I see two distinct issues here - first and foremost a confusion - often seen in hydraulic systems between line pressure and ram pressure where the ram has a significant area - that tends to assume all cartridges at the same pressure are equivalent in impact on the firearm.
Not so.
My carry gun frex is a 1911 in 9x23 and works very well thank you. Were I to load a .45 Auto case to the same peak pressure or even the same area under the curve or even the same pressure curve I would be well over the line - I do have a .460 Rowland which requires IMHO major changes and still does not permit the same peak pressure as the 9x23 permits with fewer changes (my 9x23 was smithed by a competent smith who has a certain rep for 9x23 pistols - and who stopped reaming long chambers in S&W 940 revolvers - I do not suggest Superface is never an issue in a 1911 platform)
Similarly in a rifle action - just as in the 1911 - a smaller case head can be run at higher pressures than a larger case head at least most of the time. Here there may or may not be other issues such as the much longer case gripping the chamber walls or maybe not, bottleneck versus straight wall and all the other things that might be tested for. Consider low wall and high wall and pressure for a thought experiment.
In any event it's not just a matter of equating peak pressures, be they lead, cup or psi, and calling it good.
Second issue the difference between the '92, '94 and 336.
I have no useful comments there beyond noting that a lot of different rifles have worn those labels at different times from Miroku reproductions of the '92 to the whole family of the 336 including .444 and .450 Hornady and the whole West family of cartridges and on and on. If I had doubts about the 336 family I'd look at the guns out of Alaska and figure the gun is strong for all practical and some impractical purposes.
