This is a beautiful example of a rifle that has always been a baffling one to me.
Why were the lever-operated rifles ever made?
To a collector, of course, they would be golden, since they are so scarce. But to the shooter of real or replica versions what is the advantage? The disturbance while shooting with the thumb operated, more common, rifle would be less, and the trimmer, more streamlined common one would be nicer for carrying on the ones used in the field.
So, if anybody would like to educate me, I'm all ears. Thanx

Thanks for the reply, everything is worth hearing about.
Does the block really rock? I can't figure what would be different in the pathway of the thing- but I haven't ever seen a Walker Hepburn either. If it does that might be useful for the paper patch rounds, huh?

Yeah, I guess that finger support is good for the offhand. My ol' high wall has finger grooves, but I never use them, so I just overlooked that one. Good thinkin'.
Off the bags (about all I shoot these days), I just lay my thumb alongside the wrist and stick a single finger into the trigger, so don't pay it any attention other than being the handle to open the action.

My Walker Hepburn lecture.
The Walker Patent action was never manufactured except for prototypes. A very complicated action.
The Walker Hepburn is is identical to a regular Hepburn except for the lever, a Hopkins & Allen type link, different, but similar breech block, trigger plate and lever spring.
The Walker Hepburn was an attempt to cash in on the Schuetzen market with minimum changes to an existing action.
It was not a commercial success even though they hired Doc Hudson to campaign with one, hence the rarity
Several Walkers were modified to replace the Hepburn DST's. Don't know if this was factory or not.
Tom Rowe's Hepburn book is a good reference.
Chuck 

Chuckster wrote on Mar 19^th, 2018 at 10:37am:


Chuck, I'm curious why you consider the Walker a prototype, and not more of a special or custom Hepburn? Since Tom Rowe's book lists almost 40 known examples, and Remington did advertise the Walker version for sale as a "special", it seems it went past being just a prototype.
I've heard guesstimates of 50 to 100 built, but I seriously doubt there were 100 built. I'd guess it's likely around 50, as I'm sure there may be more beyond what Warren Greatbatch discovered, or Tom Rowe listed. But probably not many more.

Chuckster wrote on Mar 19^th, 2018 at 12:28pm:


Thanks Chuck! 

I want to see a Hepburn with a rocking Breech block! I never seen of those! All my Hepburn’s were the plain old falling block ones.

Does any know if the script "Schutzen" on that Hepburn can be duplicated by a mechanical engraver ala a trophy shop or does it have to be hand engraved?

How were the originals done?  I see Ballard did some of this and maybe Marlin.

Thanks, John

Amoretti wrote on Mar 19^th, 2018 at 8:45pm:


I would guess it depends on the engraving shop's selection of fonts and whether the action has been annealed to eliminate eating up their cutters. Since they use a pantograph to do their electric engraving, they should have a selection of patterns for different fonts. If they have this style pattern they should be able to do it. It wont look the same as engraving hand done, but at a glance it will probably be close.

oneatatime wrote on Mar 20^th, 2018 at 11:26am:


Yeah. Without it the name would be correct, but more Germanic.

The "Walker" was never advertised as that but was a Remington Schuetzen. The Walker term is modern. There were several prototypes made as well as a number sequence that went up to the low 20--W19 etc. The breech block works the same as a regular Hepburn. The Walker patent action was made a few years earlier by E. Rem. & Sons about the time they went bankrupt, I think 1886 or so. The Remington Schuetzens were made in the early 1900's 1902-1905 I believe. I have one real Walker and it is as good a rifle as Remington ever made. Tom Rowe

Thank you, Mr Rowe. Learned something. Welcome to the forum.
Thought the Walker's were earlier than that, like early 1890's.
Also, thank you for your books.
Chuck

Just for your viewing pleasure . Picture of last springs eastern NY crew in the front row are 5 Walker Hepburn rifles used in the match.

Looks like Walker will have to be the only one to have 2 designations; Walker Walkers and all the other Walkers 

Bill Lawrence wrote on Apr 4^th, 2018 at 3:02pm:



Bill those stamps are not just found on Hepburns and should not be thought of as Hepburn specific barrels as they relate to a #3. I've seen those same "LL HEPBURN" markings on rolling Blocks, and also on several Marlin lever action repeating rifles. Doesn't make them Hepburn barrels, or even Remington barrels.
There's been numerous speculation by Marlin collectors that such barrels were either prototypes, owned by Hepburn, or assembled by Hepburn. I really have no idea what the LL HEPBURN marking designates, since it seemed to be found on guns made when he worked at both Remington and Marlin. Surely he had some connection to the stamp, but no telling what. I can say that those so marked were certainly not done with what appeared to be a rollstamp, as the letters were not well spaced or aligned.

Did Walker have his own stamp, and did Walker mark his barrels as Pope did?
The 1882 E. Remington & Sons price list does show, on one page only, for the #3:

                   THE
Remington Improved Creedmoor Rifle.
        HEPBURN'S PATENT
                  No. 3
     SPORTING & TARGET RIFLE

Hepburn isn't mentioned on any of the other pages pertaining to the other various #3 rifle models.
If the "L. L. HEPBURN" stamp is found on #3 Creedmoor Rifle barrels, should it be called a "Hepburn-Hepburn" ?
And if the "L. L. HEPBURN" stamp is found on barrels for the other #3 models, should it be called a "Hepburn-No. 3" ?

Opinion's are a dime a dozen how about some serious research and some actual facts of which I have none to share but wish I did and would if I had the means to do so. I know everyone enjoys to voice and listen to others opinions to keep such threads alive and well and nothing wrong with doing so but some real meat and potatoes are just about due for this one and I too would like to know.

JLouis

Probably not worth mentioning, but I suspect there are more roll dies and stamps floating around now than the original manufactures themselves ever made and used.    

Thanks Joe I did not know that book was out there and it sounds like it would indeed be money well spent to pick one up.

JLouis

I bought my copy of Rowe's Hepburn book on Amazon for $80, so check there first. Might save some money.

As for famous makers and when or why they get special notation or "ownership" added to guns they made. The workers who designed or worked on guns as part of their normal day to day job rarely get any credit. The Walker designation was assigned to his design by Remington. Unusual as they indeed didn't assign Hepburn's name to the #3 Remington. Who knows why Remington saw fit to credit Walker for redesigning the #3, but didn't see fit to credit Hepburn with the original design? The fact Walker got credit is more confusing, as it was not the habit of most gun makers to give employees credit for their design, unless it benefitted the company.
The Stevens company gave Pope credit because they felt his name would increase sales. Had it not benefitted Stevens, they'd never have added his name.
Marlin used Ballard's name simply because Ballard himself had named the design when he was involved long before Marlin. But had it not already been named the Ballard rifle, Marlin and his partners would not have done so. Hepburn designed every Marlin lever action model from the Model 1889 to the Model 1897, and numerous in between. But as an employee of John Marlin, he got paid a paycheck, and no benefit to Marlin to give Hepburn any credit in naming his designs.
The various custom built guns by famous custom barrel makers, or custom gun makers have been given the name of the maker due to those makers applying their names to the gun barrels. We look at a particular Winchester, Remington, or Ballard, and if it has a famous maker's rollstamp on it, we call it a Pope Winchester, Pope Ballard, or Pope Remington. We use Stevens' designated "Stevens-Pope" for guns built while he was employed by Stevens, but that's also because it's marked so on the barrel. There are probably 500 or so Stevens-Pope marked barrels on Stevens rifles that were built after Pope left, and done so under Ross' supervision. We don't call them Stevens-Ross rifles. They're still referred to as Stevens-Pope, but everyone knows Pope didn't have anything to doo with those later Stevens-Pope marked rifles.
Adding a famous maker's name to designate they reworked a gun is more of a nod to those we hold in such high regard. This is why the #3 has been given the nickname the Hepburn rifle. It's because collectors have for decades felt Hepburn was credited for his design. Same as famous gun makers get.

s.s.jeff wrote on Apr 5^th, 2018 at 6:28pm:


Correct Jeff. So should we call them Stevens-Ross, or should we call them Stevens-Pope-Ross?

Thanks for catching my mistake on the "Roth" vs. Ross part!