forearm bipod

I would assume so as now you have two stops. Both front and back.

I agree with Martin.

"Basically two stops" is contra "a SINGLE stop may be used"

2

Pin can't move to the front and pin can't move to the back

JP806TX said:

Thank you for your replies.

Take that a bit further.
what if you drilled a shallow hole in your rifle's forearm and modify the bipod so there's a middle rod that sticks into the forearm.

will that be considered one stop or two stops?

Click to expand...

"and must not connect to the gun with studs or devices that restrict gun movement"
A pin in the bipod would be considered a stud in this case.

I have a question about this. What if you placed the bipod between the rifle stock and the bottle? You then have 2 points of contact, but they are part of the gun, not a anchoring mechanism. Would this be legal?

A very slick way to do it ...

This a RAW and if bi-pod yoke was resting on bottle, the edge of fore stock resting BEHIND the Yoke becomes the stop
* But as we know a bi-pod stop is IDEALLY placed in Front of the b-pod yoke to keep yoke from sliding forward and bi-pod falling to the ground along with the rifle !!
What I've been doing for years now is fabricating a V block that fits the radius of bottle or air tube, has a 90* V fitting the Bi-pod yoke, then has a forward stop.
* In this way we get to control Side/Side cant wobble & have a forward stop so bi-pod stays under the rifle with less chance of it falling to the ground !!

It is just a profile change to the rifles fore stock, Does NOT attach in any way to the bi-pod allowing bi-pod to fall away when rifle is lifted being perfectly AAFTA legal.
* Tho note the stop still needs to fall under the 6" rule for depth Barrel C/L ahead of trigger guard.

Motorhead. I really like what you did with the v-block. I will have to look into doing something like that. Is that attached to the stock or the air tank?

drumie said:

I have a question about this. What if you placed the bipod between the rifle stock and the bottle? You then have 2 points of contact, but they are part of the gun, not a anchoring mechanism. Would this be legal?

Click to expand...

I think this would be legal, but not ideal. Any stability gains would be offset by having the bipod so close to the breach. Stability is typically gained by getting the bipod as far away as possible. Most FT guns are very butt heavy, so having the bipod between the stock and bottle is probably going to make you miss high because the butt is always trying to creep down your shoulder. When you see guys using a 3 piece butt pads, the top paddle is usually angled more aggressively than the bottom paddle to try to prevent the downward movement of the butt.

That's why WFTF butt pads have the piece that goes over your shoulder, to settle the gun in for seated shots. The lower butt hook is used more for standing shots because your support hand is closer to the balance point, causing the butt to be lighter and tippy.

scotton said:

I think this would be legal, but not ideal. Any stability gains would be offset by having the bipod so close to the breach. Stability is typically gained by getting the bipod as far away as possible. Most FT guns are very butt heavy, so having the bipod between the stock and bottle is probably going to make you miss high because the butt is always trying to creep down your shoulder. When you see guys using a 3 piece butt pads, the top paddle is usually angled more aggressively than the bottom paddle to try to prevent the downward movement of the butt.

That's why WFTF butt pads have the piece that goes over your shoulder, to settle the gun in for seated shots. The lower butt hook is used more for standing shots because your support hand is closer to the balance point, causing the butt to be lighter and tippy.

Click to expand...