Lapua L might well be worth a try as it has a slightly larger bullet diameter.

frnkeore wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 11:12am:


They were a bit heavy, and that's one reason the last few years had very short and lightweight barrels. But just no way to get the weight down with the full size action. They were also not a cheap gun, even in the base model #3, so my guess is they weren't aimed toward boys, as some other maker's guns were. They were priced about 3 times what inexpensive boy's rifles sold for, so likely the market was adults in either entry level target shooting, or hunting.
No idea of numbers made, but they are only surpassed in numbers seen today by the #2 in .32 or .38 Long. John Dutcher told me he thought toward the end of Marlin Ballard production that the #3 accounted for more guns made than all other Ballards combined. I'd agree since I see so many #3 Ballard rifles with very high serial numbers in the 35,000-37,000 range. It's rare to even see other models in that serial number range, or even others above 30,000!

frnkeore wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 7:40pm:


Unfortunately JM Marlin and MFACo numbers were duplicated! For some odd reason when JM Marlin incorporated in 1881 they just started over from something around zero and used the same serial numbers they used before on Ballards. At one time I had a #6 Schuetzen and a #2 with the same serial number!
The JM Marlin serial numbers started at "1" with an Model 0 in .44 caliber, and I've heard estimates that around 10,000 to 12,000 were made under the JM Marlin marked name. The Marlin Firearms Co. marked receivers go up close to 37,000 but I've never heard of one higher than around 36,800. Nobody knows for sure if the second run of numbers started at zero, or 100. But I've seen 3 digit numbers, so they started at least that low.
Dutcher said that Grant's estimate was 39,000 made, but he thinks the number is 10,000-15,000 less than that. I'm not sure that Grant wasn't closer, and John might only be counting one marking? But even then it wouldn't be correct at 25,000 or so. But another unanswered question is Marlin's habit of using their serial numbers amongst all models made of repeating lever actions since 1881. Some say the Ballards were mixed into that, but I'd disagree since non but a couple dozen were recorded in Marlin records. If they were mixed, they'd be in the records, or there would be holes in groups in the records.
Your 20,000 range numbers with MFACo. marking should put your guns in the mid 1880's range, I'd guess. Which explains why the barrel on your #3 is a bit heavier than those on later guns. The push was to go lighter as production continued. A few of the old heavy barrels did get used late, but it was likely a special order, or just using up parts laying around the factory. I had a concave top #3 that had a heavy barrel, and the round tulip section stuck up above the concave top on the receiver. But it was a 36,000 number, and assembled pretty late.

Schuetzendave wrote on Feb 19^th, 2017 at 3:33pm:


Dave,
That could be worked out but, I would have to have it back within a month or two, with a RKS barrel installed at NO CHARGE

A win/win deal. You get to touch and handle it and I get a new barrel 

Frank