Opinion solicited on merits of 'Left-Side' gas escape hole (1903 Springfield)

[butlersrangers]

I have two (post-WW-1) Model 1903 Springfield Armory receivers, that lack the 'Left-Side' (so called, "Hatcher") gas escape hole, that was implemented in 1936.

One action, #1,492,XXX, has an "11/35" marked barrel with an excellent bore. I was able to accumulate original parts and assemble this into a nice looking complete 1903 rifle.
(The receiver has the 'blemish' of two discrete drilled & tapped holes for a Redfield receiver sight, that I filled with screws).

The second action, #1,231,XXX, was likely manufactured in 1921. It has been drilled and tapped for Weaver scope bases and the barrel shortened. I am considering replacing the barrel and assembling a "fake sniper", just for a fun & inexpensive shooter.

These two model 1903 rifles are not collector pieces. They were not NM rifles. They have extra D&T holes. I rehabilitated them from 'sporters'.

I do intend to shoot them a lot.

My question is: Should I consider having a Left-Side vent hole added to these actions for a measure of increased safety?

[bruce]

Yes. Likely it will never be needed. But, if it is ever needed, it is going to really be needed. So, yes. Sincerely. bruce.

[Merc]

My 1925 Greek returned Springfield ‘03 acquired a 03A3 bolt, probably when it was fitted with a new HS 1944 barrel during a rebuild before going to Greece in the late 1940s. The receiver on this rifle has two gas escape holes. The hole on the left side of the receiver is the larger of the two and aligns with the large hole that’s drilled on the side of the bolt when it’s closed. The hole on the right side is much smaller and aligns with the small hole that’s drilled near the claw of the extractor when the bolt is closed.

According to what I’ve read, the holes were typically added during a rebuild.

[Sunray]

The "Hatch Hole" is just a bigger gas release hole. It was put there because the regular size hole was considered too small very, very, late in the service life span of the '03. And that's the only reason it's there. The '03 had been in service for 30 some years by 1936 without the bigger hole.
The whole thing was about the ammo being used at the time. .30 M1 ammo(174 grain bullet) was a bit more powerful than the earlier M1906 and the later .30 M2(both using a 152 grain bullet).
Anyway, those rifles have already been bubba'd so anything you do won't matter. Highly unlikely to ever become an issue one way or the other.

[John Beard]

Seasons' Greetings.

Yes, by all means add the Hatcher Hole. I respectfully disagree with Sunray.

The Hatcher Hole mitigates two potentially critical failures. I decline to elaborate on one. But the other failure is a punctured primer. The Hatcher Hole vents the hot gas harmlessly out the left side of the receiver ring instead of down the receiver rail and into your face.

Happy New Year!

J.B.

[Merc]

A ruptured case is the only other serious failure that I can think of. My Remington 03A3 has a single large hole on the left side of the receiver and there is no hole drilled in the extractor. Obviously, the smaller hole on the right side of the receiver and extractor were deemed unnecessary on the 03A3.

[butlersrangers]

Thank you for your replies. The large hole on the Left-Side of the action, looks rather comforting, being aligned with the Bolt's 'gas escape hole'.

If I have my gunsmith re-barrel the 1921 Receiver, I will have a "Hatcher-Hole" added, for greater peace of mind.

[cplnorton]

I would add the gas escape hole on one I shot.

The studies they conducted on it does show it helped. I've seen pics of a lot of failures and it seems without the hole, the gas travels down and usually exits in the gap between the receiver and trigger guard, or it travels down and blows out the trigger guard.

Either way metal and wood are coming at the shooters face. With the extra hole and enlarge gas hole in the bolt, the pictures show a drastic change in the failure of the rifle.

A couple points to add to this. Even though Hatcher has earned credit for this mod. It has nothing to do with him, and he shouldn't have credit for it. There were two studies on this mod. One in 1930 and 1936. The the one that finally took hold in 1936 was done by a LtCol Borden.

Even though books say they started the gas escape hole in 1936. They didn't do the study till Dec 1936. So the docs say the first rifles done were the 1937 NM rifles.

High numbers can fail the same as low numbers. There were heat treatment issues with high numbers just the same. So in my opinion it's nice insurance to have the additional gas escape hole on any m1903 you shoot.

When they drill the receiver, if the hole in your bolt is not enlarged, have them do that at the same time as well.

Make sure to check the headspace. But I imagine you already plan to do so. If there is a failure in the docs I see the same thing repeated over and over for decades, if you have a failure a rifle with the correct headspace is much more likely to survive than a rifle without.

I think from now on I'm going to call the "Hatcher Hole" the Borden hole. It just seems much more fitting to give the proper man the recognition.

https://i.imgur.com/BdnPhTg.jpg

[Merc]

46907

The photo shows the difference in size of the holes on the 03A3 bolt vs. the M1903 bolt. The hole in the 03A3 bolt is much larger.