So what am I chatting about? Says you! OK, a question...
How many of you shoot small bore with the bi-pod attached to the accessory rail on the fore-end? Even worse, how many use them on your fullbore rifle? Even worse again, how many have them attached to an alloy stock in BOTH disciplines?
In the ‘old days’ of timber stocks, there was quite an absorption rate and this mollified the characteristics for those using the bipod rest. But even then, there was some difference.
For the modern aluminium stock, the affect is vastly different, believe me.
So let me give you the results of an experiment (or a series of them) that I conducted in order to find out just what was happening with the bipod both on and off the rifle.
I jury-rigged a small experiment where I suspended my smallbore rifle from the ceiling joists at my club with fine fishing line. It was attached to the rifle at the foresight and from the cheek-piece area of the stock. Once this suspension was complete, I fired the rifle down range carefully so as to not induce any direction on the recoil.
This was repeated a number of times, and the rifle simply just swayed backwards and slowed to a stop, with the recoil moving straight backwards, after the initial rise at the muzzle.
The information gave me the idea that the recoil was consistent enough and, to up the ante a little, I fired some R100 (supersonic stuff from RWS). This brew caused the rifle to lift further at the muzzle, rock backwards slightly further in recoil motion and take a little longer to cease, as you would expect. In each case of a new shot fired, I physically ensured the rifle was quite still.
Satisfied with the set up, I then attached the bipod to the alloy fore-end of my Anschutz/Hart, alloy stock and fired another shot, carefully watching what happened.
The effect was immediate, as the recoil pattern set up a ‘jiggle’ motion, starting left first, (due to the r/h
47
This photo shows the light-weight (corks) bipod fitted to the rail on my small bore rifle. It is placed just forward of the hand stop. (See text) Even with the bipod close to the forward hand, it still created problems with the recoil factors. These were only truly visible when viewed through a 20x telescopic sight. (See text). Further experi- ments indicated the recoil was affected no matter where the bipod was placed, and most particularly on an alloy stock. This was also affected severely when the acces- sory rail in the fore end is offset, as mine is on this rifle. I resolved to not use the bipod when actually shooting, and always take it off prior to the first sighter shots.
rotation of the lands in the barrel) then swayed right, then left, then right again and so on till all movement ceased. This took considerably longer to settle and, even though the recoil, in terms of rearward movement, was slightly less than before, it gave me reason to think.
I fired a number of shots through like this, and then fired the R100 again. Even with a 6.5 kg rifle, the recoil did not stop ‘wriggling’ with the bipod attached. I was convinced I was onto something here.
Further experiments with this issue saw the use of longer legs on the bi-pod with lighter balls on the ends. A shorter version with wine-bottle corks (lighter) and a shorter version again with the black balls favoured by many manufacturers. In every case, the bipod gave inconsistencies with the recoil of the suspended rifle.
This photo shows the bipod on a full bore rifle. On an al- loy stock, this is the absolute no no of a position. Under recoil strike, the sideways strike and figure eight pattern of the recoil indicated the use of a bipod was a huge mistake. After experimenting with these, I have never used a bipod on the rifle since, as it is a simple matter to remove it, and replace when the shoot is finished.
This SMALLBORE Business
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118