Lee load data for 9mm

[RegCom7]

I've cast some of the Lee 9mm 125 gr lead round-nose tumble lube bullets. I looked in my Lee 2nd Edition reloading manual and see that for Bullseye powder it gives the starting load of 4.7 gr, and the max load of 4.9 gr. But my Lyman 48th Edition reloading manual says that for a 125 gr lead bullet the starting load of Bullseye is 3.3 gr and the max is 3.9. Why is there such a big discrepancy? If I follow the Lee manual would that be dangerous?

[Boolseye]

3.5 gr. Is generally considered a nice load for that boolit. 4-4.2 is about as high as I’ll go. Sure you can crank it with 4.5 or 4.7, but make certain the boolit has good fit and is flying right with lower charges first. Lee 9mm TL boolits are notorious for leading.
Different load manuals can vary widely, it’s always wise to go into higher loads with caution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Larry Gibson]

4.0 gr Bullseye is my standard load with 115 to 125 gr cast in the 9m9mm

[RegCom7]

Thanks, I'll stay away from the high end then. I wonder why the Lee manual suggests such a heavy load.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Why is there such a big discrepancy?
Pressure.
You don't mention Pressure listed in the manual? I assume there is something listed, at least for MAX loads.


my Lee 2nd Edition reloading manual and see that for Bullseye powder it gives the starting load of 4.7 gr, and the max load of 4.9 gr.
that sounds like j-word data.


Also, Do you know the difference between Lee manual and Lyman's?
Lyman has generated their own Data using their own tests.
Lee has compiled their manual data from very many sources...they rarely list a specific bullet, that matters...as well as they rarely mention what gun was used for testing,
So, a grain of salt should be taken when comparing the two.

[RegCom7]

In the Lee manual the pressure listed is 32,100 psi, and it is for 125gr lead bullets, with 4.9 gr of Bullseye, 1.150 O.A.L.
Lyman has 31,400 psi for 3.9 gr of Bullseye, O.A.L. 1.115

[JBinMN]

Look at those OALs and you can see that the Lyman manuals boolit is seated deeper into the case at 1.115" than the Lee manuals one is at 1.15, even though they are the same boolit, so the Lyman seating depth making the volume inside the case smaller because the boolit is deeper into the case, would be how they would likely be getting the pressure they show with less of a charge, than the Lee charge with that boolit being seated out farther.

If you have a chronograph, you could try both OALs & both charges as listed in the manuals and compare the velocity numbers, as long as you use the same length bbl, as they did to test their loads. ( You can possibly "extrapolate" the velocity numbers if you are using a different bbl. length than they do. I am not going to take the time now to explain how to do that though.)

I would suggest that you do what most manuals suggest & that is start low & work up, even if you do not have a chrony & look for pressure signs. You would likely be safe to try both OALs at the START charge. Just don't get them confused, with their corresponding power charges because "then" you would likely have issues to deal with you likely will not want to have..
;)

G'Luck!
:)

[Conditor22]

BE 3.8 was the sweet spot for me

[lotech]

Lee data is for reference only and it comes from lots of sources. Verify and compare such data with sources that "shoot" their published data.

[RED BEAR]

Alliant list 4.4 gr of bulls eye as max with a 124 gr jacketed bullet. Alliant is usually on the stiff side. So take that for what its worth. I often wonder why there is so much difference in load data.

[mdi]

I found some "differing" loads in the Lee manual I got many years ago, more than the "normal" manual to manual variation. I know the Lee data is just a compilation of other published testing, but I wan't comfortable with the published data in the Lee manual. I still have it, but I haven't opened it in a few years. I have found choosing a manual closer to the components I am using (a jacketed bullet manual from the manufacturer of the bullets I use or a Lyman manual for cast bullet data) to be closer to what I need, and for new reloaders many fewer problems/questions. The Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook is probably the most popular reloading manual for lead bullet data....

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS776US776&ei=sHr6XKDuFpOr0PEPheyuqA4&q=why+data+varies+from+reloading+manual+to+manual&oq=why+data+varies+from+reloading+manual+to+manual&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299l3.2996.21208..21964...0.0..3.235.7376 .5j54j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i71j0i67j0j0i131i67j0i131j0i3j0i22i30j 0i22i10i30j33i22i29i30j33i160.NwmXNedMBsk

[gwpercle]

Alliant list 4.4 gr of bulls eye as max with a 124 gr jacketed bullet. Alliant is usually on the stiff side. So take that for what its worth. I often wonder why there is so much difference in load data.

Don't substitute jacketed bullet data for lead boolit data it's not the same .

Lyman Cast Bullet Manual #3
124 grain RCBS# 9mm-124-CN - Bullseye powder
start - 3.7 grs. @ 1036 fps
max. - 4.1 grs. @1136 fps

RCBS Cast Bullet Manual #1
124 grain RCBS #9mm-124-CN
start - 3.5 grs. @ 852 fps
max. - 4.0 @ 987

RCBS #9mm-124-RN
start - 3.8 @ 1040 fps
max. - 4.2 @ 1067 fps

Where do you start ? None of the data jives.... I look at 3 or 4 difference published sources and take the average start and max loads. Start 3.7 + 3.5 + 3.8 = 11 /3 = 3.6
Max. 4.1 + 4.0 + 4.2 = 12.3 / 3 = 4.1
I've learned over the years that starting at the max or min load usually does not get me a reliable mid range load ....
So.....I take 3.6 + 4.1 = 7.7 / 2 = 3.85 and start my loads at 3.7 , 3.8 , 3.9 and 4.0 grains of Bullseye and see how the gun shoots.

Low and behold shooting proved that 4.0 grains of bullseye with a 124 or 125 grain cast boolit was the favorite .
Functioning was 100 % and accuracy was excellent.

Why the manuals don't agree ? Just way too many variables to take into consideration....if the data was exact...what fun would that be !
Gary

[T_McD]

Lee data is for reference only and it comes from lots of sources. Verify and compare such data with sources that "shoot" their published data.

Lee got it from powder manufacturers, its good data.

[T_McD]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?382815-Comprehensive-Load-Data-Manual

check out this thread if you feel like data overload!

Comparing loads with different OALs is unwise/pointless. I have found decent variation from sources when the exact bullet and OAL is used. Measuring equipment, test barrel used, powder lot, etc. can still add up to significant variation. It is why developing a load in your gun is mandatory.

[curioushooter]

Lee's "data" is all over the place with 9mm, 38, and especially 357. The book is useful as a place to start. This is because the barrel length, age, and pressure testing methods in the Lee data vary. I default to what the CURRENT powder manufactures' data says...even then be aware that Hodgdon puts out old data and actual velocities are pretty much advertising data.

[RED BEAR]

Yes i know they aren't the same but i was just using this to say these loads of 4.7 to 4.9 were quite high .alliant is usually the hottest loads for there powders. But the jacketed bullets usually produce the highest pressure. To be absolutely truth full i load by powder and weight not which bullet. i load almost all my ammo to the longest ocl that will work in my guns so i don't worry to much about bullet depth. I am certainly not recommending others do what i do its just this works for me.

[trapper9260]

I have the Lee manual.also the Lyman I go by the Lyman .I seen Lee have too high for there data also and that is why I stay with Lyman .

[curioushooter]

Vitavouri has BY FAR the hottest loads for their powders. It is often the max load out of the Hornady manual is lower than the starting load with Vitavouri data.

I have never found Alliant or Western to be out of ordinary.

[megasupermagnum]

Alliant data is garbage. They sell some of my favorite powders, but their data isn't even worth the effort to click on it.

The new Hornady manual is worthless too. Their "max" loads are 75% of max, they are often listed below the starting load of every other manual.

One thing I really like about the Lee manual, is their velocities often come close to real world results. Lyman data is good, but it seems they almost always use an 8" or 10" barrel for handgun data. I've gotten this same comment from people asking the same thing, is this so and so load in Lee book safe, it's off from other data? Usually the devil is in the details, OAL, primer, or other difference. Short answer is yes, it is safe.

[T_McD]

If it’s a well known manufacturer’s data then go for it. There is a reason you are supposed to work up a load.

[sparkyv]

Don't substitute jacketed bullet data for lead boolit data it's not the same .

Lyman Cast Bullet Manual #3
124 grain RCBS# 9mm-124-CN - Bullseye powder
start - 3.7 grs. @ 1036 fps
max. - 4.1 grs. @1136 fps

RCBS Cast Bullet Manual #1
124 grain RCBS #9mm-124-CN
start - 3.5 grs. @ 852 fps
max. - 4.0 @ 987

RCBS #9mm-124-RN
start - 3.8 @ 1040 fps
max. - 4.2 @ 1067 fps

Where do you start ? None of the data jives.... I look at 3 or 4 difference published sources and take the average start and max loads. Start 3.7 + 3.5 + 3.8 = 11 /3 = 3.6
Max. 4.1 + 4.0 + 4.2 = 12.3 / 3 = 4.1
I've learned over the years that starting at the max or min load usually does not get me a reliable mid range load ....
So.....I take 3.6 + 4.1 = 7.7 / 2 = 3.85 and start my loads at 3.7 , 3.8 , 3.9 and 4.0 grains of Bullseye and see how the gun shoots.

Low and behold shooting proved that 4.0 grains of bullseye with a 124 or 125 grain cast boolit was the favorite .
Functioning was 100 % and accuracy was excellent.

Why the manuals don't agree ? Just way too many variables to take into consideration....if the data was exact...what fun would that be !
Gary


This is pretty much how I start with a new load, Gary. The approach is sound as it uses as many sources as is reasonable or possible, and statistics are then applied to the data. This helps to identify outlying data which can be excluded with good reason. Publishing errors aside, this approach keeps me from favoring or discounting one data source over another based upon how I "feel" or "think" about it or what someone else says about it. Use as much data as possible, run the stats, start at the reasonably low end, extrapolate if necessary, work your way up checking for pressure signs, and you will do well. But this approach has been handed down to us from many, many more wise and experienced reloaders than I on this forum and elsewhere.

[GONRA]

GONRA suggests - no matter WHAT yer data - START OFF with Powder Manufactures's Data - to be safe...

[fredj338]

All test platforms are diff, not all bullets are the same. There will always be such discrepancies.

[curioushooter]

One thing I really like about the Lee manual, is their velocities often come close to real world results. Lyman data is good, but it seems they almost always use an 8" or 10" barrel for handgun data. I've gotten this same comment from people asking the same thing, is this so and so load in Lee book safe, it's off from other data? Usually the devil is in the details, OAL, primer, or other difference. Short answer is yes, it is safe.

Are you reading the same stuff I am. Lee's data is from another planet with 357 mag and all over the place. None of it is accurate in terms of velocity, it's not useful for load comparison because some of the data (from Alliant, Western) is maxed at 35k PSI and some is OLD DATA that is 40K CUP! It doesn't tell you barrel length, primer, or other relevant info, so tall that PSI stuff written in there is basically USELESS.

Lyman is by far the most realistic. Lyman uses 4" or other reasonable barrel lenths and lo and behold their velocities are close to what the Chrony says. Furthermore, they run their stuff hot up to 40k CUP with the magnums.

Hornady and Sierra are useful, though Hornady seems conservative to a fault, but at least they have tested new powders and have cast bullet data.

The Powder manufacturer's data is the place to start, and for the record, I have observed good performance when observing the guidelines.

[Duckiller]

I believe it was in a Speer Manual 15-20 +/_ years ago that they answered why the max loads varied. From memory they asked every employee to bring in all of their 357 Mags. I believe they load all guns the same and then shot them over a chrono. Yes short barreled guns gave lower velocity than long barreled guns ,but some short barreled gun had quite high velocity and some longer barreled gun had real low velocity. Speer concluded that guns are different. You should start with light load and gradually work up to near max loads. Sometimes you shouldn't load your gun to max and sometime max is fine. While they didn't say so if you have a chrono and a way to accurately test pressure some times some guns can safely be loaded to above max published loads. Every gun is different . Powder, bullet and equipment manufacturers that publish loading manuals are going to have loads that don't blow up or damage most guns. A reloader NEEDS several manuals. He/she should compare the loads in these manuals. One manual has heavy loads and other manuals have kighter loads the prudent reloader starts with the lighter load and gradually works up to heavier loads. His/her gun may readily handle leavy loads or maybe everything is very tight and minimum dimensions and should only shoot light loads. Keep good notes and load for your specific gun.

[T_McD]

I believe it was in a Speer Manual 15-20 +/_ years ago that they answered why the max loads varied. From memory they asked every employee to bring in all of their 357 Mags. I believe they load all guns the same and then shot them over a chrono. Yes short barreled guns gave lower velocity than long barreled guns ,but some short barreled gun had quite high velocity and some longer barreled gun had real low velocity. Speer concluded that guns are different. You should start with light load and gradually work up to near max loads. Sometimes you shouldn't load your gun to max and sometime max is fine. While they didn't say so if you have a chrono and a way to accurately test pressure some times some guns can safely be loaded to above max published loads. Every gun is different . Powder, bullet and equipment manufacturers that publish loading manuals are going to have loads that don't blow up or damage most guns. A reloader NEEDS several manuals. He/she should compare the loads in these manuals. One manual has heavy loads and other manuals have kighter loads the prudent reloader starts with the lighter load and gradually works up to heavier loads. His/her gun may readily handle leavy loads or maybe everything is very tight and minimum dimensions and should only shoot light loads. Keep good notes and load for your specific gun.

The danger in having all the fancy measuring devices and tons of data is when you start to believe you know more than people who do this for a living. It’s really not difficult folks, load midrange load data and use a couple different sources for ****s and giggles.

If you find yourself consistently “needing” to use max loads what you really need is a different caliber.

[Rick Hodges]

I believe it was in a Speer Manual 15-20 +/_ years ago that they answered why the max loads varied. From memory they asked every employee to bring in all of their 357 Mags. I believe they load all guns the same and then shot them over a chrono. Yes short barreled guns gave lower velocity than long barreled guns ,but some short barreled gun had quite high velocity and some longer barreled gun had real low velocity. Speer concluded that guns are different. You should start with light load and gradually work up to near max loads. Sometimes you shouldn't load your gun to max and sometime max is fine. While they didn't say so if you have a chrono and a way to accurately test pressure some times some guns can safely be loaded to above max published loads. Every gun is different . Powder, bullet and equipment manufacturers that publish loading manuals are going to have loads that don't blow up or damage most guns. A reloader NEEDS several manuals. He/she should compare the loads in these manuals. One manual has heavy loads and other manuals have kighter loads the prudent reloader starts with the lighter load and gradually works up to heavier loads. His/her gun may readily handle leavy loads or maybe everything is very tight and minimum dimensions and should only shoot light loads. Keep good notes and load for your specific gun.

I have an old Speer Manual...they used 6 sequentially numbered 357 S&W 4" revolvers (forget the model numbers) with the exact same load and got velocity variations from 900 fps to some 1260 fps. Same load, same guns (as close as was possible) and each was a rule unto itself. Some 350 fps variation in velocities. Buying my own chronograph long ago opened my eyes.

[curioushooter]

The danger in having all the fancy measuring devices and tons of data is when you start to believe you know more than people who do this for a living.

You mean like this guy:


Alliant data is garbage. They sell some of my favorite powders, but their data isn't even worth the effort to click on it.

The new Hornady manual is worthless too. Their "max" loads are 75% of max, they are often listed below the starting load of every other manual.

Yep...I'm sure he knows better than Hornady.


If you find yourself consistently “needing” to use max loads what you really need is a different caliber.

I have a friend like this. But I think the answer is NOT a different caliber, because people like this will just hot rod that new one too. He hot rods everything any anything. It just doesn't matter. I think it is very hazardous. For example he not only loads 357 magnum to old hotter ammo, he goes beyond max...and does in in a 38 Special case because his Rossi's wont feed 357 mag cases. Great way to blow up a little old 38 Revolver, right?

And he defends this practice by saying...well I just won't ever have a 38 Special. Well what happens when you die? Or your friends have 38s, etc.

He also has 44 magnum and worst of all 45 Colt. He only has 45 Colt rifles and loads them beyond 44 magnum levels. It doesn't blow up his rifles...so far. The whole idea of loading 45 Colt like a 44 Magnum is a bad idea. Load 44 magnum like 44 magnum. If it isn't enough then get a 454 Casull or a 460 or 500. Something designed for the pressure. People need to stop pretending that whitetails are cape buffalo.

[gwpercle]

This is pretty much how I start with a new load, Gary. The approach is sound as it uses as many sources as is reasonable or possible, and statistics are then applied to the data. This helps to identify outlying data which can be excluded with good reason. Publishing errors aside, this approach keeps me from favoring or discounting one data source over another based upon how I "feel" or "think" about it or what someone else says about it. Use as much data as possible, run the stats, start at the reasonably low end, extrapolate if necessary, work your way up checking for pressure signs, and you will do well. But this approach has been handed down to us from many, many more wise and experienced reloaders than I on this forum and elsewhere.

Well said , I agree :goodpost:
Gary

[Walks]

Reg,

Ya got lots of differing opinions here.
I will add only this, in 55+yrs of loading the 9mmLuger, I've found 4.0grs of Bullseye under a 120-125gr Lead Bullet Cast Hard will function in just about anything. The only exception being loads for the P-08 Luger and the 1896 "Big Red Nine". They need a little more:
4.2grs to 4.4grs. Cast of Linotype, sized .356-.357 Lubed with 50/50.

Or now for me, White Label Lube-BAC. PC'ed works well too.

[T_McD]

I will also add that powder puff loads are generally a dumb idea as well. I had some 38 special loaded to be “comfy” to shoot out of my snub nose. Got rid of the snubby and got a 4 inch barrel model 10. Wouldn’t ya know about 1 in 10 of my “comfy” loads would cause a squib.

Luckily I was able to borrow a snub nose and fix that problem! KISS is the motto to live by.

[Jniedbalski]

I also wondered why the high lee starting load with that bullet. I load 3.5 to 4.0 of bullseye with that bullet and it shoots fine out on my 4 nines

[megasupermagnum]

You mean like this guy:



Yep...I'm sure he knows better than Hornady.



I have a friend like this. But I think the answer is NOT a different caliber, because people like this will just hot rod that new one too. He hot rods everything any anything. It just doesn't matter. I think it is very hazardous. For example he not only loads 357 magnum to old hotter ammo, he goes beyond max...and does in in a 38 Special case because his Rossi's wont feed 357 mag cases. Great way to blow up a little old 38 Revolver, right?

And he defends this practice by saying...well I just won't ever have a 38 Special. Well what happens when you die? Or your friends have 38s, etc.

He also has 44 magnum and worst of all 45 Colt. He only has 45 Colt rifles and loads them beyond 44 magnum levels. It doesn't blow up his rifles...so far. The whole idea of loading 45 Colt like a 44 Magnum is a bad idea. Load 44 magnum like 44 magnum. If it isn't enough then get a 454 Casull or a 460 or 500. Something designed for the pressure. People need to stop pretending that whitetails are cape buffalo.

The problem with Hornady load data isn't that it is false or inaccurate. I would never pretend to know more than a major manufacturer. The problem with Hornady data is that they choose to load to a set velocity, and what you get is what you get. I don't have the book in front of me, but I'll give an example. In the Hornady book they might load a 125 grain bullet with 4 grains of X powder and in their table it shows 900 fps. Well you can look in a Lyman book, Lee book, online, pretty much anywhere and the same load, same bullet, is showing 5.1 gr of X powder for 992 fps. It wasn't fast enough for Hornady to put it in the 1000 fps column, so they just short change it.

This isn't real data by the way, just an extreme example to state my case.

Not that it has all that much to do with the original question, but I'll agree with you on the 45 colt. That cartridge has been taken way beyond what it should have been. The 38 special, hmmm, I tend to prefer deep seating in longer brass if needed. Loading the magnums to their potential? No way. Loading to the old standard load data is perfectly safe. It might beat the light weight guns to death, but it's not dangerous.

[tazman]

Here is a good link to an article written by Ed Harris on loading cast for 9mm. It covers testing Ruger firearms in that caliber and what he found out while doing that.
https://www.hensleygibbs.com/edharris/articles/Cast%20In%20the%209mm.htm

Here is a pertinent excerpt from the article.

A Dillon RL550B was set up to throw 3.6 grs. of Bullseye which we loaded with a 124-gr. truncated cone bevel-plainbased bullet of shape similar to the H&G #7. Bullets dropped from molds at .358 and were loaded as-cast and unsized. Once-fired commercial brass was reloaded using Federal 200 "small rifle and magnum pistol" primers because they were "hard" like military 9mm primers and we wanted to be sure the guns would set them off reliably.
Cast loads fired in the Ruger P85 pistol then in development would outshoot most ordinary factory FMJ ball ammo, about 2 inches at 25 yards with a velocity around 1050 +/- 30 fps. and run the guns like a pony trotting.

[curioushooter]

Well you can look in a Lyman book, Lee book, online, pretty much anywhere and the same load, same bullet, is showing 5.1 gr of X powder for 992 fps. It wasn't fast enough for Hornady to put it in the 1000 fps column, so they just short change it.

You do realize that shot to shot deviations can be 50 FPS or so, making that sort of cutoff entirely reasonable. What is silly is the Lee manual which has velocities listed to single digit figures and ranks them that way. By the way, Sierra lists the data just like Hornady.

As far as truth goes I've found Hornady to correspond to reality better than most, in particular their 9mm data.

[megasupermagnum]

You do realize that shot to shot deviations can be 50 FPS or so, making that sort of cutoff entirely reasonable. What is silly is the Lee manual which has velocities listed to single digit figures and ranks them that way. By the way, Sierra lists the data just like Hornady.

As far as truth goes I've found Hornady to correspond to reality better than most, in particular their 9mm data.

If you like the Hornady book, that's fine. The data is accurate.

You seem to be reading way too far into what I wrote. I'll put it as bluntly as I can. My problem is that the way Hornady organizes their book is stupid. At the very least list the maximum safe pressure load. I don't need a bunch of graphs to load ammo.

Why would Lee organizing their data from highest velocity to lowest be silly? Should they be listing by powder alphabetically?

[tazman]

Personal opinion here. I like to see data listed by the velocity it gives. A chart like Hornady and Sierra uses suits me fine.
I am usually looking for a specific velocity, not the absolute max the cartridge is capable of. I don't load max loads unless that is the only load given and even then, I will probably change components to avoid that.
Like I said. personal opinion.

[megasupermagnum]

Personal opinion here. I like to see data listed by the velocity it gives. A chart like Hornady and Sierra uses suits me fine.
I am usually looking for a specific velocity, not the absolute max the cartridge is capable of. I don't load max loads unless that is the only load given and even then, I will probably change components to avoid that.
Like I said. personal opinion.

That's fine, There are some good reasons to chart data like Hornady does. I imagine those who load for the many competitions out there that require a certain power factor love it. For the rest of us, we load to what is most accurate. There are lots of my own personal most accurate loads that are above what Hornady lists.

[RED BEAR]

Alliant data is garbage. They sell some of my favorite powders, but their data isn't even worth the effort to click on it.

The new Hornady manual is worthless too. Their "max" loads are 75% of max, they are often listed below the starting load of every other manual.

One thing I really like about the Lee manual, is their velocities often come close to real world results. Lyman data is good, but it seems they almost always use an 8" or 10" barrel for handgun data. I've gotten this same comment from people asking the same thing, is this so and so load in Lee book safe, it's off from other data? Usually the devil is in the details, OAL, primer, or other difference. Short answer is yes, it is safe.

I actually use an alliant manual it is almost the same as website but does have a little more data. I have found some of there data to be on the stiff side. Loads listed are max and should be worked up to. But i have split a few cases on the way up. It could be data or could be the brass. I have to agree on the hornady being light on there max. I usually try to go with the manufacturer of the powder when possible.

[curioushooter]

Why would Lee organizing their data from highest velocity to lowest be silly? Should they be listing by powder alphabetically?

It's silly because velocity as a stat is quite arbitrary. It's certainly arbitrary when it comes down to stuff like single digit differences. Shot to shot variation exceeds those diffrences.

And since Lee doesn't actually generate any real data...they merely compile it...it winds up comparing apples to oranges. The powder companies use all different test barrels to generate their data...most like to use unusually long barrels so they can print a velocity a bit higher than the competition.

It is the mark of an ignorant reloader to prefer data listed by velocity. It's also the reason why much of the velocity is inflated and inaccurate. Ignorant reloaders do buy powder and often don't own chronographs (and often just one or no manual), so they tend to buy whatever is at the top of that Lee manual listing. I know because this is exactly how I was when I started out. When I bought a Chrony I found out how much hype there is, and now have come to appreciate important data like pressure, density, burn rate, etc.

In my opinion the best way to list data would be by relative burn rate from fast to slow (how Vitavouri does it). I would also appreciate it if handguns were tested with realistic barrel lengths, or at least a variety of lengths.

[JBinMN]

I would also appreciate it if handguns were tested with realistic barrel lengths, or at least a variety of lengths.

You re not alone, with thinking the above. It would be a great help if they did that.

[tazman]

Some of the powder manufacturers do use appropriate barrel lengths for their data. Alliant , Accurate Arms, do this for the majority of their load data.
For instance 5 inch barrels for 45acp, 4 inch for 9mm, 6 inch for 38 special.
Not all of them are this way but the ones I checked were.
Some manufacturers use much longer barrels than most people shoot in order to inflate their numbers and get the people who want the absolute highest velocities to buy their powders.
As I said earlier, I am usually looking for a particular velocity, but that is never the highest velocity on the chart. I usually find the best accuracy id somewhat lower than the max listed charge.
Given a few test loads, your gun will tell you what it likes. It is worth the time and effort testing loads to find out.