Sitting here musing over my 1993-era, M700 Classic, and I see an “error” in the making of this otherwise fine rifle . . . .
As some of us know, Springfield Armory, way-back in 1936, realized that the “gas relief” hole in the right side of the M1903 rifle was not only blocked by the claw extractor, but was also on the WRONG side.
Hence the “Hatcher/Borden” hole was drilled on the LEFT side, in line with the hole bored in the bolt . . . and made for MUCH EASIER gas escape in the event of a punchered primer.
However . . . .
How is it that the engineers at Remington, FAILED to see that the hole in the M700 bolt, and the hole in the receiver, are 180 degrees opposed!!
The Springfield knowledge was ANCIENT HISTORY when the M700 was designed . . . .so the gas escape holes SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALIGHNED!!
Seems like Remington dropped the ball here!
M700 Classic engineering “mistake” . . .
Re: M700 Classic engineering “mistake” . . .
Hatcher's modification to the Springfield is spot on, the comparison to the Remington 700 misses how a modern push-feed system handles gas. Remington engineers didn't drop the ball here; they designed a completely different, multi-layered gas handling system. The Springfield 1903 is an open Mauser (controlled feed) action that needs an immediate "escape hatch" like the Hatcher Hole because gas easily enters the receiver wrapper. The Remington 700 relies on its "Three Rings of Steel" to seal the initial blast, using offset holes that handle entirely different gas paths.
If you remove the Remington 700 bolt and look at the underside of the bolt body right behind the locking lugs, you will see a small drilled hole that vents the inside of the bolt assembly. If a primer punctures, gas travels backward down the firing pin channel, and this underside hole vents that internal pressure out into the receiver's lug raceway so the firing pin assembly isn't driven straight back into the shooter's eye.
On the other hand, the hole on the right side of the receiver ring is there to relieve gas traveling along the outside of the bolt lugs. If Remington had aligned these two holes, they would have created a direct rocket nozzle, venting a high-pressure jet of white-hot gas straight out the side of the rifle. By offsetting them, the Remington design forces the gas to change direction, lose velocity, and divert harmlessly downward into the magazine well. The offset isn't an engineering mistake; it's intentional, designed for shooter safety.
If you remove the Remington 700 bolt and look at the underside of the bolt body right behind the locking lugs, you will see a small drilled hole that vents the inside of the bolt assembly. If a primer punctures, gas travels backward down the firing pin channel, and this underside hole vents that internal pressure out into the receiver's lug raceway so the firing pin assembly isn't driven straight back into the shooter's eye.
On the other hand, the hole on the right side of the receiver ring is there to relieve gas traveling along the outside of the bolt lugs. If Remington had aligned these two holes, they would have created a direct rocket nozzle, venting a high-pressure jet of white-hot gas straight out the side of the rifle. By offsetting them, the Remington design forces the gas to change direction, lose velocity, and divert harmlessly downward into the magazine well. The offset isn't an engineering mistake; it's intentional, designed for shooter safety.
Re: M700 Classic engineering “mistake” . . .
IMO . . . . .Gas diverted downward into the magazine is NOT “harmlessly”!usabaker wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2026 11:27 pm . . . . .and divert harmlessly downward into the magazine well. . . . . .
(I blew a magazine to pieces in a handgun when a case let go!)
Still believe that expecting gas to travel 180 degrees around the inside of the receiver, BEFORE exiting . .. . .instead of DIRECTLY to the outside via aligned gas ports . . . Is a mistake,
Guess we’ll have to “agree to disagree.”
Re: M700 Classic engineering “mistake” . . .
Comparing a handgun blowing out a magazine to a bolt-action rifle is a completely false equivalency. A handgun has thin wood, polymer, or aluminum grips wrapped directly around the magazine right where your hand sits. A Remington 700 magazine well is encased in a massive steel receiver ring, a heavy steel bottom-metal plate, and a thick wood or fiberglass stock designed specifically to contain structural containment.
Furthermore, the idea that the Springfield 1903 doesn't vent into the magazine is historically inaccurate. In a catastrophic case failure on a 1903 or any Mauser-style action, massive amounts of gas travel down the extractor groove and dump straight into the magazine well, frequently blowing the floorplate right out of the bottom of the gun and splintering the wood stock. The physics of forcing gas to travel 180 degrees around the receiver is not an engineering mistake; it is basic fluid dynamics. If you align the holes, a 60,000 PSI primer failure creates a direct rocket nozzle of hot gas shooting straight out the side of the rifle, possibly burning the shooter's support hand. By forcing the gas to change direction, Remington engineers forced the gas to lose velocity and pressure, turning a dangerous event into a managed bleed-off. You can agree to disagree with Remington's engineers, but you are disagreeing with physics and historical accident reports.
Furthermore, the idea that the Springfield 1903 doesn't vent into the magazine is historically inaccurate. In a catastrophic case failure on a 1903 or any Mauser-style action, massive amounts of gas travel down the extractor groove and dump straight into the magazine well, frequently blowing the floorplate right out of the bottom of the gun and splintering the wood stock. The physics of forcing gas to travel 180 degrees around the receiver is not an engineering mistake; it is basic fluid dynamics. If you align the holes, a 60,000 PSI primer failure creates a direct rocket nozzle of hot gas shooting straight out the side of the rifle, possibly burning the shooter's support hand. By forcing the gas to change direction, Remington engineers forced the gas to lose velocity and pressure, turning a dangerous event into a managed bleed-off. You can agree to disagree with Remington's engineers, but you are disagreeing with physics and historical accident reports.