Dragon Skin™ 30 and RTV-4130 are both Shore A30 platinum-cure RTV-2 silicones with a 1:1 mix ratio. Because their nominal hardness and mixing ratio are the same, the main selection differences are in mechanical performance, working time, cure speed and reported viscosity. Both provide a relatively firm yet flexible profile for reusable mold making and casting.
The published mechanical data show different performance profiles. Smooth-On reports 3.45 MPa tensile strength, 18.9 N/mm tear strength and 364% elongation for Dragon Skin™ 30, while RTV-4130 reports 5.0 MPa tensile strength, 28.0 N/mm tear strength and 400% elongation. RTV-4130 therefore reports higher published values for tensile strength, tear strength and elongation. These figures should be treated as manufacturer-published reference data rather than a strict laboratory ranking because testing methods and conditions may differ.
Processing time presents a clear trade-off. Dragon Skin™ 30 has a published 45-minute pot life, compared with a 35-minute working time for RTV-4130. However, Dragon Skin™ 30 requires approximately 16 hours to cure, while RTV-4130 is listed at approximately 5 hours under its stated conditions. Dragon Skin™ 30 therefore provides more time for mixing and pouring, whereas RTV-4130 offers a substantially shorter cure cycle and may be better suited to applications where faster mold turnaround is important.
Viscosity is another notable reported difference. Smooth-On lists 20,000 cps for mixed Dragon Skin™ 30, while MinghuiLink lists approximately 4,400 mPa·s for Part A of RTV-4130. Because the manufacturers report viscosity at different measurement points, these values should not be treated as a strict like-for-like comparison. In practical mold making, the actual flow behavior should be evaluated based on mold geometry, fine details, air-release requirements and the selected pouring method.
Dragon Skin™ 30 may be attractive when a longer working window is important and the production process can accommodate a longer cure cycle. RTV-4130 may be worth evaluating when higher published tensile, tear and elongation values together with a substantially shorter cure time are priorities. The final choice should also consider mold thickness, undercuts, expected casting cycles, demolding forces, casting material and the required production schedule.
