Thread: bipod/no bipod

so is this result because of a budget quality bipod or incompatability with the stock forend .....Sako 123gr Ruger American ......the good group was using sandbags
I guess what I'm asking is , if I got a better bipod would I still have the same problem or might I be better off with a tripod or monopod setup for when it would be beneficial to have a rifle rest

Technique is key here. I will take stab and guess you left rifle free to jump around and had off hand on heel of stock when using bipod but held normally without??? If so try again but firmly hold forend while using bipod and see what happens.

on sandbags and bipod I was holding the forend firm......had similar result with 150gr too , rifle is suppressed too

Try twisting stock n see if contacting barrel ..eg can you push tip of forend towards barrel n make it touch??? Bipod I have is cheap chineseum Harris knock off and I have had zero issues using it,but all my rifles well free floated.

Kinda a long the lines of what I was thinking it's a Ruger American so no the greatest quality stock .

If you could find a second hand boyd stock to fit the action in , you probably would see an improvement in the system rigidity and consistency and be able to shoot the same small groups with either supporting methods.

Actually:
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketpl...ing/5335662421

It is a bit fugly I must admit

totally agree a laminate stock would be more rigid and an improvement and yes that thing ain't purdy

Hard to tell if there's actually any difference, assuming the apparent difference in POI is a result of selecting a different POA

Umm, are you shooting off a hard surface using the soft rubber feet?

Need really to know a bit more info in all fairness - like how did you set the bipod up, surface it was used on etc etc.

What can happen if it's a Harris or Parker Hale style (legs fold up to the front) is that if the bipod is on hard ground and recoil pushes it rearwards the bipod can 'bounce' the muzzle up in the fraction of a second that the recoil can affect the flight of the bullet.

Technique is a big part of using a bipod, and as noted a stiff foreend that won't flex all over the show allows you to lean forwards into and 'load' the bipod which helps control the flip. A floppy standard plastic foreend will flex down and can do weird things at the action bedding area as well. Not that helpful.

Using sandbags is a much less reactive rest, more dead regardless of the technique you are using. If you are keeping the standard stock and want to use a bipod, the best chance of not shifting your point of impact all over the show is doing a stiffening job on it by bedding in a couple of carbon arrow shaft offcuts with some of the epiglass microballoon filler in it. Doesn't add much weight but really improves the stiffness factor of the foreend. Otherwise a floating or separate tripod with a u shaped rest that doesn't attach to the foreend is an option - it's a bit hard to drag sandbags around with you.

Originally Posted by Friwi

Actually:
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketpl...ing/5335662421

It is a bit fugly I must admit

Just needs dragging around the tops and through the scrub for 12 months, that'd knock the fugly out of it!

Don't know if it's relevant here, but I had some trouble with groups using bipod spikes stuck in to the dirt on a 7mm08. Went back to regular feet and groups tightened up. Apparently, it's a thing and I wasn't alone in this experience.

Originally Posted by No.3

Need really to know a bit more info in all fairness - like how did you set the bipod up, surface it was used on etc etc.

What can happen if it's a Harris or Parker Hale style (legs fold up to the front) is that if the bipod is on hard ground and recoil pushes it rearwards the bipod can 'bounce' the muzzle up in the fraction of a second that the recoil can affect the flight of the bullet.

Technique is a big part of using a bipod, and as noted a stiff foreend that won't flex all over the show allows you to lean forwards into and 'load' the bipod which helps control the flip. A floppy standard plastic foreend will flex down and can do weird things at the action bedding area as well. Not that helpful.

Using sandbags is a much less reactive rest, more dead regardless of the technique you are using. If you are keeping the standard stock and want to use a bipod, the best chance of not shifting your point of impact all over the show is doing a stiffening job on it by bedding in a couple of carbon arrow shaft offcuts with some of the epiglass microballoon filler in it. Doesn't add much weight but really improves the stiffness factor of the foreend. Otherwise a floating or separate tripod with a u shaped rest that doesn't attach to the foreend is an option - it's a bit hard to drag sandbags around with you.

ok shooting at the tvda range off a standard table that ranges have 3 shots with the bipod om first then took it off and rested it on sandbags for the other 3 , same shooting position same ammo no adjustments to the scope . rubber feet on the bipod .no real crosswind to speak of (be lucky if there was any wind at all.) the comments round not so much the bipod itself but what it does to the stock were my thoughts I hope to rule out the bipod itself by trying it on another rifle with a laminate stock.
floppy forend? while there is plenty of floating clearance between the stock and barrel I can wrap my hand around them and squeeze together .... sound like it has EDS and needs some Viagra

The bipod can flip or jump a lot more off a hard surface than a soft one - technique can prevent this by leaning forwards into the bipod so it's loaded against the recoil forces. Also, controlling the butt position with your trigger hand, and placing your off hand on top of the scope with weight downwards helping to preload the bipod...

This all assumes you have a solid lump that doesn't flex between you and the bipod. If your stock flexes, all bets are off and in reality it's impossible to do the same thing on every shot because you have a weak leak that behaves differently each time.

Useless in my opinion testing the bipod on a different rifle - you're just introducing other factors you can't control. The evidence you need that it's a mechanical problem is in the group you got off the sandbag - different POI and closer to where you want it (it's not 20+ rounds but enough for a hunting rifle to have confidence that it will kill what you aim at if you do your bit).

You would be better spent to get another bipod to test on your rifle - shoot a 3-round confidence group off the sandbag (which has three things going for it - 1) it's a lot more stable and less reactive than the bipod, 2) it is closer to the action than the bipod so introduces less flex on the stock and 3) your shooting position is much more stable and controlled due to 1&2). Then go back to the other bipod and repeat the exercise, doing your best to minimise jump/flip etc. Make sure you get some carpet or something like a strip of foam mat that's long enough for you to pin to the bench with your elbows and body this time around to try to reduce the 'hard surface' effect.

I expect fully that the groups will be bigger than the bag shot one for the three reasons above - what I would be wanting to see is the point of impact much closer to the group shot off the bag.

If it's as far away as the photo up above and with two different bipods you've isolated the problem to either two bipods (unlikely), the shooting situation (possible but the group off the bag would suggest it's only a minor effect if it's shooter-related) or the attachment between the bipod and the shooter (very likely given the state of some of the recycled plastic crap that's getting passed off as a rifle stock these days). I'd be looking to modify the stock, or get another one made from something up to the job and go from there back to the range and test that as the next point of experimentation.