How many people here believe that the so called accuracy loads listed in the loading manuals will be the most accurate load in their rifles?The same can be asked about loads that are most accurate in someone elses rifle.
I personally have found the so called accuracy loads to be just as dependable as the velocities posted in the loading manuals,in other words not dependable at all.I have seen cases where the so called accuracy load shot well in one or two rifles but the same load was one of the worst in other rifles.I have found the same to be true when someone has told me about a load that was so great in their rifle.It works well in some rifles but is poor in other rifles.It seems that people believe in these so called accuracy loads because they want to find a shortcut to the best load in their rifle without having to develop one themselves.Some people have just not learned that each rifle is an individual and has it's own load preferences.This is made obvious by the number of people asking what load will be the most accurate in their rifle.

Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes not. I don't rely on them. I think part of it is we don't load to the same COL they do in the manual. Part of it is the throat length and headspace is definately not the same. But a few loads are just dynamic and work in several rifles.

stubble, I have to agree.. As of yet none of the accuracy loads have worked for me on the ones I tested. It might work great in some rifles and terrible in others as you mentioned. I think part of the problem is like you said .. trying to find a shortcut. Personally I think it has to do with time and patients. Some guys don’t want to take the time or have no patient in tinkering around until it all falls in place. The attitude of... let’s hurry up and get a so, so group and call it a day.

The real eye opener for me was the velocity they have printed in the books. After getting my chrono, I started testing loads and found some of my load were 150 to 200 fps. slower then what they had in the books. Found very few bullets that actually match the book like the SST. This makes for very interesting info that I have never thought of before.

Since the designation "accuracy load" can be based on load performance shooting targets withone individual gun, or worse, based upon the most consistent velocity measured with a specific gun, the idea is pretty worthless except as a possible starting point for a person seeking the most accurate load in his/her gun.

"Accuracy loads"may give a hint as to a particular powder to try in a given cartridge, for example, but that's about all.

I have found for some odd reason that all 6 guns that I reload for, I take minimum and max and split it down the middle. Almost every gun I shoot is dead center betweem min and max.......I never pay any attention to the "most accurate load" because it had never worked for me.

It is my understanding that the designated "accuracy" loads are nothing more than a function of the loads that develop the narrowest SD of velocity. No one actually went out and shot groups with this load. It was all developed in the the lab. But the potential for accuracy is there . . . . just a matter of whether it actually happens in your particular gun or not.

I was originally inspired to try RL 12 on the basis of the Nosler reloading manual indicating it was an accuracy load for certain bullets in the .308 Winchester. I discovered a real sleeper of a powder - one I use for lots of other calibers and now buy by the keg - that I might not have paid much attention to otherwise. So I don't think its a total waste of time to try powders listed as "accuracy loads" - but if they don't work in your particular gun, just move on to something else.

I am sure that as most of the rest of you do, I pick a particular bullet I wish to use, and start working through the various powders listed in the loading manuals until stuff starts to group up with reasonable velocities. Primer tinkering is left to the fine-tuning stage with me. So-called accuracy loads are only an indication of what may or may not shoot well in your particular rifle with a degree of dependability. I personally have never found one to be an adequate substitute for good, old hand worked load development. I also agree that many guns seem to shoot best with mid-range loadings, and I own several that do just that. I have, however, recently worked up a great load for a new gun, and it loves max load. Just goes right back to what we all have known and said for years about rifles being entities unto themselves
Have I expounded enough?? Methinks so.

Ditto. The "accuracy load" is only a starting point (or, at least one data point). It is, for me, only an approximate indication....nothing more.

Some accuracy loads need a little "fine tuneing" for my standards...

What???? Information in manuals is not always reproducible in my firearm?? I am appalled.