Zinc and sulfur was talked about a lot in Amateur Rocketry back in the 50's and 60's. I tried it in the 60's when I was in high school. Back then powdered zinc was cheap and so was sulfur. I believe powdered zinc or zinc dust now is very expensive. The powered zinc I had was so fine that it looked like gray flour. The stuff was cheap but the performance was poor. My own experience is that the grains were of very poor structural quality. There was a book by the name Amateur Rocketry Handbook by Brinley that goes into a lot of detail. There were two basic ways of putting the propellant in a tube. One way was putting the mixture in a tube and pressing it or tapping the sides of the tube to make the mixture settle compactly (called tamping). The other method was "cold casting" using acetone or ethyl alcohol. Hence, Homer Hickam investigated using alcohol from a moonshiner. In cold casting the slurry mixture was put into a tube and the alcohol or acetone evaporated making a grain. Burn-rates as high as 90 inches per second were reported for tamping, while burn-rates for cold casting were reported much lower at about 0.5 inches per second. In my experience the cold casted grains were very weak and would easily crumble back into powder again. (Density with cold casting was reported to be better than tamping. Tamped grains were end burners. Cold casted grains were generally tubular grains.) Brinely's book reports a specific impulse as I recall of around 40 seconds, which is very poor. Thermochemical computer runs may indicate a higher performance, but a performance "hit" must be taken because zinc sulfide condenses to solid particles in the nozzle preventing any further performance from gas expansion. Tripoli does not allow zinc & sulfur (or micro-grain) as an experimental propellant. I believe that there is some research society in California that still allows zinc and sulfur rockets.