I am looking at either a Magpul which mounts on the bottom as one piece or the UTG that mounts on as separate units w/ one leg at 3 o’clock and one at 9 o’clock. Anyone w/ experience with either or a different one all together?

Thanks.

Bipods that attach higher up on the stock/handguard, or whose hanging points are functionally even higher like the Sako’s, are often claimed to be better for some (usually unstated) reason. That’s probably because the effect of any unintentional side to side rotation is reduced. If that is true, then bipods like the Magpul that attach to the side of the handguard rather than to a rail or directly to the handguard at the bottom would be superior.

On the other hand, bipods like the Atlas (my preference) or the Harris permit some side to side rotation (tilt), and I believe that’s a very important feature. The Harris has a screw that can be tightened to fix the gun at one level of tilt, and there is enough friction resistance in the Atlas to accomplish pretty much the same thing. In fact, I prefer the stiff friction of the Atlas because it permits minor adjustments without fiddling with the bipod, as is necessary with the Harris.

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that any of the bipods with two separate legs that attach directly to the handguard or stock of the rifle permit minor tilt adjustments, and in my limited knowledge of things mechanical, I do not see how it would be possible. As far as I can see, tilt adjustments are limited to discrete steps made by shortening or lengthening the legs. That may be acceptable under some circumstances, but it wouldn’t do for me.

(All that assumes, of course, that the shooter would ever need to tilt the rifle while on an uneven surface to be aligned with the target. If shooting only from a properly constructed bench or other firing position, then the lack of the tilt feature would not matter.)

A piece of rail on the bottom front of the MLOK handguard, then attach an Atlas with QD.

I have a caldwell one that attaches directly to MLOK and works ok. I'll get a magpul next, because I'm not dropping Atlas dough.

I'd choose the Magpul over the UTG any day. IMO the Magpul is a better design and should hold up better over time.

I personally prefer Atlas bipods, but not everyone is willing to dump that much into a bipod.

What is your primary use for the bipod?
What kind of surfaces will you be shooting from?
Is bipod weight a primary concern?
Will you be shooting from multiple positions, or will it be primarily from prone or bench?

Thanks for the input. I plan on using it on a .224 Valkyrie AR15 for prone and bench shooting. Hoping to get it out to 1000 yards.

Given that you intend to shoot long distance, the UTG should be out. I don't know if the Magpul has the "slack" features of the Atlas bipod, but slack helps with loading the bipod and shooting more accurately at distance.

I shoot 73 and 75 grain bullets at 2800 fps. Figure 2650 fps from your Valkyrie with heavies; maybe close to 2700 fps with a really long barrel.

I've run the numbers bunch of times -- out to 800 yards, my loads fly flatter than Valkyrie heavies. Valkyrie has wind drift advantage -- at 800 yards with a 10 mph crosswind at my altitude, 4.9 MOA with 90 SMK and 5.4 MOA with 88 ELD vs. my 6.4 MOA drift. 1 to 1.5 MOA advantage is noticeable, but realize the SMK still drifts 40 inches at 800 yards in a 10 mph wind. If you're not using big targets at distance, you'd better be good at calling wind.

I consider my AR15s accurate out to roughly 600 yards in competition. Everything beyond that is a low-probability crap shoot. You'll add maybe 200 yards capability with the Valkyrie. Just understand that only the best of the best shoot Valkyries to 1000 yards and beyond. We all don't shoot in real life like some of the amazing videos on the web.

Roger. I have a 20” barrel w/ 6.5” twist. I have 95 grain SMK to load up in it. I will be super happy with decent groups at 600-800 yard. I just want to try 1000 yards. Have done it with a .308.