Joe, you must have missed a bunch of articles I've seen in HANDLOADER, including the one I did on the .300 WSM before there was any published data available. I developed the data using my chronograph, figuring how much less case capacity the .300 WSM had than the regular .300 Winchester.
I loaded accordingly with a number of powders and bullets from 150-200 grains, even though "everybody" told me the case didn't have enough capacity to shoot 200's. It turned out everybody was wrong, that the .300 WSM does fine with 200-grain bullets. I also recommended several loads in particular--and when pressure-tested data came out, I was was within a grain in each powder/bullet combination.
One reason few magazines publish "author-developed" handloading data anymore is that too much of it is way over the top. Partly precision-made rifles are too blame. The modern "blueprinted" action and super-smooth chamber simply doesn't balk at higher pressures the way a 98 Mauser did. When Remington decided to legitimize the 7mm STW, they found some of Layne Simpson's handloads were well over 70,000 psi. Layne had never experienced a sticky bolt lift, much less a blown primer. Why? His rifles were all super-precise custom jobs.
Even measuring case heads has come into disprepute. I did a big test on this last year in HANDLOADER that you may have missed too, and concluded the method simply isn't reliable. The only reliable way to determine pressures accurately in today's litigious society is to use some sort of electronic equipment, but even then you're limited if you don't belong to SAAMI and hence can't obtain reference ammo.
The other reason you may be seeing fewer articles with a bunch of author-generated handloads is that the manuals provide much the same information. They didn't in the old days, and I know because I'm getting to be one of those old-timers. I started handloading in the mid-60's when there were only about 4-5 manuals around, and none of them used pressure barrels.
These days we have manuals full of pressure-tested data, and they often also suggest the best powder for certain bullets. This is from thousands of rounds shot from several barrels, not just a few hundred from one barrel on a rifle that may or may not be bedded properly.
As for recommending various bullets for game, you must have missed several dozen articles on the very subject in HANDLOADER and RIFLE over the past few years, from me, Ross Seyfried, Dave Scovill, Brian Pearce and others. In the past year alone I've reviewed several new bonded-core bullets, along with other more conventional bullets from various manufacturers.
Again speaking as a relative old-timer, one thing I do applaud in some of the new magazines is the plain reporting of results. Many old-time writers used to list a load with its velocity, then note "good load." What he hell does that mean? That it didn't blow the rifle up? I much prefer to see how the load shot, as in the average spread of three 5-shot groups.
Good hunting,
JB
