Knight Muzzleloaders Out of Business
11-12-2009, 05:04 AM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,470
That's bad news if it is true. Knight innovated the inline muzzleloader and made the first real market in them. As for why they would be out of business, your suggestion might be on the money. I say that because I've yet to read commentary about anyone being dissatisfied with their Knight ML.
You are going to likely see more law suits in the future which are going to effect the prices we as sportsmen pay for our muzzleloading weapons and supplies. Particularly because we are now using BH209. If you guys thought the effects of 3 pellets was horrific, just wait until you see what a powder with more than twice the potential yield can do at 120 grains loose when a fool short starts, double loads, or leaves his ramrod in the bore. Of course this idiot is entitled to a free-living at our expense. Right?
The chickens are coming home to roost. Some members of this forum (particularly one who is no longer around and who I have been told was sponsored by TC -- though I know of no way to confirm it) and many others like it encouraged this lawsuit activity. Interesting enough, I notice one vocal critic of CVA now owns one and its (wonder of all wonders) his favorite rifle now.
In any event, the pandoras box of fools suing our suppliers has been opened. It's a downright shame if it put Knight out of business. I hope you are wrong about that.
You are going to likely see more law suits in the future which are going to effect the prices we as sportsmen pay for our muzzleloading weapons and supplies. Particularly because we are now using BH209. If you guys thought the effects of 3 pellets was horrific, just wait until you see what a powder with more than twice the potential yield can do at 120 grains loose when a fool short starts, double loads, or leaves his ramrod in the bore. Of course this idiot is entitled to a free-living at our expense. Right?
The chickens are coming home to roost. Some members of this forum (particularly one who is no longer around and who I have been told was sponsored by TC -- though I know of no way to confirm it) and many others like it encouraged this lawsuit activity. Interesting enough, I notice one vocal critic of CVA now owns one and its (wonder of all wonders) his favorite rifle now.
In any event, the pandoras box of fools suing our suppliers has been opened. It's a downright shame if it put Knight out of business. I hope you are wrong about that.
Last edited by Pglasgow; 11-12-2009 at 05:13 AM.
11-12-2009, 05:33 AM
#3
Spike
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 64
The news about Knight going out of business is somewhat old. It was happened late Spring or early Summer. They still do warranty work and sell accessories. It is unclear whether they may resume production of muzzleloader in the future.
I doubt that lawsuits had anything to do with their closing down or suspending production. (If lawsuits were the reason, you would have expected Knight to file for Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.). The rumors of lawsuits are associated with another inline manufacturer. I don't know if those rumors about that other manufacturer are true or not.
My sense is the Knight ran into trouble because of weak marketing and distribution. Plus, at Knight's price level, people preferred break action over the bolt. Combine these problems with a weak economy, and Knight probably figured that production of further muzzleloaders would lead to non-sales and losses.
That's my surmise of Knight's situation. I hope that they come back, because I think their muzzleloaders are very good quality.
I doubt that lawsuits had anything to do with their closing down or suspending production. (If lawsuits were the reason, you would have expected Knight to file for Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.). The rumors of lawsuits are associated with another inline manufacturer. I don't know if those rumors about that other manufacturer are true or not.
My sense is the Knight ran into trouble because of weak marketing and distribution. Plus, at Knight's price level, people preferred break action over the bolt. Combine these problems with a weak economy, and Knight probably figured that production of further muzzleloaders would lead to non-sales and losses.
That's my surmise of Knight's situation. I hope that they come back, because I think their muzzleloaders are very good quality.
11-12-2009, 12:49 PM
#4
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,703
Pglasgow
Think you might have the wrong idea about BH-209. It really is no stronger than T7-3f and only a bit stronger than T7-2f.
The thing that makes BH work better than T7 in the power department is that it is a progressive buring powder. Since T7 and BH are both considered smokeless powders thay are the same in that aspect, the difference comes in the fact that T7 burns as rapidly as BP, while BH burns at a rate somewhat detirmend by the weight of the projectile that it is driving. When shooting BH with lighter projectiles it actually con not develope the velocities that equal amounts of T7 does.
In effect BH creates more TOTAL pressure than does equivelant loads of T7 but because BH is progressive it never produces the same amount of pressure at a given time in you bore. I think Lee has measured it at 15% less at any given moment.
People are probably getting tired of seeing this comparison chart but it will give you some idea of what I think I am trying to say...
cantremembermyid
From everything I understand you summary is on point...
Particularly because we are now using BH209. If you guys thought the effects of 3 pellets was horrific, just wait until you see what a powder with more than twice the potential yield can do at 120 grains loose when a fool short starts, double loads, or leaves his ramrod in the bore.
The thing that makes BH work better than T7 in the power department is that it is a progressive buring powder. Since T7 and BH are both considered smokeless powders thay are the same in that aspect, the difference comes in the fact that T7 burns as rapidly as BP, while BH burns at a rate somewhat detirmend by the weight of the projectile that it is driving. When shooting BH with lighter projectiles it actually con not develope the velocities that equal amounts of T7 does.
In effect BH creates more TOTAL pressure than does equivelant loads of T7 but because BH is progressive it never produces the same amount of pressure at a given time in you bore. I think Lee has measured it at 15% less at any given moment.
People are probably getting tired of seeing this comparison chart but it will give you some idea of what I think I am trying to say...
cantremembermyid
From everything I understand you summary is on point...
11-12-2009, 03:20 PM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,470
Mike,
I don't think you understand what I mean. As far as a 200 grain bullet, I agree that the muzzle yields are roughly equivalent but a 200 grain bullet is very inefficient at wringing out BH209's energy content.
BH209 seems to be a kind of hybrid powder. In any event, it is not weaker than T7. I'll walk you through it.
Let's use a heavier bullet and data provided by Hodgdon and Western powder for the 45-70 government with a 405 grain bullet. I'm using this caliber and this bullet strictly because both companies provide data for it.
Using a coversion rate of .71 grains weight per grain volume, it takes 53.52 grains Volume (38 grains weight) of BH209 to yield a MV of 1381 fps and a muzzle energy of 1728 ft. lbs. That is 32.28 ft. lbs per grain volume.
Hodgdon provides their data on volumetric measure. 60 grains volume of t7 yields a MV of 1260 fps and a muzzle energy of 1428 ft. lbs. That is 23.8 ft lbs per grain volume.
And so with the 405 grain bullet BH209 is roughly 36% more energetic than T7. Contrast that with BH209 being roughly equivalent with the 200 grain bullet in your table above. What one will find is that as the bullet weight increases the greater the ratios of energy per grain volume. This ratio would then taper to maximum and that maximum would be equivalent to using a bullet which is so heavy that the barrel is obstructed. This ratio is limited because there is a limit to physical quantity of energy in a grain volume of either powder. So what do we know?
We know that BH209 energy on a grain volume basis exceeds that of t7 by at least 36% but we don't actually know its limit. I think it to be at least 50% more energetic than T7 in an obstructed barrel which is where the safety part comes in. When a bullet moves as it is supposed to then BH209 will operate at lower pressures than the quantity of T7 it takes to get the same muzzle energy. But when a barrel is obstructed, BH209's higher energy will result in pressures greater than an equal grain volume of t7.
I don't think you understand what I mean. As far as a 200 grain bullet, I agree that the muzzle yields are roughly equivalent but a 200 grain bullet is very inefficient at wringing out BH209's energy content.
BH209 seems to be a kind of hybrid powder. In any event, it is not weaker than T7. I'll walk you through it.
Let's use a heavier bullet and data provided by Hodgdon and Western powder for the 45-70 government with a 405 grain bullet. I'm using this caliber and this bullet strictly because both companies provide data for it.
Using a coversion rate of .71 grains weight per grain volume, it takes 53.52 grains Volume (38 grains weight) of BH209 to yield a MV of 1381 fps and a muzzle energy of 1728 ft. lbs. That is 32.28 ft. lbs per grain volume.
Hodgdon provides their data on volumetric measure. 60 grains volume of t7 yields a MV of 1260 fps and a muzzle energy of 1428 ft. lbs. That is 23.8 ft lbs per grain volume.
And so with the 405 grain bullet BH209 is roughly 36% more energetic than T7. Contrast that with BH209 being roughly equivalent with the 200 grain bullet in your table above. What one will find is that as the bullet weight increases the greater the ratios of energy per grain volume. This ratio would then taper to maximum and that maximum would be equivalent to using a bullet which is so heavy that the barrel is obstructed. This ratio is limited because there is a limit to physical quantity of energy in a grain volume of either powder. So what do we know?
We know that BH209 energy on a grain volume basis exceeds that of t7 by at least 36% but we don't actually know its limit. I think it to be at least 50% more energetic than T7 in an obstructed barrel which is where the safety part comes in. When a bullet moves as it is supposed to then BH209 will operate at lower pressures than the quantity of T7 it takes to get the same muzzle energy. But when a barrel is obstructed, BH209's higher energy will result in pressures greater than an equal grain volume of t7.
11-12-2009, 03:33 PM
#6
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,703
Pglasgow
I think I mostly agree with what you are indicating. I certainly was not thinking in the terms of an obstructed barrel.
But in simple terms if you put a like amount of T7 and BH in a sealed container and lit it off the BH is certainly going to produce a bigger 'boom' thand does the T7. But, in operating theater of the a normal gun BH is not that big of greater producer of velocity than that of T7. That has been shown by several different tests.
The convinience of BH is by far the biggest factor in it's success.
[QUOTEWe know that BH209 energy on a grain volume basis exceeds that of t7 by at least 36% but we don't actually know its limit. I think it to be at least 50% more energetic than T7 in an obstructed barrel which is where the safety part comes in. When a bullet moves as it is supposed to then BH209 will operate at lower pressures than the quantity of T7 it takes to get the same muzzle energy. But when a barrel is obstructed, BH209's higher energy will result in pressures greater than an equal grain volume of t7. ][/quote]
I honestly do not know about your percentages, but I do agree with the statement.
The heaviest bullet I have shot with both BH and T7 is a .458/300 grain Nosler, Lehigh, and XTP. In those tests across a chrono the differences in BH and T7 begin to show. Moving to a 400 grain bullet would widen that gap significantly.
This is an in-complete chart showing the comparison with the 45-70/300 grain bullet. Now in real life if one of these projectiles were to reach an obstructed bore either the T7 or the BH is going to create a horrible situation.
I think I mostly agree with what you are indicating. I certainly was not thinking in the terms of an obstructed barrel.
But in simple terms if you put a like amount of T7 and BH in a sealed container and lit it off the BH is certainly going to produce a bigger 'boom' thand does the T7. But, in operating theater of the a normal gun BH is not that big of greater producer of velocity than that of T7. That has been shown by several different tests.
The convinience of BH is by far the biggest factor in it's success.
[QUOTEWe know that BH209 energy on a grain volume basis exceeds that of t7 by at least 36% but we don't actually know its limit. I think it to be at least 50% more energetic than T7 in an obstructed barrel which is where the safety part comes in. When a bullet moves as it is supposed to then BH209 will operate at lower pressures than the quantity of T7 it takes to get the same muzzle energy. But when a barrel is obstructed, BH209's higher energy will result in pressures greater than an equal grain volume of t7. ][/quote]
I honestly do not know about your percentages, but I do agree with the statement.
The heaviest bullet I have shot with both BH and T7 is a .458/300 grain Nosler, Lehigh, and XTP. In those tests across a chrono the differences in BH and T7 begin to show. Moving to a 400 grain bullet would widen that gap significantly.
This is an in-complete chart showing the comparison with the 45-70/300 grain bullet. Now in real life if one of these projectiles were to reach an obstructed bore either the T7 or the BH is going to create a horrible situation.
Last edited by sabotloader; 11-12-2009 at 03:39 PM.
11-12-2009, 05:08 PM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,470
Mike it great you have worked out those tables. The 300 confirms what we were discussing. As to the percentages, the 36% increase in muzzle yield is definitely something I have confidence in because that is data from the powder manufactures. But as for the limit of the ratios, I don't know. What I do know is that BH 209 has more than 36% more energy in it on a grain volume basis. In a confined volume, the pressure of given grain volume of powder is dependent on (and proportional to) the energy content of the powder. In that sense, one must consider that BH209 has the potential of a minimum of 36% higher pressures for confined volume.