Coaxial Press pros/cons?

[Scottyvwork]

Looking at buying a new press, coaxial type intriguing, advantage/disadvantage to conventional style press? Thanks!

[Harpoon1]

[jasper2408]

MEC Marksman

+1

Both are good but I prefer the MEC. I prefer shell holders but that is just me. The MEC is smooth as silk to operate.I did get the stand with it and the short handle when I ordered it.

I sit down to reload and I didn't want to have to reach up over the top of the press to operate it. The CO-AX does have the quick change dies though if you don't want to screw dies in and out.

[Oso Polaris]

There are a lot of steps/activities that are required to actually achieve benchrest-level precision reloading that need to be taken into consideration. The reloading press is just one component. The list of activities and equipment used are EXHAUSTING... it is not for most people. Sanity is a precious thing!!!

Is you rifle capable of shooting .1"-.2" groups? Is the barrel full custom...premium blank, tight tolerance reamed chamber, etc? Are you reloading for a bolt gun or AR15?
Are you using premium reloading dies, such as Redding, Foster, Whidden, or full-custom dies, etc. If not then tight tolerance of press won't matter because of the loose tolerances of your reloading dies. Are you willing to upgrade your dies?
Are you reaming primer pockets to uniform primer seating depths?
Are you deburring flashholes?
Are you annealing cases?
Are you willing to turn case necks?
Are you trimming case lengths and chamfering inside/outside... think Giraud trimmer?
Lets talk about how you are measuring powder to within a 0.01gr... precision balance beam scale, auto-trickler, etc.
Blah Blah Blah.......
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _

+95% of all my reloading can be achieved with the MEC without noticeable difference in downrange performance. The MEC is buttery smooth, compact, and the amount of free space/clearance across the front of the press to access the cases is huge improvement. It will take the Hornady Lock'nLoad quick change die inserts if that is something you're interested in that feature. That minimal <5% improvement is nothing compared to a bad wind call...

The potentially small improvement in runout on the Coaxial comes at 3x the price after you buy the aftermarket "C" linkage upgrade so that you have access to the cases from the sides, and you might also consider Foster's upgrade kit for the universal shellholder(s).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAcxI1qMMtM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZB2FVn8iSA

My review criteria basically came down to "If I am pursuing Benchrest Precision..." then the best answer is Area 419 Turret Press with greater flexibility, repeatability, multiple die stations, and tighter tolerance. The ability to buy multiple toolheads while maintaining the same level of precision/tolerances is seductive. Imagine a dedicates toolhead(s) for wildcat cartridges and AR15 cartridges and precision long range. No more removing, replacing, remembering where you left it...

I decided to put the price differential between the MEC and Co-axial into paying for a Giraud benchtop case trimmer.

[LR1955]

HP1:

My gripes as well. The CO Ax was a great design in its time but others have come out that are probably just as good in terms of run out and are a lot cheaper. The FA Coax isn't cheap but I bet it does everything the Bonnanza does just as well. The MEC looks solid and well thought out and designed too. I like being able to slide the dies in and out but to tell the truth, that handle on top of the press is a PITA and not efficient when dealing with large quantities of brass. I write off press mounted primer feeds for single stage presses. All of the ones I have used were lousy so I went to a hand primer and never looked back.

If I had a choice between the two, I would probably go with the MEC simply because it is more efficient in use due to the handle location. MEC also has a very long track record of quality stuff.

LR55

[Laman]

As with most things opinions vary, I have been using a Forster Co-Ax for 30+ years, loaded thousands of rounds with it. The handle position for me is a non issue, a few more inches of movement with my arm. This press is still just as smooth as the day I got it, no slop, with good dies I get straight brass. I have never used the priming feature, as far as I'm concerned every press could do away with any priming feature as that is better accomplished with other tools. The one con is the changing of the shell plates for different size cases, but I have done it so many times I could do it blind folded. I reload for 11 different calibers, Co-AX's speed and ease of changing dies is something I will never give up on, one of those easy button things.

[kmon]

Forster press here and agree with Laman on it. Their new S shell holder is an improvement and they also offer now a shell holder adapter for using a standard shell holder.

No big deal with the older shell holders except for those easy to loose little springs. But if you are not switching from small to large case heads often not a problem.

Haven't primed on a press in years, much prefer the hand primers.

[LR1955]

Guys:

I have owned a Co Ax for about thirty years as well. The handle on top is not a good design feature and beware of the tiny springs that need removal when flipping over the shell holder for 5.56. I would say it takes about twenty percent longer to go through a lot of brass due to the handle and how you have to move the brass from one bin into the shell holder then off into the done bin.

Will I hold on to mine? Yes, but my T-7 is just as reliable in terms of alignment and is way faster and easier to manipulate.

I just think that the Bonnanza Co Ax was the heat in its day when there wasn't such a thing as CNC machine tools. Not so sure alignment is a big problem today. Unless you go with the Lee presses. I have to say that of all the reloading companies that have gotten my money, Lee must have the worse quality control in the business.

LR55

[centerfire]

Guys:

I have owned a Co Ax for about thirty years as well. The handle on top is not a good design feature and beware of the tiny springs that need removal when flipping over the shell holder for 5.56. I would say it takes about twenty percent longer to go through a lot of brass due to the handle and how you have to move the brass from one bin into the shell holder then off into the done bin.

Will I hold on to mine? Yes, but my T-7 is just as reliable in terms of alignment and is way faster and easier to manipulate.

I just think that the Bonnanza Co Ax was the heat in its day when there wasn't such a thing as CNC machine tools. Not so sure alignment is a big problem today. Unless you go with the Lee presses. I have to say that of all the reloading companies that have gotten my money, Lee must have the worse quality control in the business.

LR55

Agree on all points. The CoAx feels like it was designed in the 60's and time moved on. I grew to absolutely hate the arm position because of the top mounted handle. After I went through every modification, or work around, I could find I sold the press.

[Harpoon1]

[PaulieV]

Does anyone have any experience with the Frankford Arsenal M-press? I'm tossing up between that and the Hornady iron or classic.

Have read the universal shell holder can be problematic and am a bit concerned that the Grendel case might not fit too well. TIA

[outbreaker]

I have been using a Co-Ax press for about 5 years and love it. Much better than the RCBS I had. Their innovative shell holder allows me to reload .223-300RUM without changing the shell holder. I wish had gone this route years ago.

[LR1955]

Does anyone have any experience with the Frankford Arsenal M-press? I'm tossing up between that and the Hornady iron or classic.

Have read the universal shell holder can be problematic and am a bit concerned that the Grendel case might not fit too well. TIA

PV:

Just my experience with the Co Ax. I have never had a problem with the shell holder not holding on to any of the more common sizes of brass. Yes, it won't hold on to the big rims of the black powder cartridge rifles but anything smokeless it has worked for me. With the larger diameters of brass I needed to loosen the plate a little to let the two holder halves slide apart easier but it still held the brass.

The PITA comes when you have to flip the thing over to go to the larger or smaller diameter brass. They you see one of the drawbacks with the Co Ax.

LR-55

[PaulieV]

Thanks guy's appreciate the feedback

[outbreaker]

PV:

Just my experience with the Co Ax. I have never had a problem with the shell holder not holding on to any of the more common sizes of brass. Yes, it won't hold on to the big rims of the black powder cartridge rifles but anything smokeless it has worked for me. With the larger diameters of brass I needed to loosen the plate a little to let the two holder halves slide apart easier but it still held the brass.

The PITA comes when you have to flip the thing over to go to the larger or smaller diameter brass. They you see one of the drawbacks with the Co Ax.

LR-55

I can see that. Lucky for me I do not reload anything smaller than .223 and my 300 rum just barely fits without having to flip the holder.