This is one of my nicest rifle, I bought it about 2006 but, I've only shot it once. The caliber is  40/63 and the barrel is very nice but, not perfect. It has minor pitting in front of the chamber. I have the original partrige that came with it. The rails that you see on it, I installed to be able to shoot it with iron sights. 

The rifle was built in Redding CA, I found the names of two owners (not able to contact them though) but, I couldn't find out who actually built it and did the stock work.

I would like a opinion on whether the but stock is Ballard, it looks a little like the small Barrard Schuetzen butt plate to me but, I'm buy no means a expert on ballards.

I bought a new Ballard extractor and I'm hoping to rebarrel this rifle to either 28/20 Rabbath or 25/20SS.

Frank

I want to shoot this rifle competitively and I can't take recoil anymore. My plan is to keep the barrel and if I sell it or my wife sells it after I'm gone, to put the original barrel back on it. I would have any problem selling the barrel that I'll install.

The rifle begs to be shot and I'm hearing it

Frank

I don't believe it's a Ballard stock Frank. Ballard put some straight grip stocks on pistol gripped receivers like the #6 Schuetzen, and the early #6 1/2 Rigby rifles. But they did not put pistol gripped stocks on straight grip receivers. The stock is well made, and nicely checkered, so done by a skilled craftsman, but not by Marlin.
Marlin stocks and buttplates are all serial numbered to their guns. On a Ballard the buttstock has the serial number stamped on the mating edge to the receiver, so removing the stock and looking ta that end will show a serial number. If it came off a pistol grip Ballard, and was refitted to your Ballard, it will have a mismatched serial number there. Buttplates have the serial number on the inside, so removing the plate will reveal if it's Ballard, or if it matches the stock's serial number.

Marlin made some rare Pacific models with pistol grip frames. I have a friend who has two of them, and one is marked "Browning Bros. Ogden, Utah" on the barrel. Both of his are plain, uncheckered wood. Both of his also have a loop lever, as usually used on PG receivers/stocks.

This is the standard Marlin Ballard buttplate. And my Rigby is also in .40-63! I load a 350 grain bullet to around 1350 fps, and it's not abusive at all shooting offhand. 

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

Hi Frank, that is nice looking rifle and a very well done stock but I don't think your buttplate came factory on a Ballard, the lines are not quite right. There should be more arc in the center. 

Dennis

I'm sorry, Vall. I re-read my post and I did say "but stock", what I ment to say was butt plate.

Frank

Please allow me to revive this almost-zombie thread.  My question is germane.

A few days ago I picked up a very sorry-looking Marlin #2 at an auction, because a.) the breechblock looked good, and I need a sound one for my "Bitza Ballard" .28-30 project, and b.) I thought I could use the crescent buttplate, ugly as it was, on the nice buttstock that I have in the kit.  Not so.  The #2 buttplate is taller than my wood.   

Am I correct in hoping that there are only two sizes, "small" and "large" as implied by this thread?  If this wood is "small", do I stand any chance of finding a replica that will fit?

Thanks, Vall.   This is the piece of wood.  Does it tell you anything?   I'm pretty ignorant all around, and Ballards are by no means my best subject.

Phil

OK, that's what I needed to know.  Thanks!  One never stops learning.    I don't have all that much $$ in it, so it's no great loss if I have to put it aside.  I kinda like it, though.  It's a good fit to my face for iron sights.  With some deep cleaning and repair I can use the wood from the #2 wreck in the meantime. 

I'm so close - the #2 breechblock assembly fits nicely and is in very good condition inside and out - all it needed was a new firing pin. A surprise considering the rest of the gun.  Gotta trim the barrel a few thou to get the lockup right, and it can be function fired at least.    That reminds me - did Ballard clock the barrel threads?  This .28-30 barrel screws up just right, even though it came from who-knows-where.  (It's not even a Ballard barrel; it's a Stevens that somebody put a sleeve on to make it fit a Ballard. Its' acquisition was the start of this whole saga, some 15 years ago.)
Phil

Well, I guess I used up my luck there, then, and for the rest of the project I will have to do without.  

Another question, if you will:  Should the upper face of the breechblock "tail" contact the inside of the receiver?  This one does, given dimensions of the lever and link I'm using.  I've read that it should, according to one Internet expert.  Seems counter-intuitive to me.  Whatever preload there is in the lockup should be between the shoulder and the breech face, by my lights.   That's how I've learned to do Stevens 44s.  BTW this barrel does need a few thou taken off the breech face to achieve that.  Headspace is then controlled by the depth of the rim recess.  

That should do me for a while.  The elephant's child needs his after-lunch nap. 

Phil

Isn't it the lower face of the breechblock tail that contacts the inside of the receiver giving 3 points of lockup? The block contacting the square edge of the top of the receiver, the tail sitting on the inside bottom of the receiver, and the lever/link contacts.

AHA!  I get it.   The idea of preloading the tail downward had escaped me.  Without that, the block will rotate around the linkage on firing, until the tail contacts. Taking up that slack and then stopping it suddenly puts a shock load on the whole arrangement. Never a good thing.

About .003" crush on the breech face seems right.  Same as I do on the Stevens 44s.  

I too marvel at Ballard's intuition.  Some people have the genes for 3D spatial relationships, and he certainly was one.  Richard Feynman in one of his books describes informal experiments he and his pals did at MIT on how people's brains are "wired".  

I want to guess that Ballard had seen the germ of it in another context, and carried it over, but then again....    Something I realized quite a few years ago is that the minds that today are doing recombinant DNA or computer science or nanotechnology  were back then doing mechanism. Can you think of any breech closure arrangement that we have today that wasn't invented in the years from 1850 to 1910?  I can't.  Then think of sewing machines, reapers, steam and gas engines, gearmaking machinery, etc.   

the elaborate, very heavy draw-weight, military-type cross bows, in their last phase of evolution before firelocks became common, had some mechanical lock and trigger linkages similar to firearms because of the forces of a 300 or 400 Lb draw-weight from their steel reinforced composite prods.