Last one.

No problem putting a model number to that Ballard at all. You nailed it in your first guess. It is all standard #3 Gallery, with special order DST. The Pacific style lever was standard when ordering DST on any straight grip Ballard.
A #3F Fine Gallery has the small Farrow buttplate, and loop lever with pistol grip frame and stocks.
Great find by the way! Any #3 with set triggers is a tough one to find! I don't own one, and haven't seen one for sale in a very long time.

I took the forearm off tonight and found this "S" on the face of the frame.

What does it indicate?

Frank

sharps4590 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 7:16am:


Thank you!

Not sure what the "S" might mean Frank. I'm also not sure if any of my Ballard rifles has it, and I'm curious too, so I'll have to check mine too.

kensmachine wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 12:30pm:


Ken, is that a guess or do you have reference for it?

Frank

Let us know, I'm lazy 

Maybe "Sam" fitted the breech block?    Thanks for the report Val.

A friend has  a #3 Gallery with no caliber ID. It appears to be a 22LR but our first shot resulted in a split case. Did they make them in WRF? A 22WRM slides in nicely but is too long.
Tom

MGTOM wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 5:37pm:


The Ballard #3 was originally listed for the .22 Short and the .22 Long. Later it was offered in the .22 Extra Long, and still later yet it was offered in the .22 Maynard Centerfire, and the .22 Winchester Centerfire. I've never seen one in either of these CF calibers myself, but they were cataloged options.
None of the Ballard #3 rifles had the caliber marked on them for some reason. All other Ballard rifles made during the pre 1882 era JM Marlin marked didn't normally have a caliber stamp either. After incorporating and becoming Marlin Firearms Co in 1882 they began marking calibers on all but the #3 model.
As I mentioned above one of my #3 Ballards was rebored to .25 Stevens RF, but the Stevens name, and caliber marking is under the forearm, so not visible. It might be your friend's Ballard is rebored to the Stevens .25 RF.

The .22 Extra Long is identical in every way to other .22RF Short, Long, and Long Rifle cartridges, except for length, which is 1.16" long. Same diameter, same bore size, same rim, etc.
With a .234" chamber it should be within spec.

Was looking at Cartridges of the World, so should have guessed their dimensions could be incorrect. But I may have misread it, as I just looked and they list neck diameter at .225" and base diameter at .234".
Since you're relining it, I guess it wont matter, as it will all be good when you're done!

The 22WRF is .244 in diameter so, it's to big.

I guess that it's just wore that much (.227 out to .234). If you take .007 off the bore size, too, that comes to .216 and that might be about right, too.

Frank

Redsetter wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:09am:


I doubt a shooting gallery would have ever had a set trigger gun. Considering this gun is well over 125 years old at the newest, and maybe older; I'd say it's faired pretty well. Those marks look like vise jaw marks, and I've seen a lot worse than those few little marks on old guns. Seems .22 rimfires got the worst treatment.

Redsetter wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 9:43am:


Maybe I'm thinking of something different than you when I read "shooting gallery"? Shooting galleries are usually composed of a lot of cheap .22 rifles. In the early days they were often .22 pumps, or bolt actions. Single shots might be used very early in the public shooting galleries, but they were usually still very cheap models, not an expensive Ballard with special order set triggers.
And if you're referring to one of the big shooting indoor ranges like Zettler's in NY City, the guns would be owned by the shooters, and not the range. Those guns were far more specialized than Frank's Ballard, and either exotic bench guns,  or offhand style rifles.

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


They weren't wrong about that!  Anyway, Stevens had the "starter 22" market sewed up tight.

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