Is Knight done with muzzleloaders?

[encore4me]

Will they be able to catch up with T/C. The last two designes they had were not there best. I don't own a Knight but I hate to see them go out of business.



Matt

 

[Anonymous]

Will they be able to catch up with T/C. The last two designes they had were not there best. I don't own a Knight but I hate to see them go out of business.



Matt

JMHO, Knight does not have "catch-up" with T/C to be successful. There is a pretty good pie out there to be cut. I would not think there is any probability or possibility at this point that Knight will go out of businesss.

 

[choc-dog]

Knight

Knight's presently is relocating from Iowa to Mississippi or Alabama which is closer to their parent company. I am sure this move is a cost cuttng measure.

Once you lose momentum in the market place its difficult to climb out of it.

Knight needs to regroup itself and invest in some R & D for a gun that will sell for them.

 

[encore4me]

It seams that alot of people LOVE the Disc Extreme, I would think that they would focus on that rifle, keep it available to the loyal patrons that made Knight such a great company to begin with.
Trying to copy another company's design will allways be a COPY. They need something new or just stick to what made them so popular.


Matt

 

[cayuga]

I agree encore4me.. make a rifle that did well with market shares in the past. The Wolverine, Bighorn, Extreme, LRH were all and still are great rifles. Too many people's biggest worry is how fast can I clean the rifle. I constantly tell them, don't worry about cleaning time. Worry about range accuracy. All the old Knights are great shooters. They are not hard to clean. And while all this goes on, then do some R&D.

Maybe with the new move to Alabama, they can become more cost effective and lower the price on some of their old stock and trade. This should boost market share and make the company even more secure. One does not win how many top shooter awards in a row and not be a player in the muzzleloader field.

The thing a lot of the new people entering the muzzleloading field want a cheap rifle, that cleans easy. They seem to move to the BPI rifles. They have no concern over barrel pressure issues. And while I do not feel it is my duty to talk them out of them, I can explain the concerns, and offer better choices.

 

[1SHOT1KILL]

A few years ago, Knight was making approximately 100,000 muzzleloaders a year. They were the king of the muzzleloader market. I don't see Knight going out of business at all. Knight still has some very good muzzleloaders. IMO Knight got caught up in the race to come up with something new and let the old tried, true, and proven designs fall by the way side. T/C has came up some new designs and a whole lot of of slick advertising. If I wasn't shooting Savage muzzleloaders, I would be shooting a Knight over a T/C.

 

[whitesmoke]

Maybe Knight could come up with a Disc rifle in 54cal with a fast twist designed for saboted 50cal projectiles, I think that would be..... 8)

Whitesmoke

 

[HD Road King]

I sure hope they don't go out of business anytime soon. After much thought and time, I ended up going with a Knight Extreme Disc .50 M.H. I haven't even gotten it out of lay-away yet. If they do I sure hope that someone in the accessory market picks up on the primer carriers, otherwise I think that I will start investing in the little guys. I would guess though that someone might develop a breech plug that could hold one of the smaller caliber primers. I have checked on some of the sites that offer those but unless I missed it, I didn't see them offered.

Mike

 

[cayuga]

I personally would like to see Knight come up with a tested conical shooter like a White Rifle. I like pure lead conicals. I think too much importance is being put on sabots shooting faster and faster. Most of my shooting is under 100 yards. I do not need a sabot flying 2000+ fps. A conical moving 1350 but weighinig 460+ grains would be excellent for me.

The White rifle is a very impressive rifle for shooting conicals. If Knight could come up with one in .54 caliber and .50 caliber in the bolt design or better yet the Bighorn style, they currently use, I'd get one. I tried conicals out of my Kngiht rifle and while the do all right, they are nothing like shooting my White.

 

[whitesmoke]

cayuga,

Now that's a great idea! However I think Knight would have to come up with a stock design that handled recoil better. I use to have a Bighorn that I was shooting PR's 360gr Extremes with 100grs of Pyro P out of. All I could say is OUCH! The knurled cocking knob also ate up the web of my hand when I allowed the rifle to freely recoil when firing from the bench :x

Whitesmoke

 

[Anonymous]

I personally would like to see Knight come up with a tested conical shooter like a White Rifle. I like pure lead conicals. I think too much importance is being put on sabots shooting faster and faster. Most of my shooting is under 100 yards. I do not need a sabot flying 2000+ fps. A conical moving 1350 but weighinig 460+ grains would be excellent for me.

The White rifle is a very impressive rifle for shooting conicals. If Knight could come up with one in .54 caliber and .50 caliber in the bolt design or better yet the Bighorn style, they currently use, I'd get one. I tried conicals out of my Kngiht rifle and while the do all right, they are nothing like shooting my White.

Knight offerd a rifle designated the "PLB" "Pure Lead Bullet" 10 plus years back.

 

[choc-dog]

Dear 1shot kill

If Ron Colburn Savage would put some marketing money behind the
Savage ML-II they could move into Knights market share while Knight re-groups itself.

The Savage is the "sleeper" of the muzzleloading market. The Savage ML-Ii will be one of the few bolt guns to survive the sealed breech trend.

 

[Patrick White]

Problems at Knight by severity.

1. Micromanagement at corporate
2. Advertising
3. Products

1. In my opinion what Knight needs is less micromanaging by corporate. Companies that are micromanaged seldom do well. A company that makes guns should be run by shooters and not paper pushers.

2. Their advertising needs work. T/C has been hammering away at the disc and the cleaning. What Knight needs to do is advertise the weather resistance of the disc and the fact that Knights suffere very little from the extra fouling associated with Triple Seven. The majority of crud ring complaints seem to come from T/C shooters. I experienced this myself when I bought a T/C Omega. Another plus is no need for a capper.

3. Knight has a good product line for the most part. The things they need to drop are the Revolution (I've yet to yead anything good about it) and the .52 gimmick. A .50 can do everything a .52 can do and do it better except for one and that is make money for the company. With the .52 everything is proprietary. There are no sabots you can buy to put your choice of bullet in. Since most folks seem to want a discless rifle then perhaps Knight should also pursue that option.

They should also reintroduce the Disc Elite. Most state allow some kind of scope. The limited market explanation I got from Knight a long time ago was pretty weak.

Frankly the one thing that Knight keeps going that should be dropped is the old plunger guns. That design is over 20 years old. By dropping all their plunger guns (including the TK-2000 although it could be easily reworked as a bolt gun) that would cut a good chunk what they make.

Another thing Knight should look at is a smokeless rifle. They have been on the cutting edge of muzzleloading for many years but they have failed to follow it to it's logical conclusion.

If I were in charge of Knight these are the steps I would take.

 

[n8dawg6]

Another thing Knight should look at is a smokeless rifle. They have been on the cutting edge of muzzleloading for many years but they have failed to follow it to it's logical conclusion.

i think that the reason the major muzzleloading manufacturers have shied away from this is because the other guns they make are blackpowder only. i think they are concerned from a liability standpoint that people will think that, (for instance/hypothetically) if smokeless works in the knight smokeless muzzleloader, then it will work in the other knights too. savage doesnt have to worry about this because they have only one muzzleloader (and have never had another) and it is smokeless-capable. im sure that the liability concern is the major thing holding companies like t/c and knight back from experimenting with the smokeless route (although they may say otherwise). from experience, i would say their concerns are valid. people do unusually stupid things . . . .

 

[Spitpatch]

As i was reading all the posts on this thread, I kept thinking of all the things I was gonna say. Then Patricks post said everything I was ready to say.

Thanks Patrick you saved me some typing which comes rather slow for me. I would add that TC to it's credit, has beat Knight to death with the cleaning issue through slick advertising. Now I have both guns, love them both and and it's no secret on this forum which one I would rather clean. 8)

The Disc Elite should be reintroduced with sights. I don't believe for a minute the theory of the barrel being too thin. Use a barrel band for crying out load.

The whole gun could be about as classic as a 700 Rem.

 

[Patrick White]

I don't think liability is the big blocker you think it is. Let's say they come out with a smokless gun, the Knight Dreamgun. To keep themsleves covered all they need to do is add dislaimers to their manuals for their non smokeless guns saying that the Knight Dreamgun is the only Knight approved for smokeless. Now if they're sued for some idiot blowing themselves up by pouring smokeless down their Disc rifle (which could happen) They ask if the person read their manual. If so the person ignored the manual (bad for a case), if not then they failed to read and follow directions (also bad). Yes it looks bad, but they've done everything legally required.

And FYI, there are already people shooting smokeless out of Knights and other non smokeless guns now. They're stupid for doing so but they can't turn around and sue for it. It's already prohibited in current Knight manuals. If Knight came out with a smokeless gun that doesn't change what their current manual says.

I think the problem is that after you introduce a smokeless gun where do you go from there? By staying with blackpowder subs they can continue to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Patrick White]

Thanks Patrick you saved me some typing which comes rather slow for me.

No problem Jim.

The Disc Elite should be reintroduced with sights. I don't believe for a minute the theory of the barrel being too thin. Use a barrel band for crying out load.

Or even epoxy a sight on. That's already an option. The barrel band would be easier since it could be removable.

 

[n8dawg6]

well, failure to warn is ONE theory in products liability litigation. i agree with ya that folks who are currently shooting smokeless in knights would have little opportunity for success in a product liability suit, but i think it's precisely because knight has a unified front against using smokeless powder in ANY of their muzzleloaders. however, just putting an instruction manual with warnings in the box with the gun is NOT going to guarantee freedom from liability . . . or even freedom from substantial liability for that matter. if enough people are injured shooting smokeless in the blackpowder-only models, then all the warning manuals in the world aren't going to stop a products liability lawsuit from going forward.

for instance, i strongly suspect that a lot of the lawsuits we hear about regarding exploding BPI rifles involve rifles that have been loaded beyond the maximums listed in the instruction manuals. there are plenty of warnings there, but people arent reading them, and they're getting hurt and suing the company. and, despite having good defenses, such as warnings in the manual, im sure BPI's insurers are still paying some of the claims.

of course you can't know for sure if that's going to happen, or if people are going to heed the warnings. its just a matter of weighing risks. anyway, i guess my thoughts on this subject are based on personally working on some products liability suits.

i agree with spitpatch, too . . . i think that one of the things i like about the older knight rifles (not the revolution or the vision) is that they have a pretty classic look to them. im not sure when manufacturers started getting away from the lines of bolt-action rifles in designing new muzzleloaders, but i dont like it

 

[Patrick White]

well, failure to warn is ONE theory in products liability litigation. i agree with ya that folks who are currently shooting smokeless in knights would have little opportunity for success in a product liability suit, but i think it's precisely because knight has a unified front against using smokeless powder in ANY of their muzzleloaders. however, just putting an instruction manual with warnings in the box with the gun is NOT going to guarantee freedom from liability . . . or even freedom from substantial liability for that matter. if enough people are injured shooting smokeless in the blackpowder-only models, then all the warning manuals in the world aren't going to stop a products liability lawsuit from going forward.

The problem with that is that it limits product advancement. Do you remember when muzzleloaders went to the 150 gr maximum. By your theory that shouldn't have happened. They could be sued because they went from 120 gr of loose powder to a 150 gr. of pellet maximum. Oops.

People used to be responsible for their own actions. Too bad, now everyone is ready to sue at the drop of a hat. What a world we live in.

 

[n8dawg6]

well, failure to warn is ONE theory in products liability litigation. i agree with ya that folks who are currently shooting smokeless in knights would have little opportunity for success in a product liability suit, but i think it's precisely because knight has a unified front against using smokeless powder in ANY of their muzzleloaders. however, just putting an instruction manual with warnings in the box with the gun is NOT going to guarantee freedom from liability . . . or even freedom from substantial liability for that matter. if enough people are injured shooting smokeless in the blackpowder-only models, then all the warning manuals in the world aren't going to stop a products liability lawsuit from going forward.

The problem with that is that it limits product advancement. Do you remember when muzzleloaders went to the 150 gr maximum. By your theory that shouldn't have happened. They could be sued because they went from 120 gr of loose powder to a 150 gr. of pellet maximum. Oops.

People used to be responsible for their own actions. Too bad, now everyone is ready to sue at the drop of a hat. What a world we live in.

are you saying none of them were? im sure that cva, for one, wouldnt have had some or MOST of their current lawsuits if the manufacturers hadn't gone to 150 g. :wink: also, the situation isn't completely analogous because there's going to be a pretty big difference between going up 30 grains of blackpowder equivalent and going to smokeless powder, from the standpoint of pressure. if there wasn't, then the manufacturers could just go ahead and declare their current models smokeless-capable.

and i aint sayin i AGREE with the law, im just tellin ya the way it is. products liability law is one of the most frustrating things i ever worked with. and i think its ridiculous that everything we buy today has huge warning manuals with tons of red writing. the problem is that some folks, and some of the people in the various states who have enacted the products liability statutes, believe that fault and individual responsibility has little to do with it. rather, if you have a hurt individual, and there's a corporation with deep pockets and insurance on the other side, then the corporation should automatically be required to pay the hurt individual, regardless of the corporation's liability.

also, i'm not saying anything about the safety of a properly-designed smokeless muzzleloader. i think savage has ably demonstrated that it can be done.