The recommendations will have a lot to do w/ what the bipods intended uses will be. If their use is to be a range/varmint hunting type bipod then the above listed bipods will more than suffice, w/ Harris being the Cadillac of bipods. However, because bipods were inherently thought of as accessories for a target/precision weapon, they were designed that way... Intricate, if not delicate, and somewhat cumbersome. Designated marksmen/snipers may have the discipline/need to deal w/ their negatives as a trade off for their inherent benefits, but line infantrymen don't.
If the bipods role is intended as a stable shooting platform for a fighting weapon, then their is no bipod currently designed for or acceptible as a satisfactory answer to the problem.
While the current models aren't bad, they certainly aren't ideal.
Exposed springs, while not weak, aren't the best solution and bipods that elevate, but don't traverse, demostrate an inherent weakness in their design. DM/Snipers enjoy the luxury of finding a larger sphere of engagement and then fine tuning the movement of their POA/I to a severely smaller sphere before engagement. Line infatntrymen have no such luxury. The sphere of engagement for the latter is relatively huge, w/ the most common dimension of their sphere of engagement being "length", or left to righ/ right to left (T in T&E), not "depth" or "from to away/ away to from", or "Height" low to high/ high to low (E in T&E)...
For limited movement, the inherent benefit of a bipod; fixed position, fine movement, relatively little change in target position, go w/ a Harris, it's the best available, now. For a bipod that takes into acct. the realities of the std. fighter, wait. It will most certainly be worth your while.
MG bipods T&E why shouldn't yours? Your target most certainly will be.
/S2