Sounds like a personal problem like someone isn't training and just being lazy I have no issue deploying an Atlas. I can put claws, extensions, too.
Try shooting an F Class match with Harris, note the score, and then go back and shoot it again just changing the bipod, I bet the score improves, I would almost guarantee it but them someone will do it and tank the score on purpose.
Spikes and extensions are great, but you can put them other bipods too, it's about the design as well, not just materials. So a machined bipod vs a stamped metal one made on the same machines from the 70s is better than a CNC Built one.
Just because some thing is good enough, doesn't mean it excels or even should be used, Again this goes to exact what I said earlier in the week. You get a guy who invests heavily in the gun and system then skimps on the bipod. They over gun the hell out of it, putting a $7000 rifle on top an $80 bipod and call it good enough. Yet they are missing the fact the entire process starts and stops with the bipod.
In the USMC we didn't have them and used a ruck, the ruck was quickly replaced by a bipod, that bipod, the Harris has since been replaced. Do you think the Atlas CAL and TBAC came out of a vacuum. No, the Army finally looked at the bipod and decided they need to change it. they opened up the stance, they changed the pivot point in the center and brought the CG closer to the barrel. There is reason these bipods were created.
If a Harris was good enough, why is AB working with Elite Iron on the military's ELR Rifle ... if an $80 Harris is good enough, why get a $600 one to replace it, or like the CAL or TBAC, a $400 one.
I can make a Yugo work driving back and forth to the grocery store, but I wouldn't want to take a cross country trip in one. Can you, sure, why would I given the choices out there today.