A nice video on the Ballard I just found.



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

Just some corrections to your video. Merwin & Bray Agents owned the Ballard patent from 1862 forward until July 23, 1873 when Brown Mfg. went bankrupt and the company and patent rights went to Charles Daly of Schoverling & Daly. Throughout the various previous makers Merwin & Bray owned the patent rights and each of those companies made the Ballard rifles for M&B.
Another note of interest is that Merwin had his office on Chamber St. right across the street from John Marlin's company where he produced JM Marlin firearms from 1870 to 1875 when Schoverling & Daly contracted John Marlin to build the Ballard rifles. Marlin was indeed already setup to make guns, and had been making copies of the little Colt derringers for 5 years when S&D offered him the job of building the Ballard rifles. As a former employee of colt John Marlin was well versed in firearms manufacture, but mostly as it related to handguns. But he certainly knew what it took to be successful as an arms maker.
The 2 line and 3 line designation has nothing to do with dating a Ballard. Both 2 line and 3 line rollstamps were used throughout production from 1875-1891. The difference is from 1875-1881 the rollstamp top line read, "JM Marlin" and after 1881 when the company incorporated the stamp was changed to, "Marlin Firearms Co." 
One thing that the 2 line vs. 3 line address does often indicate is forged vs. cast receivers. 2 line being forged, and 3 line being cast. But there are some exceptions to this rule also, as I own and have seen examples of forged actions with 3 line addresses, and cast actions with 2 line addresses. I would say that the exceptions are very small, but one needs to always drop the breech block out and look under the barrel at the receiver to see if it's solid (forged) or hollow (cast) to be positive.
Marlin also restarted serial numbers when the company name changed, so we find cases of early JM Marlin and later Marlin Firearms rifles with the same serial number, but different models and rollstamps.
As for the #3 and #3F Fine Gallery, the differences are the #3F has a pistol grip receiver and stock, and is equipped with a small Farrow style Swiss buttplate for offhand shooting. The 3F also usually came with a graduated peep tang sight, and a fixed globe front sight, where the plain #3 came with very basic Rocky Mountain rear, and blade front sights.
Both JP Lower and Carlos Gove were large Denver gun dealers, and both stamped guns sold through their shop.

Vall, 
I’ve read John Dutcher’s book cover to cover a couple of times, and a fine source of information it is, but just about every time you make a post here I learn something new (to me, at least) about Ballards.  I wish I could “sit at your feet” and learn from a master.  At my age though, I’d have to use a chair, and an adult beverage (or at least coffee) would probably be involved.  Thanks for a great post.
Your ‘Phibian Phriend

Vall,
Great photo of you and Mr. Dutcher. I met and visited with him at a show a few years back, but didn’t know how to take selfies back then and there wasn’t anyone else present to take the photo! LoL 
I watched the video and noticed several of those things that were wrong— but I don’t remember half of what I learned over the years! Green frog and I would do well to sit at the same table sipping a little single malt scotch and relearning it all again!

Val, thanks for your thorough response about the video, it did contain quite a few errors. I did get a chuckle when he said that one almost need a PhD to know everything about them. I learned to shoot on a No. 3 that was given to my father by a man who shot it competitively in the 1930’s and 1940’ s. That rifle has made me, at age 80, a lifetime Ballard fan. That rifle has a Winchester Model 52 barrel on it, installed in 1929 and it still shoots great.

Vall, how many high power varmink rifles you got built on Ballard actions?

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

Nice video, thank you for sharing.

KWK wrote on Jan 19^th, 2025 at 1:16pm:


LL Hepburn does have a patent on the 1888 Marlin design. Although the design is much like Marlin's Model 1881 just scaled down for smaller cartridges. I guess enough differences to receive a patent, but I've always wondered how?
His 1889 was truly a unique design that spawned all later Marlin lever actions to this day.
Hepburn was a true firearms genius and I've often wondered if John Marlin hadn't hired him after Remington went bankrupt if Marlin would have become as successful making lever action repeaters as they were? But maybe the Ballard would have remained in production longer had they not become so successful?
He basically moved the locking bolt interface on the 1894 up inside the receiver to get it out of the trigger guard area, which made a cleaner look without that part hanging below the lower tang.

The lockup of the 1888 is nothing like the 1889 and later Marlin rifles. The later all use a vertical rising block that intersects the breech bolt, while the 1888 uses a pivoting block that rises up behind the breech bolt and then cams in behind it. Not nearly as strong as the later 1889 is.
The 1881 is different than both as the end of the lever intersects the breech bolt and holds it forward when the lever is closed. This is more akin to what Hepburn designed into the smaller .22 and .32 models 1891, '92, '97, etc. Not a bad design, but likely the weakest for a rifle chambered in large cartridges like the .45-70 and .40-60 Marlin.

KWK wrote on Jan 19^th, 2025 at 7:22pm:


I also was looking at Bill's book and 3 previous patents show no block in them, but the latest 1887 drawing does indeed show a rising block and cut in the breech block it fits into. 
Guess it's been too long since I had one of my 1888's apart.

How well does the 1888 operate? I've never had my hands on one. The mechanism by which the lever actuates the cartridge carrier is different than on the 1894, plus it has to hold onto the upgoing cartridge instead of slamming it into the roof of the receiver. I assume the 1888 was either less reliable or Hepburn figured out a simpler way to do it.

KWK wrote on Jan 19^th, 2025 at 7:51pm:


Remington had very little interest in any Sporting Rifles, and only made Sporting Rifles off leftover military actions when military sales plummeted. Compared to military sales their Sporting sales were dismal. And especially compared to the competition.
The main reason LL Hepburn was first hired was to make up Rolling Blocks for the 1874 Creedmoor match. He already had a great reputation as a gun maker, and top shooter, and Remington needed someone like him to build quality long range rifles.

TN Longhunter wrote on Jan 20^th, 2025 at 3:30pm:


The .32-20 was the smallest production of 1888 Marlins, so surprised you see more of that cartridge? They made over 1700 each of .44-40 and .38-40, but less than 1300 in .32-20 cartridge. 
The 1888 were almost all made in 1888 and 1889, with like two made in 1890, and one in 1891 and one in 1892.
I never had a .32-20, but had both .38-40 and .44-40 when I collected them.

2nd on good video. Always nice to read new info on Ballard.