No, you want to know why? I haven't looked up any data just yet. If I find in any of my Swift, Barnes, Speer, Nosler Sierra handbooks that they are within 1 gr of each other in Max loads and very simular data and velocities are simular, then I will go one step further. I wouldn't mind then using a "different" bullet not called out with the loads compared.

For example if a Speer Grand Slam has very simular data, and so does a Barnes with both H4831 and IMR 4831, and notice very simular burn rates, but the Nosler manual only has 50gr of H4831 called out for a 165gr Accubond but no IMR data, then I wouldn't mind starting out with a starting load of 45gr of IMR4831 and slowly working my way up, watching velocity. I have not compared the two or researched it like I have the 4350 powders, so therefore, I cannot make that recommendation.

How many times has any of us on this page took the Hodgdon data with a say "hornady InterloK" and put that to a Sierra gameking. There are a few bullets that you got to be careful with. The TBBC is one, the Barnes, and failsafes are another. Thats the reason Vapo, that Nosler notes to be very careful with the failsafes. They might list 96gr max H1000 for 300RUM with 180gr bullet, but you cannot put that forth for all bullets. The variations are too huge with different barrels, different shank charateristics.

For years, there was very little to no official data for the TBBC. If we took your advise, and never thought things thru, nobody would have been shooting them.

A reloader has to research such things. Look thru all manuals available, look at other peoples results, take it all in account, and work the load up.