These are relatively mild loads, for modern actions. They are about maximum for older actions. Those made pre 1950 may be suspect, concerning strength. It's just a rule of thumb I like to follow.
I have to smile when I hear folks say that pre-1950 actions might be suspect, as I have observed one situation where a modern action might not have stood up as well. It was my most serious handloading gaff, a double charge (50 grs) of SR 4759 in a .30/06 with a 210 gr cast bullet. The ancient M-17 Enfield suffered no injury despite the need to beat the action open with a 2X4. Instead of pushing the 210 gr bullet at a sedate 1800 fps with mild recoil and report, the round boomed like a .300 magnum and produced significant recoil. The Chrony stated well over 2800. The primer was laying in the bottom of the magazine and the primer pocket had expanded out to the lettering and the flash-hole was as large as the primer pocket. While I have no idea of what sort of pressure was involved, the case head lettering was permanently appeared in mirror relief in the bolt face, look up "The Munroe Effect," yet no gas escaped into the magazine well or back through the bolt race. Fortunately I was shooting that day with a retired teacher/gunsmith who after remarking on my incredible good fortune, carefully inspected the rifle and declared it safe to use, although the next round, a full powered jacketed 168 gr load, was fired with the rifle held well away from my body and face. That ugly old Remington manufactured M-17 served me faithfully for many more years until it was lost in a house fire in December of 2000.
There have certainly been documented cases of improper heat treating in military contract bolt action rifles, but the runs were well known at the time and I doubt if many, or if any, of these rifles have survived to the present day. I am confident that any quality brand bolt action rifle that was originally designed to fire the .30/06 or some similar cartridge, and whose barrel and action has not been compromised by bubba, be it a 1903 Sringfield, a 98 Mauser, a 1917 Enfield, a Remington M-30, or a Winchester M-54 will be more than safe with modern ammunition; factory or handloads.
As to using old loading manuals, while they are interesting for comparison purposes, I don't recommend their use with newly manufactured powder. Powder coatings change over the years, as do propellant recipes; so the powder that is listed in an earlier manual, does not necessarily have the same burning rate as todays product, even though the general characteristics are similar. Powders are designed to fall within certain tolerances, yet I believe your load data should be contemporary to the propellant you use, and that your own data needs to be tweaked for use in your particular firearm from that. If you have access to 1940s .30/06 data for 4895, when there was only one 4895 available, how does it compare with the contemporary data found on the Hodgdon site? More than one handloader has detected a difference between lots of powder of the same number, manufactured within a year of his previous lot, never mind powder whose manufacture is separated by decades. In any case simply loading the maximum load from any manual without working up to it, particularly if it is a powder you are unfamiliar with, is a bad idea.
