>Thanks for your comments. I was looking at the photos of your >recent dear hunt. It looks like you made good use of the Harris >bipod on that occasion. Do you feel there is any surface that is >optimum for the bipod, or any that causes a problem? By that I >mean, does the ground you rest the bipod on need to be fairly well >compacted, how would it go in sandy soil?

The only surface which (sometimes) creates a problem is powdery/light snow. I have used the HARRIS bipods on just about evry type of surface there is between here and Washington State - the only thing that gets a little aggrevating is getting a decent "level" via my old timers; some of the newer models have a swiveling system which accommodates a level sight picture. I just keep using my old original 'pods' and take time to get them "close enough". Sandy soils  have never been a problem - in fact, it enables some fudging to get a quick level sight picture.

>By the way, I was interested to read about the 300 WSM/132gn >bullet combo you are using on the dear. I bet you are getting some >good velocity and it seems like the terminal performance was >good on the buck, but I was a little surprised to see the choice of >the 132gn bullet. What are your thoughts behind the rife?

In its original incarnation, this rifle was built as  Hunter Class Rifle, with particular emphasis on using 112/118 grain bullets at higher velocities than possible with more conventional bullet weights; I fully expected to obtain 3700 FPS. However, 3600 FPS proved to be the speed limit for this particular rig.  The barrel is a LILJA 1:17" twist and is crowned at 25" from the bolt face, not including the muzzle-brake.  The theory was to see what, if anything, velocity, combined with a decent BC would "GIVE" the competitor at 300 yard events - this proved to be NOTHING ! It seems that one MUST always pay attention to the blasted wind indicators and/or mirage!!! ;)

Having failed to GIVE me any real advantage in HBR competition, the rifle was retired to the game side of the gun safe! I opted to use the 132 Gr./ 10 ogive BIB bullet  because I had a bunch laying around B4 the 2002 huntin' trip. On last years buck, fate provided a shot of about 18 yards - the bedded buck was lying behind some sage; since his chect was a mere 12-18 inches behind the brush, I opted to thread the shot on through . . . the bullet struck a fair sized branch, which resulted in a perfect key-hole entry wound.  That bullet then completely self destructed; not a shred was recovered and there was not so much as a mark on the opposite side of the rib cage . . the buck jumped up and bounded out of sight . . but fell dead about 25 yards from where he originally lay. I considered THAT poor performance (with BIB bullets,I had never experienced any type of bullet failure on a deer or antelope), so chose to use the same bullet again, making certain that I got a somewhat more conventional shot.

This years result was somewhat better.

One of my shootin' pals, Tom Gollob, provided the Rem. 40X stock, which I insatlled a few weeks prior to this years hunt (Tom thought the old "cut-down" 722  REM stock too UGLY to be carried in public - even in the wilds of Wyoming!). At the sight-in session, the rifle placed six shots, spaced over the course of about two hours, into a not unacceptable group of 0.8" at two hundredyards - no wind flags were used. Following that, to verify the calculated trajectory chart,  a  target was shot at 100 Yd.  - only three shots were fired, this time over the course of about 1 hour.  The result measured 0.105" via the Sweene type group measuring device. . . since those three shots were exactly the predicted distance above the aiming point, relative to the 200 Yd. group center, it was determined to be "good enough".

However, in the future, I will likely opt to use a 150-160 Gr. bullet, based upon the 1.080" long jacket - the 1:17 should stablize this type of bullet very well . . and the extra weight never hurts on a game bullet - I like an exit hole. Also, based upon feed back from other folks, I may sacrifice but little velocity while gaining both bullet weight and BC - the 132s were chronographed at a mere 3470 FPS . . .

Good shootin'! R.G.