I have the Ballard drawings. They might be adequate if you were working from a set of castings, but you'd need to be a master toolmaker and draftsman, as well as a bit clairvoyant, to be able to machine the pieces from solid. I spent the better part of a day redrawing a couple of the parts in AutoCad, in an attempt to figure out the missing dimensions, and gave up.

As a quick example, the internals of the breechblock have a number of circular cuts. It would make sense to dimension those by the center and radius. Instead, they're dimensioned from the ends of the arcs, where they intersect another feature.

They're fun to look at though. I don't know if that's worth $100 or not.

i don't want to get in an argement-but a professional draftsman did those dwgs-me-i worked as a draftsman from 1980 to 2001(periods of unemployment between) and none of my bosses ever complained about them-i did lose a job once cause the new boss didn't like fat people-i should have sued them, as the prevous boss liked me a lot. I finally lost my job because the cold war ended in 1992, hated to leave CA to live elsewhere, but all the good drafting jobs left with the bases.It's true there are mistakes in them, but there was no one to check them but me, as i was self-employed at the time, and it's hard to check your own drawings.But there are no Sharps-Borchart drawings, as they were throught not needed (no demand).

Most of them were reverse-engineered-that's one of the reasons for the fact that there is error's in them-the castings
by Rodney Storey were made from the originals and they do shrink-and it's uncertain where they shrink. Some, but not all of the moulds were enlarged later to allow for this shrinkage.
However, the farrow drawings were made from the actual castings, as there was no original to measure. Hope this helps.

Glad I didn't say anything nasty

I've lost count of the number of phone calls I've got from vendors, asking what the missing dimension is supposed to be. So much easier when they can work straight from the CAD models. I never would have made it as a manual draftsman. Too many decisions as to where to place details, I'd never get it finished. If it weren't for CAD I'd still be working in machine shops.

Reverse engineering is always difficult, and a free form shape like the Ballard receiver would be a nightmare. Glad I'm not the one that had to do it.

And in fairness, some of these parts are best done by eye with a file anyway, but I was working along the lines of writing CNC code for them. And of course I wanted them perfect, when they didn't need to be.

I wanted to build my own, and blow it up, just to see what the design would handle given modern materials. It'd be a crime to do that to one of the repro's.