>>692>If you're studying chem and trying to understand the strange way the chemists treat the subject(like voodoo most of the time); When you find a good reference please let me know.
My uni uses Atkins' Physical Chemistry (also a general physical chemistry book, not so deep in QM) and Fayer's Elements of Quantum Mechanics(hard to find online, tell me if you succeeded). I don't know if they are actually good enough. I heard the Atkins' is
Physics dept. gives more precise teaching. Chemists are generally cheap when it comes to anything physics-related, with double the amount of hand-waving and shortcuts. As you said, vague.
Honestly, one should just read Griffiths. There are also solution manual and errata available online.
Then if one is interested in how chemists use QM (in that voodoo-esque way), one could focus on books about spectroscopy, reaction mechanics(MO-theory) and computational chemistry, where the main actual uses are. These areas are somewhat essential if you want to understand modern chemistry research. Of course you also need other advanced mathematical soykaf like symmetry theory.
There are mainly two ways the chemist approach seems to be voodoo:
1) the chemist knows jacksoykaf about QM and therefore gives incoherent information. Often bad at maths and majors in something easy where one does not need QM.
2) Actually knows so much real quantum chemistry that even a physics student finds it hard to follow because you really don't go that deeply into chemical applications in physics books. This type is way more rare, majors probably in physical chemistry and is generally a wizard. Still secretly wishes to understand more physics.