Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2]  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Ballard No. 2 (Read 6073 times)
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 16274
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: Ballard No. 2
Reply #15 - Jan 30th, 2019 at 5:30pm
Print Post  
Blackhawk wrote on Jan 30th, 2019 at 11:59am:


Aside from the butt plate and breechblock, I do not believe the rifle was a build-up. The SN’s stamped on the barrel, frame, forearm, and stock are all matching. The frame is cast iron with a two line JM Marlin address on the left side. The caliber (32 Long) is stamped on the top flat of the half octagon barrel, just in front of the frame. The rifle has many special features that could be ordered from Marlin when purchasing a No. 2 (e.g. 24” half octagon-half round barrel, checkered forearm with carved horn tip, checkered pistol grip stock of select walnut, engraved side panels of frame with running deer and running buffalo as shown on pages 224 and 228 of Dutcher’s book, the engraved frame and finger loop lever were nickel plated, rear tang sight is a Lyman No. 1 and the rear sight slot on barrel is filled, the trigger is checked within a border, as is the reverse-curve hammer). The rifle’s finish is uniformly aged and worn. I have known the rifle to be in this same condition for the past 59 years. With the rifle having so many of the Marlin special order features, would it not seem plausible that the Swiss style butt plate was yet another feature ordered with the rifle?  Based on the SN of the rifle, I suspect it was built around 1883 -1885. Would this be correct?

I agree that a No. 2 should have a breechblock with the rimfire and centerfire conversion; however, my rifle does not. The breechblock locks up tight and solid with the closing of the finger loop lever. I suspect the rifle was sent back to the factory at some point in time to correct or repair some issue with the original breechblock. Does this sound plausible?



You did note it has a different serial number on the breech blocks, so that confirms the block doesn't match, and makes it a built up gun. The non Marlin buttplate also makes it a built up gun. It may well have had the stock broken, but Marlin never offered that buttplate on any Ballard, #2 or other models included.
Have you checked the firing pin location to be sure it's .32 Long rimfire? It's more likely if it isn't a dual firing pin, and the breech blocks don't match that it's a centerfire only, as they made no rimfire only breech blocks, except in .22 rimfire.
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Blackhawk
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 20
Joined: Mar 14th, 2016
Re: Ballard No. 2
Reply #16 - Jan 30th, 2019 at 8:10pm
Print Post  
marlinguy wrote on Jan 29th, 2019 at 9:41am:
Blackhawk,
You mentioned your receiver has a "two line address"? That's very unusual for a #2 cast action. Have you had the gun apart to check the action and know if it's a cast or forged action? If it's cast it will have a void area below the chamber in the receiver. If it's solid all the way down it's a forged receiver.
Sounds like your gun is a built up gun, and not much that's original to the action. Ballard only made one rimfire dedicated breech block, and those were for .22RF, so likely your breech block has been reworked also. The normal breech block for a .32 Long #2 would be dual firing pin system and have two holes in the face of the block for RF and CF.



Marlinguy,
There is what I would describe as a void beneath the chamber, that angles toward the extractor. Hopefully the picture provides clarification. Should this then be considered cast iron?
  
Back to top
GTalk  
IP Logged
 
Blackhawk
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 20
Joined: Mar 14th, 2016
Re: Ballard No. 2
Reply #17 - Jan 30th, 2019 at 8:15pm
Print Post  
[highlight][/highlight]marlinguy wrote on Jan 30th, 2019 at 1:10pm:
Since it's marked JM Marlin it's not later than 1881. Most likely a late 1870's. [color=#000000]Would like to see the whole gun,[/color] or at least receiver and forearm. Sounds like a built up gun with the mixed parts still, but an unusual cast action having a two line address. Did you check to see if it has the void under the barrel?
I am certain the buttplate is not Marlin made, or put on. I agree it's a Maynard buttplate. And still not "expertly fitted".
I'd especially like to see closeup of the engraving.


Marlinguy,
Here is image of whole rifle. Front sight is not original.
  
Back to top
GTalk  
IP Logged
 
Blackhawk
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 20
Joined: Mar 14th, 2016
Re: Ballard No. 2
Reply #18 - Jan 30th, 2019 at 8:43pm
Print Post  
marlinguy wrote on Jan 30th, 2019 at 1:10pm:
Since it's marked JM Marlin it's not later than 1881. Most likely a late 1870's. Would like to see the whole gun, or at least receiver and forearm. Sounds like a built up gun with the mixed parts still, but an unusual cast action having a two line address. Did you check to see if it has the void under the barrel?
I am certain the buttplate is not Marlin made, or put on. I agree it's a Maynard buttplate. And still not "expertly fitted".
I'd especially like to see closeup of the engraving.


Marlinguy,
Here are two images of the engraving and two line address on the left side of frame. Note, the hammer does not have retaining screw for convertible firing pin. I've inspected face of breechblock. It is rimfire only.

Thanks
  
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) ballard_No__2_frame_002.JPG (Attachment deleted | 0 Downloads )
Back to top
GTalk  
IP Logged
 
Redsetter
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 3468
Location: New York
Joined: Aug 6th, 2013
Re: Ballard No. 2
Reply #19 - Jan 30th, 2019 at 10:38pm
Print Post  
Sad, what a hard life this once beautiful Ballard has been subjected to.  

This Lyman "patent combination sight" is the first variant of what much later came to be called the No. 1 model, built before Lyman began to mfg. his own bases. They were a factory option that cost almost as much as a mid-range vernier.  Looks like the shallow spiral fluting on the adjusting sleeve has almost been worn smooth.
« Last Edit: Jan 30th, 2019 at 10:43pm by Redsetter »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 16274
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: Ballard No. 2
Reply #20 - Jan 30th, 2019 at 11:48pm
Print Post  
Thanks for the great picture of your internal action. It shows me your action is a forged action, and not a cast. If it was cast the area under the barrel would be a larger void, and that void would be in as cast finish, not milled to clear the breech block travel as your Ballard is.
I believe your gun is very close in appearance to my #2 in .32 Long, and I'd love to see the breech block face if you dropped it and took a picture! Not having a firing pin retaining screw tells me it's a .22 rimfire breech block, as the centerfire and reversible breech blocks both had firing pin retaining screws.
Could you measure the length of your barrel from crown to back of the chamber and tell me the exact length? I'm curious if it's been shortened since the front sight appears to be different, and mounted unusually for a Ballard.
Yours was a very high end Ballard when new, and would have been gorgeous with the features, and engraving in the late 1870's! Likely Nimschke engraved at that early period too!
This is a full picture of my #2 which isn't engraved, but has a nickeled receiver.

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

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Blackhawk
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 20
Joined: Mar 14th, 2016
Re: Ballard No. 2
Reply #21 - Jan 31st, 2019 at 7:21am
Print Post  
Marlinguy,

Here is a picture of the breech block face. Let me know if you wish to see the firing pin itself. The length of the barrel is 24 3/4" from crown to end of chamber. 

The front sight, I'm embarrassed to say, was put on by me when I was 11 or 12. I was very anxious to shoot the rifle, so I rummaged through my father's parts bin and found the largest dovetail sight I could. Then I filled in the gap with a bead of solder to hold it in place. I grabbed an old box of Remington 32 RF and after having so much fun, I went thought the yellow pages and tried calling all the local gun shops to buy more 32 RF. Nobody had any! Huh....go figure.

Thanks for your help and sending the picture of your very fine rifle. I guess my next question is to figure out how to convert the rifle over to centerfire. Any thoughts (other than me having to undo my front sight work)?
  
Back to top
GTalk  
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 16274
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: Ballard No. 2
Reply #22 - Jan 31st, 2019 at 9:30am
Print Post  
Thanks for the picture of the breech face, as it tells the story well! It is a rimfire breech block for .22rf, and someone has simply opened the hole lengthwise too convert it to .32rf. 
To convert back would take someone with a good tig welder to weld up the existing hole and make a correct centerfire hole to align with the center of the bore. Then make a firing pin to match the existing one, but with cf tip location. Not really a hard task if you have access to a good welding guy locally. If you do convert to centerfire, you might consider also rechambering to .32 S&W Long, or even .32-40, since you've got a forged action that's extremely strong! Of course if you converted to .32-40, it might need the rifling deepened to open it up to .32-40 size, so .32 S&W Long would be better, if cost is an issue.
Your barrel has also been cut off, as Ballard barrels were in 2" increments, with about 3/16" over each length. So a 24" barrel would measure approximately 24 3/16" overall, and go on in 2" increments after that. I'd guess your gun was originally 26"-28" for a .32 Long, as those were commonly used by Marlin. I've seen a very few that were 30", but extremely rare. Never seen one in 24", though I've obviously not seen every gun made.
The only exception to the slightly over 2" increments were the 34" barrels. Long range, and Mid range matches had barrel rules stating they couldn't be over 34", so that length will always be exactly 34" when they left Marlin to fall within the rules.
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Send TopicPrint