What year did the USMC begin implementing the Hatcher hole

[louis]

What year did the USMC implement the Hatcher hole and when did they stop or did they stop?

[cplnorton]

Without going back and looking for the document, I think the earliest I have seen it personally is in a document dated 1939. I don't know if they did it any earlier, if they did, it couldn't have been much earlier.

As far as I know they didn't stop. I've never seen anything mentioned I should say.

[louis]

Not sure Steve I think it went back earlier than that in the 1920's I think. I lost my notes on this and was wracking my brain on this and another Marine subject the infamous punch mark.

[JimF]

I don't know about the USMC, but . . . .

Way back, when I was still a teen-ager (late 1950's), just getting interested in firearms, I wrote to the NRA's "Dope Bag" column, wanting to know why the gas relief hole on the right side of the '03, seemed to me, to be cut off from the free flow of escaping gas because of the extractor interfering, and "wouldn't it be better to place the hole on the LEFT side?"

I received a type-written letter from the "Dope Bag" editor . . . a man named Julian Hatcher . . . . who stated that it was he, when stationed up at Springfield Armory, had come to the same conclusion way back in 1936, and ordered the hole to be drilled in the LEFT side, from that date forward!

I still have that letter, here somewhere, HAND-SIGNED by Hatcher (in the days before computer-generated signatures), but I cannot lay my hands on it!!

I KNOW it's here somewhere, BUT . . . . --Jim

[louis]

Ok Steve you're probably correct on that approximate 1939 date seeing as Jim has a doc from Hatcher dating 1936 as his conclusion in 1936. The Marines had about 52k 03's and didn't give up their early numbered ones but modified them with the Hatcher hole with With orders to never to use the early ones with a grenade launcher. Now the USMC punch marks on the receiver indicates a pressure test that's ok for grenade launching. So which came first and about what years the punch mark or the Hatcher hole or at the same time?

Jim-- you need to find that doc. That's a great piece of history! You know why they quit using the name "Dope Bag". By today's standards they could probably use it again.

[cplnorton]

Yeah the Marine document says they had "recently" started and it was 1939 dated I believe. I've never seen one earlier that mentions it, not in Marine Documents I should say. I have also seen what Jim has said on 1936 for SA, I just think it took a couple years for the Marines to start doing it at Philly.

On the punch mark, I have never seen that document. So I can't speak on that one. The only Grenade Launcher document I have is from 1926 I believe and it says not to use a Springfield Rifle under the 800k range for Grenade launching. But interesting enough, it also mentions that any RIA Rifle can be used from any serial range.

So the Marines at least around 1926 did not see the low number RIA's as unsafe. And you honestly see a lot more punch marks in front of the serial on the RIA's than you do on the SA's. At least the ones I have seen and kept track of.

Most of the Marine traits you seen on 1903's, you can date the traits to right before or during WWII. There wasn't a lot of the traditional Marine Traits being done before that timeframe.

[louis]

Funny thing I've also noticed the RIA punch mark more than the SA also. I had notes on these two items just can't find it as I have a lot of my things stored away. Thanks Steve.

[firstflabn]

Steve, the description is a little fuzzy, but take a look at the last entry for the FY39 annual report in Brophy's SA book (p. 331). Are they talking about the Hatcher hole or something else?

Not trying to hijack, but I've always been curious about the hole. Ever seen any real test data on its effectiveness? Dynamic loading in a complex geometry is well beyond my basic strength of materials knowledge, but seems to me that the pressure reduction is proportional to the size of the hole. Did they actually measure pressure with holes of different sizes in different spots - or - was it all guesswork and voodoo?

Maybe they added the hole to existing rifles to help you chase them down 75 years later.

[cplnorton]

I might have a different edition than you on Brophy's book. Mine on page 331, is a drawing for a WWII rifle rack. I think mine might be a second edition so maybe that is the difference?

I've never seen any major testing in the Marine documens at least none that I remember. If they did it, I don't have the documents. There is mention of low number receivers here and there in the WWII era documents but it's mostly basic info.

I imagine if they did any extensive tests, they did in between the wars, which my documentation is not as good as it is during wartimes. And I sort of imagine they relied a lot on the testing by SA or whoever.

[firstflabn]

Ooops! Brophy's Springfield Armory book, not Springfield Rifles. No FY annual reports in the latter.

[lencac]

"another Marine subject the infamous punch mark."

Eventually someone will know for sure what these punch marks are for or from.
35565

[louis]

Yes I've seen a few of these early Remington's like yours. I have a Remington with the center punch from Springfield rebuild and one on the far left similar to a marine punch mark. It would be nice to find out what they represent. Yours has 3 + a Springfield rebuild. Gotta wonder

[Col. Colt]

I was told it was punched each time the receiver was rebarreled. No authoritative source for that, though. CC