I agree there are some good starting points.
For example in .45 ACP a 185 gr XTP or HAP seated to 1.240 OAL on top of somewhere between 4.0 and 5.0 grains of bullseye will work well for bullseye shooting. The key here is finding the sweet spot for accuracy at 50 yards in your gun, and it’s usually in the 700-800 fps range.
However it will work just as well with 5.0 t0 5.6 grains of Win 231/HP38, and I’m some guns it’ll work, better.
Similarly, the 185 gr Sierra JHP is just as accurate as the Hornady bullets, just seat them a little deeper at 1.200”.
For practical pistol completion, I liked 200 gr LSWC bullets (usually the Saeco #068 or the similarly long nosed RCBS 45-201-SWC) with 5.0 grains of Red Dot. It gave me about 950 fps and a power factor of 190 - comfortably above the floor and with plenty of punch for poppers that might be set a bot stiff or hit a bit lower than optimum. It fed and functioned well in all my 1911s.
But then again 5 grains of Titegroup also works well.
For .38 Special and bullseye shooting, 3.5 grains of Bullseye under a 158 gr LSWC has long been a favorite. But it’s not sacrosanct. Your 50 yard groups might be better with say 3.6 grains, or anywhere in a range from about 3.1 to 4.0 grains.
——-
Finally, canister grade powders used by hand loaders are a lot more consistent than the bulk powders used by ammunition manufacturers. Faster burning canister grade pistol powders are even more consistent than slower burning pistol and rifle powders. But there is still some variation.
You’ll find load data for both H110 and HP38 in many manuals even though Hogdon has clearly stated they are the same powders packaged in different containers.
For example the Hornady .45 ACP 200 gr data in their 11th edition still shows a max load of 6.3 gr of Win 231 and a max load of 6.6 gr of HP38, both with the same max velocity of 900 fps.
That’s a 0.3 gr and 4.5% difference in max charge weight for the same powder listed in the same table in the same reloading manual. In other words that’s a 4.5% variation due to differences between lots of powder.
The take away there needs to be that when you see a “magic” load like “3.5 grains of Bullseye and a 158 gr LSWC” you need to take it with a big grain of salt and recognize the charge weight is just a nominal charge weight, not an exact weight. Yet I see people take that nominal weight as an exact weight all the time.
It gets even worse when you see handloaders start talking about replicating military loads.
For example someone might breakdown an M72 .30-06 and claim it has 47.5 grains of IMR 4895. Someone else might point out that the U.S. Army technical manual of cartridge data TM 43-0001-27 lists it as 50 grains of IMR 4895 with an uncrimped 173-grain bullet and uncrimped primer.
Neither is actually correct. The TM data os just a nominal weight and the pulled round’s charge weight is just what it took to meet the specifications with that lot of IMR 4895.
What mattered to the army is that it met the required average velocity of 2640 fps, a maximum average chamber pressure of 50,000 psi, and the required accuracy.
That 50 gr nominal charge in the TM was almost never encountered as most lots of IMR 4895 met the specifications with a charge around 48 grains.
Then when you add in a bullet substitution with the 175 gr SMK (a much more consistent bullet than the later 173 gr bullets made on very tired Lake City tooling) you’ll find you might need around 46.o to 46.5 grains of IMR 4895 to achieve the same velocity.
Yet I am sure there are morons out there bending M1 Garand op rods every year with someone’s quoted load of 48-50 grains of IMR 4895 under a 175 gr SMK or 173 gr surplus bullet.
