Another #9 Marlin Ballard has just been put out for perusal on G.B. but shows some obvious differences from the one that sold a week or two ago.
Look over the photos, and see if some things don't quite jive :

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Most obvious: no Marlin markings what ever on the receiver; yet it still shows some C.C. 
Serial number is reported to be 24,XXX; so it should be a M.F.A. Co. product ????

Recent gunsmithing: look at the photo of the open breech, the barrel end appears to show machining (or filing?) marks.

No checkering ??: Were these models available sans checkering ???
Of the ones I've owned or handled, all had checkering.

Sights appear to be modern, yet nicely made.
Any armchair assessments on this one ???

Shouldn't that have a 30" barrel as standard?

Jesse

The barrel listed at 28" does seem shy the usual advertised 30"; and yet the sight slot seems far enough back. Maybe special order ???
The stock wood seems dissimilar to my eye; although regarding lack of checkering, I did come across ONE other example on the internet that is free of all checkering.
The photo poster indicated that "early" #9's were without checkering.
However the verbiage is contradictory? in that the poster is apparently referring to early J.M. Marlin products, yet their photos clearly show a rifle with M.F.A.Co. markings and a serial number in the 22,XXX range.
I refer to this site: (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Perhaps they mean "early" MFA Co. products?
There are some other real nice single shots in this photo album. Have a look around.

Quote:

FWIW I have a No 9 & 10, both in 38-55 wearing Schuetzen stocks/sights w/ palm rests, and neither are checkered.

I recall asking my Dad about this, as he used to shoot at the ol' Walnut Hill range, and he said "Offhand shooters don't need the checkering, so they don't pay for what they don't need ... or could afford ..."

Not concerned about the lack of checkering, nor the barrel length, but there's are some glaring issues that tell me something isn't right. Both ends of the barrel look to be monkeyed with, as the crown is as bright and freshly machined as a new barrel! It also appears the front sight is set back too far, as Marlin was pretty darn close to 1" center of the dovetail from the crown, and that one sure looks like more than an inch. The caliber marking looks really fresh also, and all of this together makes me wonder if the barrel is new, or shortened. Matching numbers don't mean much, as lots of good gunsmiths have stamps.
Everything just looks way too good to not have a rollstamp on the receiver, and I'd sure like to see the serial number stamp to see how strong or faint it is.
I'd feel more comfortable bidding if I had it in my hands and could pull the gun down to give everything a good look. As it is I wouldn't bid at all from what I see. I also agree the sights are all new, and I see it has no barrel dovetail for a rear sight, which some don't have, but most did.

QUESTION:
The one photo of the open breech showing the chamber, appears to show recent machining of the breech face on the barrel, has there been recent gunsmithing to restore that area for some reason?
 
ANSWER:
I believe this rifle has seen very little use if any. There are distinct rub marks “shiny” rectangular in shape on the face of the barrel that match the face dimensions of breech block showing lock-up contact when the loading lever is closed. The surfaces outside this area show normal oxidation. 
 
QUESTION:
There seems to be NO Marlin markings on the left side of the receiver whatsoever. If this is an original forged Marlin receiver, there should be 2 lines of company and patent information; or if cast iron, three lines indicating that it may have been originally a rimfire gun. Do you have any information as to why this is so ??? Genuine un-marked Ballard receivers are extremely unusual; and usually indicate heavy refinishing or are actually spurious copies
 
ANSWER:
Yes you are correct and this is a mystery to me. I have examined many pictures in John Durcher’s book that show other Ballard examples with “No Markings” These examples were engraved examples, Maybe this rifle was to be engraved at some time after leaving the factory. I do not believe this rifle was ever refinished as all wood to metal surfaces are crisp, with no rounding what so ever.
Not sure if this helps……….I own 2 other Ballard’s made by the Ballard Rifle Co. LLC in Cody Wy. I have been told they are exact reproductions dimensionally, I have measured the width of the rebated area and the width of the receiver on both the reproduction and the one I have for sale. The measurements are within a couple of thousands of each other indicating there has been “no refinishing of the receiver sidewalls” FYI: the dimensions are: (Original Ballard: 1.150  and 1.267) ( Cody Ballard 1.156  and 1.265)
 
QUESTION:
Can you tell me if this is a forged or cast frame ????? Thanks very much for your time and t

RoyB wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 8:11pm:


She's probably waiting for the bids of all those who haven't even noticed the lack of markings & other irregularities.

Guys, I should have dusted off my copy of Dutcher's book and read up on his chapter regarding the #9 Ballard !
According to that chapter, early production guns did NOT have checkering.
He goes on to say that the wood tends to be a better grade, and that both pieces do not necessarily match.
How about that ?? 
With the exception of no factory markings, maybe this particular gun is closer to factory than I suspected.

I will be eating crow with a slice of humble pie for breakfast 
( Although I would definitely use the 3 day inspection on this one )