I wouldn't.  But that's just me.  I like my fingers and face too much.

Probably, IMO. People (and some Golden Retrievers) have employed them with mild small capacity centerfire cartridges for years but I think they mainly shine as .22LR rimfires.

What works, isn't always what's ethical to chamber a cast action in. It may be fine to use certain cartridges for the guy whose reloading his own, and keeping it mild. But you've got no control over what happens when the next guy gets the cast Ballard and shoots his warmed over .22 Hornet, or .218 Bee ammo in it. In my opinion neither are a good choice for a cast Ballard.
I've owned Ballards with cast actions chambered in their original chamberings of .44-40, .44 Long, and .32-20, and also one chambered in .32-40. I kept the loads very mild, and never had an issue. But even these factory chamberings could be an issue if someone started running hotter modern loads through them.
The cast actions are great for .22LR, or .32 Long, and .38 Long. And they'll be great for another 140 years if they're not hotrodded. But if you want to barrel a gun for the hotter cartridges I'd choose a stronger action to do so.

northwoodneil wrote on Oct 21^st, 2022 at 6:14pm:


Yes, the .44-40 and .44 Long were the only two calibers larger than .38 used in the cast #2. A lot of these old Ballards have been rechambered, rebarreled, and done in cartridges Marlin never did. Even the two .44's were dropped by Marlin, and those found are usually earlier Ballard rifles. Most will be either .32 Long or .38 long, with a smattering of a few other cartridges. But never any long rifle length cartridges from the factory in these #2 Ballard rifles.
Likely if the one you saw was a long .40 then the barrel may be original from a forged action, and fitted to that rifle. Could be the .40-63 Everlasting that is a very common caliber offering for Ballard rifles.

The most common is a crack the starts at the internal corner of the receivers on either or both sides. Some have told me the weak point is the breech block as it sits behind the chamber unsupported. But all Marlin Ballards, cast or forged, use the same breech blocks, so if they were weak they'd fail in a forged action also.
I personally have seen both cracked receivers from some knucklehead chambering them in a high pressure cartridge, and blown up receivers from a possible double charge of smokeless, or just a too hot charge. When they blow up it's usually the receiver ring that lets go, and splits down either side, the top, or both places.
I personally have never had a Ballard receiver crack, or let go. I've owned a couple that concerned me, but never gave me any issues. One was a nice pistol gripped forged Union Hill in .38-55 that some clown cut right through the serial number on the bottom of the receiver ring, and put a cross screw through it to make it a takedown! I bought it for parts, but decided to shoot it a bit. I shot it more than a little, with average loads, and it was fine.
The other I still own, and it was modified when I bought it. It is the most unusual cast #2 I've ever seen, and is built like a deluxe Union Hill with pistol grip receiver, nickeled action, high end checkered wood, with horn tip forearm, and Farrow Swiss buttplate. Gorgeous little #2 that was originally a .32 Long, but somewhere along the line the bore got re-rifled to .316" groove diameter, and rechambered to .32-40 caliber. I shoot it a lot, but only as a breech seater, and with medium charges. I love it, and wont ever sell it; but if I did I'd pass along the usual warnings about not using hot loads.
It's the bottom Ballard in this old picture.
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

uscra112 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2022 at 7:03pm:


I'll admit I try to scare people off from building cast actions in crazy high pressure cartridges. And even in lower pressure cartridges like a .32-40 or .38-55 I still wouldn't build one. But I am not afraid of the latter two as long as I keep loads mild, and use cast bullets.
I sure wasn't going to pass up my #2 Special Order Ballard because of it. But I am sad that it didn't stay in the original .32 Long as the value would have been much better!

uscra112 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2022 at 7:17pm:


Metallurgy was pretty much non existent then, but there was plenty of history and knowledge of techniques used to build pretty darn good rifles. It's always amazed me how this knowledge base was passed along for so many years, and without any scientific techniques to draw on they were able to make excellent quality firearms. Imagine what they'd do if they could see how firearms are made today? I think some would chuckle at how technical things have gone.