forster co-ax why do I need one?

[astro3006]

Fellow reloading friends, I have a Rock Chucker,Redding T1 Turret, and a Dillon 550 press. Why do I need a co-ax? No matter what forum you go to the co-ax users out weight the other users by a large margin.

What makes this press so good?

 

[Powder_Burns]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

I'm a co-ax hater. I think the Big Boss II is the best single stage. You can't shim die bodies with the Co-Ax.

 

[Bbob]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

no shell holders smooth works good had mine for 30? years no prob

 

[42769vette]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

i dont know but if you find some instock let me know

 

[Bacarrat]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

Why would you need to shim die bodies?

 

[jdel]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

It.s the Cadillac of presses. No shell holders and the dies slide in and out. The die nor the case is locked in place, the cartridge centers itself. Not sure if any of this makes sense but I love mine and wouldn't trade it for anything.

 

[BigJakeJ1s]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

Die shims are most often used to make small, controlled adjustments to seating depth. Micrometer dies also allow this, without shims, and much easier too.

Another option is Redding's competition shell holders, in conjunction with Forster's shell holder adapter plate that lets it use conventional shell holders.

The floating, snap-in/out die retention system is unique to the co-ax, but it does mean that some reloading accessories are not compatible with the co-ax. In exchange, you get a convenient and accurate die retention system.

The co-ax also has through the ram spent primer handling, keeping even the debris far from the bearings of the press.

The over-the-top, down-the-middle handle is ambidextrous, and I prefer its higher location that that of conventional presses. The current (B3) version of the co-ax has a larger handle yoke to clear the longest dies even with micrometer heads. Forster offers a shorter, ball-tipped handle which I have tried, but I prefer the original tubular gripped handle.

The shell holder jaws grip the case rim more securely than conventional shell holders, while also allowing the cartridge to float side-side more than conventional shell holders. Combined with the mostly fore-aft floating of the die, and the straight-line vertical motion of the ram, this results in a straight-line motion centered into the die. Conventional press rams shift fore/aft in mid-stroke due to the toggle inverting.

The ergonomics of the co-ax are a bit different than conventional presses, and some reloaders do not like it. I prefer it, but you should try to find one locally so you can see it and try it out first hand. Cabellas usually has one on display (even if they don't have any in stock to sell).

IMHO, the Forster Co-Ax, is the best designed, best built single stage reloading press available.

Andy

 

[MinorDamage]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BigJakeJ1s</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Die shims are most often used to make small, controlled adjustments to seating depth. Micrometer dies also allow this, without shims, and much easier too.

Another option is Redding's competition shell holders, in conjunction with Forster's shell holder adapter plate that lets it use conventional shell holders.

The floating, snap-in/out die retention system is unique to the co-ax, but it does mean that some reloading accessories are not compatible with the co-ax. In exchange, you get a convenient and accurate die retention system.

The co-ax also has through the ram spent primer handling, keeping even the debris far from the bearings of the press.

The over-the-top, down-the-middle handle is ambidextrous, and I prefer its higher location that that of conventional presses. The current (B3) version of the co-ax has a larger handle yoke to clear the longest dies even with micrometer heads. Forster offers a shorter, ball-tipped handle which I have tried, but I prefer the original tubular gripped handle.

The shell holder jaws grip the case rim more securely than conventional shell holders, while also allowing the cartridge to float side-side more than conventional shell holders. Combined with the mostly fore-aft floating of the die, and the straight-line vertical motion of the ram, this results in a straight-line motion centered into the die. Conventional press rams shift fore/aft in mid-stroke due to the toggle inverting.

The ergonomics of the co-ax are a bit different than conventional presses, and some reloaders do not like it. I prefer it, but you should try to find one locally so you can see it and try it out first hand. Cabellas usually has one on display (even if they don't have any in stock to sell).

IMHO, the Forster Co-Ax, is the best designed, best built single stage reloading press available.

Andy </div></div>

I agree 100%. Best purchase I have ever made when it comes to reloading.

Josh

 

[Clark]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

Clarence E. Purdie, deceased; (late of Faribault, MN) of Gopher Shooter's Supply Company, Incorporated (Faribault, MN) went to Bonanza that went to Forster.

The co-ax is a press to love;
1) Dies slip in and out quickly.
2) Shell holder jaws grab the case and float it into the die concentricly, yet keep the base of the case horizontal.
3) Leverage is optimized, so there is little stress on the bench or the reloader's arm.
4) Spent primers are captured.

But first use a Rockchucker for 5 years so you will appreciate the co-ax when you get it.

 

[Fuzzball]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

"Why do I need a co-ax? "

You don't. The Coax is a good press and its users tend to be euphoric but I've never even heard of anyone claiming better ammo can be made on one than could be made on a Lee Challenger by a equally skilled loader using the same dies and components. Meaning, a press is NOT the key to quality ammo, skill is.

Being able snap dies in and out in a couple of seconds will "save" how much time in a loading session, maybe 45-50 seconds? Changing "snap-in" shell holdlers really isn't much of burden, is it? I'm no body builder but I've never found the arm effort to reform .30-06 to .22-250 to be difficult on any compound leverage press.

Personally, I (and others) find the ergonomics of the Coax to be awkward. So, to many of us, the small advantages of the Coax hardly seems worth the cost. If someone gives me one, I'll thank him and use it. But pay for it? No way.

Use your RC and sweep up the tossed spent primers. Or get a Lee Classic Cast, which also drops primers through a tube!

 

[Short Round]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

I went through this decision a couple years ago.

I was debating between the Big Boss II and the CoAx. I am a believer in the CoAx system for self centering and resultant runout. My friend and gunsmith has been running one for years. Often he's worked up loads for rifles he's built for friends and given them the recipe and spec's. He says more often than not they don't get the same awesome results he did when they go home and make their own. Don't know what they all don't pay attention to when making their own.

That said I'm often use the Redding competition shell holder system with the 0.002 steps of headspace change. It works for me and I decided to keep with it and went with the Big Boss II instead of switching a CoAx to the shell holder setup. I wasn't sure if I'd loose half the advantage of the CoAx doing that. Also the BBII has a primer retention system I believe the original Big Boss did not have.

By far the biggest reason I didn't go with the CoAx is that I didn't like the ergonomics of the center handle setup. Just seemed awkward to me. Perhaps time would fix that.

 

[dighawaii]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

I wouldn't say that anyone would absolutely "need one" regarding a Co-ax press, but I have a Bonanza Co-ax press and it works for me. Selecting a reloading press, like so many things in reloading, is personal preference.

 

[jackstone]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: astro</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fellow reloading friends, I have a Rock Chucker,Redding T1 Turret, and a Dillon 550 press. Why do I need a co-ax? No matter what forum you go to the co-ax users out weight the other users by a large margin.

What makes this press so good? </div></div>

Given that you are so heavily invested in good equipment, I think thaat it would behoove you to just hone your skills with what you already have. I like your choice of the Dillon 550. I load all my pistol ammo on it, and have since 1986. I will not, however, load rifle ammo on it. I'm sure someone will chime in and tell us all about the great rifle ammo they are able to produce on them, and to that I say "I'm happy for them."

I have a Rock Chucker and use it only for swaging primers etc. All rifle ammo gets loaded on the COAX. If for no other reason, it has in my opinion, the perfect priming system, and I've tried them all including the Sinclair tool, which was used one time and retired in lieu of the Coax.

Die adjustment is faster and easier with the COAX, and the depriming system keeps the working parts clean. There may be other presses with a better leverage system, but it's the best I have used, and that's all that matters to me. If I had only one press for pistols, it would be a Dillon 550, and If I had only one press for rifles, it would be a COAX. I have two, but only use the COAX.

If you want to learn how to optimize the good equipment you now have, I suggest you read Zediker's book "Handloading for Competition".

Because you asked.

 

[6.5x61Super]

Re: forster co-ax why do I need one?

ZERO RUNOUT.....