I'm going to throw another cup of gasoline on the old cast frame ballard discussion.  It probably should carry forward to similar conversations such as the recent H&A large action cast frame discussion.

This week, I was at the Quigley shoot in Montana.  During the match, a woman was seriously injured when a cast frame ballard rebarrelled to .40-65 and shot with smokeless powder came apart in her hands.  She will likely retain all her fingers following reconstructive surgery, and will regain some use of the left hand.  A chest wound and shrapnel in her face is further damage.  Luckily, her eyes will be okay. Fortunately, no adjacent shooters were injured and medical response was available within seconds; two doctors were on the line in the same relay with her and EMT's and an ambulance were also there within a few hundred feet.

I want to re-iterate what I have said a couple of times before.  There is absolutely no reason to use an action that is weaker than the normal or probable capability of the cartridge it is loaded for.  Cast frame ballards are for rimfire .22's.  With the relatively low cost of stronger actions, why in the world would you chamber one of these actions for a large case centerfire?  Regardless of your own loading practices; someone in the future can, and probably will, load it inappropriately.  You may be smart enough to use reduced loads, but there's always some less skilled or more ignorant that won't.

The load this came apart with was .40-65 case, AA 5744 powder, about 20 or 22 grain load.  Considered a blackpowder equivalent load by many, but obviously too much for this gun.  In retrospect, I bet a nice high wall action for a few hundered dollars more would seem a huge bargain compared to medical bills, rehab, and a lifetime of disability.

dave

Sad in both human and equipment terms, for sure.

I've been preaching against chambering ANY cast-iron actions for other than RF cartridges since Our Lord was a Corporal - but some folks will always know better.

I'm wondering if that poor lady had a hand in the planning for that time bomb, or was an innocent shooter.

.

.

This is exactly what I think about every time I see a cast frame Ballard chambered for a .32-40 or .38-55 up for sale on an internet or local auction.
99% of the time the sellers act stupid and get a bad case of the "dunnos" when questioned about the gun's background, or worse yet, turn a deaf ear on anyone trying to enlighten them to the dangers of shooting such a rig of which unsuspecting buyers should be made aware of.

I'm sorry that this woman will have to endure some very painful memories and lasting physical reminders of what should have been an enjoyable experience.

Would be interesting to know how the Ballard failed. Was it a hoop failure of the receiver ring or the failure of the sidewalls or breechblock? Being cast, it would probably shatter, so might be hard to tell.
Chuck

Thank you Frank for your explanation from a machinist view of whom would know such things.

J.Louis

Force is equal to pressure multiplied by area.  The force acting on the breech-face is equal to chamber pressure multiplied by the area of the cartridge base.

It seems to me that the force applied to the breech-face could be sufficient to "break" an inherently weak action such as the cast Ballard.  The chances of this would be increased if the action had been subject to abuse - such as firing excessively hot loads at some time in it's history.

I could be wrong, but life's too short to mess with questionable firearms.

JackHughs 

First, I wish the injured shooter the best and speediest recovery possible. 

JackHughs wrote: Quote:


One problem with old firearms and actions, parts etc, is the lack of history behind them. Most of the stories heard at shows and shops are questionable, and are given to a potential buyer in order to obtain a sale. 

Was that refinished firearm or receiver, that now looks really nice, originally cracked and then welded and heat-treated properly by a qualified individual? Did it go through a house fire and happened to be randomly and intermittently sprayed by a fire hose (using water, or some unknown chemical fire retardant) creating who knows what kind of internal stresses etc, before simply being refinished and assembled to send it on down the road? 

Anyone can grenade a gun, including a brand new one. The older firearms must be approached from a far more sceptical and cautious perspective. 

The rifle information I was given from shooters on the line that saw it and knew the shooter was that it was an original ballard, with a relined barrel that has been shot for many years that way.  The action split at the receiver ring, and the left side of the frame broke at the extractor cut, but did not blow out, as it held at the rear of the action.  The top of the receiver ring broke and went up, and the barrel went downrange.  The buttstock was splintered.  The shooter 2 to her right told me he saw the barrel tumbling down range, probably 50 yards or so.  His account was that the sound of the shot was a weird high pitched noise, not the usual echoing boom of a gunshot.   

One first hand observation of the remaining pieces of the action that was told to me was that it appeared to have had a very old crack in the frame barrel ring from the inside that could easily have been the start of a failure point.

From the circumstances described by the first hand accounts, the action let go, the barrel was blown out the front, rather than the chamber rupturing from a double charge.  Of course, it could have been an overcharge that initiated the whole sequence.

dave