Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 61

Thread: Bipod for F-TR?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    68
    I would not have the Anschutz as the only means of attachment as there are some FT/R socks with a very thin forearm and to mill out a 3/8" deep slot would weaken this area too much. We just had a stock in and we had intended on installing a Anschutz rail and decided that it probably would have split the stock. We went with a short stub of Picatinny rail for attaching the bipod.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Wenatchee, WA
    Posts
    537
    Seb,

    The Sinclair Gen II and Gen III pods that I measured were approx. 16.5" wide, with a height adjustment range from ~5" to ~10" (from the top of the pod/bottom of the stock to the deck).

    The Centershot pod that I measured went from ~4.5" high to a little over 9" high, and from about 16" wide to just about 20" wide.

    As for pics... without disassembling them, which I'm not willing to do, I don't think my cell phone pics would help that much. General idea is a standard ratchet lever for tightening (similar to the Pod-Loc available for the Harris bipods) that snugs things up to where they won't move. The handle on the Sinclair is much larger (~2x) than the one on the Center shot, and the bearing surfaces that it tightens are much bigger/ more solid. When it locks, it ain't moving, period. The Centershot is not nearly as rugged, but once snugged down I've never had it move either.

    Regarding the Anschutz rail vs. picatinny... if a stock is so thin in the fore-end that inletting a rail would potentially spit it, I 'd say get a better stock as that one will likely flex too much. Maybe not. At any rate, its not really any harder to mount a section of Anschutz rail to the outside of the stock than it is a section of Picatinny rail... Picatinny is nice in that you can find quick-release lever systems for removing the bipod when in transit between firing points. Even if they have parking access behind the firing line, its still a PITA to try and stuff a gun with a wide bipod attached in the vehicle. If you have to carry it between yard lines, doubly so. My experience with a Picatinny QR mount (GG&G, supposed to be 'good stuff') was that it started coming loose under repeated use and I kept having to get a tool out to tighten it back up - at which point the whole tool-less quick-release bit becomes somewhat pointless.

    YMMV,

    Monte

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East Java-Indonesia
    Posts
    384
    Thanks you for the inputs gentlemen!

    The prototype is almost done... the mini coaxial unit works & weighs as expected (probably exceeds my expectation- if I can say this). The legs are now adjustable in length (can stretch-out), also rigid enough for 30 lbs weight on the top when full stretched-out/at the highest setting. I'd probably need to make an extra light 'bracing' for the legs to be able to withstand, say a 80 lbs weight on the top without any flex...but maybe not needed for a standard F/TR rifle...(?).
    The 'footprint' is about 15" at the lowest setting 6" tall....it's about 21" wide at the highest setting 9" tall. I think it's very stable already.
    I'll make a set of 'ski-feet' & 'half ball' feet tomorrow. (the feet must be compatible/interchangeable - to see which one works better for various/uneven ground surfaces). I'll also make the top attachment tomorrow. I have found the Anschutz rail measurements (both the European & American version), I have had some weaver/picatinny rails...so the head-attachment would be no problem I guess. My only problem is the total weight... the whole unit still weighs approximately 820 grams (29 oz +/-) today, without the feet. I need to think how to reduce the total weight (especially with the legs) without sacrificing the stiffness/rigidity of the whole unit. I have a couple designs with the legs anyway, I just don't have time to make several type legs at this moment.
    The mini coaxial unit (it's "the heart" of the bipod) is now about 340 grams (12 oz +/-)...it's quite compact & light already...I have reduced the weight today. Without some 'meat' on the sides of the coaxial unit for securing the legs, it can be smaller & more light.... probably can be done with the other leg design. --- I am hoping the whole unit to be no more than 25 oz, with all metal construction. (most parts are from alum aircraft grade 7000 series).
    I'll take some pics for more inputs....probably tomorrow or the day after tomorrow....very tired now, just back home from my workshop.... Again thanks, seb.
    Last edited by seblambang; 10-17-2012 at 04:09 PM.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East Java-Indonesia
    Posts
    384
    The prototype is almost 100% ready now. I have polished it, too.
    The 'head' attachment can accept Weaver/picatinny & Anschutz rail (both European or American/Win style), or by a screw directly into the stock (i.e. ex. sling nut).
    It's the first model. I'll make other models (with different legs) when I have time / after the European F-Class.

    Some photos as promised....

    At the lowest setting - 6" tall... can withstand weight around 80 kilograms (175 lbs +/-) on the top w/ almost no flex.
    Attachment 13145


    From reverse angle... spare feet (as an alternative to the 'ski' feet, probably when sighting-in on a bench top), about 1.5" diameter, convex neophrene bottom
    Attachment 13147


    Upside down... legs are from solid alum machined
    Attachment 13148


    At the highest setting 9" +/-...can withstand about 30 kgs weight on the top w/ very minimal flex. Can withstand 80 kgs but w/ more flex.
    Attachment 13149


    When folded... shown w/ weaver style attachment (just a cheap aftermarket stuff, still have no time to make a custom one)
    Attachment 13150


    What do you think guys?.... input or critique, please.

    It weighs 740 grams total. I think I can make it under 700 grams next time.
    It can be used in 'up for up' or up 'for down' mode, just like my other rests.
    It has a built in uplift also... quite smooth even with 15 kgs +/- weight on the top.

    All the best,
    seb.
    Last edited by seblambang; 10-19-2012 at 02:35 PM. Reason: to revise attachement/photos

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    495
    cannot open attachment, Jefferson

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East Java-Indonesia
    Posts
    384
    More photos....









    seb.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    125
    Seb,
    Looks so good I might have to trade my NEO in on one.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    495
    a couple of suggestions, make extra ski feet (like the remple) keep the high polish, and serial number them so I can have either 00013, or 666, when are you taking money,

    nicely done, looks like a M-pod in the way it expands,

    Jefferson

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East Java-Indonesia
    Posts
    384
    Thanks you for yours, sirs.

    I will think about the serial number.

    I would probably make two models with different legs/configurations in the future.

    I would probably apply the mini coaxial unit for mini/light front rest or rear rest also. But time will tell. I have already very-very busy with my works/businesses at this moment.

    Cheers,
    seb.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2
    Seb,
    Four years ago I purchased one of your coaxial rests and it is a work of art that is a joy to use. Recently I have started participating in "Varmint Hunters Association" VHA matches because it presents a new challenge and also because it is one of the few forms of rifle competition that is growing and has "sold out" matches. For the "stock" class, light weight is not a goal and I believe that there is a place for a coaxial bipod that is not light weight. My current choices are to have the stability of a traditional bipod and give up adjustabilty, or have the adjustability of a traditional front rest but give up stability because I am trying to stabilize a round bottomed forearm. I am eagerly awaiting for you to release a coaxial joystick so I can be the first kid on the block to have one. Please consider offering a "non lightweight" model of your coaxial joystick. A copy of the VHA rules are included below for your review.

    RESTS: Front; benchrests, bag(s), or bipod. No one-piece benchrests. REAR: Bag or block or pod.
    CLASSES
    Rifles only. No shooter assistance, except with a youth shooter (under 18).
    FACTORY CLASS: Must be factory production receiver, stock, barrel and chamber. May be any factory chambered caliber 30 caliber (.308) or less. Allowed modifications from pure factory are: Trigger may be aftermarket, receiver may be bedded, and barrel may be re-crowned. No aftermarket muzzle brakes in the factory class. Any scope and mount is acceptable. Guns with flat bottom forearms are not allowed in the Factory class. No altered factory stocks. No stock with forearm over 2.3 wide. No forearm stabilizers such as Accuracy Asset.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East Java-Indonesia
    Posts
    384
    Craig, thanks you for yours.

    First of all the joystick concept/feature on the bipod must be tested - by knowledgeable & independent shooters. It will take a few months, I guess.

    Of course we all know that coaxial front rest works flawlessly for the F-Open, short & long range BR, etc, BUT we (still) do not know exactly if a joystick bipod will also work flawlessly, say for F-TR.

    Vince Bottomley informed me that he (and Laurie Holland) will test the prototype #1 in the next couple weeks, and will provide feedback.
    Both of them are well known shooters in the UK.

    At this moment I only have one prototype finished (that Vince owns it now), but I'll make another ones soon when I have the time.
    "JC" (current F-TR Champion, USA) offers me if I need someone to test the bipod, so I'll send him one.
    I would probably send another one to Australia.

    We need feedback (either good or bad) from the "Testers" - especially with how the joystick feature works? (does the joystick alter the point of aim, etc), and probably with the legs/feet.

    IF in turn the feedback is 'negative' (the joystick feature on the bipod does not work / proved to not work), I will not produce it.
    (I will not make stuff that does not work, or a sub standard stuff, for sure).

    But if I then get positive feedback (the joystick proved to work), I will soon improve the details & will prepare the production.
    (If this is the case, I will make sure that my customers will get a 'best overall' bipod in the market!)

    In shorter words, it's mainly (95% +) about the joystick feature on the bipod. If the joystick works flawlessly as expected, the other things such as the legs, the weight, etc, are 'piece of cake' & easy to make.

    seb.
    Last edited by seblambang; 11-19-2012 at 11:22 AM.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East Java-Indonesia
    Posts
    384

    I made it!

    Just working with a new prototype (for F-Class use) this week.

    Some photos here... http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater

    I'll try to take more photos tomorrow.

    Weight & rigidity is my main concern this time. This one, without lever screws, weighs just under 20 ounces. (I think the lightest I could make with "all metal" material). The bipod can accept my whole weight (145 lbs) with minimum flex. With 3 lever screws to lock the legs & the cant feature it should weight 20.5 to 21 oz max.
    The one shown in the photos is equipped with symmetry legs. I have another one with longer leg on the left, the idea is to resist/counteract the rifle torque better, assuming that most barrels today are right hand twist. The legs & feet are compatible.

    Legs: knock-down 1" diameter alum pipe (can be epoxy glued to the coaxial unit for stronger construction), about 19" wide apart, constant width.
    Feet: polyacetal/delrin, or alum "half ball" 1.5" diameter + spike (not shown in the photos). Optional rubber feet maybe needed too.
    Top with Anschutz rail (European style). Other rails are optional.
    Height adjustment from +/- 6" to 10"
    It has cant feature (14 degree) in the coaxial unit, my new finding i.e. a "built-in" cant feature inside the coax unit.
    Yes it also has built-in uplift to accept F-Class gun, joystick motion is very smooth.
    Can be used either up for up, or up for down.

    Let me know your thought about this model gentlemen.
    The coaxial unit is already perfect to me. The cant feature also works great.
    I also have many designs but this one is the lightest one.... I'm just not quite sure if the "look" & the legs are already good or not?
    High polish or anodize?
    All metal or with carbon fiber legs/construction?
    I'll make more units next week then send them to some friends for testing & feedback.
    So any input will be much appreciated!
    I also need to learn how to anodize alumunium (class III type if possible), if you have the knowledge or source to get the chemicals & equipments please let me know - I'll pay for good $$$ for it. Or I can give you a production unit, or a rest, for a trade/barter.
    Thanks,
    seb.
    Last edited by seblambang; 03-02-2013 at 12:24 PM.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East Java-Indonesia
    Posts
    384

    More photos

    Paper target (rubbish) engineering
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5125.jpg 
Views:	400 
Size:	29.7 KB 
ID:	13509

    Offset legs
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5126.jpg 
Views:	380 
Size:	27.0 KB 
ID:	13510

    Symmetry legs
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5085.jpg 
Views:	398 
Size:	18.3 KB 
ID:	13513

    Still trying with various legs...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5115.jpg 
Views:	1023 
Size:	32.0 KB 
ID:	13512

    seb.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5122.jpg 
Views:	468 
Size:	28.7 KB 
ID:	13511   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5101.jpg 
Views:	501 
Size:	13.1 KB 
ID:	13514  

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East Java-Indonesia
    Posts
    384
    Cant feature (14 degree +/-)
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5117.jpg 
Views:	516 
Size:	23.1 KB 
ID:	13520

    Yes it's still a rough model, the allen head screw will be replaced with a lever screw, the bottom of the coaxial unit will not be "exposed" also.

    seb.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5116.jpg 
Views:	408 
Size:	25.7 KB 
ID:	13519   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5109.jpg 
Views:	417 
Size:	30.2 KB 
ID:	13521  

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Wenatchee, WA
    Posts
    537
    Any pics of it mounted up on a gun, possibly with someone in position behind it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •