Why doesn’t it cut it? Due to the rifle(I won’t be getting one)or other reasons?
Thanks
The way Hollweird screws thing up chances are the put it together upside down & backwards so they didn't have to pay for it's image.Just saw a TV program where this rifle was briefly shown. What bipod is that? Anybody know?
View attachment 165423
Is this it? Phoenix Tactical bipod with over barrel mount.Just saw a TV program where this rifle was briefly shown. What bipod is that? Anybody know?
View attachment 165423
Wouldn’t that mount prevent a good sight picture?Is this it? Phoenix Tactical bipod with over barrel mount.
http://www.phoenixtactical.co.uk/fortmeier-bipod.html View attachment 165430
Generally something that close and low doesn't affect your view.Wouldn’t that mount prevent a good sight picture?
Looks like it.Is this it?
I don't mean to derail completely, but this is something that has always fascinated me.Generally something that close and low doesn't affect your view.
Try it sometime. Strange but you really don't notice any difference.
I haven't tried that type, but part of the stability is to push it forward somewhat to stabilize it better, and it would seem to me that there would be a bit more stress and possible movement of the forend having it suspended. I would have to see it being used to know for sure, but it would also limit the type of rifle.Looks like it.
I don't mean to derail completely, but this is something that has always fascinated me.
Since I'm not a bipod user, there's probably some practical reason that almost every bipod goes under the barrel. However, from a simple physics point of view, it always seemed intuitive to me that a bipod that attached above the barrel, leaving the major weight hanging below, would be inherently more stable.
Since stability is (I think, but not being a user I could be completely wrong) the primary goal, I've often wondered why most bipods weren't designed to suspend the weight of the rifle in this manner.
Looks like it.
I don't mean to derail completely, but this is something that has always fascinated me.
Since I'm not a bipod user, there's probably some practical reason that almost every bipod goes under the barrel. However, from a simple physics point of view, it always seemed intuitive to me that a bipod that attached above the barrel, leaving the major weight hanging below, would be inherently more stable.
Since stability is (I think, but not being a user I could be completely wrong) the primary goal, I've often wondered why most bipods weren't designed to suspend the weight of the rifle in this manner.
I have moved away from loading the bipod. Many fancier bipods have skis that don't allow it to grab anyways.I haven't tried that type, but part of the stability is to push it forward somewhat to stabilize it better, and it would seem to me that there would be a bit more stress and possible movement of the forend having it suspended. I would have to see it being used to know for sure, but it would also limit the type of rifle.
Can't go wrong with Atlas. I prefer the Atlas, but I will say that I have a Magpul I also like.Current rifle build is getting close to being finished and now I’m shopping bipods. I’m leaning towards Atlas PSR NC and M-Lok adapter. Thoughts?
They're nice. Mine all have rotating legs and they spin if you load them.Current rifle build is getting close to being finished and now I’m shopping bipods. I’m leaning towards Atlas PSR NC and M-Lok adapter. Thoughts?