It is certainly an overly simplistic and narrow-minded approach to make all assertions of the temp-stability of various smokeless powders based solely on the basic chemical composition of a particular powder (the standard nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin bases), without also considering powder geometry, bore-to-powder volume ratio, pressure curve characteristics, bullet weight, etc.
Jordan if I'm not mistaken, his assertions weren't based solely on chemistry, there was that extensive testing he did using a single bullet in a single chambering.
My issue with LB is his over reaching, didactic, authoritarian statements and claims that are outliers from accepted norms.
That RL-26 is the most temp sensitive power doesn’t square with conventional knowledge. Now temp sensitivity, from what I understand, can vary a great deal depending on application. I agree that the Extreme series is very temp stable, no doubt better than RL-26, but there are more temp sensitive powders, IMO.
Then there was LB’s historical treatise on early smokeless powders, regurgitated thought for thought from the internet link I posted with no credit given. So, how much of his other stuff is of similar origin. We’ve seen that kinda behavior here before.
So, based on style and content, I’m not convinced until shown otherwise. Mark me as skeptical.
DF
