Originally Posted by Duckford

I'm going to disagree with this. Some of the best Bullseye loads you can make are lower end, and I remember an old NRA article on maximizing wadcutter performance stating the old 2.8 grain load was ideal under laboratory conditions, and anything more started to see erratic performance, and I've had good luck with reduced loads with faster burning powders. I would not say "most" powders are better at closer to maximum, only some.

Its the slower powders that usually offer the worst performance at reduction, H110 and 296 being the most obvious in handguns, but it wouldn't be too surprising to hear of problems in other powders like Power Pistol and Longshot. I remember reading in a flier from BPS on Longshot stating it was a good powder for max loads, but poor at anything less; indeed, my own 10 bore loads proved this true, with patterns going from beautiful at shoulder breaking super loads but deteriorating rapidly as I tried to tone them down. People who have tried Longshot extensively in handguns can offer their notes.

That being said, there are some who have had good luck with reduced magnum handgun powders like 2400 and Blue Dot at far less than maximum. Its not just burn rate, but rather the individual characteristics of each powder that make them unique in their own way, as well as powder base and temperature, ect.

tl;dr It would make sense that PP would probably do better at maximum, because that's what it is engineered for, interesting to see what other results people may offer.