Might be the ammo is as well made as it always way, might not be, I can't say, but logic does suggest that if the public is willing to accept ammo that is good enough to stand a few chamberings, then making ammo that will stand unlimited chambering is a waste of money.
Maybe the newer semi auto designs, so popular in large numbers slams the rounds harder than the older designs, perhaps with the intent of increased reliability. We know Glock deliberately uses chambers that aren't fully supported, for increased feed reliability.
There's nothing morally wrong with that, nothing says guns intended for military use have to be reloader friendly. Few are, these days. And, ammo that sets back (or has the bullet pulled by recoil) needs to be replaced, which means you buy more ammo, sooner. Good for the ammo companies, I'm sure.
If I missed reading a single issue of Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, and the American Rifleman from the 60s through the 90s, its a very small number. And, I have nearly complete collection of American Rifleman from 1948 through the 90s when I decided to stop accumulating them, because I couldn't afford a bigger house.
I think there were a lot of articles about semi auto pistols, its just that in before the wondernine explosion there weren't a dozen makers producing 30 different variants of 3 basic designs, each...
Bullet setback? Reloading manual, and articles would all tell you about pushing the nose of the loaded round against the bench (firmly), or something similar, to check for setback, as part of the QC for your handloads. Don't recall much else ever being said about it, even in the Q&A columns. Maybe it existed as a problem back then, but if it did, why not talk about it, we talked about a lot of problems back then, though not nearly like we can today.
And that is probably part of it, as well, with our internet instant communication, and nearly unlimited space, it is quite different from a monthly, printed magazine.