My solution to stiffen up Atlas bipod cant

Excellent DIY fix! Glad it worked out. I’ll order one up for tree fiddy for my Cal.

Good write up too.

carbonbased said:

1. Unscrew handle
2. Use socket or wrench to remove locking nut. Various other parts will slide off.
3. Slide "mount" off of spindle. Kinda tricky.
4. Remove white plastic washer, decide if you want to remove all grease or just wipe excess off
5. Put your new CF washer on
6. Reassemble and fine-tune the gross tightness by tightening/loosening locknut
7. Spin on handle and go shoot

Click to expand...

Er, might want to look at your font color or something...I think you have it as being "white". Text is not visible but if you highlight it with your cursor then it indeed does appear. Cheers

Or just don't run a pos atlas bipod....

I have one of those too, though I need to find a decent way to have both picatinny and arca quick connections on it, without adding too much height.

carbonbased said:

Only way I have done that is one of those 17s pic rail adapters to the bottom of a RRS SC-Arc. Currently just go native LRA pic rail because I’m sort of tired of Arca.

Click to expand...

Me too, but mine isn’t quick connect, so it’s a bit of a pita to me. As you said, it doesn’t fit the case with it on.

1st world problem for sure.

carbonbased: Thx for the tip! Just ordered a couple of the Carbontex washers.

carbonbased said:

You saying your LRA pic clamp isn’t quick release? That does sorta suck.

I do have a small beef with LRA in that they charge near $80 for their QR clamp. That should be included and standard.

I first didn’t like their QR clamp. But I have grown to see that when trying to attach a darn bipod in the range shed without putting the muzzle up (horizontal gun), that LRA clamp actually works better than other clamps. We’re not supposed to go muzzle up in the shed as some people have accidentally shot holes in the roof . It’s also easier to change the clamp tension on the LRA.

Click to expand...

I think I need to dust off my wallet and get one.

Off topic:

Is this some aftermarket madness as well on the cheek rest?

Just slide the whole thing over laterally to the side, at least the loggerhead and better chassis do that so you don’t smash your face with each trigger pull

carbonbased said:

Ok, darn it, thx for the heads up. I think I fixed it…lmk if that worked.

After my big red admonition I thought I had to switch the text back to white (I run a dark background and white text). But what I really needed to do is strip the color tags out of the code entirely.

Click to expand...

I have spoken to Atlas on this subject...I too want to really lock down cant when I want to really lock down cant. lol

I asked if I could get/buy a couple of whatever parts provide the friction (flat spring, brass washer thingy, white plastic washer thingy, whatever) so I could repair it myself. Looks dead simple.

Answer was no....yeah. Very nice gal I spoke with, I'm still a fan of BT and I think they have great CS. But what she said was "just send it back to us, we will repair it under warranty"

Yeah, but I don't really want to pack and ship a whole bipod back and forth just to replace a friction washer.

And yes, it does seem like @Terry Cross main focus is on his LEO organization customers and their mission. But this thing is widely sold and used on other bipods so perhaps for civilian use he might want to look at a different friction washer/device.

But I still do really like my CAL....no matter what @Huskydriver says! haha

Baron23 said:

I have spoken to Atlas on this subject...I too want to really lock down cant when I want to really lock down cant. lol

I asked if I could get/buy a couple of whatever parts provide the friction (flat spring, brass washer thingy, white plastic washer thingy, whatever) so I could repair it myself. Looks dead simple.

Answer was no....yeah. Very nice gal I spoke with, I'm still a fan of BT and I think they have great CS. But what she said was "just send it back to us, we will repair it under warranty"

Yeah, but I don't really want to pack and ship a whole bipod back and forth just to replace a friction washer.

And yes, it does seem like @Terry Cross main focus is on his LEO organization customers and their mission. But this thing is widely sold and used on other bipods so perhaps for civilian use he might want to look at a different friction washer/device.

But I still do really like my CAL....no matter what @Huskydriver says! haha

Click to expand...

It's an overrated pos but good on ya for clinging to old tech... Way better bipods out there these days without these issues...

carbonbased said:

Aren’t you into Accutac bipods now? For a narrow bipod, what would you suggest?

I guess if I had my druthers I’d get a LRA Ultralight Scout.

Click to expand...

Accutac is aight wouldn't say it's the best but the sr5 model is what I run and hd50 for a big boy they lock up super tight..

Baron23 said:

I have spoken to Atlas on this subject...I too want to really lock down cant when I want to really lock down cant. lol

Yeah, but I don't really want to pack and ship a whole bipod back and forth just to replace a friction washer.

And yes, it does seem like @Terry Cross main focus is on his LEO organization customers and their mission. But this thing is widely sold and used on other bipods so perhaps for civilian use he might want to look at a different friction washer/device.

Click to expand...

Points to consider:

1) RE: The CAL bipods will not lock the tilt feature solidly.
The very first production of the CAL was with the tilt feature of ALL of them locking up solid and tight. Tons of internet customers complained that they preferred a slight amount of softness or give to the locking tilt feature so that the user could force a little english/tweak into the sight picture without having to reach up and unlock, re-level and lock again.

B&T responded by giving the market a change that allowed just that. This disenchanted the slice of the market that wanted a solid lock.
The disenchanted portion of the market is verbalizing in this thread and others.

B&T was responsive to (some of) the market.
It is impossible to make everybody happy and it is probably not a smart move to have two completely different SKUs in inventory.

Anyone can go back to the old threads that surrounded the first 6 months of the CAL product rollout and see the uproar of unpleased users because the cant feature locked too solidly.

I do not envy B&T or any other company in that lane. Even with stellar products, you cannot please the entire market.

**I am not trying to speak for B&T. This is solely my own opinion and take on the background leading up to the current CAL threads. I'm sure they can address this on their own far better than I can.

2) RE: The Pod-Loc kit was produced for the LEO market.
Indeed the LEO niche is where 90% of KMW rifles go and ton of Pod-Locs are in use there but it was LE was not the catalyst for the origin of it.

The KMW Pod-Loc kit was initially built and produced in response to seeing SS Marines tearing up their new Harris S-model bipods with Leathermans, SOG pliers and other tools in an attempt to lock and un-lock the tilt feature during the week long NASC championship in 1999.
The USMC was in the process of finalizing the kit specs for the M40-A3. The Pod-Loc kits were tested, added to the kit specs and issued an NSN by 2000.

The complete history of the Pod-Loc kit can be read here: https://www.kmwlrs.com/pod-loc

3) RE: The Pod-Loc does not produce a solid lock for the tilt feature of the CAL.
The Pod-Loc does only one job. It allows a reasonable amount of torque to be imparted to the center pivot rod component of the CAL and Harris S bipods. The actual result of whether the bipod achieves a solid lock of the tilt feature is not dependent on the Pod-Loc. It is dependent on the design and materials used in the mechanical clutch/lock feature of the bipod itself.

This is proven by the fact that the very first CALs produced a solid tilt/lock which a ton of people complained about. B&T responded by modifying the tilt/lock components to allow a soft lock which is what you see today. No changes were made to the Pod-Loc during the product evolution and transition.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am going to copy and paste this post to the other thread as well in an attempt to explain things better and perhaps allow a better resolution to both camps (I want my lockup tight vs I want my lockup soft).

Hope this helps.
T

.

Terry Cross said:

Points to consider:

1) RE: The CAL bipods will not lock the tilt feature solidly.
The very first production of the CAL was with the tilt feature of ALL of them locking up solid and tight. Tons of internet customers complained that they preferred a slight amount of softness or give to the locking tilt feature so that the user could force a little english/tweak into the sight picture without having to reach up and unlock, re-level and lock again.

B&T responded by giving the market a change that allowed just that. This disenchanted the slice of the market that wanted a solid lock.
The disenchanted portion of the market is verbalizing in this thread and others.

B&T was responsive to (some of) the market.
It is impossible to make everybody happy and it is probably not a smart move to have two completely different SKUs in inventory.

Anyone can go back to the old threads that surrounded the first 6 months of the CAL product rollout and see the uproar of unpleased users because the cant feature locked too solidly.

I do not envy B&T or any other company in that lane. Even with stellar products, you cannot please the entire market.

**I am not trying to speak for B&T. This is solely my own opinion and take on the background leading up to the current CAL threads. I'm sure they can address this on their own far better than I can.

2) RE: The Pod-Loc kit was produced for the LEO market.
Indeed the LEO niche is where 90% of KMW rifles go and ton of Pod-Locs are in use there but it was LE was not the catalyst for the origin of it.

The KMW Pod-Loc kit was initially built and produced in response to seeing SS Marines tearing up their new Harris S-model bipods with Leathermans, SOG pliers and other tools in an attempt to lock and un-lock the tilt feature during the week long NASC championship in 1999.
The USMC was in the process of finalizing the kit specs for the M40-A3. The Pod-Loc kits were tested, added to the kit specs and issued an NSN by 2000.

The complete history of the Pod-Loc kit can be read here: https://www.kmwlrs.com/pod-loc

3) RE: The Pod-Loc does not produce a solid lock for the tilt feature of the CAL.
The Pod-Loc does only one job. It allows a reasonable amount of torque to be imparted to the center pivot rod component of the CAL and Harris S bipods. The actual result of whether the bipod achieves a solid lock of the tilt feature is not dependent on the Pod-Loc. It is dependent on the design and materials used in the mechanical clutch/lock feature of the bipod itself.

This is proven by the fact that the very first CALs produced a solid tilt/lock which a ton of people complained about. B&T responded by modifying the tilt/lock components to allow a soft lock which is what you see today. No changes were made to the Pod-Loc during the product evolution and transition.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am going to copy and paste this post to the other thread as well in an attempt to explain things better and perhaps allow a better resolution to both camps (I want my lockup tight vs I want my lockup soft).

Hope this helps.
T

.

Click to expand...

Thanks Terry! No, I didn't know that background and thank you for posting it. And, I wouldn't say that I'm "displeased" with the current soft lock, I just would prefer to be able to fully lock but I defer to your historical knowledge that many wanted exactly the opposite and so BT responded with the current CAL cant function.

Take care and, as always, thanks for participating here on the Hide and sharing your knowledge and experience.

Cheers

Terry Cross said:

Points to consider:

1) RE: The CAL bipods will not lock the tilt feature solidly.
The very first production of the CAL was with the tilt feature of ALL of them locking up solid and tight. Tons of internet customers complained that they preferred a slight amount of softness or give to the locking tilt feature so that the user could force a little english/tweak into the sight picture without having to reach up and unlock, re-level and lock again.

B&T responded by giving the market a change that allowed just that. This disenchanted the slice of the market that wanted a solid lock.
The disenchanted portion of the market is verbalizing in this thread and others.

B&T was responsive to (some of) the market.
It is impossible to make everybody happy and it is probably not a smart move to have two completely different SKUs in inventory.

Anyone can go back to the old threads that surrounded the first 6 months of the CAL product rollout and see the uproar of unpleased users because the cant feature locked too solidly.

I do not envy B&T or any other company in that lane. Even with stellar products, you cannot please the entire market.

**I am not trying to speak for B&T. This is solely my own opinion and take on the background leading up to the current CAL threads. I'm sure they can address this on their own far better than I can.

2) RE: The Pod-Loc kit was produced for the LEO market.
Indeed the LEO niche is where 90% of KMW rifles go and ton of Pod-Locs are in use there but it was LE was not the catalyst for the origin of it.

The KMW Pod-Loc kit was initially built and produced in response to seeing SS Marines tearing up their new Harris S-model bipods with Leathermans, SOG pliers and other tools in an attempt to lock and un-lock the tilt feature during the week long NASC championship in 1999.
The USMC was in the process of finalizing the kit specs for the M40-A3. The Pod-Loc kits were tested, added to the kit specs and issued an NSN by 2000.

The complete history of the Pod-Loc kit can be read here: https://www.kmwlrs.com/pod-loc

3) RE: The Pod-Loc does not produce a solid lock for the tilt feature of the CAL.
The Pod-Loc does only one job. It allows a reasonable amount of torque to be imparted to the center pivot rod component of the CAL and Harris S bipods. The actual result of whether the bipod achieves a solid lock of the tilt feature is not dependent on the Pod-Loc. It is dependent on the design and materials used in the mechanical clutch/lock feature of the bipod itself.

This is proven by the fact that the very first CALs produced a solid tilt/lock which a ton of people complained about. B&T responded by modifying the tilt/lock components to allow a soft lock which is what you see today. No changes were made to the Pod-Loc during the product evolution and transition.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am going to copy and paste this post to the other thread as well in an attempt to explain things better and perhaps allow a better resolution to both camps (I want my lockup tight vs I want my lockup soft).

Hope this helps.
T

.

Click to expand...

I hope we all understand that you can always please everyone, Companies need to prioritize their biggest market. It is up to the niche part of the market to DIY a solution to solve for their needs. I appreciate the fix because I am one of the Niche users that dislikes the cant feature. Just ordered a bunch of the washers and will be retrofitting my Atlas bipods.

It seems that you should be able to set the "gross tightness nut" to the soft spot where you can nudge the cant from behind the rifle and then use the Pod-Loc (with Carbontex washer) to lock it up when desired so that it can't be nudged by the shooter or the torque from a shot.
Am I wrong?

carbonbased said:

One question that I didn’t ask, Terry, that maybe your answer would help me understand the lock issue a bit better.

From an engineering perspective only, why did you have to choose to either to have a total lock off vs a slightly gradual tightening (but no total lock off)?

Was it a thread pitch thing? Just looking to learn here. And sorry, you’re probably totally sick of this topic lol

Click to expand...

I chose a 10-32 thread because that is the default thread on the Harris bipods. Kinda had to.

B&T defaulted to the same after doing their own R&D.

Again, I didn't (I don't think I even can) dictate whether the tilt is a hard or soft lock.
That is 95% a function of the actual clutch in the bipod design. To a certain extent the tension/torque applied to the host spindle by the Pod-Loc kit might be varied to achieve a softer or harder lockup, how the actual torque translates to the pivot locking is more of a function of the bipod design.
This is going to be true whether discussing B&T CAL, Harris-S or any other adjustable tilt body bipod.

.

Baron23 said:

Take care and, as always, thanks for participating here on the Hide and sharing your knowledge and experience.

Cheers

Click to expand...

My knowledge and experience in a nutshell....

Huskydriver said:

Or just don't run a pos atlas bipod....

Click to expand...

Must you shit on everything I have sir?

Sorry folks, just seeing this, carbonbased did advise me of releasing the hounds. But I had cats to herd so late to the party!

Thank you Terrry, I appreciate your efforts here.

We have tried many washers, to include the ones mentioned here. Our findings were not smooth but did provide a 95% ish lock-up. And while grease provided smoothness, it also allowed it to slip... I'll verify, but I think we got six of the *8* washers and built six bipods with same result. So maybe priority based positive result? Which all that matters is carbonbased likes the result. We are still working towards a solution because that's what we do, we try, we dont just sit in the bleachers and point. Once we have one that covers the bases, we'll use it.

Regarding taking the CAL bipods apart, taking the cradle off the mount is doable, I'll visit with staff. We literally can't tell that's been done and don't care. However, taking the legs off to make the Atlas quick to deploy, is a NO-GO.

Sincerely, carbonbased, thank you for your patroanage and being the person you are that tries to impove stuff you use and I'm glad you found success. One reason I love this industry.

And, leaving in AM headed to Edenburg then Fayetteville, Lord willing we'll be back around the 26th so no SH for me till then.

Just did this. F*cking perfect. Thanks for the writeup.

Well with this mod, you can set it so the tension is about the same as the original setup or lock it down. No brainer IMO.

carbonbased said:

Ha! Alright!

Now watch just me and @Ape_Factory like this mod while everyone else complains lol

Click to expand...

Sure! And I’m just chopped liver?

My package of washers is on it’s way, hit us customs this morning.

carbonbased said:

Lol whoops pal! Everyone but me, @lash, and @Ape_Factory!

(Did you get the washer yet, lash? What’d you think?)

Click to expand...

lol! No, I’ve been traveling and busy, but will order a couple this weekend.

I was just busting chops.

rmfield said:

It seems that you should be able to set the "gross tightness nut" to the soft spot where you can nudge the cant from behind the rifle and then use the Pod-Loc (with Carbontex washer) to lock it up when desired so that it can't be nudged by the shooter or the torque from a shot.
Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Washers arrived. They work as described above. Happy with my CAL for the first time since I bought it.

I also just received my washers from Smooth Drag. One night this week when I feel in the mood to break some stuff I’ll take the CAL apart and try them. I truly am dangerous with hand tools. I can break just about anything! lol

But, if my friend @carbonbased can do it then prob so can I. Haha