deputyrpa
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 433
Great. Thanks. I have to tip and load for the 340 Wby and the 7 PRC on my Rockchucker
Presses
- Thread starter Wildstreak
- Start date
Buckskinner
Well-Known Member
Ran a Rockchucker for about 15 years and then went to the Co-ax. Rockchucker did fine but the Co-ax is much better, puts out more concentric rounds and far easier to switch dies and no adjustment, I like the priming mechanism, no case holders, etc. I still have the Chucker on the bench but only use it for a couple calibers because of the cam-over where I use a collet die.
Do you notice any difference in quality of FL sizing between the COAX and Nexus?
To the original posters question - for the value and consistency, the COAX is very hard to beat. Once you get beyond the price/value the Forester, one needs to ask - can you discern the difference in results vs cost? As to why I am asking the question above.
Beluebow
Well-Known Member
IMO a Nexus is a COAX on steroids. The Nexus is the second most consistent press in my stable for sizing brass. I seat bullets with Wilson dies and an arbor press, so I can't really speak on the seating issue.
Buckskinner
Well-Known Member
If I didnt have a Co-ax I would surely get a Nexus, of the 2 it is clearly more advanced.
Redleg84
Well-Known Member
I have, and part of the reason for it I believe is that the co-ax used to use small cast metal tabs that would hit the handle as stops. I think that made it a little more sensitive to pressure inconsistencies by the user. The Nexus is a solid stop from the top of the press hitting plates on the bottom of the press. They have a cam-over feature as well, but I don't see a use for it. It looks like Forster fixed this in their XL press, as it's beefier steel inserts.
With all this said, the variations I would get in seating or sizing was miniscule, and most likely, inconsequential. The Nexus press consistency gives me the warm and fuzzy when I'm using the comparator.
Here is the tab I'm talking about:
Kmccord
Well-Known Member
I have the F/A M-Press and I am thinking of upgrading to the Nexus press after the first of the year.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,088
- Reaction score
- 1,776
- City & State/Province
- Rockland County New York
it seams that the press is making the difference NOT the Handloader ??? Boy what a reason to not making super ammo!!! seams strange to me my old Pacific press still makes great rounds along with my many RCBS presses and Redding machines . So whats wrong with this picture ? is it the machine or the reloader !!!! or the gun ???? Can't be the person behind the machine ?? AM CURIOUS MYSELF !!!!!
Wildstreak
Well-Known Member
I didn't mean to but apparently I did. I'm looking at these presses just trying to figure what this $800 press does that the Rockchucker I got in a kit in the 90's doesn't do. Definitely no offense intended to anyone that has a Nexus or Zero or whatever. A couple of people have mentioned the hard stop they get with their Coax and nexus. Ok cool, I didn't know. I just wanted someone to help me understand what makes one so much more expensive, is it worth it? It's a press, right? Seems like a pretty simple thing. Clearly it's not. With that I will evaluate, were any of the issues I've had with seating or shoulder bump consistency due to the press? I have no idea and not really sure how to test it.Nope you didn't stir the pot, just kicked the bear!!
Last edited:
FireFlyFishing
Well-Known Member
Still using my rock chucker single stage and Dillon 650 for production loads. I suppose when the rock chucker wears out, I'll upgrade. Guessing I'll die before that happens though?
MarkInPA
Well-Known Member
If you check out the video that Feenix posted, you will find that the Rock Chucker had the best results anyway. You got a really good press in the Rock Chucker.
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
I bought a Pacific press kit new. It was an aluminum casting and it flexed just a little. Even as a newbie reloader I could see that. A few years later I was given a Rockchucker and it doesn't flex nearly as much. I won't say that it doesn't flex at all, but the amount that it does flex is at least 10 times less than the Pacific press.
I've always assumed that those high dollar presses flexed even less, and perhaps they do. I've had no reason or need to find out.
For precision seating I've been thinking to move to an arbor press as there the concentricity is controlled solely by the die.
I've always assumed that those high dollar presses flexed even less, and perhaps they do. I've had no reason or need to find out.
For precision seating I've been thinking to move to an arbor press as there the concentricity is controlled solely by the die.
I use probably the cheapest press, the Lee Turret press, and I get very consistent loads with one-digit SDs and 1/4 inch groups at 100yds. I use a comparator to measure both the brass shoulder and the bullet ogive on every round. It's been very consistent and accurate for me. My conclusion is you don't need the super expensive presses to be accurate. They may take less arm effort or something else, but more accurate?
