I have access to about five reloading manuals of various vintages, and ...
ALMOST NEVER IS THE SAME BULLET WEIGHT/POWDER CHARGE COMBO LISTED IN ALL FIVE!
Cross-checking is okay, and this type of "testing the waters" is not only okay fair use, it is a great way to coax each other to buy the reloading manuals from which we post excerpts.
We already have a forum rule about posting above-published load data & results. Do we now need to also post big-old disclaimers about the obvious hazards of "oops, I had a typo" and "oops, I misquoted my notes" and "oops, I can never be sure that you will use the right powder I just posted"** and "Gee, that 180-grain bullet with the long shank tested in manual one might generate more pressure than the VLD short-shank bullet for the load in manual two"???
Even the teenagers reading this Board are grown-up enough to evaluate their own risks and be responsible for their own actions. Anyone who takes bad info from a Board and blows up their gun is either reckless (didn't cross-check), or reckless (did cross-check and stupidly went forward anyway.
Yes, either reckless or reckless. We should be making our educated evaluations and acting accordingly, assuming all risks with eyes wide open.
**Are we still having problems with the various burning rates of "Clays", "International Clays" and "Universal Clays"?? The powder company's choice of names followed some STUPID marketing theory of branding, and was actively negligent in doing so. Thus, some newbies know these three simply as "Clays", "International" and "Universal". I'm more than reasonably certain that the Internet reports of reloaders blowing handguns by confusing these three powders are true.
On-topic, if you stay with powders no slower than 4064, bullets no heavier than 180 grains, and watch the military vs. commercial brass cautions, you have an M1 Garand load, suitable for its gas system. I cannot vouch for Varget, but some sources indicate it is slower than the recommendations for M1s. I defer to those more informed than I.