Mr. Quisto56:

Both are good actions that will finish into a very nice rifle. The big difference between the two is that the Meacham is a Coil Spring action and the Ballard is a copy of the earlier flat spring action. 

The Meacham also has a through bolt butt stock attachment setup that is alleged to provide a more rigid union. This might fall under the heading of an elegant solution to a non existant problem, but it can't hurt.

Glenn

The Meacham also uses what is commonly called a Mann-Neidner or safety type firing pin, while the Ballard uses the original Winchester style. IMO this is an example of what Jeff Cooper once called a questionable solution to a nonexistent problem. P.O.Ackley said that he preferred the original leaf- or flat-spring action over the coil-spring type and he also recommended against the Mann-Neidner type firing pin.

I also believe that the Ballard uses the drawbolt buttstock attachment, as does the Meacham.

Please be advised that I have repaired several Ballard wall firing pins used in BPCRS competition. The Ballard pins were not absolutely correct dimensionally and were not heat treated properly IMO. At last report, the new 'top hat' firing pin repairs were still going strong after several thousand rounds.

I own & have used both flat- and coil-spring actions and much prefer the flat spring type. Because of that, and the fact that I also much prefer the original type firing pin, I like the Ballard much better and would use it in spite of the firing pin breakage problem. After all, a simple repair will take care of the firing pin.

But, like the madam said to the Bishop, "You pay your money and you take your choice." My preferences are just that, strictly my own opinion based on subjective things. Either action will do you a great job IMO.
Good luck, Joe

Just a random thought, but I find a coil spring action a lot more difficult to assemble than a flat spring action, and if you are shooting BP with it, you will want to disassemble the rifle (at least take out the block and hammer assembly which is where the reassembly problem arises) periodically to remove the fouling that inevitably accumulates down in the action.   

     I seem to recall that the Meacham action is longer in the barrel tang than the original, but I can't remember why...it could be that it would be a good start on making the takedown action which must be coil spring operated for practicality's sake.  BTW, when taken down, all of the field stripping problems in the preceding paragraph seem to diminish, but the assembly of the block, hammer and coil spring is still a task!  As with all things, YMMV and this is just IMLE.  8)

HTH, Froggie

The original reason for the firing pin conversion was, indeed, due to the old soft primer cups along with the oversize firing pin holes. Remington brought out the # 7 1/2 primer because the old 5 1/2 and 6 1/2 primer cups were cratering and blowing with the new smokeless powders in the Hornet, 222 and 223. Today this is no longer a consideration, especially with the Meacham and Ballard small firing pin noses and holes. Even in an old original, a simple bushing and timing job will solve all problems.

Ackley's specific objection to the Mann-Neidner conversion was against the floating firing pin used in some of them. A floating firing pin in a high-pressure application is an invitation to a pierced primer and possibly worse. It's OK with cartridges below about 40K psi but will blow primers with loads much over 45-50K psi.

He also was well aware of the need for a firing pin retractor in most Win wall actions, and the Mann-Neidner has none. The pronounced 'over-center' toggle action of the lever-to-block linkage means that, upon opening, the block usually moves before the hammer spring tension is relaxed. This sometimes results in the firing pin nose sticking in the primer and breaking.

This over-center toggle action has been described and measured in my past articles in the Journal a year or two ago, a title like 'Tight-Breeching the Winchester Single Shot' or similar. By reducing the over-travel, the chances of a broken firing pin are greatly reduced since the retractor now has a chance to work before the block moves.

Of course the Mann-Neidner has no retractor so it's dependent upon perfect ammo for reliable operation. Perfect ammo is a lot easier to ensure today than it was 100 years ago, but I still much prefer a retractor and a properly-timed action.

My personal bottom line: A) no floating firing pin in a rifle, B) a firing pin retractor in all single shot rifles, C) snug-fitting polished firing pin noses, and D) all actions to be properly timed. Action timing is another subject, too lengthy to be detailed on this thread.

Other reasons for my preference for the flat-spring action: A) easier to load because of the two positions of the opened breechblock (fully opened & 'relaxed'), B) as Frog said, easier assembly/disassembly, and C) the mainspring tension is adjustable in several ways. All in all there's no hesitation for my choice but as always, YMMV.
Good luck whichever you choose, Joe

Pete, I guess I wasn't very clear about the retractor. IMO a spring is not an adequate retractor in some cases, and so I never think of it as being one. When I say retractor I mean a mechanical one, one where either the firing pin itself is retracted very positively via mechanical means or else something breaks.

The original John Browning design and later Winchester adaptation is a good example of this positive retraction and, when combined with a small-&-snugly-fitting firing pin nose, is perfectly adequate for any load the brass and primer cup will stand. In the past I've repeatedly loaded my high wall test mules to pressures which expand the primer pockets rather dramatically, just to establish the do-not-approach limits with a particular wildcat and brass. No pressure-related problems
at all as long as the action is timed properly.

I'm not saying that the Mann-Neidner is A Bad Thing, of course it's not. I am saying, however, that IMO it's completely unnecessary and in fact is not q-q-i-i-t-t-e as good as a properly-timed and -fitted original style. If I had a rifle with the M-N conversion I'm sure I'd leave it alone if the conversion was done properly. But I'd go to some lengths to avoid doing the conversion in the first place.
Cheers, Joe

In the matter of "flat spring v. coil spring", wasn't the change to coil spring due as much (or more) to facilitate a take-down arrangement as it was to better functioning  than the flat spring?

DonH, I personally believe you're correct about the development of the coil spring being pursued to facilitate the takedown feature. The actual lock time may even be a little slower with the coil spring vs the 2nd-model flat spring, I've heard that opinion in the past.

Pete, I agree about the origin of the Mann-Neidner conversion. From what I've read, a blown or severely cratered primer was a common occurence with the old soft primer cups, sloppy fits and early smokeless powders. These guys HAD to be concerned with the gas-handling properties of their rifles, and the Mann-Neidner conversion proved it would positively prevent gas blow-by back into the shooter's face. It wasn't until around WW2 that John Buhmiller established the actual upper limit of the high wall's strength and gas-handling abilities with the original design, and the earlier smiths quite naturally tended to err on the side of caution.

I also believe that Winchester altered Browning's original design intent by increasing the over-travel that's built into the linkage dimensions, thereby ensuring that none of their actions would be what I call properly timed. Some amount of overtravel is necessary in any toggle linkage so that it locks up solidly and doesn't open under pressure, but I believe Winchester intentionally made SURE theirs had enough overtravel!

Karl, my definition of a floating firing pin is a pin that's too short to reach the primer when the hammer is fully down, a perfect example is the Colt Government Model 45. When provided with a retraction spring it's known as an inertia pin because it relies upon inertia to be able to strike the primer against the resistance of the spring. This was Ackley's major objection to the M-N type conversion, the fact that some conversions used inertia or floating pins that allowed the primer cups to blow.

I first encountered this phenomenon while using the then-new Armalite AR-180 5.56/223 back in the '60s. My very early model had a very strong f/p retractor spring, it was actually strong enough to force the firing pin to the rear against the pressure of the hammer spring. This allowed the primer indentation to be forced to the rear, into the firing pin hole, causing that portion of the primer cup to 'disc' or break out around the edges. The resulting disc was pushed back into the f/p hole and jammed the f/p when the next shot was fired.

My ammo obviously had primer cups that were too soft to stand an unsupported f/p hole. I cut two turns off the retractor spring and changed ammo, no more problem.

To give a little more background, I've been rebuilding single shot rifles and SA Colts since the late '60s and over the years have encountered just about every example of ill-fitting parts that you can imagine. When pressures are below ~20K psi as in the 44-40, 45 Colt, 38 Special, 44 Special, etc, I dont really worry too much about f/p fit since I've seldom had a primer even crater enough to prevent OK functioning, much less blow out. However the noticably higher pressure (~35-40K) loads in cartridges like the 30-30, 30-40, 357 Magnum, 25-20 High Speed etc require a snugger fit for the f/p nose to prevent cratering and its resultant malfunctioning, or even primer rupture in extreme cases. These cartridges in my experience usually won't blow a primer even if unsupported, unless the f/p fit is GROSSLY loose or the f/p nose is rough or sharp.

In 25-20 walls I have found that a large f/p nose will allow the primer cup to actually push the f/p to the rear enough to cause discing/cratering, even when the large f/p nose is a snug fit in its hole and the mainspring tension is high. Also found the same thing in small Martinis when using cartridges with SR primers. Apparently or at least in my experience the small primers are much much worse in this area, almost demanding that they be bushed to a much smaller diameter while the LR primers can be used with f/p noses as large as 0.100" with few if any problems, again in my experience.

I personally have found that some unsupported primer cups will blow or disc beginning at ~45-50K according to my best SWAG. In my experience the SR cups are more prone to discing than the LR ones but both will do it. Now, I don't have any pressure-testing apparatus so those figures are merely SWAGs, but they should be pretty close.

Most of the old SS rifles I've worked on have had some sort of mechanical f/p retractor. Examples that come to mind are the Winchester, Borchardt, Ballard, Martini-Henry and Remington roller. The trapdoor Springfield does not, and that is a major design/safety flaw. Only one of my Whitney rollers had a retractor, but Whitney was a less-expensive knock-off of the Remington.

IMO Frank de Haas' books should be required reading for all single shot enthuiasts. There's more good solid info in just two of his books than in all my dozens of other single shot rifle books put together.
EZXs, Joe