.40/10mm SWC?

Home › Forums › NOE Forums › NOE Archive › Historical Archive › Group Buys › Group Buy Discussions › .40/10mm SWC?

  • This topic is empty.
  • Creator
    Topic
  • 2016-06-16 at 03:25 #488788
    Barry in IN
      Up
      0
      Down
      ::

      I’d really like to see a .40/10 mm SWC mould in the 170-200 range.  RCBS has a 170 and  a 200, but with RCBS you are stuck with two cavities.  I’d want such a mould for general purpose playing around, and would therefore hope to cast more of these than any other in the caliber. A two-cavity just isn’t gonna do it.

      I have no idea how to draw such a thing up.

      The RCBS SWCs in that caliber have fairly wide meplats, at least compared to most SWCs for autos.  I don’t think that’s necessary in what’s basically a paper shooting bullet, so just sayin’.  They look good, though.

      FWIW, H&G called their mould #332 “A .40 cal version of #68”, and it was claimed to be 175 grains by them.

      Just dreaming.  I check now and then, but haven’t seen anything about such a thing.

    • Creator
      Topic
    Viewing 9 replies - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • 2016-06-22 at 16:39 #504303
      brianadams
      Participant
        Up
        0
        Down
        ::

        I’d like one too.  Any .40 shooters out there who have experience with a SWC?  Everything I have tried is either a RNFP or a TC type.

        2016-06-25 at 07:51 #504304
        Barry in IN
          Up
          0
          Down
          ::

          I would’ve thought there would be some interest in such a thing.  Due to the way the rules read, the .40 is the caliber to use in USPSA Limited division, and a good feeding SWC that could be made in quantity should be attractive there.  For the 10mm, it looks to me there are more 10mm shooters than ever, and most reload and/or cast.
          332_zps6edtejv8.jpg
          I’d think something like this would look good to them.  It does to me.

          2016-07-17 at 17:30 #504305
          micaelnetz
          Participant
            Up
            0
            Down
            ::

            It looks fine… If there were a gas check version.

            2016-07-26 at 12:36 #504306
            Barry in IN
              Up
              0
              Down
              ::

              I’m sure it could be an option.

              Maybe I shouldn’t be, but I’m kind of surprised at the lack of interest in a SWC 10mm/.40.

              2016-07-26 at 14:55 #504307
              Intel6
              Participant
                Up
                0
                Down
                ::

                I tried a SWC out of a Lee mould years ago and had nothing but problems. Will all the TC RNFP styles out there now why would be interested in a SWC? They are great for my revolvers and I don’t mind the proven H&G 68 in the 1911 .45 ACP but will just stay with the TC/RNFP in the .40 cal.

                2016-07-28 at 21:37 #504308
                micaelnetz
                Participant
                  Up
                  0
                  Down
                  ::

                  The main reason for me would be clean sharp holes in the target.

                  2016-07-29 at 05:53 #504309
                  Barry in IN
                    Up
                    0
                    Down
                    ::

                    Same here. I’d like one that made a nice clean hole in targets AND is heavy enough to shoot well and easily make the power factor needed for USPSA and IDPA.

                    2016-07-29 at 19:23 #504310
                    brianadams
                    Participant
                      Up
                      0
                      Down
                      ::

                      Shall we start talking about flat base versus bevel base?  I prefer flat base moulds myself, for quality control inspection purposes.  I don’t have a dog in the fight over which type theoretically shoots better.

                      2016-07-30 at 05:15 #504311
                      Barry in IN
                        Up
                        0
                        Down
                        ::

                        I’d prefer flat, but in this I would take either.

                      • Author
                        Replies
                      Viewing 9 replies - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
                      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.