I have used Harris bipods for years on my CF rifles and air rifles. Recently, I bought an Atlas, and I like it very much. The tilt and pan features work well, although frankly, I don't need them in my uses. The Harris legs are infinitely adjustable for length (most models), so if any leveling is needed it is quickly achieved with a leg extension adjustment, as opposed to tilting the Atlas (a more time consuming maneuver that I find more difficult to get right). The Atlas 45 degree leg position feature is nice, adds a little steadiness, but again, not something I consider a big plus over the Harris. I added a short rail to my FX Crown to accommodate the Atlas, but there is not much wood thickness to work with in front, so I used wood screws rather than machine screws and nuts. It is holding well and should be plenty secure for bipod use, not sure I would recommend it for constant sling tension, as in position shooting. I now have a Red Wolf, and it also has very thin wood in front. I'm undecided whether I will go with another short rail, or, just install a simple wood screw swivel stud. So, in summary I believe the Atlas and other robust bipods using a Picatinny style attachment have some features that are advantageous in certain applications, but I haven't found them to be of any practical advantage over the Harris, stud-style bipod (for me). If I were shooting long range with a heavy rifle and significant recoil, or, needed the pan feature, I believe the Atlas is worth the price, for air gun shooting at 50 yards from a bench, probably not. For high level competitors, where a few thousandths of an inch at 100 yards can make a difference, every equipment advantage is worth considering; I'm not in that group.
