Originally Posted by JSTUART
Originally Posted by bellydeep
Originally Posted by JSTUART
Originally Posted by dennisinaz
I have shot thousands of rounds out of rifles on Harris Bipods, thousands. I have never seen a stud fail except the boat-paddle Rugers where the woodscrewd would pull out of the stock in hot weather.

My last few McMillans have an EXTRA stud specifically so that you can use your bipod without removing the sling. I have use bipods with MPI, MicMillan, Ruger, Winchester, Savage, Brown Precision, Bell&Carlson and Ramject or whatever they were called; these are just the synthetic stcoks. I have used them in countless wooden stocks. This is completely unacceptable. The CS comparing it to running the stock over is also unacceptable. The bipod is a common accessory and if they didn't want you to use it they should have stated such. Running it over is obviously abuse.

I guess I am shocked at how many of you defend Beretta in this case. Wow.


The mistake you are making Dennis is that you are thinking Sako makes their rifles to accept a Harris bipod...they make their rifles to shoot with or without a sling, and they supply them without provision for attachment of a bipod. Further, such attachment of an aftermarket device is solely at the risk and discretion of the purchaser.

Now if the company specified that the rifle were to be used with such a device you would have some standing, as it is you have none.


That is retarded. Bipods are commonly put on rifles. It is reasonable for a manufacturer to foresee customers putting them on there and should build rifles accordingly.

This is 100% Sako's fault. Even a $300 RAR will rock a bipod.


That is irrelevant, the company is not making their rifle to accommodate bipods, evidenced by lack of inclusion in the owners manual (the same manual that doesn't include a lengthy expose on how to insert the barrel into your mouth)...and the company is not responsible for what the purchaser does outside the provisions the firearm is speced for.

It is reasonably common for people to suicide in cars...good luck holding the manufacturer responsible for what some dill does with the product, nor is it reasonable to expect firearms manufacturers to be held responsible for people being shot with the firearms those same companies manufacture.


At some point we all have to take responsibility for our actions...and stop looking for a free handout.


Hint:

If you have to use ridiculous analogies like suicide to support your argument, you're probably losing.


Originally Posted by shrapnel
I probably hit more elk with a pickup than you have with a rifle.


Originally Posted by JohnBurns
I have yet to see anyone claim Leupold has never had to fix an optic. I know I have sent a few back. 2 MK 6s, a VX-6, and 3 VX-111s.