flounder33

I know Randy is pretty controversial but I thought this interview with Tony Knight was a good read

http://www.chuckhawks.com/tony_knight_2009.htm

Art

Grouse45

I actually question this article. Randy heavily promotes Savage's and Smokeless muzzleloading. Was there a reason Tony was not asked what he thought about smokeless powders in a ML? Or did he not want us to hear the answer?

Tony Knight claims the 1/28 twist was most accurate in testing from 1/20 twist to 1/32????? I question that as well. 1/24 twist is way better then 1/28 from a short XTP to a very long Lehigh bullet.

Though i do agree bolt actions are better, break opens are every bit as accurate as bolts actions. They wont leave the range around here.

Soft CVA barrels and poor cva quality????? I would bet my paycheck T/C has more guns sent back then CVA. My opinion only.

I'm a huge Knight fan and totally respect and understand what Tony has done for Muzzleloading. If he actually made some of those comments i'm really shocked.

spaniel

The stuff about soft CVA barrels etc was NOT Tony, it was Randy. He set up the question the way he wanted it and prefaced Tony's response as if what he had inserted there was fact. If you read Tony's response, it was in generalities and not really affirming exactly what Randy said -- only that if you don't have good quality control you'll get inferior product, which is pretty obvious I think.

Related to action design, I agree with him. When was the last time you saw any break action -- ML, centerfire, rimfire -- setting any accuracy records or winning contests? You don't, they aren't used. Action stiffness is directly related to accuracy. Now we say "bolt" due to centerfires, but the drop actions are good for the same reason. I can easily reference my experiences accurizing my Omega, as I posted here, and oppose it to my buddy's experiences ATTEMPTING to accurize his Encore. While the Triumph is a superior break action design to the Encore by all accounts, if you were to do objective testing the solid action designs would win.

Does this matter to the average hunter? Does it mean that you're necessarily going to tell a difference between a break action and solid action between every two guns? No, there are some excellent break actions out there. But if you shoot them enough, and far enough, by someone skilled enough, you'd see a significant difference. Competitive shooters and gunsmiths who work on target rifles understand the concepts well. I once read a discussion but a highly regarded, nationally-recognized gunsmith going in detail about why you don't see Ruger #1s used in long range hunting or shooting. It was basically a more polished and professional version of what I've tried to say above.

Regarding twist, there isn't a ton of difference between a 1:24 and 1:28. The barrel manufacturer and how the rifling is cut makes a difference as well! I know people that bought 1:20s and they COULD be accurate, but were not very forgiving. I have a 1:48 and it has significant limitations with saboted bullets. I would agree that with most commonly used bullets 1:28 is probably the sweet spot. With some of the newer, longer bullets I think if we revisited this question we may settle on something a little faster, like 1:24, but remember when Tony did this testing all that was out there was pistol bullets. With the newer longer bullets, I think there'd be more of a reason for faster twists today though I remain suspicious that our sabots may not like some of the faster twists at high velocity and we'd need to reformulate them harder.

I think the key to his comment was they looked at the twist's "forgiveness" and flexibility. What this really means is it may have not been the best at anything, but it was good with nearly everything. Well with longer heavier bullets we need a twist with different properties, one that may shoot these bullets well but perhaps it will suffer with the shorter bullets but that's not what we're asking it to do...

Grouse45

Spaniel, what do you think about smokeless not being mentioned? Just curious

flounder33

Well I'm kind of sorry I brought it up now.
Accusing someone of fabricating an interview, now that is a pretty serious charge in my opinion. I wouldn't make it unless I had solid proof.
I don't know why anyone interviewing Tony Knight would bring up smokeless muzzleloaders since he was never involved with them.
Any rifle twist you use is going to be a compromise twist because of the choice of projectiles availiable.
Art

spaniel

I think it's not a natural question for Tony, he's never been directly involved in that to my knowledge.

I think Randy's a self absorbed jerk who thinks WAY too much of himself, with poor self-awareness of it, which is why he has to keep a pretty low profile from what he did in the past -- noone can stand him and you are more at risk than benefit from affiliating him with your products. It was pretty clear he was trying to twist the interview to his agenda at one point, with the whole CVA thing. Perhaps he avoided the smokeless issue because he did not feel he could ask the question in a way that Tony would respond to his (Randy's) benefit?

Interviews, here and in the general media, are rarely unbiased. They are always twisted and directed by the questions asked and they way in which they are asked (see the CVA/soft barrel exchange).