Obsoletes the Encore??? Get REAL fakeman. That is a bunch of BS. The Pro Hunter already has recoil tamed to a minimum and the trigger,when tuned correctly,is about the best that there is.

Knight needs to come up with something new and to copy the Encore is what I'd expect from Tony Knight. Knight rifles are very accurate,but lag way behind in the technology arena with the plastic disc garbage and the clone Omega,the ("Revolution"). If the "Revolution wasn't so damned ugly and didn't use the stupid plastic disc...If you can't beat 'em,join 'em,right?

The T/C products are topnotch in my book,I own several, however; The new KP-1 looks interesting to me as the stock design is more standard, the Encore stock has never felt right to me. The removable trigger hammer deal will make cleaning the action a lot easier. I would not agree that it will obsolete the Encore but I think it is well thought out and definately not a copy of the Encore with the different design parameters. I don't know Tony Knight so I can't comment on his ability to make decisions. It looks interesting to me.

small fish, I agree with you, it is an Encore wannabe but like anything Knight makes, I am sure it will not be as good as they advertise.

I'll stick with my Encore's, I know how well they are made and how well they shoot. Why buy a cope when you can have the original.

It's certainly an improvement in the looks category - resembles the style of a German stalking rifle. Hopefully the weight and balance will also.

I was under the impression that Tony Knight was no longer a part of the company. Isn't this why Shockey went over to T/C?

Tony Knight is retired. After reading the uninformed scatological comments from those who have never so much as laid eyes on the gun, he likely is enjoying it.

A pity he is blamed for something he had no hand in whatsoever.

Tony Knight's retirement had nothing to do with Jim Shockey, or vice-versa. I know them both.

Randy, I'm not sure where you're coming from. NO, I haven't had a Knight in my hands since I bought their first offering and found it to be a POS. It was quickly replaced by a Remington Model 70ML which outperformed it hands down. The Remington ultimately lost because of the sludge build up in the trigger and firing pin mechanism that required complete dismantling to clean. It was then I started traveling and found the beauty of the dismantled Encore, the ability to change barrels and the positive features. I also saw Knight foundering and trying to copy Remington without infringing on copyrights.

In my opinion, that silly assed threaded safety occupied too much of their R&D and they've never caught up and likely never will.

NO, I haven't held their new offerings but all I can do is go to the link you provided. The writer is obviously biased. He touts "ambidexterous" mechanics, but I have yet to see a single shot, hammered gun that couldn't make that same claim. Offering a .270 is finite as compared to the multitude of calibers offered by T/C IN STAINLESS STEEL. It says the forearem comes off slick as a left handed slap at the Encore, but I'd have to wonder how the ramrod is stored without going under, around, or through the forearm. That being the case, what happens to the void when you switch over to .270? What's the big deal about the "drop out trigger assembly"? What drives the necessity of actually having to drop out that mechanism? Does it foul often or easily? Does it malfunction where you need to make field repairs on it. With a sealed breech system, the necessity of removing the Encore trigger assembly is nonexistant. Austin & Halleck found out about not keeping up with technology and simplicity and I see this "new" Knight as an effort to stave off the same results.

From an intrinsic point of view, I despise the Encore. I just don't like the feel as compared with the traditional lines of a modern firearm. Still, I suck it up because I'm a result oriented person. The Encore works and works well - every time without any fancy do-dahs and gimmicks. I'd still have my Remington if it could boast those same properties. So I can't say as I have any partiality to Encore, but I do have lots of practicality for it.

Now if they only would proof it for smokeless powder in the Muzzle loader barrel they could keep up with Savage.

Dogshooter, if nothing else, your relentless. I guess you're hoping that if you tell a lie often enough, someone will accept it as the truth. Works in politics. Savage has enough problems staying solvent and no one's lined up to bail them out, so why would ANY gun maker wnat to be like Savage. In case you haven't noticed (obviously you haven't) none of the other muzzleloader manufacturers are touching that POS. They don't want to have their firearms registered with ATF and that's where Savage is headed. T/C already has it with the Encore, but they make a complete line of conventional black powder guns for just this reason. BTW, no one "proofs" a gun made in America.

quote:

BTW, no one "proofs" a gun made in America.

As far as lies, untruths, and assorted blatant falsehoods-- George, you win.

Savage Arms is the fastest growing rifle company in the United States. Wake up: they shipped MORE rifles than Remington the last two years, and look to bury them this year. That is fact: check the excise tax records.

Savage Arms absolutely proofs every 10ML-II they make before it leaves the plant, just as they do with all their centerfires. They are not just proof-tested, but function-fired as well.

Pay a visit to their plant, and they will be happy to show you. I did.

I do most of my hunting with Knights and with a bunch of them in my safe, I am always interested and hoping the best for them and their new offerings. However with some of their best models discontinued and after the Revoltion and the Visionless, if Knight has an R&D or Marketing department they have got to clean house! For Knight's sake, I hope they have a winner this year.

A Savage 10MLII smokeless powder burning muzzleloader is a "POS"...LOL! That's a good one there George. The reason none of the other makers offer it is because their guns aren't built well enough to handle it, simple as that. I will make an exception for the Encore, but it in no way compares to the Savage. I own both, so I think I can make that comparison.

George every major manufacturer in this country proofs every one of their firearms.

We just do not have a goverment proof house like other not as free counties.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
... BTW, no one "proofs" a gun made in America.

Hey George, I've followed the posts I've seen of yours with some interest since you experience is obviously different than mine.

But the above statement leads me to believe you are either attempting a "play on words" or simply Full-of-Beans. Firearms Made in America "not Proofed" -

Remington even sells "Proof Loads" to some of the other Firearm Manufacturers for their use.

Best of luck to you.

quote:

Originally posted by John S:
A Savage 10MLII smokeless powder burning muzzleloader is a "POS"...LOL! That's a good one there George. The reason none of the other makers offer it is because their guns aren't built well enough to handle it, simple as that. I will make an exception for the Encore, but it in no way compares to the Savage. I own both, so I think I can make that comparison.

The Encore will handle smokeless power. I have a buddy that owns a gun shop, he has been shooting his Encore muzzleloader with 42 gr. of IMR 4227 for several years now. I don't recommend it but he has been doing it.
So the Encore will handle the smokeless powder, I thought you might want to know that before you keep telling everyone it won't.

quote:

The Encore will handle smokeless power. I have a buddy that owns a gun shop, he has been shooting his Encore muzzleloader with 42 gr. of IMR 4227 for several years now. I don't recommend it but he has been doing it.
So the Encore will handle the smokeless powder, I thought you might want to know that before you keep telling everyone it won't.

That it the most irresponsible statement I've read, a statement that could get people killed.

The Encore cannot be used with smokeless powder, was not designed for it, and is not proven safe with it.

Thompson will tell you that, and will (and has) sued those who state otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by RandyWakeman:

quote:

The Encore will handle smokeless power. I have a buddy that owns a gun shop, he has been shooting his Encore muzzleloader with 42 gr. of IMR 4227 for several years now. I don't recommend it but he has been doing it.
So the Encore will handle the smokeless powder, I thought you might want to know that before you keep telling everyone it won't.

That it the most irresponsible statement I've read, a statement that could get people killed.

The Encore cannot be used with smokeless powder, was not designed for it, and is not proven safe with it.

Thompson will tell you that, and will (and has) sued those who state otherwise.

Randy that is why I posted "I don't recommend it" in the Encore, I was just letting John S know that the Encore will and has handled it. I just think T/C does not want to ever have someone blow off the side of there face using smokeless powder in a muzzleloader. There have been numerous cases of people over charging muzzleloader's and double charging muzzleloader's with BP and sub's, the T/C did not want the risks even higher with the use of smokeless.
Imagine if someone double charged a Savage.

My post was not to encourage using smokeless in an Encore.
SO PLEASE NO ONE USE SMOKELESS POWDER IN AN ENCORE M/L

quote:

Imagine if someone double charged a Savage.

No need to "imagine" it at all-- I personally know several people who have done just that. I know many more who have shot out their ramrods.

Not a single injury in the 7 year history of the 10ML-- no other muzzleloader made can make that claim. A 10ML-II is not idiot-proof, but it is idiot-resistant.

It is stronger than any shoulder-fired centerfire rifle made, all models withstanding over 125,000 PSI. All well-documented and videotaped.

quote:

Imagine if someone double charged a Savage.

Happens all of the time.

I personally haven't done it but hear of it from time to time.

No BOOM either They were designed for it.

Savage engineered this rifle to withstand so much more pressure than the suggested loads that the safety margin is very large.

Randy can correct me if I'm wrong but, I believe the Savage is designed to handle pressures 3-4 times that of the pressures of the loads they suggest in the owners manual.

The idiots over the years that have blown regular MLers apart with smokeless powder have made many of the older generation shooters shy away from the thought of even trying smokeless in a MLer. When the truth of the matter is that the Savage is actually safer than shooting the majority of the CFs on the market today.

Believe me, I did some research on the Savage before I jumped on the wagon. It truely is an awesome MLer. Even if you don't use smokeless the ML10 is just darn accurate and dependable. Matter of fact it's the only one I've shot that was capable of sub moa grouping.

One thing I also like about the Savage when compared to other inlines is the ease of priming, I love the way you insert and remove the primers into the bolt. Much easier than the other inlines I've dealt with.


Reloader

Reloader, my biggest reason for not getting a Savage M/L was, I cannot shoot them in most of the States I hunt in.

They may be a good rifle, but to put out the money to have one as a safe queen is not something I want to do.

Redhawk,
I'm waiting for T/C to make a barrel for the Encore that is proofed and stamped on the barrel with a statement that it is safe and designed for use with smokeless powder. Until then I will happily keep shooting it with 777 and reserve my Savage for all smokeless powder shooting. I apparently value my eyes and limbs a lot more than the folks you mentioned.
You can use the Savage and not shoot smokeless, they work just fine with BP or Pyrodex and are still more accurate than the others. I couldn't use mine with smokeless around home until two years ago, but I killed a lot of deer with it using T7.

Randy, I gave you a bit of credit on something I should've known better about. You are so full of crap your eyes are likely brown. NO ONE PROOFS A GUN IN AMERICA. Case closed. Do you actually know what PROOFING is? NO ONE IN AMERICA PROOFS A GUN. A Proof Load fired in a firearm is NOT A PROOF. Proofing requires an independent government agency to fire loads in every firearm and then PROOF STAMP THE GUN. You name me just one American company that PROOF STAMPS its firearms and I will recant how ignorant your remark is. Most European countries proof their firearms and you will see the verification of a PROOF on each barrel that passes that test. YOu seem to be very good at name dropping but this one shows the Emperor's New Clothes quite well.

BTW, why would T/c sue anyone for saying they could use conventional powder in an Encore? Their literature is rather explicit in that it cannot be used so what purpose would litigation do for them. Their barrels are stamped BLACK POWDER OR PYRODEX ONLY - DO NOT USE SMOKELESS POWDER. If you used nitroglycerine it shouldn't matter to them as they aren't culpable for any damages you incur by not following their warnings.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/big_deal_about_proof.htm

Of course guns are proofed-- and stamped thereafter. Savage Arms proofs every single muzzleloader they make, and naturally all of their centerfires.

I'm waiting for your promised apology.

No apology necessary. It was obvious before you didn't have a clue of what "proofing" entailed. You simply validated it. A manunfacture cannnot, by definition, proof it's own guns. It really doesn't work that way and no matter how much rope you want to jump or peroxide you want to gargle, NO AMERICAN FIREARM MANUFACTURER PROOFS ITS GUNS. There is no proofing standard in America. Firing a single "proofing round" does not a "proof" make. Here's a website that might teach you something, though I'm sure you'll find more rope to skip: http://www.gunproof.co.uk/Proofing/proofing.html

quote:

A manunfacture cannnot, by definition, proof it's own guns. It really doesn't work that way and no matter how much rope you want to jump or peroxide you want to gargle, NO AMERICAN FIREARM MANUFACTURER PROOFS ITS GUNS. There is no proofing standard in America.

SAAMI sets the standard for proof, SAAMI dictates the procedure, SAAMI allows manufacturers to proof guns in accordance with SAAMI standards in the United States.

The sufficiency and quality of our "NON-Government" proofing and American metallurgy is clearly validated by the large and healthy exporting of American firearms thoughout the world. NATO countries use American equipment, American firearms which played a role in winning two world wars-- without the benefit of socialist, central proof houses.

You might feel that we need an enlargement of government to proof in the manner of other countries, but I certainly do not. Hillary might, though. Having the Post Office, HUD, or OSHA manage firearms proofing is not a palatable option as far as I'm concerned. FEMA? NSA? EPA?

Proofing is a procedure, not a political ideology. Hydrostatic testing is also not a Federalist program. High pressure hose assemblies go through no federally run clearing house.

Merely copying a link that appeared in an article I wrote over four years ago http://www.chuckhawks.com/no_standards.htm adds nothing.

SAAMI is U.S., CIP is much of Western Europe. For decades and decades, the U.K. recognized no entity in the world other than themselves. The rebel colonists have their own standards; those standards being no less valid than others. You fire a SAAMI cartridge in a SAAMI chamber in a SAAMI rifle made in accordance to SAAMI standards and using SAAMI rules of proof. It has worked very, very well.

Even without Hillary.

Congratulations, George, on becoming the first and only addition to my ignore list on Accurate Reloading. I have no idea what took me so long.

Whether you ignore me or not is irrelevant. I know bullshit when I hear it and I'm not afraid to announce it to those who are capable of independent thought. You keep skipping rope on this issue and continue to prove that you don't have a clue about what the term "proofing" means. Your vaunted SAAMI (http://www.saami.org/) is simply an ad hoc group of American gun makers who've outlined their industry wide standards as a method of self-policing the industry. They carry absolutely NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. They're much like the AMO is to archery. To compare this group to what proofing does is absolutely ludicrous.

In no way am I endorsing any more governmental interdiction than we already live with. I've warned you and others touting the Savage, however, that is very possibly going to be one of the driving issues to have that bureaucracy forced on us. When it happens, I hope to be here reminding all of you that you are responsible for bringing it down on us. My post was, and is a valid interpretation of "proofing" which you've tried to tap dance around. Calling a raccoon a bear might make the coon feel good, but it don't make him a bear and is likely just going to piss the bear off.

BTW, I didn't get an answer as to whom T/C sued over making personal claims about the Encore being capable of using conventional powder.

Only you Underclocked would come up with that.LOL

Proofing..... did you ever consider that it means one thing in Europe due to their lack of cohesiveness, and another thing here in the States ??? As an FFL holder (and dealer), I am quite satisfied with SAAMI as well as Savage's proof testing. As far as Knight goes, I bought one for my personal use this year and simply love it !!! Being from New England, naturally I've had my share of TCs in the past. I've also owned some CVA guns, and a Lyman. I even own an Italian made Navy Arms Zouave musket. My new Disk Extreme is the finest, best finished muzzle loader that I've ever owned. It shoots MOA out of the box, has a crisp, light 3 lb trigger, the gun just plain works !!! I'm looking forward to what Knight might bring out in the future. Do I think this latest gun concept is the answer, maybe not. It's already been done my TC, CVA, even NEF. I think Knight needs to go back to basics, where it started and finish perfecting the great product they had in the Disk series.

Bowhuntrrl, I never said that I endorsed the European concept of proofing, and like you, I don't have any problems with the self-policing of the industry. I just refuted a remark that what we do in this country has any resemblance to actual proofing of a firearm.

I do worry about the use of smokeless powder in primitive style firearms for the same reasons that air rifle manufacturers have been very careful in keeping their technology muted to a large degree (Though now I see an advertisement about shooting a pig with an air rifle). Keeping a low profile on both air rifles and muzzleloaders gave us a playground of opportunity to explore outside the blanket of government intrusions. In a politically charged and politically correct atmosphere today with anit-gun Democrats in prominent positions, I simply think we're playing with our ass if we assume they aren't going to get wind of what we've been doing for years. The bean counters, the animal rights activists, and the anti-gun crews aren't as stupid as some of us would like to believe, and I see us having opened Pandora's box with our bullshit bragging. Just MY OPINION, however, and we all know what they're worth.

Been thinking about it since my last post and I can't think of a single Firearms Manufacturer that does not "Proof" their products before they are shipped. Used to know a few Gun Smiths that did it after installing a new Barrel, but I doubt that a lot of them do it today.

But yes indeed, "Proofing Firearms" is alive and well in the USA.

Hot Core, you're as dumb as our resident "expert". What are you incapable of understanding? Do you think simply firing a souped up round through a gun "proofs" it. It only means it didn't blow up THAT TIME. There's no implicit or implied guarantee that the next round won't exploit microscopic damages that the first round imparted on the gun. I'll make you the same bargain. If you find a SINGLE American made firearm with a crested PROOF mark on it, let me know and I'll apologize.

Another term I laugh at is "MOA right out of the box". If the people who say that understood what MOA actually is, they'd know that every gun is MOA right out of the box. It may not be sighted in, but the multiple projectile it fires is going to be MOA unless you're talking about pumpkin balls out of a shotgun. To make that remark correctly, the manufacturer would have to use a specific round and signt the gun in. Then you'd have to use the same round with the same load and the same bullet weight to achieve his "guaranteed" MOA out of the box.

ah fixt da dern thang. Oh yeah, da barrel iz also ta b repeatedly fired wit a low-megaton yield "proof load" an den radiographed completely.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Hot Core, you're as dumb as our resident "expert".

Hey George, Maybe.

quote:

What are you incapable of understanding?

Some foreign languages, most democrats, and the motivation for braggarts and people "who think" they know it all.

quote:

Do you think simply firing a souped up round through a gun "proofs" it.

I understand the colloquially accepted and common usage of the term "Proof" when it is used in reference to firearms Made in the USA.

quote:

If you find a SINGLE American made firearm with a crested PROOF mark on it, let me know and I'll apologize.

No need to apologize to me. I worked for many years with people that were Totally WRONG all the time, and some of them also had a problem expressing their thoughts in a rational manner.

It would bother me "if" I respected your opinion, but that is no longer a concern. Darn shame, cause it appears you have a good bit of first-hand experience the Rookies and Beginners could drawn on.

No doubt there are times to take a strong stance - and I support that(as well as ALL LEGAL Hunting Methods ). I have no problem arguing with folks either, but I prefer to do it when some Rookie may actually believe the foolishness they are trying to get anyone to believe.

In this situation, everyone understands the USA Method of "Proofing Firearms" and accept it for what it is. And if you choose to believe otherwise, that is fine with me.

Best of luck to you.

quote:

After reading the uninformed scatological comments from those who have never so much as laid eyes on the gun, he likely is enjoying it.

So the "magician" is back (for now). fakeman will be drifting through forums here and there,trying to be a moderator at times and then gets kicked out of every one except HERE! (It's hard to do that.)

Go back to the big pond and kiss up to your good buddy gaybeard. POS I say.

Here he starts a topic stating how wonderful a new firearm is and then gets into a pissing contest about his beloved Savage smokeless muzzleloader.

Please fakeman,be true to your "magician" tendencies and DISAPPEAR!

Small Fish,

Who pissed in your cheerios this morn

Randy is a very knowledgeable Muzzleloader expert. He helps out many folks that are new to the sport of muzzle loading and can be a great source of advice to those that frequent these forums IMO.

We need more folks like him cruising these forums.

Have a Good One

Reloader

No good deed goes unpunished; a brief preview article about a Knight that impressed me and 450 views or so later and . . . well, there must be bigger fish to fry.

quote:

Originally posted by Reloader:
Small Fish,

Who pissed in your cheerios this morn

Randy is a very knowledgeable Muzzleloader expert. He helps out many folks that are new to the sport of muzzle loading and can be a great source of advice to those that frequent these forums IMO.

We need more folks like him cruising these forums.

Have a Good One

Reloader

We absolutely do NOT need people like him on here. He is a salesman and a gypsy. Following the forums over the past 5 or so years has him all over the map trying to be everyones "expert".

You believe who you want to. I believe that fakeman needs to crawl on to another forum. Just visit his friend Chuck Hawk's site and you'll see that he's all about making a $.

It is a real shame when all that is offered is personal comments-- where is your contribution for the day?

Any healthy American who earns no income is likely a thief or a bum. Anyone familiar with the firearms industry knows that the people in it are in it for the love of the sport. This isn't Bill Gates or Warren Buffett territory. That said, no one has ever offered to make my mortgage payment for me, pay for my health insurance, fix my car, etc. There are no NBA or NFL contracts floating around in hunting land.

Very few mothers in this country advise their kids to drop out of law school or dental school . . . so they can be a gunwriter. As far as a "salesman"-- what country are you living in? Not much happens in this country until something gets sold. You either sell a good or a service, or are paid from the proceeds from a good or service. If you work for a manufacturing plant that manufactures goods that nobody wants to buy, you won't be working there for very long. Those convinced that the American way of life is evil should go elsewhere. There are plenty of places to picket: you can burn signs at Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Walgreens, BassPro, and Cabela's. Everyone there does what they do expecting to be paid for it.

Yes, it is a shame when an honest look at a new rifle is met with nothing but trash-talk. Even though it is called "nobody's business," I have zero affiliation with Knight Rifles, and have never written any article because I was 'told' to write it. Like many of my articles, it is correctly priced at a very affordable "free." No one makes anyone so much as glance at a thread I started, much less read any of my work.

People apparently do find value in the effort, though-- to the tune of 650,000 readers per month. Naturally, those that feel they can do a superior job creating articles are welcome to do so. That would, of course, take far more time, effort, and yes-- money than just casting stones. A good look in the mirror shows that there are very few full-time pro philanthropists out there. Anyone who is one should really let me know, so I can sing your praises.