Thinking of building a Ballard 22 Rimfire. What would you use for a barrel? What size and lenght Naiilman....

I am going to gently disagree with my VERY good friend, Ken Hurst. I had my Ballard Frogmoor built up and specified a half octagon #3 barrel  (Winchester specs). It is 26" long. It balances quite well. I would change nothing. It also shoots like a match rifle SHOULD shoot.

However, if you are young and strong, then you can consider a #4. 

This presupposes that you have an offhand rifle in mind. It is my belief that the #3 is more attractive, if that is a consideration but after all, it IS a matter of taste...

If you are building a bench .22, then the biggest barrel you can fit to the frame (and still have it look decent) would be a good specification. In ASSRA, the barrel MUST be no shorter than 21.5 inches. 

Whichever barrel spec you specify, you will definitely want a full match chamber. I have had great results from Clymer's Match Chamber specs for the reamer. However, there are other good designs, but my favorite is Clymer (it engraves the bullet nearly to the case mouth for near perfect alighnment). The chamber is arguably the most important design feature of a winning barrel.

Dale53

YMMV
Dale53

David;
You are absolutely correct. The Stevens 44, 44½, and Ballard perfectly handle a full match chamber.

However, the Winchester low-wall, with the "made for .22's" breechblock with the bevel on the top as well as the Martini Internationals that come with a bevel, handle a full match chamber with little problems. I have not done it, but I surmise a bevel added to several single shot breechblocks MAY solve their chambering problems with a full match chamber, also. Failing that, your suggestion to use a Benz chamber (a modified match chamber designed for target semi-autos) is well taken.

Several years ago, I had the idea of re-barreling a Ruger #1 for .22 rimfire. I did a little research, and learned that the Benz chamber was the way to go for them for the same reason you suggest it for any straight falling block rifle without a bevel on top. Since that time, I and several of the local shooters have explored that particular problem with many of the original single shots before we came to the above conclusions.

Dale53

Ken;
No need to be embarassed at all. Many good people would opt for the #4 if they were strong. In fact, there are probably some fit young women who could handle a #4 (check out the Olympic hopefuls). However, for a lot of us older folk a #4 is just a bit too much rifle. My CPA Stevens Pope 441/2 (32/40) offhand rifle has a #4 barrel and it is just too much rifle for me to shoot extended strings.

It all boils down to physical shape and personal preference.

(In my shape and definitely in my personal preference, it is a #3 ).

Dale53

I will NOT say it! I will NOT say it! I willNOT say it!

Dale53

nail, since i know you personally , i know that you and light gun weight don't usually go hand in hand! i'd say, if you have an especially attractive gun project in mind go octagonal to round. if the piece is more on the conservative 'workhorse" side....go round. you could even split the difference between the #3 and #4 [winchester"'], dimention and do a winchester #3 1/2 which was a full round barrel if i remember correctly from my stuart campbell winchester highwall book. both should be rigid enough for your needs as i understand you're making  a smallbore schutzen rifle anyway............blue

The Ballard extractor is also a plus for a .22 match chamber, as the .22 style extractor on the #3 is very strong, and positive extracting!
I would also go with a #3 barrel in half or full octagon. The standard barrels on #3 Ballards was closer to a #2 weight, and they shot very well, so a bit heavier #3 would be great. With that tiny little .22 hole, a #3 is pretty stiff.
Guess I shouldn't assume your Ballard is a #3 action, or is it?