Irv--I don't want to start any sort of contest.
<br>
<br>I agree that there's a lot of bad science in gun writing. One of my specialties is testing accepted "facts," such as the myth of 30mm scope tubes providing a brighter image. I am also not exactly ignorant of basic chemistry, since I majored in biology at the U. of Montana.
<br>
<br>My points about powder consumption in the HANDLOADER piece were two: faster-burning powders don't provide higher velocities in shorter barrels, and muzzle flash isn't caused by unburned kernels of powder.
<br>
<br>I checked the article and the "quote" you cited earlier in this thread doesn't appear anywhere in the text. What appeared in the magazine is this: "So what's that big muzzle flash produced when we touch of a .300 Weatherby in the gloaming? No, Viginia, it isn't unburned H4831. Instead, it's hot powder gas lighting up the oxygen in the atmosphere. Add oxygen to any flame, and it burns hotter." I could have been a little more technical, and said, "it's hot powder gas lighting up when IT MEETS the oxygen in the atmosphere." How's that?
<br>
<br>As I remember your letter to Scovill, you also contested the statement that the powder burns up about the time the pressure curve drops, in the first few inches of the barrel. Research (including Powley's) has proven this true. In fact, some handgun loads burn up their powder in the first half-inch. That's why Scovill stated that there are no unburned powder gasses in the muzzle blast. The gas is merely expanding, not burning. It's hot, yes, and it re-ignites when meeting the atmosphere--but the original burn occured way back down the barrel.
<br>
<br>Am perfectly happy to have my writings criticized, but much prefer the critic to have their facts (and quotes) straight.
<br>
<br>"Mule Deer"
<br>
