Ballard No.2

[416Rodney]

I posted this over at Black Powder Cartridge and got no interest. Let me try it here. I have a Ballard No.2 in what appears to be .44-40. It has a forged receiver, shootable bore, and a late serial number. Question: Do any of you have experience with Ballard .44 Long and/or Ballard .44 Extra Long? The .44-40 is too short to legally hunt in this part of the territory.

[calaloo]

Hey Rod. Go over to ASSRA.com. Those cats know everything there is to know about Ballards and other singleshots.

[416Rodney]

Thanks Calaloo. I was beginning to wonder about the so called experts on this forum. Rather than get on my soapbox I'll let it go.

[blackpowdermax]

416 Rodney....

Case length for the 44-40 is 1.305, the 44 Long is 1.06, the 44 Extra Long Ballard is 1.63. The 44 Extra Long used a 250 grain bullet and 48 grains BP as opposed to the 200 grain bullet and 40 grains for the 44-40 (44 WCF).

You won't gain a whole lot using the 44 Extra Long (heavier but slower) and will seriously devalue the rifle if you rechamber. Not too many forged receiver #2's in 44W out there so think hard before modification. Also tough to find cases, you will have to have them made.

I know the deer have gotten tougher since the 1800's, but I gotta think that a lot of them have fallen to the 44 WCF since then. Seems odd that you're not allowed to hunt with it in the territory. The 44 Magnum is actually shorter than the 44-40 at 1.285 case length. Can you hunt with it?

I have a #2 in 44W and it is a fun one. By the way, the 44W replaced both the 44L and 44 Ex. L in the #2.

max

[frnkeore]

Rodney,
I agree with Max about not rechambering it to XL. Since it's a forged frame, I'd rebarrel it to 38/55. You would have all the power needed for hunting deer with that cartridge. Stay away from the Hi Vel loads though and you and the fine Ballard will be happy.

Keep the barrel or sell it to offset the cost of the rebarrel.

Frank

[blackpowdermax]

From a collectors standpoint, I will respectfully disagree with Frank on the re-barrel. There are tens of thousands of 38-55's our there, but how many #2's in 44W with a forged receiver? 50, 100, certainly not more than that. Ballard barrels are serial numbered to match the receiver, so once removed or re-chambered, the originality is lost. Better to sell it as an original and buy a 38-55, Ballard or otherwise, than to take away one of the small number remaining.

Can you tell I'm a collector as well as a shooter? :)

Is your barrel marked like this?

http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL938/2122351/4239634/398265174.jpg

If not, it may have been re-barrelled already as every 44W original I have seen is so marked. In that case it won't matter.

This is the #2 that goes with that marking......

http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL938/2122351/4239634/398265261.jpg

max

[frnkeore]

Thank you, Max.
I didn't know that there are so few of them. I also thought that all #2's were cast frames. I assume by that, that the case head size was the reason they went to the forge frame. I have two #2's and a nice Pacific.

I have a question for you............ I believe that one of my #2's has been made into a counter fitted #4. It has the 3 line marking and the firing pin to go with it . It also has a cast frame but, it has a very original looking 32/40 barrel on it and it's numbered to the fame. Do you know if they ever made a rifle like that? Oh, and it's a Marlin Firearms not the JM Marlin. It seems unlikely because there was never a rim fire version of 32/40. But the barrel has me stumped.

Frank

[416Rodney]

Thanks Max. I have discussed this gun with locals here in Cody,Wy and they have given me about the same info. and advice. Except for the tang site it looks exactly like your photo. Steve Garbe thinks I should take it to the Denver Gun Show. Since I was given this gun to sell for a local widow, I got excited about using/restoring it myself. I probably have too many other projects to take this on. Perhaps you would be interested.

[blackpowdermax]

Sorry I'm so late, hectic day......

Frank.....your #2 sounds like an interesting puzzle. The cast receiver is the puzzle. Technically Marlin wouldn't use a cast action for a 32-40 and the 32-40 came out sometime in 1884, so not experimental, Marlin would already know about the problems with cast actions and the "higher power" cartridges. On the other hand, they made the #2 cast in 44-40, with a 200 grain bullet and 40 grains of powder, so why not the 32-40 with its 40 grains and 165 grain bullet? Just thinking out loud. :)

What is the serial number on your rifle (234xx) and does the breechblock serial # match the barrel and receiver? Maybe we can narrow down the date slightly. As for Marlin Firearms vs. JM Marlin, the 32-40 came out in 1884 and Marlin Firearms was incorporated in 1881, so you shouldn't ever find an original 32-40 marked "JM Marlin".

Does your marking look like this???

http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL938/2122351/4239634/398282553.jpg

Rodney....I always have an interest in another Ballard though I need another one like I need a hole in the head (said that way too many times in the past). :) If you want to PM me the info, we can start the discussion.

You also have the option of enjoying that gun without restoration. If you have a good bore, you are off to a good start. Certainly won't hurt the gun to go out and use it as intended, although not being able to hunt deer does limit it a bit. You could always sign up for an out-of-state hunt with it. Nah!!!!!!!

max

[frnkeore]

Max,
Here are pics of my rifle.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_88524e5d3062a9bd7.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1976)http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_88524e5d3074bc7f2.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1977)http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_88524e5d3085a92ec.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1978)

Frankhttp://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_88524e5d30ffa93ba.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1979)

[blackpowdermax]

Well Frank, to me your Ballard looks right. Beside the numbers matching on the barrel, receiver, etc., the style seems to match well and I don't see any alterations to the serial number areas. Or someone was very good at faking it and matching finish and the question would be why? The number 2 is not a rare or expensive collector generally. The 32-40 marking looks right too.

The serial # seems like it would be very early in the life of the 32-40, maybe Marlin decided to try the 32-40 in a cast frame early on and changed their mind later. It's not a real powerhouse.

Maybe they had a quality control problem and grabbed the wrong receiver and built it up. I don't think we will ever know for sure, but it sure looks right to me.

Congrats on an oddity......

max

[frnkeore]

Thank you, Max. I apprecaite your oppion.

I bought it a few years back thinking that it was a forged receiver #4, not a "forged" #4. So I think I paided about twice what it's actually worth unless, I could prove it was a factory screw up. Then it would be concidered very valuable (I wish).

I've posted on my ASSRA forum about it also. The reason I want to know is that I would like to drill and tap the barrel for scope blocks if it's not considered original.

Thank you again,

Frank

[blackpowdermax]

Frank.....you never pay too much for one of these old classics, maybe you just bought it tool early. :)

Just another thought, is the bluing underneath the forearm nicer than on top? Almost all of mine have better bluing underneath than on top. Most I can tell exactly where the forearm starts and stops. Underneath just wasn't exposed to the elements as much. If nicer underneath than on top, then the finish wasn't messed with and it would be almost impossible to fake the barrel serial number without refinishing. Maybe a clue.

Another thought.....there is a guy out your way (well, in the same state at least) and he has a nice collection of #2's. With a hands on look, he could tell you in a heartbeat if your barrel is original. His name is Vall Miller and he lives in Portland if I remember right. I think I have his contact info if you want to let him take a look. It would let you drill and tap with a clear conscience if he found it to be fake. Nice job of faking the serial # font if it is.

How's the bore?

max

[frnkeore]

Max,
The good news it that the bore is perfect and in the Ballard style. The bad is that on my ASSRA forum, It's been declaired a fake by Val and several others. The forearm area is the same as the rest of the barrel and the one thing that rang with me is, that it was pointed out that the 0 in the number was shaped different at the top. At first, it doesn't look to much different but, then the more you look the more it stands out. Val was the one that first said he didn't think it was possible, about 9 mo ago or so w/o seeing pics. Another collector of Ballards was suspecious of it, too and we all concured that it must be a very good fake but, who ever done it left out the little details that make the difference so, it gets scope blocks!!!

Thank you for your help, Max. Are you on the ASSRA forum? If not, you should be, you'd be a great asset there.

Frank

[blackpowdermax]

Well Frank, the perfect bore and uniform top and bottom of barrel kind of give it away huh? Good that now you can play, but sad that someone went to so much trouble to fake it. So it would seem that it's actually a new barrel rather than a reworked original.

I get over to the ASSRA forum every so often, but none of my shooting is competitive (schuetzen, etc.) so don't do much there. Most of my shooting of these old rifles is for the history and I have kind of gone the "reverse technology" route for my reloading, I have gone back to the 19th century for my tools. :) Not as easy as the newer presses and such, but certainly gives you a feeling for history.

Here's what I would load your 32-40 with....

http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL938/2122351/4239634/398318596.jpg

Good luck with your toy....

max

[frnkeore]

Nice tools, Max. I'd love to have that seater :) I've shot like your doing in testing out my all orininal Stevens 44 in 32/40. It does have a like new bore, so, it's possible but the outside shows the difference under the forearm.

I have a small casting 319273 mold (.320 base band) and made up duplex BP fixed loads using my #6 tool. The one time I tried it, I got a 2" group with a 17A front and a Lyman 2A on the tang. I don't shoot it much because I can't scope it and I don't want to loosen it up.

Do you know about this sight?

http://www.antiquereloadingtools.com/

Frank