It's evident you're on the steep end of the smokeless powder learning curve here. A thorough treatment of the subject from the handloader's perspective would require several thick volumes and isn't to be found on any internet forum. To begin, however, you'll soon learn that there is a wide variety of powders available, that each of them differs from all others in chemical composition and/or physical form, and that these differences make them behave differently as propellants when loaded into a cartridge. (Just to add complexity, however, there are many examples of the same powder being marketed under various names. For example, look closely at Hodgdon's pistol data and you may notice that Win. 231 and HP-38 show identical numbers - same powder, different name.)

Until you learn more, you will profit from confining your initial handloading efforts to as few powders as possible. For the cartridges you have listed, just two will suffice, a quick-burning pistol powder and a medium-burning rifle powder. Winchester 231 (pistol) and IMR 4895 (rifle) are two widely-available products that will do a safe, effective job with minimum fuss and are listed in the trustworthy data you have collected from Hodgdon for your cartridges. While there are other powders that might perform better in some special applications, that kind of specificity can wait until your skills and knowledge have matured.

Handloading data from powder manufacturers is developed in ballistic laboratories where results can be evaluated under controlled conditions with sensitive equipment to measure chamber pressure and muzzle velocity (and, equally important, consistency). Consequently, it can be considered reliable and safe if approached with the a solid appreciation of the cautions that invariably precede it on the makers' websites. Load recommendations from individual enthusiasts who post on sites such as this one should never be accepted unless they are cross-checked with trusted data developed in a formal laboratory setting. Far too often we see careless typing combined with insufficient proofreading, reliance on faulty memory, reckless disregard for established safety procedures, or simple incompetence reflected in amateur recommendations.