Tell you what,, I have both the Harris and Atlas. I have not put either through a torture test however I think the way the atlas is built in my opinion it is built more rugged although I have no data to back that claim up. I can tell you when I am at the range and shooting 1000 yards I have them both at their max extension because the 1000 yard line is 740 feet higher in elevation than the pavilion. When preloading the bipod or whatever you want to call it they both suck. They more more than I would like nor have I ever measured. That was a disappointment for me when I bought my first atlas, I have two one short and one long. I have four harris bipods. WHat I do not like about the Harris is the way it attaches to the QD stud,(I am not removing the QD stud from my rifles and installing a rail). The thumb screw tends to loosen and unless you are going to carry an allen wrench to tighten it and remove it you just have to deal with it. Yup in the center of the small threaded rod is a spot to put an allen key, I only recently found out it was there after years of owning one. bottom line, we are not going to war with neither we go to ranges. Does the atlas have an edge on robustness, yes. I still think the harris is just as easy to extend the legs as the atlas. Does the atlas have more leg positions, yup but who really uses them, I don't. Next to my dope from 100-1000 yards I have the notch position, I am not going to start making something more difficult. If it ain't broke why fix it. Lets face it, they both do what they are advertised to do which is support and elevate the firearm. The only reason I went with the atlas is because it is more robust and I am setting a 22lb .338 lapua magnum on it. I still and will always use my harris bipods attached to the Mcmillan M3A Adj stock or any other lighter rifle with a QD stud. If you are building a regular M14 don't even bother using one just use ruck or sandbags at the range.