Call me crazy..... Bench rest vs. bipod

Call me crazy..... Bench rest vs. bipod

Joined: August 29th, 2007, 2:15 am

September 7th, 2007, 12:25 am #1

Have been thinking about something the last several days that has me somewhat perplexed and I'm hoping some of the more knowledgeable on the board can provide some understanding.

Several weeks ago, one of the members had made a suggestion to a shooter having some problems with accuracy that he may want to try utilizing a rest, both barrel and stock as I recall, to prove to himself that the rifle in question is capable of producing tight groupings. This would also serve as a good confidence booster for the shooter, I assume. For myself, I know that it would provide me with that extra little boost of moral support and confidence, if it is possible to shoot accurately this way. I realize that utilizing a "gun vise" would not be good at all due to the rifle being prevented, for all intents and purposes, from recoiling naturally. It seems to me though that a rest at the front of the stock and a rest at the rear of the stock would allow the rifle to recoil naturally. Anyhow, this suggestion resulted in a very long discussion and basically the consensus was that it not a good thing at all.

On August 9th another shooter asked about shooting from a bipod and this did not seem to generate tha same level of excitement and several members said that it can indeed help and was supplied with a specific brand to look at. This particular model clamped onto the barrel, which I would think would affect accuracy and repeatibility on a break barrel in particular much more than a rifle rest on the stck. It would seem to me that a bipod would of course steady the muzzle considerably as it has almost completely eliminated the weakest link in the whole equation. On the other hand, if the part of the problem with a rest of some sort would be to prevent the rifle from recoiling naturally, would that also not hold true for a bipod. Let us assume that the surface the bipod legs are on is grass rather than something that it could possibly slide on.

Not trying to cause a major brouhaha here, but as I said, I really just don't understand the difference.

Thanks,

Jeff
Last edited by jtpursley on September 7th, 2007, 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Share

Joined: October 21st, 2001, 3:36 am

September 7th, 2007, 4:59 am #2

the vibration from the power plant. The best results I've obtained are by resting the gun on a sandbag right in front of the trigger guard, this seems to be consistent with most springers, a rolled up cloth/towel is good too.

I think a gun vice would be fine because the gun can't jump like it can if rested on a solid object or bipod, harmonics should be consistent.

A good tune to reduce the harsh firing cycle is the most benficial thing you can do to a Gamo, the spring/guide clearance is considerable and creates a lot of vibration affecting accuracy.

Reply
Share

Joined: August 17th, 2008, 1:44 am

August 19th, 2008, 4:43 pm #3

Have been thinking about something the last several days that has me somewhat perplexed and I'm hoping some of the more knowledgeable on the board can provide some understanding.

Several weeks ago, one of the members had made a suggestion to a shooter having some problems with accuracy that he may want to try utilizing a rest, both barrel and stock as I recall, to prove to himself that the rifle in question is capable of producing tight groupings. This would also serve as a good confidence booster for the shooter, I assume. For myself, I know that it would provide me with that extra little boost of moral support and confidence, if it is possible to shoot accurately this way. I realize that utilizing a "gun vise" would not be good at all due to the rifle being prevented, for all intents and purposes, from recoiling naturally. It seems to me though that a rest at the front of the stock and a rest at the rear of the stock would allow the rifle to recoil naturally. Anyhow, this suggestion resulted in a very long discussion and basically the consensus was that it not a good thing at all.

On August 9th another shooter asked about shooting from a bipod and this did not seem to generate tha same level of excitement and several members said that it can indeed help and was supplied with a specific brand to look at. This particular model clamped onto the barrel, which I would think would affect accuracy and repeatibility on a break barrel in particular much more than a rifle rest on the stck. It would seem to me that a bipod would of course steady the muzzle considerably as it has almost completely eliminated the weakest link in the whole equation. On the other hand, if the part of the problem with a rest of some sort would be to prevent the rifle from recoiling naturally, would that also not hold true for a bipod. Let us assume that the surface the bipod legs are on is grass rather than something that it could possibly slide on.

Not trying to cause a major brouhaha here, but as I said, I really just don't understand the difference.

Thanks,

Jeff
i can say from my experience that the sand bag style of gun rest works better for me than a bipod. i have a 1377 crossman handgun with the stock extension on and have a clamp on bipod. the bipod legs are plastic and have been resting on wood. the slide and creep while firing was reallt causing crazy groups and i was not sure why. i switched to a bag rest and boom! much much better groups and consistent control. the bipod might work better on grass but im shooting from a table at targets about 20 yards away. i know the gun is not 100 % accurate but if i use rws pellets and the bag rest i can keep 10 shots inside 2 inches! not bad for a old style pump hand gun! try to use a sand bag rest and i think you will find the results much better. as the gun fires it is allowed to move naturally and still is supported for accuracy. i am glad i didnt buy a expensive bipod because i dont use it any more! it is only used as a gun rest so i dont have to lay it down when i get up to change targets. ha ha! hope that helps. happy shooting! walt.
Reply
Share