In Retrospect maybe I should have
03-21-2008, 06:51 AM
#1
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 6,471
In Retrospect maybe I should have
bought the darn Knight KP 1 even though I got a heck of a deal on my Disc Extreme MHC. I need to get a slug gun and looking at a Knight writeup found out they sell a 20 gauge rifled slug barrel.
03-21-2008, 08:17 AM
#3
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 6,471
RE: In Retrospect maybe I should have
OEH - I believe the 20 ga slug is sufficient for deer and you don't really need a 12 ga.
Yeah and that is the path I am heading down . I thought about this last night and am going to keep the disc extreme but buy a KP1 and2 barrels 270 and 20 gauge rifled shotgun barrel. Using QR rings I will use the same scope on the 2 barrels. Had I not bought the extreme I would have had 3 barrels. This KP 1 is a very nice gun .
03-21-2008, 09:14 AM
#4
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Green Bay wi
Posts: 454
RE: In Retrospect maybe I should have
I heard knight really did their home-work when they designed the kp1.For an interchangable barrel system it is supposed to much better than the encore. Did you get the wood stock or syntheyic?
03-21-2008, 04:32 PM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,092
RE: In Retrospect maybe I should have
oldelkhunter, I'm posting a few things that you might have missed.
http://www.sunrisearchery.com/KNIGHT_KP1.htm
The above pic is showing the dent that results with my KP1 when the trigger is pulled with de-cocking SAFETY ON. Had discussed the above with a few other owners of the KP1 and 7 of 8 themget the denting when "testing" the effectiveness of the de-cocking safety. I had also been in contact with Knight about this. The deformation of the fpj is unrelated to the denting problem, but it does show what happens when trying to close the KP1 action if that fpj is even slightly off in its positionon the "ejector". The ejector often fails to work as it hangs fully forward. Overall the FPJ system creates more problems than it could hope to cure.
Had a lengthy and friendly phone call a couple of days ago from Branch Meanley who is now at Knight Rifles Headquarters in Alabama. Branch Meanley is the founder of Green Mountain Barrels and quite an accomplished shooter as well http://www.gmriflebarrel.com/AboutUs .
The issue of the indented primers is one that Knight was apparently aware of -he stated they had done extensive testing of that safety and were never able to ignite a primer of any brand or configuration, nor ignite any of an extensive list of cartridges that were tried in centerfire/rimfire barrels.
Thatcould bereassuring but does not explain the safety's inclusion except to say that Knight felt such a safety offered a slight bit of additional margin for a user when de-cocking the rifle. There was not much disagreement that the hammer mounted safety was proving to be more a source of confusion than real benefit... so I would not be surprised to see it eliminated in the next variant of the rifle. He emphasized the safety was never intended to be used to accommodate dry-firing the rifle.
So far as the full plastic jacket, his opinion was basically the system still has merit and I disagreed. I suggested to him that actual owners of the rifle were finding no merit at all in its inclusion in the design. I don't think there was a strong argument offered up in favor of the plastic jacket for use in the KP1. Again, it would not surprise me to see a change there.
The take up on the KP1's trigger is there by design and will not and cannot be eliminated (not with that design). It was suggested the trigger offered better pull characteristics than did those from two named competitors. I suggested one of the named models was not even in the same league as the KP1 and, in the case of the other manufacturer's rifle, he might well be right as to the KP1 trigger being superior (on average) straight out of the box. It isn't hard to guess what model he mentioned and you won't be surprised to know I told him that particular model's trigger can be made about as perfect as a trigger can get. No argument there either.
The KP1 is still evolving and Mr. Meanley felt it had been released a bit sooner than perhaps it should have been.
So, the hammer's de-cocking safety may be going away, the trigger will remain pretty much as is, and there was some defense of the full plastic jacket system but it too may disappear from the KP1.
http://www.sunrisearchery.com/KNIGHT_KP1.htm
The above pic is showing the dent that results with my KP1 when the trigger is pulled with de-cocking SAFETY ON. Had discussed the above with a few other owners of the KP1 and 7 of 8 themget the denting when "testing" the effectiveness of the de-cocking safety. I had also been in contact with Knight about this. The deformation of the fpj is unrelated to the denting problem, but it does show what happens when trying to close the KP1 action if that fpj is even slightly off in its positionon the "ejector". The ejector often fails to work as it hangs fully forward. Overall the FPJ system creates more problems than it could hope to cure.
Had a lengthy and friendly phone call a couple of days ago from Branch Meanley who is now at Knight Rifles Headquarters in Alabama. Branch Meanley is the founder of Green Mountain Barrels and quite an accomplished shooter as well http://www.gmriflebarrel.com/AboutUs .
The issue of the indented primers is one that Knight was apparently aware of -he stated they had done extensive testing of that safety and were never able to ignite a primer of any brand or configuration, nor ignite any of an extensive list of cartridges that were tried in centerfire/rimfire barrels.
Thatcould bereassuring but does not explain the safety's inclusion except to say that Knight felt such a safety offered a slight bit of additional margin for a user when de-cocking the rifle. There was not much disagreement that the hammer mounted safety was proving to be more a source of confusion than real benefit... so I would not be surprised to see it eliminated in the next variant of the rifle. He emphasized the safety was never intended to be used to accommodate dry-firing the rifle.
So far as the full plastic jacket, his opinion was basically the system still has merit and I disagreed. I suggested to him that actual owners of the rifle were finding no merit at all in its inclusion in the design. I don't think there was a strong argument offered up in favor of the plastic jacket for use in the KP1. Again, it would not surprise me to see a change there.
The take up on the KP1's trigger is there by design and will not and cannot be eliminated (not with that design). It was suggested the trigger offered better pull characteristics than did those from two named competitors. I suggested one of the named models was not even in the same league as the KP1 and, in the case of the other manufacturer's rifle, he might well be right as to the KP1 trigger being superior (on average) straight out of the box. It isn't hard to guess what model he mentioned and you won't be surprised to know I told him that particular model's trigger can be made about as perfect as a trigger can get. No argument there either.
The KP1 is still evolving and Mr. Meanley felt it had been released a bit sooner than perhaps it should have been.
So, the hammer's de-cocking safety may be going away, the trigger will remain pretty much as is, and there was some defense of the full plastic jacket system but it too may disappear from the KP1.
