I recently received a copy of Layman's book on the Ballard. He mentions the later No.2 rifles chambered for centerfire cartridges such as the 44-40 used the forged action instead of the cast action. I don't own a copy of Dutcher's book, but I did get to look at a library copy a while back and don't recall he mentioned the forged actions in the No.2.

Why ask? A gun shop in the area has a No.2 in 32 RF, with the cast action of course. The wood is poor, but the metal looks not bad except the bore is a bit rough. I wonder if it could safely be rebored to 38-40. There appeared to be enough metal under the front sight to take the 38's bore.

isn't the 38-40 a 40 caliber?

marlinguy wrote on Mar 28^th, 2021 at 4:15pm:


Yes, this 32 had a fairly thin barrel, just as you describe, so I borrowed the shop owner's ruler. It did appear there was room to get a .401 groove under the sights, but I'd want to go back and take more careful measurements.

Since Marlin offered the cast actions in 44-40, I have to think the action is good for it. It was a discussion on breech thrust on the Leverguns.com forums that reinforced the idea. The late John Kort did a test which demonstrated the .44-40 case base doesn't press on the breech. The thrust delivered by the 38 and 44 WCF is from the primer. The thin walls of these cases readily grip the chamber walls enough (assuming you removed the oil) to hold the case base forward against the gas. Kort's test surprised me, but he'd once posted a photo of a sectioned 44 case. From that photo I was able to make some calculations on case cling and stretch which convinced me there indeed isn't much thrust. 

The 44 RF probably stressed the action more than the 44 WCF, since it's floppy case construction exposes the breech to the chamber pressure over the entire case base, an area much larger. Ballards with cast breech blocks held the 44 XL and the 46, and both seem likely to have been operating at 44 WCF pressures.

At least this is what I'm trying to convince myself.

Well you have to consider that several companies over the years have made engineering errors and later corrected them when they realized their errors. So the fact that Marlin dropped both the .44-40 and .44 Long calibers within years of introducing them, tells me they realized their error. In the later years the only calibers offered in the #2 cast receiver were the .32 Long RF/CF and the .38 Long RF/CF.
Stevens made their 44 in .44-40, .38-55, and .32-40 also. But dropped all those calibers later. So having done something once by the maker, doesn't really prove much to me.

Some info please. I have a 3 line Ballard no. 2. The top of the flat in front of the action is marked 44 W. It is a center fire so I assume it is a 44-40?  Do I understand the comments from above that I should not try to shoot this with a traditional black powder load due to potential action weakness?

MrTipUp wrote on Mar 28^th, 2021 at 8:30pm:


Or most likely the new owner will figure it out like the rest of us did. 

You don't have much faith, Bill.

If I already owned one, I'd shoot it. The worst you can do is crack the frame behind the mortise, but honestly, I don't think that will happen. A small crack in the frame makes it a wall hanger, but not shooting it out of fear of cracking it makes it a wall hanger anyway.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) has used a PressureTrace to try to read the pressure from firing BP in modern cases, and the pressure is rather low.

I thought the problem was just that with enough firing, the action loosened up. Possibly this was more of a problem once smokeless loads were available. My #2 in 44-40 needed a couple of new pins to tighten it back up after the previous owner had used it for a target rifle. I use BP level smokeless loads with powder compatible with BP pressure curves and have probably put 1,000 rounds through it.