reloading press choice??

[Erik Cortina]

I started with a Redding T-6 and after I wore it out - literally, the linkage was worn out, I switched to a Forster Co-Ax. Best move I have ever made. On the T-6 (T-7 now), the head flexes when F/L sizing which I did not like. Get the Co-Ax and avoid having to buy 2 or 3 presses before you end up with the best.

Here is my review of the Forster Co-Ax press:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/TZr6COVLNvs[/youtube]

 

[Ledd Slinger]

If you get the Forster Coax (which I agree is the best) get the short ram handle for it. That's all I ever use. Couldn't even tell you where my standard long handle is right now because I don't care

 

[Barlow]

My first press was an RCBS Junior, and worked well. I bought a T7 4 years ago and am completely satisfied. I find the flex issue a non issue. I can get 0 to .002 runout with properly prepared cases and straight dies, with most on the lower end. I'll stay with the T7. Barlow

 

[dcali]

All these glowing recommendations for the Coax have me rethinking them. But I still don't see it. Why spend double on a press that does the same thing as a Rock Chucker (or a Partner for that matter). As far as I can tell, the benefits are:

Better primer disposal
no need for a shell holder
faster die changes

But that shell holder thing looks like an unnecessary pain, and the die swapping saves a whopping 20 seconds. Neither unit has a priming system worth a damn. As far as I can see, all you're paying for is all that extra metal needed to make their design work. Meanwhile, my Rock Chucker is as straight as I can measure, and produces ammo with virtually no runout. Now, there is a difference in the way the handles operate - and I'm not sure which I'd like better, but I've never really had any complaints about the normal style.

Convert a non-believer. Why are these Coax presses such a great thing? What am I missing?

 

[chkunz]

All these glowing recommendations for the Coax have me rethinking them. But I still don't see it. Why spend double on a press that does the same thing as a Rock Chucker (or a Partner for that matter). As far as I can tell, the benefits are:

Better primer disposal
no need for a shell holder
faster die changes

But that shell holder thing looks like an unnecessary pain, and the die swapping saves a whopping 20 seconds. Neither unit has a priming system worth a damn. As far as I can see, all you're paying for is all that extra metal needed to make their design work. Meanwhile, my Rock Chucker is as straight as I can measure, and produces ammo with virtually no runout. Now, there is a difference in the way the handles operate - and I'm not sure which I'd like better, but I've never really had any complaints about the normal style.

Convert a non-believer. Why are these Coax presses such a great thing? What am I missing?

You are asking the right questions and as I said in my Reply #15 there are advantages and disadvantages and for my use there were more disadvantages so I went back to what suited me and my needs the best. As you can see by the replies from others there are some folks that really like them and are making good use of them for their application. The only way to know for sure if it is the best choice for you and your application is to try one and see for yourself. But do not be disappointed if it does not meet your expectations, it will still be of some value but for me it is an expensive depriming tool.

 

[NevadaZielmeister]

All these glowing recommendations for the Coax have me rethinking them. But I still don't see it. Why spend double on a press that does the same thing as a Rock Chucker (or a Partner for that matter). As far as I can tell, the benefits are:

Better primer disposal
no need for a shell holder
faster die changes

But that shell holder thing looks like an unnecessary pain, and the die swapping saves a whopping 20 seconds. Neither unit has a priming system worth a damn. As far as I can see, all you're paying for is all that extra metal needed to make their design work. Meanwhile, my Rock Chucker is as straight as I can measure, and produces ammo with virtually no runout. Now, there is a difference in the way the handles operate - and I'm not sure which I'd like better, but I've never really had any complaints about the normal style.

Convert a non-believer. Why are these Coax presses such a great thing? What am I missing?

Damon,

Good to see you on another board. I hate to call you out but I am sure you already own a Forster Co-Ax, especially since you sell them at Bison.

But I will play, because you are a good guy and I like you and Frederic.

The biggest advantage of the Forster Co-Ax is the reduction in run-out. The shell plate jaws under spring tension and the floating die allow the die and the cartridge to line up concentrically and this reduces the runout problems that a lot of other presses have. My friend, a sponsored shooter, recently switched from a RCBS to a Forster Co-Ax because his run-out was .004-.006. After switching to the Co-Ax, he realized run-out at .001 to .002. This was simply from changing the press, nothing else.

Bottom line, if you want more accurate ammunition, going with the Forster Co-Ax is the way to go.

 

['Freak]

Thinkin’ much of the blame for their non-concentric ammo folk like to dump off on the press and/or die manufacturers’ is more often due themselves’, either not knowing any better or too much in a rush to go a few extra steps to help assure the die body got locked down while it was centered and square within the press threads and same for the de-cap/expander and seater plug stems within their respective die threads.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

The advantage of the Coax is that it will do EVERYTHING a normal single stage press will do, plus much more. The leverage system is better, the priming system is better as the handle cams over and seats primers with exactly the same pressure and depth every time. The S jaws are a wonder of reloading engineering and need no further praise if you know how they work. The primer dispenser cup is easy to remove and empty. Die changing speed is second to none.

The only disadvantage of the Coax is the price. If you can't afford it, that's fine. Other presses make very straight ammo as well. I think of the Coax like the luxury model of a vehicle line. You can buy a truck that will be dependable and get you reliably from point A to point B. But if you want the sunroof, leather seats, premium sound, navigation, etc, you're gonna pay more. So if you want a press with more features that make next to perfect ammo with all the conveniences that a single stage press can offer, you spend the extra dough and buy a Forster Coax.

 

[Linko]

Here is the choice of many long range shooters. Manual reloading


http://www.lewilsondirect.com/kandmprecisionarborpress.aspx

 

[dcali]

All these glowing recommendations for the Coax have me rethinking them. But I still don't see it. Why spend double on a press that does the same thing as a Rock Chucker (or a Partner for that matter). As far as I can tell, the benefits are:

Better primer disposal
no need for a shell holder
faster die changes

But that shell holder thing looks like an unnecessary pain, and the die swapping saves a whopping 20 seconds. Neither unit has a priming system worth a damn. As far as I can see, all you're paying for is all that extra metal needed to make their design work. Meanwhile, my Rock Chucker is as straight as I can measure, and produces ammo with virtually no runout. Now, there is a difference in the way the handles operate - and I'm not sure which I'd like better, but I've never really had any complaints about the normal style.

Convert a non-believer. Why are these Coax presses such a great thing? What am I missing?

Damon,

Good to see you on another board. I hate to call you out but I am sure you already own a Forster Co-Ax, especially since you sell them at Bison.

But I will play, because you are a good guy and I like you and Frederic.

The biggest advantage of the Forster Co-Ax is the reduction in run-out. The shell plate jaws under spring tension and the floating die allow the die and the cartridge to line up concentrically and this reduces the runout problems that a lot of other presses have. My friend, a sponsored shooter, recently switched from a RCBS to a Forster Co-Ax because his run-out was .004-.006. After switching to the Co-Ax, he realized run-out at .001 to .002. This was simply from changing the press, nothing else.

Bottom line, if you want more accurate ammunition, going with the Forster Co-Ax is the way to go.

Ha! I assure you I don't own one - I'm a Rock Chucker guy. I advertise a lot of things on my site that I don't own (I don't sell anything, though). I am curious about them though as they seem to come so universally highly recommended. I'm also not sure who Frederic is, so you might have me confused with someone else!

 

[waldo1979]

I use a RCBS atm and a Lee hand tool for depriming with a Lyman universal decapping die. Getting ready to buy a Harrels Turret press.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Here is the choice of many long range shooters. Manual reloading


http://www.lewilsondirect.com/kandmprecisionarborpress.aspx

I agree that arbor presses and dies are the best choice for bullet seating. But I suspect the OP is asking about presses for 7/8" threaded dies. Arbor presses are not "do-all" presses. They are slow for making ammo and cannot full length size cases.

 

[chkunz]

All these glowing recommendations for the Coax have me rethinking them. But I still don't see it. Why spend double on a press that does the same thing as a Rock Chucker (or a Partner for that matter). As far as I can tell, the benefits are:

Better primer disposal
no need for a shell holder
faster die changes

But that shell holder thing looks like an unnecessary pain, and the die swapping saves a whopping 20 seconds. Neither unit has a priming system worth a damn. As far as I can see, all you're paying for is all that extra metal needed to make their design work. Meanwhile, my Rock Chucker is as straight as I can measure, and produces ammo with virtually no runout. Now, there is a difference in the way the handles operate - and I'm not sure which I'd like better, but I've never really had any complaints about the normal style.

Convert a non-believer. Why are these Coax presses such a great thing? What am I missing?

Damon,

Good to see you on another board. I hate to call you out but I am sure you already own a Forster Co-Ax, especially since you sell them at Bison.

But I will play, because you are a good guy and I like you and Frederic.

The biggest advantage of the Forster Co-Ax is the reduction in run-out. The shell plate jaws under spring tension and the floating die allow the die and the cartridge to line up concentrically and this reduces the runout problems that a lot of other presses have. My friend, a sponsored shooter, recently switched from a RCBS to a Forster Co-Ax because his run-out was .004-.006. After switching to the Co-Ax, he realized run-out at .001 to .002. This was simply from changing the press, nothing else.

Bottom line, if you want more accurate ammunition, going with the Forster Co-Ax is the way to go.

In 1993 I did some run out testing of various dies and presses with 308 ammo in LC cases. I got about the same run out with the RCBS RC press and RCBS competition dies as I did with the Bonanza Co-Ax press and the Bonanza "Bench Rest" dies. I measured 100 rounds of each.

 

['Freak]

T-REX, if you recall after only 22 years; to what were you able to ascribe the runout, assuming the runout was reading from bullet bearing surface and relative to the case body?

 

[chkunz]

In reply to OleFreak, I wrote a report on the results of the research that was published in PS so thankfully I do not have to depend on memory. My point was that I did not get better results with the Bonanza Co-Ax over the RCBS so based on my experience there was no advantage for the Co-Ax as far as accuracy goes and that is what I thought was relevant here. We have one reply that reports better accuracy for the Co-Ax and now one report that did not get more accurate ammo as least as far as run out goes. My data did not reveal anything unexpected relative to run out but just quantified the parameters with data. As you would expect, case neck wall thickness variation translated almost directly into run out, the expander ball was the next big contributor and I showed with data how much replacing the expander ball with the expander mandrel was worth (at that time this was not as well known as it is today). I quantified the improvement that many have reported by putting O rings under the dies and letting them float (I think the Co-Ax does this somewhat in its design). I also showed that you could mix the dies and press and find a combination that worked best. Nothing new here but the reloader can get run out down to 0.001 by doing these things. But the important question was what is the reduction in run out worth on the target? Creighton Audette had shown that with the 308 target rifle of the day and the NMC target it was not significant. I found the same thing with the M14. It would be interesting to see meaningful data on run out vs accuracy with the more accurate F Class rifle and demanding F Class target.

 

[snert]

In reply to OleFreak, I wrote a report on the results of the research that was published in PS so thankfully I do not have to depend on memory. My point was that I did not get better results with the Bonanza Co-Ax over the RCBS so based on my experience there was no advantage for the Co-Ax as far as accuracy goes and that is what I thought was relevant here. We have one reply that reports better accuracy for the Co-Ax and now one report that did not get more accurate ammo as least as far as run out goes. My data did not reveal anything unexpected relative to run out but just quantified the parameters with data. As you would expect, case neck wall thickness variation translated almost directly into run out, the expander ball was the next big contributor and I showed with data how much replacing the expander ball with the expander mandrel was worth (at that time this was not as well known as it is today). I quantified the improvement that many have reported by putting O rings under the dies and letting them float (I think the Co-Ax does this somewhat in its design). I also showed that you could mix the dies and press and find a combination that worked best. Nothing new here but the reloader can get run out down to 0.001 by doing these things. But the important question was what is the reduction in run out worth on the target? Creighton Audette had shown that with the 308 target rifle of the day and the NMC target it was not significant. I found the same thing with the M14. It would be interesting to see meaningful data on run out vs accuracy with the more accurate F Class rifle and demanding F Class target.

I recall that article and it has influenced me ever since. Good job.

I took the approach that if I spent the time, energy and effort on learning to shoot, it would far outweigh the advantage of .002 runout. But then I am not a finalist in the world shooting comps either. and I somehow doubt many are. Just sayin

snert

 

[rvn1968]

For my pistol cals,I use my Dillon progressive.Accurate ammo quick,at least as accurate as pistol ammo needs to be. For ACCURATE ammo,my rifle ammo gets done on the Forster.IMHO,Tom.

 

[Iowa Fox]

If 1K is the goal I would use the Redding Big Boss with Redding competion die set.

 

[Hector]

You can get 1/4" groups with a Dillon 550B. At one time the Dillon 550 was used for a 1000 yd. match, and was the winner, Check with Dillon. A 550 semi progressive, works like a turret in my opinion. I have 4, .223's, 1Ruger, 2 Rem. 1 Win. Three of these will shoot in the 3's with the same load. I am no bench shooter, and no 1000 yarder, and I am sure you guys know a lot more than me. For dies I use Lee Collet, RCBS Gold Medal Seater, and a Redding Body die when needed. You can go fast or slow with the Dillon, it is up to you.

 

[JabaliHunter]

Here is the choice of many long range shooters. Manual reloading


http://www.lewilsondirect.com/kandmprecisionarborpress.aspx

I agree that arbor presses and dies are the best choice for bullet seating. But I suspect the OP is asking about presses for 7/8" threaded dies. Arbor presses are not "do-all" presses. They are slow for making ammo and cannot full length size cases.

I'm not even sure that they are necessarily "best" for seating either anymore. The Redding Competition seaters can give them a run for their money. I'm sure that I read an article with comparative data (run-out, etc.) somewhere here or in PS magazine once.