bonanza co-ax

[country gent]

One other plus to the co ax ( and rcbs summit) (I have both) is the large unrestricted opening and view of the shell holder case. While I wont say one press is better than another I do point out the differences and ergonomics as best I can. IN the end its up to the person to research and make up their mind. If possible hit some shops that have presses on display and look them over handle them and such. This can be an eye opener in itself.
I really like my co ax and its loaded a bunch of ammo. ( Ive wore out 2 sets of links and the shell holder base once. My was an earlier version that didn't have the wear plate it does now). Weight isn't bad when mounting moving it. Has plenty of leverage. My summit is much heavier and a real chore to mount move. THe shellholder die mount system works well. Its a comfortable well thought out press that is very useable

[dverna]

No one size fits all.

I have both the RC and Co-Ax. Prefer the Co-Ax. Bought 45+ years ago for $70...a lot more than a Lyman or RC I could have bought. The huge amount I over invested in the Co-ax would have been spent on whiskey, beer. and women instead. But I was a gun nut and knew I would never need another SS press for a few decades. Buy once, cry once.

Co-Ax is not a good choice if you are pinching pennies and want maximum value for your reloading $$$, or if you are not sure you want to reload for a few decades, or reload a few hundred rounds a year. Cheaper options out there for sure.

Just like a Star is not for everyone, or a Dillon, or a Spolar, or...…

I disagree with Lloyd a bit on this one. Some guys may want to buy the "cool factor", but I think many more buy higher end equipment because of real or perceived advantages. If RCBS charged $350 for a RC, it would not make it "cooler"....just overpriced...still a good press but not worth it.

[Ozark Howler]

I think it would be better to not limit your self to just the two mentioned presses. There are a number of other good choices out there, I would also look at Redding's and the Lee Cast series. Some assume that because the Lee Cast series cost less, that they may be lower quality, not the case. I actually found my Rockchucker IV disappointing based on the useless primer catching system, the Lee Cast series is pretty much bullet proof all the way around (IMO).

[Lloyd Smale]

Well until someone can PROVE that they make ammo twice as good to justify twice the price ill stand by my overpriced opinion. Good press just not the great game changing press its toted as. im sure an argument can be made at me that the lee is cheaper yet and does everything the rcbs does. Cant argue it but I could sell either of my rockchukers today for more then I paid for them. I doubt you could say the same about a lee cast. Probably the only disadvantage though. I just have a thing against lee. The pro 1000 and pro master soured me on anything lee that's called a press. I just posted though that that new upside down lee press might find a place on one of my benches for sizing pc coated bullets. I look at the advertisement for those bonanzas and the floating die turns me off. Any bench rest shooter today was the most rigid press available. They don want there dies floating around. I could see back in the day its advantage in quick die change outs but today theres single stages with snap in dies and kits to convert any press to quick change dies. Like I said my lnl does it and even had enough slop in the system that it could be advertised and a floating die. Its why it collects dust or is just used for sizing brass or pulling bullets. Id never use it to seat bullets. to me its the 6.5 creedmore or 270 of presses. Get a few people back in the day that are well known to say its the ONLY press to have and it works better then anything else and is worth twice the money and they will come. Id have to ask why if its so darned good there such a poor seller today. I remember back in the 70s when I started seriously loading you could hardly find one because the sold as fast as they made them. Kind of again like the creedmore and 270. People saw through the advertising. They found out they were good but not game changing.

No one size fits all.

I have both the RC and Co-Ax. Prefer the Co-Ax. Bought 45+ years ago for $70...a lot more than a Lyman or RC I could have bought. The huge amount I over invested in the Co-ax would have been spent on whiskey, beer. and women instead. But I was a gun nut and knew I would never need another SS press for a few decades. Buy once, cry once.

Co-Ax is not a good choice if you are pinching pennies and want maximum value for your reloading $$$, or if you are not sure you want to reload for a few decades, or reload a few hundred rounds a year. Cheaper options out there for sure.

Just like a Star is not for everyone, or a Dillon, or a Spolar, or...…

I disagree with Lloyd a bit on this one. Some guys may want to buy the "cool factor", but I think many more buy higher end equipment because of real or perceived advantages. If RCBS charged $350 for a RC, it would not make it "cooler"....just overpriced...still a good press but not worth it.

[jmorris]

Well until someone can PROVE that they make ammo twice as good to justify twice the price...

That’s not very easily done and why Lee sells so many rock bottom priced presses, lack of proof that more expensive presses load better ammunition. A Lee challenger is $75 new, a rock chucker is $180, yet there is no proof the RCBS will make ammunition 2.4 times better. I have loaded ammunition on that $60 Lee in #5 that has put 5 rounds into 3/8” at 100 yards, if I put the same dies in my RCBS and use the same components, I don’t get .156” groups.

I could take the most precise single stage and install a mediocre die and get a worse final product than a great die in a mediocre single stage or progressive. So unless everything is identical in a blind side by side comparison, you couldn’t prove it, even if it were the case.

It would be nice if cost and improvement had a 1:1 relationship though. I can get a new 1 MOA rifle for $300, would be nice to spend $600 for one that just makes a single hole all the time.

[jmorris]

Any bench rest shooter today was the most rigid press available. They don want there dies floating around.

Lots of benchrest shooters use small lightweight aluminum presses or even arbor like presses.

http://harrellsprec.com/index.php/ca...oading-presses

They also use dies custom made for the specific chamber in that rifle.

http://harrellsprec.com/index.php/pr...ull-length-die

It requires very little force in this case because you are not really moving much brass. I can load and fire a case 3 times in my 6mm ppc benchrest rifle without even sizing it, for example.

If you read David Tubb’s book he describes how he modifies Dillon tool heads and lock rings so they are floating.

John Whidden who has set a number of records himself, sells tool heads to float dies in 650’s. For people that want accurate ammunition without the added work of a single stage.



His process
https://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek059.html

In any case their records are somewhat a testament to their processes. If floating is making their ammunition worse, that means they are even better shooters than everyone else thinks.

[1hole]

If RCBS charged $350 for a RC, it would not make it "cooler"....just overpriced...still a good press but not worth it.

Roger that but it would be hard to make the "you get what you pay for crowd" admit it.

All of us can thank God for Lee, if not for them the prices of most of our tools would be much higher.

And, for what it's worth, there's no better conventional single stage available at any price than Lee's Classic Cast; it's better in every aspect than my old Rock Chucker. But, if someone wants a Co-Ax (or an RC) that's what he should get.

[HangFireW8]

$500 is a lot, too much, really, for a single stage press. I've never heard the co ax equated with cool before. If it is, or is not cool to some forum critter, matters nothing at all to me.

I have both an old RCII and an old co-ax. Each is good at different things. The Co-ax is easier standing and the RC sitting.

Proof? Besides match results, proof might include runout results after sizing or seating. Both can produce for me zero runout ammo (with some inevitable rejects). One press can correct runout better. The other produces less runout. I see no need to dis one to laud the other. It's not a wife. You can have more than one. I never understood the need of some to own only one and piss on the others.

[richhodg66]

I bought a Forster Co-ax a few years ago and haven't set it up yet. I need to get to that. I sure didn't spend anywhere close to $500, though.

For all the reloading junk I have, the Rockchucker still does the bulk of all the tasks I do, like 95% or better.

[Ozark Howler]

I think we're back to what is the best press issue again....As for me, my original purchased (in 1967 for about $65 bucks) RCBS A2 is still loading top quality loads, I have owned and sold many many presses over the years, in fact my first press (Herters #3 purchased in 1965) reloaded as well as the Co-Ax I bought years later (and sold). From my experience I believe many people put more emphasis on tools used than on homework (preparation and measurements, and laying out good shooter skills). Accuracy is about 70-75% shooters ability, the rest to firearm choice and components. To hit a small target at 300-400 yards takes a hell of a lot of shooter skill......no so much as the press I used!...again IMO

[Snow ninja]

I got lucky and got gifted an old Bonanza Co-Ax when I was first starting out. Cleaned it up and repainted it. Works great and does everything I need it to. However, I don’t know if I could justify the cost on a new one. My favorite thing about it is that I can throw in a universal decapping die, and can deprime all of my loose shells at once and sort as I go. The expandable jaws are a huge help in that regard. I do not like priming on it as it is a little awkward to do. I use a Frankford Arsenal hand primer for that.

[1hole]

Machined parts are not normally exactly specified as a single measurement point. Of practical necessity all interchangeable parts must have a tolerance range, meaning there's a maximum or minimum target number with plus or minus so many thousanths. The tolerance range can be narrow or wide but anything within the specified range is considered "spot on" for that measurement.

The dimensions and tolerances for ammo, the tools to make ammo and the chambers it's to be fired in come from SAAMI, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Institute. ALL of our tool makers strive to keep their parts within SAAMI tolerances and they do pretty well. But tolerances in any system can "stack" in a good way or in a "bad" way and it can't be helped. Thus, assembled mechanical items will vary from "near perfection" to "barely tolerable but still works okay".

Parts by parts, the variations come randomly ... and from ALL makers. If any "brand" had proof of their tools being more accurate or made more accurate ammo than others of its type, they would advertize it everywhere. Advertizing laws being what they are, we have no maker crazy enough to say that.

Amature machine experts (like web reloading gurus!) often insist their favorite brand is "best" and that presses and dies and shell holders should be wrench locked in alignment. But machinists who know what's actually going on will say, "That's not so, there are too many variables that can't be controlled for ridgid tooling to work well in the real world." For instance, high cost custom rifle barrels are usually chambered in large lathes with the reamers held in costly "floating" holders that allow the tapered tool to actually move around enough to precisely follow the bore.

Ditto the alignment needs of our reloading presses and dies. Our round cases WILL precisely celf center themselves into tapered dies - they can't do otherwise - unless they're firmly held out of alignment (that's why Forster's CoAx and its floating die system works so well). All of the part tolerances involved in reloading insure there simply can't be any predictable locked down precise alignment. Confusion about that fact appears to get many presses tossed as "worn out", often just when the ram is finally worn enough to let it actually make better ammo!

It's been decades since I followed BR competition results but when I did NONE of the winners ever used our (generally flaky, IMHO) threaded presses and threaded dies in their determined pursuit of fine accuracy. That's probably still true. ??

[lotech]

I don't recall my Co-Ax being particularly expensive in comparison with other presses when I purchased it new more than thirty (maybe forty?) years ago. I don't know about the perfect alignment claims some attribute to the Co-Ax, but I do know that measured runout has been minimal with rifle cartridges loaded on my press. Perhaps it would also be minimal with other press designs. I've never loaded handgun cartridges on the press. I use an assortment of dies from a variety of manufacturers.

Some have mentioned a lack of versatility with the Co-Ax and this includes using a collet bullet puller, file-type trim dies, removing primer crimps from GI brass, etc. This lack of versatility is the reason I've always kept a heavy-duty single stage press such as an RCBS Big Max or Redding Ultra Mag bolted to my loading bench. I no longer work with wildcat cartridges or do any case forming. A Co-Ax could probably for case forming but it wouldn't be my first choice.

Priming on the Co-Ax works well if you overlook the setup part of the process.

However, for 95% of routine everyday handloading work, I like and prefer the Co-Ax over other presses. Opinions vary, sometimes a lot.

[country gent]

A while back there was a new press on here ( i believe it was German made) that used ball bushings on three rods and bearing in the linkage. I looked at it on their sight. It was a very nice press the preloaded ball bushing and ball bearings would make for smooth operation. The heavy plate design and leverage would also add to this presses desirability. But the price tag of several thousand dollars negated it. There are many expensive presses out there. What is a decked out Dillon 650 with feeder measures and tool heads going for now? How about one of the mark 7 hydraulically operated progressives.

I load ammo on several presses depending on use and rifle. I use a Co Ax, Summit, dillan 650 ( 2 on my bench loaded all my high power ammo on it. one is set up to use a harrels powder measure), rock chucker and lyman orange crusher, last is a small home made arbor press used with wilson or custom straight line dies, This does produce the best ammo in my tight necked rifles. Its slow and very methodical.

When looking at a new press you need to decide what your specifications are how accurate a press/ The needed leverage and stroke of the press. All of te intended uses, rifle ammo pistol, ammo, bullet pulling, file and trim, heavy case forming, speed, mounting some press over hang the bench making a drawer useless, Construction, die mounting I personally dont care for having to by extras to mount standard dies in a press, "color" you want, and last cost

[Andy45]

I have two Rockchuckers. I was having concentricity issues producing rifle ammo for long range shooting. So I bought the Co-Ax. I'm thrilled with it, and use it for resizing and seating for all rifle ammo. I really like the far less mess of de-priming with it. The Rockchuckers I still use for pistol ammo. All priming is done with an RCBS benchtop primer.

All that said, if starting from scratch again, I'd probably go with the Hornady or Dillon progressive press.

[1hole]

About the value of wrenching dies in place, I've not paid attention to precision rifle match results lately but traditionally winning BR shooters used (unthreaded) hand dies and simply pushed their cases in and out with a lightweight arbor press; we can't get a looser "connection" between our dies and press than that! Well, okay, the Co-Ax press floats dies too ... but it costs a lot more than Lee's lock rings!

Fact is, locking threaded dies down hard into a press with a wrench is a noob mistake. If we can bring ourselves to let dies float in our press a little bit the proper case-to-die alignment will automatically follow. Lee's badly misunderstood - and much hated - rubber "O" die lock rings accomplish exactly that and they keep the dies adjusted too!

[jmorris]

About the value of wrenching dies in place, I've not paid attention to precision rifle match results lately but traditionally winning BR shooters used (unthreaded) hand dies and simply pushed their cases in and out with a lightweight arbor press; we can't get a looser "connection" between our dies and press than that! Well, okay, the Co-Ax press floats dies too ... but it costs a lot more than Lee's lock rings!

Fact is, locking threaded dies down hard into a press with a wrench is a noob mistake. If we can bring ourselves to let dies float in our press a little bit the proper case-to-die alignment will automatically follow. Lee's badly misunderstood - and much hated - rubber "O" die lock rings accomplish exactly that and they keep the dies adjusted too!

The first two links in #26 are to benchrest presses and dies. The “combo” is setup to use a custom threaded sizer but also the Wilson no threads style seater.

[Larry Gibson]

Well until someone can PROVE that they make ammo twice as good to justify twice the price ill stand by my overpriced opinion. Good press just not the great game changing press its toted as. im sure an argument can be made at me that the lee is cheaper yet and does everything the rcbs does. Cant argue it but I could sell either of my rockchukers today for more then I paid for them. I doubt you could say the same about a lee cast. Probably the only disadvantage though. I just have a thing against lee. The pro 1000 and pro master soured me on anything lee that's called a press. I just posted though that that new upside down lee press might find a place on one of my benches for sizing pc coated bullets. I look at the advertisement for those bonanzas and the floating die turns me off. Any bench rest shooter today was the most rigid press available. They don want there dies floating around. I could see back in the day its advantage in quick die change outs but today theres single stages with snap in dies and kits to convert any press to quick change dies. Like I said my lnl does it and even had enough slop in the system that it could be advertised and a floating die. Its why it collects dust or is just used for sizing brass or pulling bullets. Id never use it to seat bullets. to me its the 6.5 creedmore or 270 of presses. Get a few people back in the day that are well known to say its the ONLY press to have and it works better then anything else and is worth twice the money and they will come. Id have to ask why if its so darned good there such a poor seller today. I remember back in the 70s when I started seriously loading you could hardly find one because the sold as fast as they made them. Kind of again like the creedmore and 270. People saw through the advertising. They found out they were good but not game changing.

Natchez has the Coax for $337......not hardly twice the price...…….

[jmorris]

They are out of stock, could be priced at $1 if you can’t buy it. That said, the link I posted in #18 is only a couple dollars more.

[rbuck351]

I bought my Bonanza at an auction recently for about $20. The primer setup has been changed to take normal shell holders which makes changing them very easy and fast. I have 2 rockchucks, a JR , CHIII, Star, 550b, Lyman Spar t, Lyman AA, and 3 Lee pro 1000s. The Bonanza has become my favorite to load on other than the 550b so I don't even care if I paid too much.