RCBS 45-200-SWC versus 45-201-SWC

[Madisonian]

So, I have both, the 45-200-SWC, which is very similar to the Lyman #452460, with two lube grooves, and the 45-201-SWC, which is more like the H&G #68, with a single lube groove.

Which is more accurate? Any other characteristics that may vary?

Thanks

jv

45-200-SWC:


45-201-SWC:

[Dusty Bannister]

Let the gun tell you which it prefers. The 200 has a longer bearing surface but shorter nose. The 201 has a shorter bearing surface but longer nose. The more reliable feeding will perhaps be an indication of which is better in your case.

[44MAG#1]

I have a RCBS 201 mold and so far it has fed in my Kimbers and a Springfield 1911's real slick like. Also in my Glocks.

[Burnt Fingers]

I have the RCBS 201KT.

It's my favorite 45 ACP boolit. I just wish it came in a four cavity.

[mtgrs737]

I have both but cast more of the H&G 68 style like the 201 RCBS mostly because I have four cavity molds in this style. I have been told that the 200 gr. double groove short nose style shoots more accurately but I have no personal experience with that. I would do my own testing and use the one that feeds OK and is most accurate.

[Walks]

Never liked the #452460, so I don't care for the #45-200-SWC. Accuracy was not the best.
The #68 Flat Base was a favorite of My Dad, mine too. Lost that mold years ago. The #45-201-SWC/KT feeds in stock G.I. bbl's, so I like it a lot.

Best accuracy I've ever found is with the Lyman #452488. Cast of #2 - 195grs. I like 50/50 - COWW/#2 = 199 - 201grs.
Over 3.5grs Bullseye with a 12lb spring it shoots one hole groups at 25yrds all day long.

After all that #45-201-SWC would be My choice between the 2 RCBS molds.