While we are on the topic of Bipods.

Get or give advice on equipment, reloading and other technical issues.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
Tony Z
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:02 am

While we are on the topic of Bipods.

#1 Postby Tony Z » Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:43 pm

Having had a close look at the conventional style of bipods currently being used on my CAD program i have come to the following conclusions about certain aspects of their use and placement.
Most bipods are set at a perpendicular to the barrel line. The closer that this perpendicular placement is to the overall balance point of the rifle, the more potential of a radial moment being induced in the vertical plane during recoil of the firearm. The only way to reduce the radial movement of the muzzle seems to be by shifting the pivot point forward of the balance point increasing the overall radius to the point where the rearward portion ot the rifles weight has an overiding aspect on the tendancy of rotation upward or sideways. Ideally the bipod should be placed level with the muzzle much like the MG42 (the Germans were very smart) which in turn places the point of rotation at this point making vertical climb negligible. Angling the bipod feet forward as in a conventional placement of a bipod midway on a rifle forend has some positive effect but is not clearly an alternate to the placement at or near the muzzle. Forward angled feet with the bipod location point level at the muzzle has its advantages but may be not worth the bother. A bipod placed at the balance point of the rifle is a recipe for disaster as you create a situation that has as much horizontal movement as it does vertically. In simple terms the further you get the frontal pivot point and the rearward anchor point apart, within reason, the easier the rifle will be to control on all planes and induces the rifle to recoil in a straighter line reducing the barrel moment during a bullets in barrel time whilst the rifle is recoiling. Very important as all Heavy Class rifles in IBS are built around this concept. Reducing the moment may not be the right way of saying it as what you are effectively doing is removing the angle and keeping things under control. There will always be some element of barrel moment during recoil no matter what you do.
Tony Z.
ps. Lengthening or shortening the bipod legs also has an effect on the pivot point, but also changes the way the firearm recoils. The longer the legs the more potential for upward movement. There appears to be some advantage to having the butt level or indeed in a slight reverse angle pattern which seems to counteract the upward lift (rotation) from the muzzle. During this model there has been no considerarion of forend bounce which may be something that could alter the final outcome, but i would assume that the use of a flexion joint like those used in Archery dampeners could illiminate this problem.

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#2 Postby Tony Q » Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:01 pm

Tony Z

Did you run any models using 'low center of gravity principals' as a design parameter?

Ie.

Picture edited
Last edited by Tony Q on Tue May 09, 2006 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Tony Z
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:02 am

#3 Postby Tony Z » Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:22 pm

TQ,
If you look at your drawing and expand it to the point where the forend and barrel are beneath the leg fixed points, but still attached to a rail/forend conventionally, there is a lot of advantage as this reduces rifle torquing during recoil. This is the way i was intending to head. If done properly there could be a point where the COG line is below this pivot point of the bipod (underslung) thus illiminating the need for cant adjustment. ie. A pivot point being say 2.5 inches above the barrel and still allowing you to sight through.

If you can think this way, why do you waste your time perservering with an FS ideal that current guidlines do not support? You are an experimentor.
Tony Z.

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#4 Postby Tony Q » Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:43 pm

I do believe, IMO, that the current guidelines are aimed at/were intended to be a more simple form of equipment .. ie FB/TR

This does not preclude advanced/unconventional design theory as seen with the likes of HHE and Tubb designs, they shoot no different to a good conventional design but they are at the front of ergonomic/performance design thinking.

I am a FS shooter .. by preference, I am not a purist but a minimalist and while I am a designer by profession its not in the mechanical field but it does allow me to think outside the square. For me, I do like the limitations put on me by a Standard class and my design philosophy and experimentation is self limited/restricted by the choice and prefered/infered boundary’s of my class.

Hope that makes sense ..

Ps. The Wather WA2000 and AMP-DSR systems has the bipod mount attached to the upper receiver (bull pup design with shrouded barrel) and at the front of the barrel. This puts the entire forend/barrel in an underslung position.

Sinclair have an adjustable LCG bipod but I haven’t used one, I do know some one who has one though. They are similar to the std F Class bipod. They retail for around $200US

But I’m sure you know all this mate :)

PPs .. with vertical muzzle climb try using a bull barrel and agood 3.0kg bipod at the end of the forend .. it may help 8)
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#5 Postby Tony Q » Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:44 pm

Tony Z .. how close is this to your model ?


Picture edited


This is something i designed for Susan, a 308 built on a Sako TRG's long action and using the Wather WA2000 style bipod system/F Class hybrid.

But she wants a 223 and the action wont suit it :(
Last edited by Tony Q on Tue May 09, 2006 1:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Paul Janzso
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:10 pm
Location: Mackay QLD

#6 Postby Paul Janzso » Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:22 pm

Get Susan a TIKKA TACTICAL 223.

Cheers
PJ
:shock:
Time's a wasted wot's not spent shooti'n BARNARD 300WSM's

Paul Janzso
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:10 pm
Location: Mackay QLD

#7 Postby Paul Janzso » Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:24 pm

No dont get Susan a TIKKA TACTICAL , she WILL BEAT YOU.

:shock:
Time's a wasted wot's not spent shooti'n BARNARD 300WSM's

Tony Z
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:02 am

#8 Postby Tony Z » Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:33 pm

TQ,
That is quite amazing, as my first thought was to run a length of alloy tube the full length of the rifle with the bipod in the overslung position, but more height than you have shown so that you are sighting through the "cradle" so as to give more leverage for gravity to self centre everything. The butt area would be the reverse of how you have yours so the bottom heart shaped rail is what runs in the rear bag and leaves nothing for your face to contact so as to be able to shoot in a full free recoil no contact form. No cheek piece whatsoever. The tube or forend if you like would extend all the way to the muzzle so as to be able to place the bipod at any position along the rifle and this could be one method of being able to "tune out" the vertical. This is nothing new as BR shooters for years now have experimented with bag and pedistal location and it is common to see texta marks on butts for indexing and adjustable stops to locate the forend consistantly.
The higher the pivot point of the bipod is above the COG the less tendency there is for the barrel to rise vertically. To far though and it will drop lower as it recoils.
Your assumption that i know of some of the rifle styles out there is wrong as i am not familiar with any of the concepts you mentioned.
Tony Z.

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#9 Postby Tony Q » Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:05 pm

Tony, I know what your saying.

Sorry to assume you know everything thats out there including prototype systems. :D

The following is the Walther WA2000 prototype, this one is semi auto. The German AMP-DSR 1 which is a similar design but a 10 shot bolt action, it is a current production model at $13000.00 AU

The DSR is much further evolved and refined and even over designed :lol:

Picture edited

The AMP-DSR has a similar concept to part of your post in that it is positionalble anywhere along the barrel via a full length pic. rail.


Picture edited



Pest Bird Paul .... lol mate .. you will keep!
Last edited by Tony Q on Tue May 09, 2006 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

bully_eye
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:45 am
Location: Wollongong

#10 Postby bully_eye » Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:06 pm

Completely off topic, but I recently read that the head of Walther in the USA owns 11 WA2000 rifles and may just sell you one for US$75000. Not a bad investment when they were around US$10000 when they were in production.

Michael

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#11 Postby Tony Q » Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:13 pm

LOL Bully ... if only we knew 6 years ago :(

While these types of rifles are not F Class they are interesting in regard to the Millions and Millions of dollers spent on their development, including bipods.
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

bully_eye
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:45 am
Location: Wollongong

#12 Postby bully_eye » Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:51 pm

If money was no concern and laws permitting, I'd buy a WA2000- pretty sure you can convert them to shoot Left handed which is handy for me. Certainly a rifle very ahead of its time.

Michael


Return to “Equipment & Technical”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests