Which is it guys? What would you recommend? I'm leaning toward the hornady but have had good luck with my old RCBS partner.
The Hornady allows me to use the quick change bushings.

forster co-ax - once you have one everything else just doesn't make it

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
forster co-ax - once you have one everything else just doesn't make it

I've never owned one but their fans are sure real.....butchloc was probably the inventor (or friends of his were) and if I was buying a single stage press today I'd sure head this way.....

I was really pissed when I discovered that RCBS removed the priming features from their press....The rockchucker was a very fine press until that time..

If you go with the Hornady remember to get a supply of their split rings for your dies lock rings.....they help immensely to lock the dies to the lock and load bushings....it too is a fine tool

quote:

Originally posted by Cliff Lyle:
Which is it guys? What would you recommend? I'm leaning toward the hornady but have had good luck with my old RCBS partner.
The Hornady allows me to use the quick change bushings.

I use an ordinary 1972 Rockchucker. To buy lock lock and load bushing for all my dies would probably cost $500 to $600. The heavy case forming I do would not work in the co-ax since all it holds the dies by is the ring. I have split loading dies with the Rockchucker. Breaking a lock ring in a co-ax would be easy during heavy duty case forming.
Unlike vapo I took the priming arm out of my Rockchucker when I got it in 1972. I had one of the little screw in shellholder Lee hand priming tools then. Since then I have bought about 10 more hand priming tools of various types out of curiosity, but I have never used a press for priming again.

+2 for the Co-Ax

quote:

Unlike vapo I took the priming arm out of my Rockchucker when I got it in 1972.

you're probably in the huge majority here as it's why RCBS removed the tool and the cost.....most folks (like you) didn't use it at all.

quote:

you're probably in the huge majority here as it's why RCBS removed the tool and the cost.....most folks (like you) didn't use it at all.

I've removed it in my rockchucker and Jr press. I found it far easier to use a priming tool. I never felt like I had good control with the press. I found it much easier to judge the tension on the primer with a hand tool.

I've not used the co-ax but have no complaints with the rockchucker.

I use the priming device of the Rockchucker a lot and really like it but I admit I never used anything else...
What's so bad about it? I am always open to suggestions why to buy new gear...

quote:

Originally posted by DUK:
I use the priming device of the Rockchucker a lot and really like it but I admit I never used anything else...
What's so bad about it? I am always open to suggestions why to buy new gear...

Duk,

Some people find the various hand priming tools out there allow one to feel the seating of the primer better than the press does. (There are many people who believe that the pressure and/or dept with which the primer is seated influences the brissance, burnability and ignition of the primer/priming compound, all of which can affect pressure, accuracy/sonsistency and even probablility of misfires).

The various hand primers available have different leverage than the presses and using fingers or your thumb rather than your whole arm/hand for seating does allow a finer "feel".

I have not found it to make a significant difference, as I do the priming stroke (on my press) very slowly and with two finger on my press handle. However, when I have used the hand primers, it is easier to concentrate on that step and the feel is unarguably fine.

The Lee priming tool does also feel different from the RCBS hand priming tool, and both feel different from the RCBS bench-mounted priming tool. The other manufacturers' tools may feel different in other ways, as well.

To each his own, and I hope I have dissuaded you from just taking advice blindly (though that would be easiest). Like developing loads, the only way to be sure is to buy one of each, try all of them and decide which works best for YOU.

That's how I choose my whiskey, my guns, my wives. No, wait! I'm not married. I wonder if there is a connection?

Remember, only believe half of what you see and one quarter of what you hear. That goes double for what you get from the internet. Even this post. Maybe especially this post.

Lost Sheep

quote:

Originally posted by buckshot:
+2 for the Co-Ax

+3...You`ll never regret it.

The co-ax is plenty strong enough for any operation you don't use a cheater bar for (and it has more leverage than most conventional presses anyway). This myth about the weakness of the relatively thin lock ring threads is pure bunk. The depth of threads in conventional presses is a manufacturing convenience, not a necessity for strength. The depth of the hole in a conventional press is necessary because it is at the weakest point on the press frame (precisely because there is a hole through it). Full length threading the die hole is cheaper and easier than the additional machining operations/tooling that would obviate it.

Andy

What's your reason for replacing the Partner? It may affect your decision on a new press. The Hornady is also aluminum, although a stronger press. A cast iron press with a removable die insert can be converted to use the LNL bushings.

Co-Ax is a wonderful press unless you need to put real pressure on it. I've been using a Rock Chucker with the press mounted priming die since before 1970 even though I have a Corbin, a Dillon 550B, and a Dillon 1050.

The Forster co-ax has probably the most leverage of any single stage press outside Corbin................ and design........


Forster used to advertise that you could size small bore cases with only the pressure of your little finger. I'm someone who does not believe everything I read. I tried it on .223 and 6ppc cases. They did not lie.

quote:

Originally posted by amamnn:
The Forster co-ax has probably the most leverage of any single stage press outside Corbin................ and design........


Forster used to advertise that you could size small bore cases with only the pressure of your little finger. I'm someone who does not believe everything I read. I tried it on .223 and 6ppc cases. They did not lie.

They still make that claim, plus this one,

quote:

When we originally tested our unique shell holder design, we full length sized two-hundred once-fired 300 H&H Magnum cases dry and unlubricated. We neither pulled the rims off the cases nor did we stick a case in the die.

Great press IMO
http://www.forsterproducts.com/Pages/press.htm

Forester Co-Ax unless you need BIG 1" dies for the real big bore stuff then the largest RCBS, and if want something real neat and portable then Harrells.

Another Co-Ax fan. I FL resize the 338-378 brass with very little effort. The dies change out in a couple of seconds, the decapping system is flawless and the priming station seats primers perfectly everytime.

Ken....

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Unlike vapo I took the priming arm out of my Rockchucker when I got it in 1972.

you're probably in the huge majority here as it's why RCBS removed the tool and the cost.....most folks (like you) didn't use it at all.

I have used an RCBS Jr with the linkage reversed to down stroke priming and it works pretty well for a press. The Rock Chucker always seemed a bit over powered for primers and it's linkage cannot be reversed.

quote:

This myth about the weakness of the relatively thin lock ring threads is pure bunk. The depth of threads in conventional presses is a manufacturing convenience, not a necessity for strength.

All it takes to break a ring is to stretch the mickey mouse lock screw. I suspect you have never loaded your press up enough to split a die and you have never manufactured a drilled and tapped casting. The tapped hole is a feature that is designed to keep the die and ram on axis. The Co-ax does not necessarily guarantee that.

When I stick a case in a die, I routinely put that die in my Co-Ax to remove the offending case. I Have never torn a rim off doing this, and I could only guess as to the force I'm applying, but it's enough my bench top creaks and moans! My Dillon will tear the rim off when I attempt to do this, and so does my buddy's Rock Chucker.

Lateral movement in standard (non-acme) threads will impart a tilt to the die when loaded under pressure. The only way to ensure there is no tilt is to ensure perfect centering of the die in the threaded hole. I submit this is rather difficult with a set screw lock ring and/or ordinary threaded hole in a press unless the die is torqued in place, which rarely happens, and I doubt the castings of reloading presses would support it. Torquing a threaded fastener in a conventional hole is required to ensure uniform thread engagement which only then would allow the length of threaded engagement to affect centering. OTOH, centering is easy with a split lock ring.

To be precise about failure mechanisms in split style lock rings, the clamp screw must be broken, AND the ring must be spread enough to leave insufficient thread engagement. For this to happen in the co-ax press, the split must also be oriented such that the ring is not supported by the sides or back of the slot. In any case, such force would be far beyond what one should encounter in reloading operations.

The point that you abused a press and die to the point of splitting the die attests only to the fact that the die failed long before either RC or co-ax would, although I have seen photos of a broken RC toggle block (to be fair, the conditions under which it broke indicate a flawed casting). I have never heard of a co-ax press breaking, or of a die/lock ring failing in one. Abusing precision reloading equipment to the point of failure, in the absence of manufacturing flaws, is a sign of ignorance on the part of the user, but the direct answer to your question is; no, I have not.

During manufacturing, the die and ram holes in a conventional press frame should be bored in one operation, and then the ram hole reamed to finish diameter. Then the die hole should be threaded with a pilot in the ram hole. If this is done, a threaded hole in a conventional press is as accurate is it is going to get, regardless of the length of the threads. See my point about tilt and die threads above.

Andy

I have tried different single stage presses, but the only brand I now own is Co-Ax (two of them). I don't know if it is the "best", but it sure the best I have ever used.

Any of the Redding presses is excellent. The Turret and UltraMag are fine designs. The Bosses have closer tolerances than other O-frames. They are all cast iron. What best fits your needs?

I sure like the looks of that Corbin press.

What do you guys think about the RCBS AmmoMaster for a single stage press. I need a bigger press for the 505 Gibbs.

Chuck

quote:

Lateral movement in standard (non-acme) threads will impart a tilt to the die when loaded under pressure.

Perhaps you should explain in detail why you think this is possible. The 30° flank angle of a 60 included angle 'V" thread tends to force the female threaded member to the center. Perhaps you should review Federal Standard H 28.

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
What do you guys think about the RCBS AmmoMaster for a single-stage press. I need a bigger press for the 505 Gibbs.

I haven't used one, but recall reading some posts by the 50 BMG guys stating that their ammo wasn't true due to press misalignment. With a stand-off design , it's going to be hard to get perfect alignment. This is a press that won't be convenient for general purpose application (very long handle throw).

Yep, the Bonanza/Forster press is the one to get. Clarence Purdy, the designer, got it right the first time. I also have an RCBS jr and have used a RockChucker and an old Pacific C-style press. All will load good ammo, but the Co-ax is the most user-friendly.

forster, no lie.

Forster Co-ax, the only thing bad about buying one is feeling so stupid for not doing it sooner.

There is dust on the Rockchucker next to it.

Just a question-is one able to use '06-length Redding Competition Seating Dies (w/micrometer adj) in a Forester?

Shouldn't be a problem in the newest version B-3. The upgraded B-3 model has 1-1/2” more clearance than the B-2. I have 2 of the B-3 models, but I use the Forester's Ultra dies. Somebody will reply, but I wanted to make you aware the new model has more clearance.

Went to Cabela's in Fort Worth today and saw the forster demonstrated. I wasn't aware of how easy it is to change calibers. I was impressed enough with the features and capabilities that I bought it.

quote:

I bought it.

Hells bells man....you're half way home!

You would have been proud of the selling job I did to convince my wife that this was really needed...You'd have been proud of me.

quote:

Originally posted by Cliff Lyle:
You would have been proud of the selling job I did to convince my wife that this was really needed...You'd have been proud of me.

You won't regret buying the Co-Ax. It's a marvel.

But you never said what's wrong with your Partner?

quote:

I bought it.

Good on you! In 20 years you'll still be happy with your Co-Ax.