Brakes and Bipods

[kthomas]

As for timing muzzle brakes...can’t you just grind or file down the shoulder of the brake so it meets the desired alignment with the rifle? I have precision armament washers that time my brakes, but would rather not use them if this grinding trick works.

The potential issues with this is poor alignment due to imperfect filing, poor interface between brake and barrel shoulder, and achieving the proper thread engagement in the brake. Unless the brake is close to being timed perfectly, you also have the potential to "bottom out the threads" on the brake before the brake shoulders up against the barrel.

I personally wouldn't recommend filing it. It's an imperfect and unelegant solution, and could induce issues. Being off center could result in erratic groups and fliers, and at worst could cause bullet strikes in the baffles or end caps of the muzzle brake. Not being properly shouldered could result in the frustration of having your brake constantly come loose - also resulting in downgraded precision down range. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you encountered poor results if doing so. File at your own risk.

I'm not a gunsmith or a machinist, but seems like a poor idea to me. I wouldn't recommend for anyone to do it on a bubba'd up Lee enfield, nevermind a precision rifle.

Edit to add: the last thing the bullet is influenced by as it's leaving the rifle is the muzzle brake (if one is installed). Imprecise mounting of the muzzle brake can and will influence the bullets flight. We go through all these pains in a precision rifle to make sure that the components we are using are held to tight tolerances to ensure we are optimizing precision down range. I think it's silly to compromise that by taking shortcuts at the muzzle in order to save time or costs.

If you want your brake precisely timed to shoulder up against the barrel, do it right and have a good gunsmith do it. Or leave it as is.

 

[gryzlo]

The potential issues with this is poor alignment due to imperfect filing, poor interface between brake and barrel shoulder, and achieving the proper thread engagement in the brake. Unless the brake is close to being timed perfectly, you also have the potential to "bottom out the threads" on the brake before the brake shoulders up against the barrel.

I personally wouldn't recommend filing it. It's an imperfect and unelegant solution, and could induce issues. Being off center could result in erratic groups and fliers, and at worst could cause bullet strikes in the baffles or end caps of the muzzle brake. Not being properly shouldered could result in the frustration of having your brake constantly come loose - also resulting in downgraded precision down range. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you encountered poor results if doing so. File at your own risk.

I'm not a gunsmith or a machinist, but seems like a poor idea to me. I wouldn't recommend for anyone to do it on a bubba'd up Lee enfield, nevermind a precision rifle.

Edit to add: the last thing the bullet is influenced by as it's leaving the rifle is the muzzle brake (if one is installed). Imprecise mounting of the muzzle brake can and will influence the bullets flight. We go through all these pains in a precision rifle to make sure that the components we are using are held to tight tolerances to ensure we are optimizing precision down range. I think it's silly to compromise that by taking shortcuts at the muzzle in order to save time or costs.

If you want your brake precisely timed to shoulder up against the barrel, do it right and have a good gunsmith do it. Or leave it as is.

Yeah, sounds about right. Just heard about it and thought...”maybe, just maybe”. Hahaha. All kidding aside I am soaking up as much of these insights in this thread (and others), and I really appreciate them as a novice shooter. All of these points are well written and serve to better the shooting community as a whole. Now...time for me to find a competent and reasonably priced smith in Saskatchewan, wish me luck.

 

[Maple57]

I'll start off by saying no one bipod is perfect for every situation. I haven't implied in any of my posts that a Ckye-Pod is the best bipod for everyone or every scenario. I merely stated that I believe the Ckye-Pod to be the best rendition of a field bipod to date, with maybe the TBAC as a close contender. I stand by that, and if you ever shoot an actual field PRS match where you shoot a lot of stages working against the environment to get the shot off, such as a Carl Taylor Washington state match, you will see what I mean.

The Harris is an okay bipod, I have a couple. Yes it deploys very fast, but it has a lot of limitations. It has poor build quality, and limited options to mount to your rifle unless you want to purchase aftermarket accessories if you want to say install it to a pic or ARCA rail. Unfortunately due to the design of the Harris, these aftermarket parts are only so strong, and I've seen numerous ones break - usually at a really bad time like in the middle of a stage. They have very limited range of adjustments - usually only 3" of vertical adjustment, no pan feature, poor cant tension feature, can't adjust the width of the bipod legs, or angle the bipod legs, and they fold only one way.

I've used a Harris a lot. It's plenty capable off of a bench or prone when you don't have high grass in front of you to contend with. But it is very limited in features and capabilities, and this weakness shows up when shooting on differing terrain in field matches.

The Ckye-pod was designed for field matches, and it has a very extensive range of adjustments. Legs can be moved in 45° angles, width of the bipod can be very narrow to very wide, legs have a huge vertical adjustment - you can be almost flat to the ground or super tall up if you have to peek over some tall grass. Adjustable pan and cant. Legs extend rapidly as they are spring assisted, and very quick to collapse. Can be ordered with a Pic or ARCA/RRS direct mount. finally it includes a built in barricade stop. This makes for a very versatile package, which was designed to overcome many challenges that shooting in the field present. So I would absolutely contend that it does in fact "make it function better in practical terms" in the right scenarios.

Yes, it's $500. No, it's not for everyone. But it is manufactured to a much higher quality, and is much more feature rich than a Harris. In that vein, you absolutely do "get what you pay for". The rub is, if you just shoot off a bench or a concrete pad, you won't realize the benefits this bipod has to offer.

BTW, having "slack" in the bipod is an intentional thing done by the designers, it aids in recoil management when used in conjunction with proper applications of fundamentals. All modern field bipods that I know of - Atlas, Ckye-Pod, TBAC, etc are designed with some "slack" built into the system. Those that consider it a flaw are those that don't consistently load the bipod nor utilize proper fundamentals when shooting. Operator error, not a design issue. But I guess improper or lack of proper applications of fundamentals has people looking for silly gear solutions rather than correcting their actual shooting skills like this:

If a Harris works great for you, then keep on rocking on. No need to spend more money if it won't provide a benefit to your shooting needs, that I agree with. But let's not pretend that a Harris is just as good of quality and feature rich as a Ckye-pod because you don't want to spend the money nor see the perceived benefits.

PS - the Ckye-pod is a Canadian bipod now being manufactured and sold by MDT.

And I won't even get started on knock-off bipods, I wish those that promoted knock-off bipods (or that of any product) received an instant ban...

First off, I'm not saying the Harris is the perfect bipod for every situation either, just that it has one primary advantage over most others... that being fast up and down on the legs. The legs are also close together and for certain PRS stages that is also an advantage, while clearly a disadvantage for other more deliberate conditions.

The gist of my point that you seem to have missed is the basic premise that spending top dollar on bipods is THE solution, because it is not. Sure, spend the cash if the concept actually has the advantage a guys wants, but think it through before buying.

As for the video link, you included in an attempt to discredit me, that bipod has a clear advantage within the F Class FTR concept in which it is intended for. I never claimed it to be appropriate for PRS. What it does do extremely well is hold the rifle on target longer initially and back to the target very quickly after the shot without losing its footing. Instead of preloading forward and recoil repositioning the legs, causing cant and a new point of aim, the prototype bipod shown in the video remains exactly on target. Since the preload is pulled instead of pushed, the rifle never passes through a state of equilibrium under recoil, only from rearward preload to increased rearward preload. Again, a clear advantage for FTR shooters.

Since it is a one of a kind device and I'm the only person who makes and actually uses recoil control bipods, I'm the only person who has experienced the advantage first hand. If you don't like it, or cant seem to get your head around it, I'm perfectly OK with that, I'm not trying to sell them anyway. Just sharing the idea.

KT if you'd like to swing by for the ORA match or the nationals next year, I'll put $1000 on my prototype bipod against your Cyke pod in FTR.

 

[kthomas]

I never said spending top dollar on a bipod is always the solution. In fact, I believe I stated that for some people and purposes a Harris is a perfectly acceptable solution, and not in all scenarios would a person realize all the benefits of a Ckye-Pod even though they are spending more money.

Better quality products generally cost more. People aren't getting rich off of rifle products, there's not huge markup like say an Apple product. A Ckye-Pod costs a lot more than a Harris, but it is built to a much better quality and has a lot more features than a Harris. That is a fact. Better manufacturing and features generally cost more.

It's up to the shooter/consumer to determine whether they can utilize those benefits, and do their own cost benefit analysis. For myself and others like rugbydave who happen to shoot in field matches, where you have to constantly fight the terrain to get your rifle in position for the shot, the Ckye-pod with all it's versatility and adjustments is a great solution and worth the money. For those that rarely have to battle terrain elements, and shoot from prone with no terrain blocking your view or from a bench, you are not going to see or need all the benefits of a Ckye-Pod.

Likewise, I could spend $1000 on an SEB joystick bipod. It's a really nicely manufactured and thought out bipod with a certain feature set. Would I reap all the benefits of this bipod? I don't really do any benchrest shooting, so for me I wouldn't see the benefit. Not worth it for me to spend the money. People like Alex Wheeler and Bart Sauter may see the benefit and purchase it for their purposes (setting benchrest world records). Because I can't utilize the benefits of the bipod doesn't change the fact that it's still a high quality bipod with some great features. I'll stick with a Harris or another bipod I already own for shooting off of the bench.

The Harris has its place. It's very budget friendly. It's not very well made, and it is not very feature rich. Set a Harris beside a Ckye-Pod or a SEB joystick bipod and you will see why each bipod is selling for the prices they are. Each one of these has their purposes, and their own capabilities of which they excel in along with their own limitations.

For the video, I was simply pointing out that your opinion that slack in a bipod is a design flaw is a false notion. It's not a design flaw, and it's purposely designed into the system to aid in recoil management. It's a design inherent of field bipods. So to completely dismiss that design feature for bipods with field applications shows a misunderstanding of what that slack is there for. It's an important feature for field bipods, where you are shooting a lot from compromised positions where you may not be able to completely square up behind the rifle for each shot. For disciplines such as FTR, shooting prone for every shot, the application is different and thus the design of the bipod is different. You can try and overcome recoil management with mechanical aids, like your bipods, or you can correctly apply the fundamentals each shot, while utilizing a bipod that's fit for purpose for your uses (in my case, a field bipod with "slack"). I know which method I'm going to use.

I'm sure you and your bipod would beat me and a Ckye-Pod at an FTR match. Besides the fact that I've never shot FTR, your bipods are purpose built for FTR. The Ckye-pod is not. The Ckye-pod is a great field bipod - better than a Harris and better than FTR bipods for that specific discipline. That's kind of the point. All these bipods have their place. But if you can't understand why certain bipods are better than others for certain purposes/disciplines, and want to completely dismiss bipods because they may cost more than one that is made cheaply of stamped metal, then I don't even know why we are continuing to have this conversation.

Yes, you get what you pay for. That doesn't mean that paying more is always the right solution though.

 

[kthomas]

And yes, I understand that quick deployment of the bipod is a nice feature of the Harris. It's perhaps the only thing it does better than a Atlas or Ckye-pod for PRS type shooting.

I've used all 3 in PRS matches, so I understand the benefits and limitations of all of them to that specific discipline.

Even though the Harris may deploy quicker, I'll still take an Atlas or a Ckye-Pod over it for PRS matches.