I don't (actually can't) train at full LR distances. Those distances are only realistically available to me when actually engaged in comp.
Consequently, I take as much advantage as possible of the shorter distance (300yd) that is actually available to me. This means I will maximize the effects of crosswinds, while eliminating inherent inaccuracy in the load. IMHO, lighter weight varmint bullets optimize this set of criteria. I shoot Nosler 50gr Ballistic tips at the Nosler 'most accurate' charge of 26.0gr of Varget. While absolute accuracy is somewhat important, consistency of ammunition performance is more important, IMHO; my view is to eliminate everything but the shooter from the realistic hierarchy of variables.
My available training venue has a reputation for calmer conditions before Noon and significantly more active winds after Noon, and this can be a useful set of circumstances for training..
While a 1:8*" twist is sufficient for the heavier bullets cited, and will work quite well enough with the 50gr bullets too; I keep a 24" 1:9" bolt rifle for training.
While I realize lots of folks have the notion that the trainer needs be as closely identical to the comp gun, I have found that not to be the case in my own instance. In my reality, all the rifle needs to do is provide an accurate means to get the necessary trigger time under as challenging a set of conditions as one can arrange. How it fits and how it operates falls under what I consider a basic rifleman's necessary set of adaptable skills, with the emphasis on adaptability. Every time the shooter imposes limitations that dictate narrower and narrower equipment requirements, they also impose limitations on their own versatility, and I prefer not to accept such limitations.
As I try to set up our Granddaughter with literally generic identical equipment to mine (like the question of why I have a pair of virtually identical Stag Model 6 Super Varminters, and have 'standardized' on the Savage 11VT rifle), I have found that even 'identical' rifles have idiosyncrasies and quirks, and suspect that the idea that the notion of requiring close similarities between trainer and comp gun may be less supportable by reality, and may even be impossible to truly achieve. IMHO, the key attributes of a trainer are that it be reliable, and that it perform with significant consistency. The key goal is to remove all of the variables that are not caused by the shooters themselves. Slavish identicality between trainer and comp rifle are not, to me, a necessity. All we're really trying to achieve here is the recogintion of where marksmanship ability breaks down, and how to improve upon it.
IMHO, whatever one shoots (within reason), it all comes down to wind skills, sight picture, and shot release. As long as I size my targets proportionately, the distance and winds are scalable, especially with bullets of a significantly lower BC. This is why I used to advance the concept of training with rimfire, and I still feel the same on that; I am just currently reflecting (somewhat beyond the actual need) the recent unavailability of rimfire ammo. The very susceptibility of the rimfire bullet's lower BC to crosswinds becomes an attribute, because it more greatly emphasizes the need for more developed wind skills.
I've become accustomed to enjoying the better control of ammunition characteristics that handloading .223 had provided me over recent years.
I almost never shoot factory ammo anymore, with the singular exception that I have a significant stock of 2008-2010 PPU 55gr FMJ that we use for plinking and bulk practice, and retain the brass as my handloading component source. The .223 PPU reloads very well, and while the 55 FMJ's loading is less accurate, it is predictably so, and this all factors in; because as long as ammunition performance is consistent and predictable, levels of accuracy are more a matter of comparison, than of disqualification for consideration. When the ammo is less accurate, but predictably so, all one really needs to do is to use a larger target.
So in this instance, shooting the PPU ammo is cheap enough to be more economical than buying new components (especially since I already own it...), and doing highly repetitious practice with it simply improves its utility overall.
BTW, I consider plinking as useful a form of training, suitable for developing 'off the comp range' capabilities, like hasty snapshot targeting, and small game hunting. This is the reason why I built myself a bottom dollar, 'quick and dirty' 16" upper.
All of my .223 rifles employ the 5.56 chamber, as I believe that allows the greatest variety of possibilities for ammunition selection. I am constantly weighing compromises between ultimate accuracy and the practical limits thereof. I have always considered such matters to be a trade-off, and prefer practicality over the potential fragility of ultimate accuracy. One needs to draw that line often. I feel that as long as one can achieve reasonably good accuracy with significant reliability, some sacrifices in ultimate accuracy are quite supportable (especially if they get one out of the loading room and onto the range more often).
I am 71, and know the bill is coming due all too soon enough, and I value range time far higher than I do handloading time.
Greg