This showed up at my house a while ago.  It's a Ballard Pacific in .40-85 with a shotgun butt ( with the hard rubber buttplate ) and a light weight barrel.  I haven't checked to see if all of the numbers match.  The rifle looks complete and original to my very untrained eye, except that the barrel shows signs of being removed by an amateur at some point so perhaps it was swapped.   I believe that the wiping rod is the original. 

The bore condition was advertised as "good" but it was a gamble as I bought it without inspecting it as it was 2500 miles away.   I'd describe the bore as "nearly excellent"  .   It's as bright and shiny as a fresh bore, but there is a very faint ring visible in the chamber that I think would not affect case extraction as I cannot feel it with a piece of copper wire.  There is also a very slight deformity in the rifling about 1" ahead of where the case mouth would be.

The rifle seems to function correctly and trigger feels very nice when set.   

Some time soon I'l do a chamber cast and order some cases as I woulds like to fire a few shots through it occasionally.   

Chris. 

gunlaker,

Very nice old Ballard Pacific that looks to be in good shooting condition. The barrel in the photo doesn't look that small, but it is hard to tell from a picture. I wonder if someone took the rear leaf sight off and put on the mid-range vernier sight. I would think it would be hard to get a sight picture using the peep and rocky mountain blade front sight.
I've attached a photo of some of my Ballard cartridge collection, the bottom row, second from right is a 40-85. The third one over is a 40-80 & the one on the right is a 40-90, all paper patch.  Gives you an idea of size.

Looks like a nice find.

Interestingly the rifle was for sale on their consignment rack for more than a year.   They also have another in .45-100, but the price is considerably higher, so I imagine that the condition is better.  I didn't ask for pictures on that one.   

Chris.

Are the original Ballard globe sights difficult to find?  I know they would be up here in Canada.  Mine is only the third Ballard I've ever seen.  I din't know why they are so uncommon up here.

I'll request pictures for the .45-100.   I believe that it, and the other single shots I've bought from Ellwood Epps, have come from the same estate sale. I've picked up a few pretty unusual rifles.

They have a really nice looking Billinghurst match gun there complete with Malcolm scope.   It's still got the false muzzle, but no mention of the original bullet mould or other tools.  It had tempted me on a few occasions.

Chris.

Nice Pacific, in a rare cartridge?   

My Pacific is 45-70, has the same weight barrel. Similar to the a Win #3 weight.

Rings near the chamber end of the barrel usually kill accuracy. They can be lapped out. Lot of work but worth it on such a nice rifle.   

      Joe.

Joe is the .40-85 rare?  I'm about as far from a Ballard expert as can be.  All of my knowledge comes from reading Dutcher's book a couple of times

Chris.

Wonderful Ballard!

I thought a Ballard #5 Pacific rifle with shotgun butt was actually a #5 1/2 "Montana" rifle...? Early catalogs simply list the #5 1/2 as "Same style and finish as #5 with shotgun butt".

Grant states that the Montana Rifle No. 5 1/2 was introduced in 1880 and discontinued in 1884 - also that it was a Pacific rifle throughout, but with shotgun butt and checkered steel buttplate - usually in .45 cal.

I believe that the Montana barrel will exceed the width of the receiver whereas a Pacific's barrel will be less than the width of the receiver.   


JR

My #9 has a shotgun butt stock. 

Special order?  Ballard using up parts? 

Joe: Is there a possibility that you #9 with shotgun buttplate is a #4 1/2. That would be the description for a 4 1/2.
Montana Ballards # 5 1/2 have a barrel that about 1/8" larger than the frame all around so its much heavier. 45-2 7/8  S (100) is absolutely correct and so marked on top of the barrel. To date this is the only caliber to which the Montana rifle is attributed. According to the books only caliber done in the Montana. It has definately a "splinter" fore end. They are at least 14 lbs or heavier depending on barrel length.
The pacific in 40-85 would make it a later Paciific and should be marked on top of the barrel. Some were not but all the 40-85's I have seen were. Not that rare of a caliber but fun to shoot. 80-90 grains 1F black and a 370 grain projectile would be about right for this caliber. Variable would be the brass thickness.
Head size is .477 projectile would be .410. 410 was used in most all 40 cal Ballards.
Westerner, you want to see an origional 40-60 Ballard come on over. I have a Mid Range in it with a most excellent bore. Can tell evolution is happening as it uses the smaller head size of .457 so I use 30-40 Krag cases trimmed to size. Indeed it is a rare caliber. Most all I have ever heard of were in 4 1/2's.
Ballards are interesting rifles as just when you think you have some figured out along comes a model that is different. I have vigorously chased Ballards for over 50 years. I bought my first Ballard, a Pacific in 1960, A 45 Govt. I got hooked.....now I can't stop.
  Don             rustyrelx

Great post, Don. 

When Schuetzenmeister owned the #9 I thought it was a 4 1/2.  When I got my mitts on it spent about a week trying to figure out exactly what it is. Nothing quite matched. A few features matched as #9. Last time I was at Etna Green, showed it to Bob Carrow. As I handed the rifle to him, he said "nice #9". Coulda knocked me over with a feather. 

I often wonder if these type rifles were special ordered or if Ballard made them that way on there own.  Has sling swivels and a barrel sight, but also has improved midrange and Windgauge front sight. 

I think it was originally a hunting rifle. Caliber is 40-50SS. 

Sorry for the thread derail.

     Joe.

Don,
Since this thread was started about a Pacific, I was wondering if you have any info on why some Pacifics have straight octagon barrels and why they also have tuliped barrels?

Frank

frnkeore wrote on Jan 4^th, 2015 at 4:41pm:


From what I've encountered with Ballard barrels in different octagon styles; the difference has been barrel weight or caliber. The Ballards I've owned or examined without a tulip were larger calibers like .45, or heavier barrel weights. I assumed the tulip would hang out over the receiver, so they eliminated it. My Pacific in .45-70 doesn't have the tulip, but a previous Pacific I owned in .38-55 did. Can't say I've ever seen a Pacific in .38 caliber that didn't have the tulip, but haven't seen a heavy barreled .38 Pacific either.
I've seen the same in other Ballard models also. Had #4 Perfections in larger .45 that didn't have a tulip, but smaller calibers that did. Even the little #3 Ballard had both styles. I have mostly #3's with tulip barrels, but I have one without. The last #3 I bought late last year has an extra heavy barrel, but is also tulip, and the tulip hangs just over the concave top on the late style #3 receiver. The one without tulip is a extra heavy barrel, but has an early flat top receiver.

marlinguy:         Every #9 that I have ever seen was marked on top of the barrel. I had a #10 at one time in 40-63 and so marked and it "should have been a 38-55 or 32-40". Yes #9's "should" be in 32 or 38 but special ordered can throw anything out there.

frnkeore:         I think the tulip is on the lighter barrels to keep weight down. If of no concerne it was straight or maybe ordered straight for weight.

I'm guessing here so don't take it as fact but I think the difference between the 4 1/2 buttstock and the #9 buttstock is the 4 1/2 had no cheek rest and #9 does. So that's my opinion. But if it actually was a special ordered #9 with a shotgun butt, which was an option by the way, it may or may not have a cheek rest. But if its in a larger caliber I would lean toward the 4 1/2 ,40 and above, smaller caliber the 9, 38 and below.
   Don                    rustyrelx

Many special order Ballard rifles often defy categorizing. Without knowing how the gun was originally ordered, it's often a case of adding up most of the features, and then deciding if Marlin started out with a particular model, and what they changed to get to the point of filling the special order. 
I've got a couple that I still am unsure what category they would have fitted into, and just gave up trying to categorize them. If you look in the back of Dutcher's book he shows a number of special order Ballards that he discusses what they might have started from, but it's still just a guess today.