You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Forster Co Ax clone ?
- Thread starter hounddawg
- Start date
jaguarxk120
New member
Presses are very precise and can be very complex.
What makes the Coax press so good is the die floats and aligns with the case.
Linkages on some presses are designed to multiply force many times while
keeping case and die in alignment.
What makes the Coax press so good is the die floats and aligns with the case.
Linkages on some presses are designed to multiply force many times while
keeping case and die in alignment.
Presses are very precise and can be very complex.
What makes the Coax press so good is the die floats and aligns with the case.
Linkages on some presses are designed to multiply force many times while
keeping case and die in alignment.
and on non co ax presses the case floats in a case holder and floats and aligns with the die....same thing accomplished. Nothing involving a floating object is precise. The precision lies in the dies. All the press does is just pushes them into and pulls them from the dies, as long as either the case aligns to the die or the die aligns to the case depending on which is floating then the two are pressed together then the mission is accomplished accomplished.
As far as certain presses being more suited to certain applications I agree and some need to be beefier and larger than others. But for most pistol and the average rifle a Lee O style press does just a good a job as a Forster - that's just the plane truth. When the case enters the die all the press has to do is push it in. The dies define the precision in the case forming and seating operations the press is just the engine that brings them together
Put a case in the caseholder on a regular press and wiggle it, see how much play there is, now raise the ram and see if you can wiggle it laterally. Bet you cant that ram has 2 or 3 inches of it encased in a sliding fit. The only way it can go is up and down. Linkage, sure you can wiggle it on any press. All linkage does is transmit the power from the handle when you operate it.
Press operation is simple. No need to over complicate
back to topic
I am going to wait on the reviews on this press, you can't tell a lot from one pic. I do like the concept of loading my dies in blocks and just sliding them in. Not sure if that would be 200 bucks worth of convenience though
Last edited:
Dawg,
It looks interesting and may have a couple improvements over the Co-Ax. However, I see it requires those unique square die blocks and I couldn't find them on the Midway site, so no idea how much they will cost. I wonder if two stacked cross bolt die locks rings would work?
But the price of the press is certainly enticing, AND they are available.
For what it is worth, I have only had my Co-Ax for a couple weeks, but have been working the heck out of it all day every day. And I really do like it and have zero regrets or buyers remorse.
I am however glad I didn't see this clone ahead of time, otherwise I'd still be sitting here conflicted over which to buy. Heck, it took me six months to decide between the MEC and the Forster Co-AX, and the Co-Ax has been around for a long time.
It looks interesting and may have a couple improvements over the Co-Ax. However, I see it requires those unique square die blocks and I couldn't find them on the Midway site, so no idea how much they will cost. I wonder if two stacked cross bolt die locks rings would work?
But the price of the press is certainly enticing, AND they are available.
For what it is worth, I have only had my Co-Ax for a couple weeks, but have been working the heck out of it all day every day. And I really do like it and have zero regrets or buyers remorse.
I am however glad I didn't see this clone ahead of time, otherwise I'd still be sitting here conflicted over which to buy. Heck, it took me six months to decide between the MEC and the Forster Co-AX, and the Co-Ax has been around for a long time.
Last edited:
No doubt about it the co ax is the king of presses, as least as far as I am concerned. There are a lot of other premiums also. I sort of wish I could talk myself into buying one but I have three presses already. If I was smart I would sell two and just do everything on my Hornady progressive and use it like a single stage when reloading rifle.
Looks interesting...but what value is a reloading press that has no priming function.
I have never primed on a press. Deprimed, yes. But no more.
There are lots of tools available to the reloader that do the job better and with more feel for consistency.
Depriming, I use this and have for a while.
https://www.amazon.com/Frankford-Arsenal-Platinum-Deprimer-Reloading/dp/B00RPABDZO/
It will do everything I have, but I have not tried it on the 460 yet or the 500 S&W.
A patent is generally only good for 20 years so they would not have to make any changes if they wished to make an exact copy the Co-Ax press. Forrester Co-ax presses have been around more than sixty years.Looks like they made just enough changes to avoid any patent problems.
Forster keeps adding small improvements, some of which may be patented. I haven't looked. The press design itself will have been off patent protection for decades now.
The thing that is missing is the Forster priming system, which is better than any other integral press priming system I've seen, though the Dillon 1050 comes close. It looks like the spent primer collection is in a molded tray under the shell holder rather than in a jar at the end of a tube, as Forster does it. That may actually be an improvement, but I couldn't be sure without trying it.
I notice the FA uses a square die lock ring. I can see pluses and minuses to that. The plus is more support surface area so it probably wears well. The downside is it may resist tipping of the die more, and that's part of the floating action in the Co-ax press.
The original Co-ax press was designed in cooperation with the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit who were looking for better cartridge coaxiality and for features standard presses didn't provide, like the priming system that gets primers properly below flush with the case head for self-loading floating firing pin guns. The floating die and shell holder make self-alignment easier to achieve reduced cartridge runout. John Feamster once described getting a conventional O-press to float the die axis by putting a rubber O-ring between the lock ring and the top surface of the press and said that improved cartridge concentricity, but the range is constrained by the die and press threads. The floating ring in the Co-ax design can tilt more because there are no threads in the press itself to limit that range. Indeed, at someone's suggestion, I tried using an upside-down Lee lock ring on dies in the Co-ax, the idea is to spread the tilted contact area out a little more with its O-ring as a cushion. It seems to work for tilt, but it goes in with resistance, to horizontal wiggle is less free. The jury's still out on that method.
The thing that is missing is the Forster priming system, which is better than any other integral press priming system I've seen, though the Dillon 1050 comes close. It looks like the spent primer collection is in a molded tray under the shell holder rather than in a jar at the end of a tube, as Forster does it. That may actually be an improvement, but I couldn't be sure without trying it.
I notice the FA uses a square die lock ring. I can see pluses and minuses to that. The plus is more support surface area so it probably wears well. The downside is it may resist tipping of the die more, and that's part of the floating action in the Co-ax press.
The original Co-ax press was designed in cooperation with the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit who were looking for better cartridge coaxiality and for features standard presses didn't provide, like the priming system that gets primers properly below flush with the case head for self-loading floating firing pin guns. The floating die and shell holder make self-alignment easier to achieve reduced cartridge runout. John Feamster once described getting a conventional O-press to float the die axis by putting a rubber O-ring between the lock ring and the top surface of the press and said that improved cartridge concentricity, but the range is constrained by the die and press threads. The floating ring in the Co-ax design can tilt more because there are no threads in the press itself to limit that range. Indeed, at someone's suggestion, I tried using an upside-down Lee lock ring on dies in the Co-ax, the idea is to spread the tilted contact area out a little more with its O-ring as a cushion. It seems to work for tilt, but it goes in with resistance, to horizontal wiggle is less free. The jury's still out on that method.
I'm glad to see the Forster CO-AX get a kinda sorta knockoff. This competition will bring about good things for all of us. I love my CO-AX but who can say there aren't possible improvements? When that kid came out the the shellplate the constrained the springs from flying across the room only then did Forster add the pins that also kept the spring inplace. Time will tell but I'm keeping my old Bonanza CO-AX.
I have a Forster Co-Ax, and do have some minor complaints. The priming system is positive, easy to use, but it takes practice to get it set right (on a "bad" scale of 1-10, its a -1). When changing shell holder jaws, the springs are easily lost, but there are updates that have the springs enclosed and there are adapters to use "universal" shell holders ( 1 on the "B" scale). With the clamping jaws to hold cases it's much easier to insert a case into the press and the system is self centering. With my Co-Ax my Hornady concentricity gauge is unnecessary. Every one of my 308 handloads checks out to .001"-.002".
Come to think of it, I don't have any complaints at all about my Co-Ax. A "simple" machine that isn't "precise"? I think not. Yes, a press can be as simple as a Lee Loader with linkage, but like a car, which is the better ride and when you reach your destination which left you in better shape? A Pinto or a Mercedes?
I have owned about a dozen different presses from a Lee Challenger in '71 to a Redding Boss and a few in between (reloaded a couple thousand rounds on a friend's Dillon) but the Forster Co-Ax is the best I've used ...
Come to think of it, I don't have any complaints at all about my Co-Ax. A "simple" machine that isn't "precise"? I think not. Yes, a press can be as simple as a Lee Loader with linkage, but like a car, which is the better ride and when you reach your destination which left you in better shape? A Pinto or a Mercedes?
I have owned about a dozen different presses from a Lee Challenger in '71 to a Redding Boss and a few in between (reloaded a couple thousand rounds on a friend's Dillon) but the Forster Co-Ax is the best I've used ...
I still believe that as with most reloading practices the case to die alignment is over thought.
Once that case enters the sizing die it will align, it has two choices. Align or bend the small amount of case head between the die base and the shellholder. I don't think you will see much bending of the case
When seating you once again have a press fit between the bullet and the case neck. If your neck is of standard length and you are seating .1 of the bearing surface of the bullet into the neck for every .1 of the bullet diameter. Once again that without without considerable lateral force that bullet is going to run parallel to the case neck. Like water, electricity and most people it will take the path of least resistance
Unless either the case or the die has too little float to be able to align itself no misalignment is possible. Again all the ram does is provide the upward motion, any lateral movement is all in the caseholder/die holder
Once that case enters the sizing die it will align, it has two choices. Align or bend the small amount of case head between the die base and the shellholder. I don't think you will see much bending of the case
When seating you once again have a press fit between the bullet and the case neck. If your neck is of standard length and you are seating .1 of the bearing surface of the bullet into the neck for every .1 of the bullet diameter. Once again that without without considerable lateral force that bullet is going to run parallel to the case neck. Like water, electricity and most people it will take the path of least resistance
Unless either the case or the die has too little float to be able to align itself no misalignment is possible. Again all the ram does is provide the upward motion, any lateral movement is all in the caseholder/die holder
Don Fischer
New member
and on non co ax presses the case floats in a case holder and floats and aligns with the die....same thing accomplished. Nothing involving a floating object is precise. The precision lies in the dies. All the press does is just pushes them into and pulls them from the dies, as long as either the case aligns to the die or the die aligns to the case depending on which is floating then the two are pressed together then the mission is accomplished accomplished.
As far as certain presses being more suited to certain applications I agree and some need to be beefier and larger than others. But for most pistol and the average rifle a Lee O style press does just a good a job as a Forster - that's just the plane truth. When the case enters the die all the press has to do is push it in. The dies define the precision in the case forming and seating operations the press is just the engine that brings them together
Put a case in the caseholder on a regular press and wiggle it, see how much play there is, now raise the ram and see if you can wiggle it laterally. Bet you cant that ram has 2 or 3 inches of it encased in a sliding fit. The only way it can go is up and down. Linkage, sure you can wiggle it on any press. All linkage does is transmit the power from the handle when you operate it.
Press operation is simple. No need to over complicate
back to topic
I am going to wait on the reviews on this press, you can't tell a lot from one pic. I do like the concept of loading my dies in blocks and just sliding them in. Not sure if that would be 200 bucks worth of convenience though
Great post!
My take is either you need good alignment or you need float.
Co-axe clearly goes float. Knock off copies made in China are not likely to have the desired quality. But that is my take.
I too am on the Horns of the Dilema as I want a Co-Axe, both for the float and the ease of swapping dies.
The square adapter thingy does snot look like a solution as I would need (12?) of them.
On the other hand, with the RCBS RC, I use the Lee rings (and I get the float as a bonus!) and I can adjust (oh the humanity) minimum shoulder bump back to how I want easily. Not sure how that would work in a Co-Axe but for sure not in that setup.
I have two chamber to deal with in 7.5 and I don't want to say how many in 30-06 (yes I am addicted)
Co-axe clearly goes float. Knock off copies made in China are not likely to have the desired quality. But that is my take.
I too am on the Horns of the Dilema as I want a Co-Axe, both for the float and the ease of swapping dies.
The square adapter thingy does snot look like a solution as I would need (12?) of them.
On the other hand, with the RCBS RC, I use the Lee rings (and I get the float as a bonus!) and I can adjust (oh the humanity) minimum shoulder bump back to how I want easily. Not sure how that would work in a Co-Axe but for sure not in that setup.
I have two chamber to deal with in 7.5 and I don't want to say how many in 30-06 (yes I am addicted)
Hounddawg,
As the father of a friend of mine liked to say, there is no point in arguing about a fact. Either it is so or it isn't. Look it up or measure it. Limitations in our ability to understand what is happening don't trump whether it occurs or not. If it did, there would be no incurable diseases.
So what is needed here is a demo. Mikld and I have both found it takes less effort to get low runout ammo off the Co-ax than the various single-stage presses, but that kind of thing can fool you if you don't do a side-by-side, and the fact the AMU found it was a better press design for making match ammo shouldn't color our objectivity, as they may have been invested in the Co-ax looking good from participating in its development.
I have in mind that since I have a good bit of fired and cleaned but not resized brass on hand and I can use the same die sets to load 30 in each of the Co-ax press and one of my Lee O-presses or a Dillon 550B. I am working up a load for the Garand for as-issued matches using the 150-grain Hornady FMJ and N135 and CCI #34 primers, so I will probably go with the most recent iteration of that. Short bearing surface bullets tilt most easily, so I think that 150 is a practical choice for a comparison of the virtues of intrinsic straightness of output, though I could also order in a box of Sierra Palma 155's, which have a REALLY short bearing surface if readers would prefer, but it will delay results. I propose to turn the case necks to uniform 0.013" wall thickness to eliminate neck wall runout as a contributor to the problem and to chamfer and deburr on my Giraud after resizing and before loading.
The Lee press choices are the Classic Cast and a Challenger, both pre-Breech Lock. There is also a Hand Tool and a Lyman Spar-T press and a couple of others, but I don't think comparing C-presses is quite fair as that's not what most folks use for match loading (except the Co-ax is a form of C-press). I am thinking to use an RCBS standard die set to avoid being fancy and so I am not using special dies to help either side along.
Any other input on this experiement proposal? Preferred O-press (the Dillon is a form of O-press)?
As the father of a friend of mine liked to say, there is no point in arguing about a fact. Either it is so or it isn't. Look it up or measure it. Limitations in our ability to understand what is happening don't trump whether it occurs or not. If it did, there would be no incurable diseases.
So what is needed here is a demo. Mikld and I have both found it takes less effort to get low runout ammo off the Co-ax than the various single-stage presses, but that kind of thing can fool you if you don't do a side-by-side, and the fact the AMU found it was a better press design for making match ammo shouldn't color our objectivity, as they may have been invested in the Co-ax looking good from participating in its development.
I have in mind that since I have a good bit of fired and cleaned but not resized brass on hand and I can use the same die sets to load 30 in each of the Co-ax press and one of my Lee O-presses or a Dillon 550B. I am working up a load for the Garand for as-issued matches using the 150-grain Hornady FMJ and N135 and CCI #34 primers, so I will probably go with the most recent iteration of that. Short bearing surface bullets tilt most easily, so I think that 150 is a practical choice for a comparison of the virtues of intrinsic straightness of output, though I could also order in a box of Sierra Palma 155's, which have a REALLY short bearing surface if readers would prefer, but it will delay results. I propose to turn the case necks to uniform 0.013" wall thickness to eliminate neck wall runout as a contributor to the problem and to chamfer and deburr on my Giraud after resizing and before loading.
The Lee press choices are the Classic Cast and a Challenger, both pre-Breech Lock. There is also a Hand Tool and a Lyman Spar-T press and a couple of others, but I don't think comparing C-presses is quite fair as that's not what most folks use for match loading (except the Co-ax is a form of C-press). I am thinking to use an RCBS standard die set to avoid being fancy and so I am not using special dies to help either side along.
Any other input on this experiement proposal? Preferred O-press (the Dillon is a form of O-press)?
RC put a case in the shellholder of the RCBS and see how much wiggle room you have on every axis. You have plenty of float on the RCBS without any O rings to introduce float. Otherwise if the alignment was off by even .001 you would be damaging the case every time you forced it into a full length die and see either creases in the sides of the case or brass shavings on the press where you were shaving .001 off the case every sizing.
I guess we all like to get a new toy now and then though. I just bought another scale even though I have two others on my bench already that work fine ::shrug::. Funny part is the little $20 scale has less drift than the new one. Don't laugh at my $20 scale. Just for grins I loaded using it for a 300 yard match and shot my personal best score. If that scale did not have a annoying auto shutoff and had a AC power adapter I would use it for all my loading
I guess we all like to get a new toy now and then though. I just bought another scale even though I have two others on my bench already that work fine ::shrug::. Funny part is the little $20 scale has less drift than the new one. Don't laugh at my $20 scale. Just for grins I loaded using it for a 300 yard match and shot my personal best score. If that scale did not have a annoying auto shutoff and had a AC power adapter I would use it for all my loading