Not wanting to sound like I am piling on, but back when a 1911 was my shoot-for-everything-I-was-doing-at-the-time gun, I too employed 200gr SWC bullets cast from a multi-cavity Hensley & Gibbs #68 mold. They were made from what seemed like a ton of metal that I had obtained from an in-house linotype operation that closed down in the late 70's (I probably still have some of it sealed up in polymer pails around here somewhere) so by the time I was done with them, they still weighed in at an acceptable level while being hard enough to not gunk up the gun even after shooting a 1000 or more rounds a day at some of the schools I went to in the 80's and 90's.
Out of some of the same liability concerns that others here often express in regard to certain mechanical modifications, because this is a public forum, I must beg your forgiveness over not including the charge over which those projectiles were seated.
But I will tell you that I (and others I knew at the time who used similar-if-not-identical bullets and/or powder charge combinations) saw results that were similar to what is being expressed here by Charlie, "t-star", "Steve M1911A1" and "guntotin_fool". They functioned flawlessly, shot to the same point of aim as the 230gr RN ammo I was familiar with, were very accurate (although that is as much a function of the gun as anything else), allowed me to shoot routinely at 50yards in some programs and matches (as well as out to 100 yards in a few activities), and had more than enough energy to deal with even the heaviest of the reactive metal targets found at the more conventional 7, 10, 15, and 25 yard distances at a few of the places I frequented back then.
While I can't say for sure and the vendor does not identify the mold or pattern they are using, I searched the site to which "Cap'n Dex" provided the link (it took me to an overall bullet page) and found what I think is the bullet he is talking about (http://www.kingshooters.com/45-200gr-swc-p-25575.html?OBNsid=27b64c3c816460ca22ed45f686f7577d
) and it appears to be (at least) from the same school of thought than that H&G design so I would assume that if loaded in a like manner (although again for liablity reasons, I am not recommending that or any loading), it would provide him with performance comparable to what others have seen here.
Finally and in regard to the question and comments concerning the velocities of such things, I would tend to agree with the logic expressed by "guntotin_fool", in that if things are "working" fine (and all of your needs and performance criteria are being met), what difference does the velocity make? While it might be interesting to know, unless you have a league that uses it to calculate energy or because in some cases (I would think not this one) that you feel that you are working at a level where knowing the velocity would be helpful to you in keeping things sane, it really isn't the critical ("guntotin_fool's"word) issue for something where accuracy, functionality, and the ability to shoot where you are looking are; especially when you are attempting to replicate something along the lines of the relatively mild 230gr RN/Ball load of the .45ACP.