EABCO 6mmBR Norma

[stagpanther]

This cartridge and barrel came up recently in conversation--and since I've bought one and put a rifle together using it; I recently "revived" my development efforts and have a few suggestions to make for anyone contemplating getting one.

The barrel comes in 1:8 twist which theoretically gets you in the ballpark for bullets approaching 110 gr--berger's stabilizer ap says 108 gr for velocities you're likely to get.

My barrel appears to have a fairly short freebore for a norma--the practical consequence of this is that it "cuts the legs off" of being able to seat bigger bullets longer, I can't get even close to the recommended COLs of bullets in the 103+ gr so I'm concentrating on smaller 95 gr bullets.

 

[ed308]

I’ll be following this thread. I would love 6mm bolt. But the predicted barrel life holds me back. So I stick with 6.5 Creedmoor.

 

[taylorce1]

Freebore can be fixed for a relatively small price, just find a local smith who could recut the throat for you. Also the 105 grain Hornady BTHP should work, it's a pretty decent bullet and priced right. They shoot very well in my 6mm Creedmoor.

I would love 6mm bolt. But the predicted barrel life holds me back.

The 6mm BR Norma should have a pretty comparable barrel life to the 6.5 Creedmoor. It isn't like shooting a .243 Win or 6mm Remington when it comes to throat erosion.

 

[stagpanther]

I'll probably yank this particular barrel--it's really not made very well IMO. I'm sure it's a very nice cartridge.

Freebore can be fixed for a relatively small price, just find a local smith whoncould recut the throat for you.

I thought about that--but there's more going on than just the freebore, the whole thing is poorly finished inside.

 

[taylorce1]

I'd send it back to EABCO for warranty.

 

[stagpanther]

I've had it for over a year--though I've probably put less than 100 cartridges total down the tube. I don't know how well they finish their barrels--but this one shows extensive tool chatter without notable polishing. The other barrels I've bought from EABCO have been Shaw barrels which generally shoot quite well.

 

[jpx2rk]

How did those 100 rds shoot?? Have you ever seen the bore of a OEM Savage rifle???? Savage bores are just plain ugly and beyond, but I've got some that will flat shoot.

 

[Scorch]

If I were you, I would call EABCO and see what they're willing to do. Worst they can do is say NO, right?

Most barrel manufacturers will stand behind their barrels if there is an issue with quality. They don't want word getting out that they won't stand behind their product, reason being that smiths and customers will talk about bad barrels to other buyers. In 30 years of smithing, I've had 2 experiences where the barrel makers wanted to argue about the issues, and I quit using their barrels and told people that they won't stand behind their barrels. I've also had times when I went back to barrel makers with problems and they just say "well, let's get that taken care of". Whose barrels do you think I use?

 

[stagpanther]

True--I'll give it a go and see what they say.

Have you ever seen the bore of a OEM Savage rifle???? Savage bores are just plain ugly and beyond, but I've got some that will flat shoot.

More than you know--dozens of them. I call it "savage railroad tracks effect."

 

[jaysouth]

Is this barrel on EABCO's 97D falling block action or is it for a T/C frame?

 

[FrankenMauser]

My first and only EABCO barrel was a "Savage pre-fit" that I put on a Marlin XL7.
Worst new bore I have ever seen. Horrendously rough and disgustingly nasty.

Shot like an absolute dream. Honestly, very impressed. It was amazing.
For 6-8 rounds, after you laid copper down with the first 5 rounds.
Then it started balling up copper like nothing you've ever seen, and accuracy/precision went straight to hell.

It was good for basically 6 rounds, after you cleaned the ever-loving-bejersurs out of it and stripped all copper, and then laid down new copper with 4-5 rounds that were 'wasted'.

Best case, you got about 13 rounds out of it, and the first 4-5 were just to lay the groundwork.

Never again.
I sent it back. They told me it was in spec. (Like Lee and the 7.62x39 die that had a crater the size of Florida in it. )
Never again.

They're worse than Bear Creek. And that's saying something.

 

[stagpanther]

Mine's a savage pre-fit also. My observations are similar to your's Franken. Honestly, I can't tell what the barrel is actually chambered for.

 

[stagpanther]

While rummaging through my stack-o-barrels I came across another EABCO barrel which I had pulled in 6.5-284. I decided to take a close look and see how it compares, about the first half of the bore shows some effort of polishing--but then it turns into some alligator-toothed railroad tracks like the 6mm BR norma barrel. The rifling in the 6mm barrel appears to be shallower, so the tooling chatter cuts across both lands and grooves. I may try to polish the bore and see if that makes any difference.

 

[FrankenMauser]

The guys on the Accurate Shooter forums seem to think that some EABCO barrels are made by Douglas and some by ER Shaw.
That might account for some of the different experiences with different barrels.

 

[stagpanther]

I pulled my barrel and hand-polished it, also, since the chamber cut seems a bit of a mystery as to what it actually is I chose Petersen Norma brass to headspace to.

The guys on the Accurate Shooter forums seem to think that some EABCO barrels are made by Douglas and some by ER Shaw.
That might account for some of the different experiences with different barrels.

I've been confused by the same thing, though the bores of the shaw barrels I have are definitely better finished. The EABCO (aka Douglas??) barrels seem to have a tell-tale recessed target crown with exposed steel that the shaw barrels do not have. Adding to the confusion is that EABCO lists them together even though they usually point out the shaws by name. They both come with the same kind of "bluing paint."

Varget is one of the best powders for the 6mm BR brood--but it seems to foul the bore very quickly in my barrel.

 

[stagpanther]

After lapping the barrel for a couple of days I went out and test fired it--a very big improvement from about 3 MOA to this. The only hiccup was one of the primers didn't ignite. This load is on the warm side, so I don't advocate using it.

 

[taylorce1]

What Vortex optic are you using? Are you shooting from that mobile shooting bench? If so that's pretty darn good, usually the wind around here rocks the mobile bench a little too much.

 

[stagpanther]

Thanks, it's a x16 vortex diamondback tactical--OK but not great, shooting off the hood of my pickup. This was a test shooting, I'll get back to some serious load work if it holds together in consistency. It still fouls very quickly so I may ditch it anyway if the cost of cleaning solvents and patches used exceeds that of the ammo components.

 

[std7mag]

Yeah.....
I'm not thinking your gonna come close to the price in patches & Hoppes vs components.

Get off your hood!

The Sierra 107gr MatchKings are doing well in 6BR.

 

[stagpanther]

I took the barrel off yet again--I had reset the headspace specifically to whatever the chamber actually is and headspaced to the Petersen case. I can't be sure what the reason in; I'm guessing the chamber shoulder angle is different enough from the go/no go guages that they are not going to give an accurate reading; I was seeing too much of a difference between the gauges and the brass (fired and unfired). I also had another FTF CCI magnum primer and switched over to regular small rifle primers but I think the particular load I'm shooting does better with magnum primers.

Here's another test I just ran at 346 yds--ten shots but I used the first two to find the range. There was a fairly strong left cross gusty wind that might have been a factor in the group spread or I just wasn't shooting that well. I'm going to switch to a better scope and try to get set up on the Caldwell "Vibratable" to see if that makes any difference.