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.

Ballard never got away from those sharp, stress-raising interior corners. 

The early years of the Savage 99 had the same problem, as did the Stevens 44 series.  Both benefited from design revisions which eliminate the stress-raiser, but they come a lot later on the timeline.

Agreed.  It's a sterling example of human cleverness constrained by available technology.  When Ballard invented it most guns were still being made out of what was essentially forged wrought iron.  The idea of annealing a casting to make malleable iron was only a generation or so old. (Have you noticed that it's in his original patent?)  Steel for springs was a boutique commodity.  The chemists weren't to begin contributing to iron and steelmaking until about 1900. Nobody had any conception of pressures more than black powder could generate, and that was still true when Marlin finally discontinued it.   Far be it from me to criticize, I was only analyzing.

Speaking of those pre-Marlin Ballards

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

I hate people who break up guns, but there might be something useful there.

I avoid all the pre Marlin Ballard rifles, simply because of their RF and percussion chamberings. I've owned a few that were extremely nice guns, but sold them.

The most common chambering in the Stevens 44, a malleable iron casting like the Ballard, was .22 Long Rifle.  A not too distant second was the .25-20.  I'd find it hard to believe that the .25-20 Stevens could stretch a Low Wall, unless someone was drastically overloading.  The .25-20 WCF, which pushes close to 30,000 psi in some factory loads would do it, however.   

There wouldn't be any risk in a cast Ballard chambered for the 25-20 Stevens.  None at all.

Green_Frog wrote on Nov 21^st, 2022 at 2:38pm:


Although I wouldn't do so, I think it's probably not an issue. First because nobody is going to load any factory hotter rounds in it, and 2nd because anyone loading for the .25-20SS is not loading hot ammo either.
I was told that Marlin chambered a very few #3 cast Ballard rifles in .22WCF, and of course there are some #2 cast in .32-20 also; I own two of them in .32-20. So if the person who owned a .25-20SS keeps loads at normal velocities I doubt they'd be any problems.
The N-S skirmishers have been using Civil War era Ballards converted for many decades, but I doubt most ever got fired with bullets. They seem to exclusively shoot blanks, and often use .44 Special cases to make up their BP blanks. So really not the same problem of actually shooting lead in them.

uscra112 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2022 at 11:28am:


My 120 gr. Mos bullet breech seated has a muzzle velocity of 1660 fps using a 25-20 WCF case.

Jerry's load works out to something like 19500 psi and about 1340 lbf  breech thrust from a Stevens case, which is more than my horseback guess at the thrust from a blackpowder .32-20 by about 100 lbf.

Vall, yours is more like 960 lbf breech thrust.   

Both models assumed breech seat and 4227 powder.  A slower powder would yield slightly lower numbers.

westerner wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2022 at 3:33pm:


Joe I have a cast #2 chambered in .32-40, and re-rifled to open it to .318" groove. I also have shot it a bunch, and am not afraid of it with my loads.

why waste time and money on something that is marginal?jmo  art

Smokeless or BP depends on which smokeless powder you use. Some smokeless powders have lower operating pressures than BP has, and have pressure curves more gentle like BP has. So to say all smokeless powders are bad really isn't accurate.
I also know a guy who has a cast Ballard barreled to .40-65 Win. which really freaks me out! He's shot nothing but BP loads over 20 years, and I keep waiting to hear it's finally given up and cracked, but so far it's holding. This isn't saying it wont eventually, and when it does it wont gradually give warning signs before it happens.
What I'd own and shoot is my personal choice, and it's often different than what I'd choose to build up. What I might buy and shoot isn't always what I'd build to shoot.
Wonder how many factory built Stevens 44's in .38-55 and .32-40 are still out there being shot and still working well? Yet most people wont chamber the 44 in either of those cartridges, yet they'd own and shoot an original.

uscra112,

When I posted the muzzle velocity of my 120 gr. Mos bullet breech seated at 1660 fps I neglected to add that I was using 9.6 gr of AA4100 powder. I wonder if that makes a difference in the pressure and thrust? Also, what would it be using my 25-20 WCF case?

JerryH wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2022 at 11:28am:


Thinking about it strictly as an engineer, muzzle velocity can be said to depend solely upon a concept called specific impulse, which in this case would be the integral under the pressure/time curve from moment of ignition to the exit of the bullet from the barrel.  A fast powder, to deliver a given MV, has to create a high initial pressure because the curve will tail off more rapidly than, say, 4100, which maintains pressure for longer, so it doesn't have to start with such a high pressure.  I wish Quickload would calculate this parameter, but it doesn't.  You can only infer from eyeballing the pressure/time graphs it prints.   

The role that case shape and volume play constrain the amount of powder and the efficiency with which it burns. The two .25-20s are very close in case volume, so you can compare them. According to the QL database, the Stevens case has a bit greater volume than the WCF (who knew?), so to get the same specific impulse you have to increase the 4100 charge by 0.2 grains. Peak pressure almost exactly the same, as it ought to be.

Now try for the same MV with AA#9, which is only a little faster. The charge has to drop to 8.9 grains, I think because #9 liberates a bit more heat per grain, and peak pressure goes up by ~3000 psi. 

Case shape is known to influence burn consistency, alll other things being equal, which may help explain your success with the WCF case, in spite of its' slightly smaller volume.  A factor that the QL model doesn't take into account, as far as I can see.  

There's a lot more you can learn by playing around with QL models, but I'm out of my depth when trying to explain it all. 

Most reloaders would benefit from a ballistic loading program that not only gives velocity and chamber pressure, but just as important the pressure curve, which shows us how a smokeless powder arrives at a certain pressure level.
I never used one of these programs because I told myself I used mild smokeless loads, and have been reloading for well over 4 decades. But a friend pointed me towards a free ballistic program, and I figured nothing to lose when it's free.
Being able to enter all the data on my guns, powder charge, bullet weight, etc., and get velocity, chamber pressure, recoil, and see a graph of how the load reaches max pressure is a great tool! I found out that some of my favorite powders weren't high pressure, but had quite a spike getting to whatever pressure. So the pressure spike was more like a sledge hammer, than a heavy push to reach maximum.
I now run all my old data through the program, and although I haven't changed my loads, since they're within safe limits, I have used more of the powders I was already using that showed low pressures, and gentle ramps up to the pressure.

Thanks Charlie! 
I had no idea there was a group actually firing these old guns also.

"Wonder how many factory built Stevens 44's in .38-55 and .32-40 are still out there being shot and still working well? Yet most people wont chamber the 44 in either of those cartridges, yet they'd own and shoot an original"

I have a lugged hammer 38-55 model 44 I shoot but am careful.Also a Stevens Pope lugged 32-40 im also careful with.I use 4227 in both and breech seat.

To restate Jerry/jgraham1's point, weaker actions can be shot safely by careful owners like Chashooter, but not by everybody, most especially those who think they know better.

Bill Lawrence

uscra112 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2022 at 5:59pm:


Talking about the Ballard actions that were cast.

Jerry

uscra112 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2022 at 3:33pm:


I'd say John Marlin should be commended for the consistency of his cast frames, not forgiven for any inconsistencies. Since the vast majority will never fail when they've seen over a century of shooting in the cartridges they were originally designed for. That includes the Ballard rifles chambered in .44-40, .44 Long, and .32-20 that have held up all these years.
I find it admirable that the workmen at Marlin could look at a furnace and tell by sight when it was at the correct temp to pour. And know from experience what metals to toss in the furnace to somehow get the right alloy they needed for those old actions. 
Amazing!

The greatest skill would be knowing how to judge when to scrap a frame, or a whole heat, if things weren't right.  By the time a batch of frames came out of the annealing furnace there would be a pretty considerable investment in fuel alone, since a batch had to be held at red heat for hours on end.  Would take some intestinal fortitude to throw that away.  

And never mind computers - they didn't even have a chemistry set.    

It occurs to me to ask:  Is there source material that would tell us whether Marlin was big enough to have his own foundry in the 1880s? Could he have been buying castings from someone else? Maybe also having them annealed by an outside party?   

Ditto forgings.  Were the rest of his products based on forgings or castings?