Frangible .223 load data

[wallace11bravo]

My supply of frangible is drying up, and the prices of loaded .223 frangible have been a bit high, since the panic. (I was able to horse trade for a few hundred rounds at an instructor clinic that saved me for a couple months)

I found some Barnes RRLP bullets and bought 300 of em for a good price, now I seek load data. The only published thing I could find is: (look for the MPG, that is their fancy name for it)

http://www.barnesbullets.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/223RemingtonWeb.pdf

My question to those with more experience on the press is: If I want to use varget, could I "extrapolate" a min/max charge by comparing the charge weight specs on one of the other rounds that lists a common powder with MPG and also Varget? Or is that tempting fate?

*I'll note that I use frangible for steel within 50, this is not in any way shape or form meant to be quality ammo, just needs to go bang reliably and impact with reasonable accuracy within 50.

[bkoenig]

I would just use manufacturer's data for a bullet of similar weight, and start at the low end to be safe.  I imagine frangible bullets can't be driven as fast, but I don't really have any experience with them.  I have used the Barnes Varmint Grenades which are a copper jacket with a powdered metal core, so those may be similar.  They seem to be most accurate at a couple grains less than max load, but YMMV.  I've heard of guys driving them too fast and having them fly to pieces.

It would really suck to have one come apart in your suppressor....

[jonm]

Frangibles, like copper bullets, are large for their weight. I'd start with copper data.

My 90g 9mm bullets have a profile similar to a 115gr bullet.

[wallace11bravo]

For future reference:

Extrapolating and then rounding down, I tried 24.0 grains of Varget. Works perfectly. No pressure issues, cycles just fine, and plenty accurate for frangible. See no need to fix what ain't broken.