thinking was especially on a rife since it so long they would give you perfectly smooth adjustments, much stronger lockup than a ball head, can hold alot more weight then a ball head, you can just let the gun go hands free with the lock up knobs "unlocked" and the gun will just sit there (hence the name gimbal head) and you can freely move it around up down, left right, etc, its not like a ball head where when you unlock the knob you gun wants to fall over in some random direction. The only major downside to them is the price and there a little bit heavier, however if your already willing to drop $500 on a RRS BH-40 or 55 then your in the same range as a WH-200

I know for big/long lens camera shooting ball heads are mehhh and there really not that nice compared to a gimbal head so I am just wondering why no one is running gimbal heads like the WH-200? Or maybe I am just dumb and this is not the correct application??

Quick youtube search pulls this up for a quick and dirty explanation of a Gimbal Head for those not familiar with them.

 

[NateVA]

Are gimbal heads stout enough to hold 20-30 pound rifles? Plus wouldn't the rifle being so far above the apex of the tripod be a big issue for recoil control and stability?

 

[kthomas]

I use a gimbal ballhead. A UniqBall UBH-45 to be exact. No problem with weight rating, it's rated to ~90 lbs.

It's pretty similar to a regular ballhead, the difference is that there's an outer ballhead that you level, and once locked in place the inner ballhead only moves in the horizontal and vertical axis, with zero tilt. If you want it to function as a regular ballhead, you lock the inner ballhead and adjust the tension of the outer ballhead to your desire.

 

[Zak Smith]

I've used the ProMediaGear one for some years and it works fine. It is heavier than a ball head and takes longer to set up. You need a leveling based.

"GK Katana Professional Gimbal Tripod Head"

 

[dm250]

Are gimbal heads stout enough to hold 20-30 pound rifles? Plus wouldn't the rifle being so far above the apex of the tripod be a big issue for recoil control and stability?

I would say they are far more solid than any ball head. I only have experience with WH-200's and I can tell you they are one stout chunk of metal and the locking knobs on them are very powerful. Most have a 100lbs published weight rating (so I'm sure it is even more in reality as I'm sure there is a safety factor put on that as well)

I wish I still had my WH-200's I would love to try one out on a rifle. In my head they would work amazing (but who knows maybe in reality it just does not work and that is why I have never seen anyone use one for shooting)

 

[dm250]

I've used the ProMediaGear one for some years and it works fine. It is heavier than a ball head and takes longer to set up. You need a leveling based.

"GK Katana Professional Gimbal Tripod Head"

Oh wow GK Katana! (always wanted one of those) Thanks for the feedback!

How did it work was it better than a ball head or not? Like I said in my mind a gimbal head would work amazing but I just don't know on a rifle.

 

[Zak Smith]

It is better in that it locks out the roll axis and only allows pitch and yaw adjustments. However, this requires that the base is level which takes longer to set up. I wouldn't use it when setting up the tripod was "on the clock" so to speak. It is noticeably heavier than the largest RRS ball head, and much more bulky.

 

[dm250]

It is better in that it locks out the roll axis and only allows pitch and yaw adjustments. However, this requires that the base is level which takes longer to set up. I wouldn't use it when setting up the tripod was "on the clock" so to speak. It is noticeably heavier than the largest RRS ball head, and much more bulky.

Ohh yes your right I did not think about the leveling factor. But I guess that's why they have these: https://www.gitzo.com/global/leveling-base-systematic-gslvls/

Yeah a gimbal head is a pretty hefty chuck of metal compared to a ball mount. Defiantly would not want to lug one around on a hunting trip, but for a range day I don't think I would be any more of a hassle than any of the larger heavy duty ball mounts.

 

[kthomas]

It is better in that it locks out the roll axis and only allows pitch and yaw adjustments. However, this requires that the base is level which takes longer to set up. I wouldn't use it when setting up the tripod was "on the clock" so to speak. It is noticeably heavier than the largest RRS ball head, and much more bulky.

Gimbal ballheads solve most of these issues. Similar weight and footprint of a typical ballhead.

Its still a bit more time on the clock to setup if you want it to function as a gimbal, but its still really quick. An additional 5 seconds or so. And if you want to avoid all of that and just use it as a regular ballhead, you can.

However, I probably wouldn't buy a gimbal ballhead strictly for PRS/comp use. I think the utility for a lot of comp use is pretty limited.