Having cycled through several brands of single stage press I have landed on the Forster Coax. It is quirky, expensive and takes tinkering to set up and adjust, but that's the fun, plus it makes reloads better than I need. Now comes the Frankford Arsenal M-Press for considerably less money, $199 vs. $349. Forster must have lost the Coax features patents, as the M-Press seems to duplicate almost everything except priming on the press. The few M-Press reviews I was able to find were generally good, but commented on die holder stability. Being a total Coax fanboy, I insist that anybody wanting a single stage affirm my bias by buying one. Is the Frankford the new and better alternative, even though not U.S. made?

You already own the Forester so I assume that you are only curious about the Frankford Arsenal M-Press. You just taught me that it exists so I can not help there. I can however affirm that the Forester is a good chunk of iron. I have two because the newer one was dirt cheap. A local gun store that sells used reloading tools did not know that it was a reloading press. They thought it might have something to do with plumbing. For priming my early Co-ax uses standard RCBS type shell holders with a larger center hole. The newer Co-ax has a sliding jaw design universal shell holder on top. Early RCBS die lock rings fit fine. Newer RCBS lock rings have to be thinned on a lathe. Lock ring fit in the slot is the biggest obstacle that has to be worked around. Since buying a Co-ax about 1979 I've always had at least one other press because the other draw back is that the almost 180 degree handle arc is slow. The payback is that a Co-ax probably has the highest mechanical advantage of all presses for resizing. Also, the larger diameter priming punch contacts the bottom of cases making certain that primers are seated flush. Some guns need need that to function smoothly. I'll never sell my Co-ax.

I have a now invalid friend that is a one time National Small Bore Overall Champion. In the older age his eyes couldn't see to use Iron Sights for that portion of the competition. So he picked a new sport to kick but in: Center Fire Bench Rest. The cartridges are usually loaded on Arbor presses (short throw 4 ton bearing press) with Wilson or Custom non threaded dies. He was loading 6mm BR on a 40 year old Co-ax press and Redding dies. He was doing a good job of winning until disabled. His wife and daughter decided to join him in BR Shooting, so he found a second and third Co-Ax presses. His theory was that the microscopic differences in each press/die set/rifle combination, could all be tuned/adjusted to one combination only! After the final adjustment was proven to be the correct one, his dies were index marked. This allowed each step to be checked and to be repeatable. He was winning matches his first year in BR! (In a sport where 1/1000" diameter of a 5 shot or 10 shot group separates first and second often!

Most shooting sports are NOT about making the least cost of each shot! IT IS about making every shot the best shot possible. A $150 savings on a one time expense, isn't worth the risk when trying to be THE best! (These are the guys that weigh primers to 1/100th of a grain for consistency!)

Ivan

The only FA piece of equipment I own is the Platinum Rotary Tumbler. I have had no issues with it. There are manufacturers who "copy" products and they are offered at less money than the original product. Depending where they are made, sometimes depends on the quality you receive. Smart Reloader comes to mind. If I were interested in a CO-AX press, I would go for the Forster. That's just my opinion.

I haven't read any new owner reviews of the FA Co-Ax. I have owned a Forster Co-Ax for only 7 years and have not found it "quirky" or difficult to do anything. I have had to do one thing; get good die lock rings. I have never had to do any fiddling and all operations and set ups are very straight forward. I did one modification, I changed the shell holder jaw mounting screws from allen socket screws to phillips head machine screws, I found it much easier to use a 12" screwdriver to loosen/tighten the hold down screws.

Don't know about patents, or Made in USA, but my Co-Ax is the best, easiest to use press I've owned in 40 years of reloading...

I have looked at both but own neither. The last time I was buying a single stage I looked at the FA press but went with the RCBS Rock chucker. I have a Frankford Arsenal intellidropper and a tumbler that have worked great. I can do anything I need to do on a Rock chucker Supreme or Hornady single stage press. I don't shoot accuracy contest though. My biggest jobs are forming 300 BO cases from 223 or sizing large rifle ammo. Pistol I run on a my Hornady AP press.

I've used a Co-Ax for at least thirty-five years for loading rifle ammo. Very good machine. I've never examined the Frankford Arsenal press and likely won't, but I think Frankford Arsenal is one of the Midway brands. I doubt their press would be of the same quality as a Forster product. However, if it is, the Frankford Arsenal press would be a good buy.

I picked up an RCBS Summit Press at a gunshow,
the guy had a stack of them brand new,, $100

Since then,
I have not had a need for a single stage press,
but the Summit sure looks interesting,,

The die travels down, and the shell holder is in a fixed position,,

This is an ABSOLUTELY STOUT press,,



The press is so strong, the favorite option (from watching YouTube) is a very short handle.

I did get it out of the box, it does look great setting on the corner of the reloading bench!!

I usually think the original is always the best, that includes my Coax. No proof, just a feeling. That said, after replacing my second plate that holds the jaws and springs (it tends to bend a bit after many years of use) I did buy a replacement from a guy on youtube that uses a stronger steel and has pockets for the springs so they don't go flying when you remove the plate. It happens. Been very pleased with it.

I still use my RCBS Rock Chucker that I bought in 1973. Never had an issue and see no reason to change.

About 10 years on mine and ditto the above. I already had about 30 years on a Rockchucker and was considering moving into a turret style press but a an odd turn of events resulted in my getting a Co-Ax for free! So I decided to give it a try.

I will admit the shellholder took a bit of getting 'use to' but mostly what few problems I experienced with it were due to my oversights and not a problem with it specifically.

A hint for those who are still using the original shell holder with the loose springs - clean the plate & springs, put them in place against the 'stops' on the outside of the plate and put a drop of superglue on them. let dry.
you will never go hunting for the springs again!

I happen to have both the Co-Ax and the M. Had 2 Co-Ax and just sold one. The M is a decent press. As good as the Forster? Probably not but close nuff I have it as a dedicated press for 222 Rem and 222 Rem Mag.I don't prime on the presses. Use a RCBS bench mounted priming tool. I really didn't need the M but the price at the time was on sale at 139 dollars delivered. I just( 8 days ago) got the next Co-Ax at a garage sale for 75 bucks along with a Lee 20 lb smelter pot a Redding Lube/Sizer and a bunch of other stuff I am going to sell. The Co-Ax is essentially new as is the Sizer. The only real negative on the Co-Ax is the long handle throw. especially with the long handle. Spent primer catch is better on the M in my opinion. For the money the M is a decent replacement for the Co-Ax

Make a shorter one - I did. And I used a wood 'ball' as the 'grip' - makes it much easier to use as the ball 'rolls' in your hand allowing you to keep your hand level while operating it.

The one I recently sold had the short handle. Still had the long throw...but you could stand a little closer to the press

Soon after I got my Co-Ax I read that and thought; "nobody told me I have to grab the handle all the way out on the end". I have a short handle, 8", along with the stock handle but most of the time I either grab the yoke or the handle just above the yoke. Many operations don't need the full leverage of the press...

Yes, the original handle is fine.