Frankford Arsenal Co-Ax Clone?

Ohen Cepel said:

I'll go with a known Forrester in this case. I hate to buy extra unique things and those blocks fall into that category in my mind.

Click to expand...

I agree. The cost of those blocks can add up quickly. I have about 50 dies that I use on my Co-Ax. That's $250 just to enable those dies to be used with the FA press. From what I see there is no benefit to this press. Way too expensive.

I just use Sinclair or Forster lock rings on my "good" dies. I have "modified" some other lock rings. I drilled and tapped a couple Lee rings for an 8-32 nylon tipped set screw, and the same with some unknown lock rings where a bit of upward movement didn't matter. At about $5.00 for each Forster ring it can add up when you have 12 die sets (12x3=36x$5=$180.00)...

In the OP link to Midway USA, if you zoom in on the picture the shell holder is at or below flush to the frame, how do you put a case in that thing? Does the pointy thing do something for you or is it a bad picture misleading?

I see that the spent primer system is a little plastic tray instead of the tube like the Coax. It looks to me like you are supposed to use the little knobs to slide the ears of the caseholder halves apart instead of the automatic system like is on the Coax. The die block would be an added expense for me because most dies I will use in the Coax have rings that work included with the die.

I purchased a Coax two months ago on sale for $279.99 shipped. I'm not sad I spent $60 more.

armarsh said:

...It looks to me like you are supposed to use the little knobs to slide the ears of the caseholder halves apart instead of the automatic system like is on the Coax. ...

Click to expand...

I figure it works similar to a Co-Ax where the two shell holder halves are closed by springs located under the cover plate. When the shell holder platform is lowered, the bullet shaped protrusion pushes the shell holder halves apart, again under the cover plate, to accept a case. When the platform is raised toward the die, the bullet shaped thing recedes and let’s the spring loaded shell holder close on the case rim. It works very well on a Co-Ax. Can’t speak for the new FA press.

higgite said:

I figure it works similar to a Co-Ax where the two shell holder halves are closed by springs located under the cover plate. When the shell holder platform is lowered, the bullet shaped protrusion pushes the shell holder halves apart, again under the cover plate, to accept a case. When the platform is raised toward the die, the bullet shaped thing recedes and let’s the spring loaded shell holder close on the case rim. It works very well on a Co-Ax. Can’t speak for the new FA press.

Click to expand...

The image is with the press in the full down position, so if they are automatic they should be in a open position. Maybe I'm making more of the image than I should - it could be a marketing photo rather than the way it will be sold.

I have the B2 Bonanza. It is a remarkable press and it is the best and easiest to use press of the 5 single stages I've owned. But Forester has made some improvements. Not sure but I think it's up to B5 now. I'm not at all excited about this new Frankfort copycat but I'm glad it's coming on the market. If there are innovative improvements this will help the design future of all presses. Certainly Forster hasn't allow the CO-AX to become static and antiquated. I for one appreciated, when they saw the aftermarket innovation of the spring retaining shellplate, they added the pins to their much simpler design and accomplished the same result at lower cost. I know some consider the CO-AX's priming system to slow but I've found it to be very precise and consistant. This knockoff doesn't even attempt to compete.

armarsh said:

The image is with the press in the full down position, so if they are automatic they should be in a open position. Maybe I'm making more of the image than I should - it could be a marketing photo rather than the way it will be sold.

Click to expand...

You can see what I was talking about in this image of the FA press. Those square-ish buttons aren't the jaws. You can see the open jaws under the cover plate. It looks like a direct knock off of the Co-Ax.

That looks like a really good press to attach to a board and clamp to a table for a portable setup.

I believe that the first photo has been photoshopped by most likely a marketing person( or the 3D maker) ... Who had zero comprehension about how the jaws work ... the photo in higgite post looks to be more realistic...

It looks like the squarish knobs are the screws holding the jaw assembly in place, and it looks like they were designed to be used by hand, no tools needed. My Forster had two allen head machine screws in that same place (I replaced them with SS phillips screws 'cause it's easier to use a 12" screwdriver than an allen wrench). The screws are removed and the whole assembly is removed (jaws, jaw holder, springs, and "cover plate".). It does take some practice to flip the jaws for different size case heads, bit not a big deal. Warning; the itty bitty springs are easily lost.They become miniature missiles and fly off to obscurity, never to be seen again.

Forster is making a (upgraded)shell holder cover that helps contain the two springs better ... I got a couple springs in the "black hole" in my reloading room !!! I keep a spare or two on hand ...!

How much leverage would this design have as compared to a RockChucker?

9mmepiphany said:

This looks like a conventional shell holder?

View attachment 815093

Click to expand...

As I said in my post - I hadn’t seen a clear picture of the shellholder. The round silver blur in all of the pics of the press I had seen looked like a conventional shell holder. The pics in this thread show the shell holder much better than what I had seen previously.

Bat Rastard said:

How much leverage would this design have as compared to a RockChucker?

Click to expand...

That's what I was wondering. Why would anyone choose this over the RockChucker? I don't anything about the original Co-Ax. The RCBS uses shellholders however I don't view that as a drawback as they cost next to nothing.

This thread set me on a path of researching presses with floating shell holders.

I found three. The original co-ax, the Frankford co-ax, and the fairly new MEC Marksman.
Reducing runout in a cartridge has to be a good thing.

I am leaning towards adding the MEC to my bench for the pursuit of accuracy.
I will relegate my RockChucker to the dirty work of de-capping and trimming. My 550 will do pistol and production work. And the MEC will do the low volume precision jobs.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/467697/mec-marksman-single-stage-press

The CO-AX on my bench,



has loaded more than 80,000 rounds and is still tight and is still building accurate ammo.....with quality like that, why would someone buy a "copy" when they can have the original??

DM

DM, there is also what appears to be a Rockchucker on your bench. Which press has more muscle ?

Bat Rastard said:

DM, there is also what appears to be a Rockchucker on your bench. Which press has more muscle ?

Click to expand...

For absolute case forming power? No question about it, the Rockchucker wins! BUT, when I REALLY need the power, I have a RCBS "BIG MAX" for that!

When it comes to loading, I like the CO-AX best...

DM

Gracias amigo!