Blucollar: I made a point of this years ago, and it caused me some concern. Was I going to blow up my rifle if I loaded below the recommend charge? Winchester published a number of warnings regarding the explosive effects of reduced charges of WW785. In fact the WW booklet gave only one recommend load for it in any give caliber. But Hornady provided a number of options on both sides of the WW recommendation. Admittedly I looked a little silly at the bench when I dropped below the recommend charge of ball powder. A small but tough rug was place on top of my rifle to contain the explosive blast, I was wearing leather gloves, and my shooting glasses were protected by goggles. About the only things I was lacking were my bullet resistant vest, a protective mouthpiece, and my motorcycle helmet.
Hornady is my favorite manual publisher, and I use a lot of Hornady bullets. I have not had a problem with their publish data. I have seen corrections published by a number of manual publishers over the years.
I believe that some manual publishers and powder manufactures approach the issue from different directions. The common thread between the publisher and the powder manufacture/distributor is the powder. In most cases the publisher is the manufacture of the bullets and in some cases the primers, and the cases. The publisher will provide the reloader more powder options from a number of manufactures. Winchester will use Winchester powder, cases, and primers. Sierra, Speer, and Hornady’s common thread may just be the powder. I believe Lyman is the most neutral, I do not believe they manufacture or label any components.
I cannot find fault with the powder manufacture or with the manual publisher.
I currently own 3 Lyman, 2 Speer, 2 Sierra, 3 Hornady, 2 Accurate, and one Hodgdon manual(s), along with a collection of WW, IMR, and Hodgdon publications. In addition I have the resources of manufacture Internet papes.