Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Mausers and Military Rifles 1903 Springfield bolt question

I have a 1903 Springfield bolt that I’m going to be using for a 300 win mag build. I’ve noticed it has two little holes/indents on the left side of the locking lug. Does anyone know what these two holes are used for? I have some pictures from the internet that show some bolts that have the two holes and some bolts that don’t I will link them below. I did notice there was a little nipple inside the receiver that protrudes ever so slightly I assume to fit into these holes I just don’t understand the purpose. Just a curious question I have. Thanks!

Just checked 3 of mine. The 3rd one has the same. I don't know why but I'd bet Gnoahhh does. He is the guy I ask my Springfield questions to. I have a 03 A3 run out to 300 win mag and another in 308 Norma mag. I shoot and use both. I don't run hot loads in either, I think there are better actions for magnum cartridges..mb

They're gas vent holes for in the event of a case rupture. I can't picture a little nipple inside the receiver. In fact I reached over and plucked up an 03 and am looking in it now and can't spy what you may be referring to.

Ah, it dawned on me what you're referring to. That second "hole", the one on the locking lug itself, is simply an indent that is poked into by the bolt hold open device buried deep behind the magazine. (For holding the bolt open during inspection on the parade ground and such.)

As for making a magnum out of it, like Bob said it'll work ok but personally I wouldn't go crazy with the loads. Also, please tell me it's a late pre-war NS (nickel steel) action or a wartime Remington 03 or a wartime 03A3. If it's a WWI-era single heat treated receiver or even a post-WWI double heat treated receiver I wouldn't be sticking a 60K psi (that could easily spike to 65-70K psi with sloppy/careless handloading) cartridge in it and putting my face behind it.

( Those early actions were made of a simple low carbon steel alloy that was case hardened for added strength (and added lubricity, slickness, for ease of operation. Even the double-heat treated actions while much stronger/safer but still made basically of the same steel alloy were never intended for "modern" very high intensity cartridges. If in doubt, research the serial number ranges that encompass the various types of steel used in the manufacturing of the 03 Springfields.)

It is not, it is a Springfield model and it’s in the 1921 year range. I guess with that being said I should scrap the magnum idea. Also appreciate the help with the two little holes it was driving me nuts not knowing.

The excessive space @ 1/16 " visible behind the after locking lugs and the bridge has always been a topic of contention with me on all the un - Numbered bolts that go with any high Numbered ( above 800,000 ) , Springfields.

I that have a serial number question, I have three 03a3 none in '06 now all with serial numbers 3,800,000 to 4,186,500 what's the verdict on these receivers as far as being hardened. these appear to be '43-'44 era if i am looking at it correct.

Don't sweat it. They're good tough actions. Not as smooth/refined as a pre-war '03 but darned strong SOB's!

Not sure I follow. That gap is normal.

Double checked on my bolt and receiver they are both stamped “NS”

The forward 2 locking lugs ,like a Mauser , turn and lock into recesses inside the ring ,invisible. Similarly the 3rd safety lug turns into it's recess in a position below and underneath on a Mauser invisible., but the 03 's third safety lug is up on top ,visible and uses the after section ofthe bridge for its bearing surface but I guess the space is there to prevent it from in fact bearing on the bridge and thereby holding the forward lugs from bearing firmly on their bearing surface inside the ring.

I have a 308 Norma, 358 norma, and 6.8 western built on those three, after a reasonable amount of shooting I have had no signs of headspace issues etc. They all go bang and shoot light out for me, better than I can hold it LOL

The one is a Jaeger rifle ( 308 norma) so I figured based on what I hear he/they knew how to put things together back in the day.

Concerning Springfield 1903 & 1903A3 Bolt. There's never been a " safety recall" so to speak concerning the Springfield Bolts themselves as far as I know! Maybe when they have "airbags" & no inference to members of this Forum including me! Springfields as a wider mauser pattern genre, such locking surfaces on receivers are some few millimetres thick. The locking lugs abutting surface are considerably thicker and the inner striker hole is reflects a minimal compromise of that strength. Bolts for their surface locking area are considerably stronger than receivers, functionally a "shell". The termed "safety lug was intended as just that! Never to precisely abut in contact with the aft receiver bridge. Such would require an unnecessary dimension of precision. When the ultimate faliure of the bolt in shear, it was the "seatbelt". Krags functioned well with one locking lug altoether if in somewhat lesser pressure range. The point of a one "parachute" safety locking lug adequate where the forces dimenshed by predicate of bolt failure bleeding off most aft momentum. Such feature along with gas relief vents directing failure generated gasses away from the shooter face areas.

MGen Julia Hatcher, in his namesake "Notebook", found the "double heat treated" receiver the stronger of such and the later Nickel Steel receivers. Don't argue with me! Read the book. That said, the Nickel Steel became the preferred receiver material. I believe for the reason of manufacturing ease and greater tolerance to heat treating. The latter simply my take.
The 1917 Enfield, 1903 Springfields and many of the mauser 98 pattern variants have proven over decades to be entirely safe for normal pressures in an era when 50k would have been higher than normal but well within "the envelope". Where we get into trouble with handloads, etc.,, isn't so much in hot loads, but more often in overloads combined with such as bore obstructions, wrong diameter projectiles, extremely poor maintenance or incorrect parts/fitment issues arise. My belief most of the Twentieth Century mauser pattern rifles are sufficiently strong, of ultimate "worst case reasonably to be contemplated" is where the gun is has done its duty if rendered unusable as we can yet walk away. Add shooting glasses to that formula.
Of the original question, I remain without clear understanding per description. Perhaps Rockwell surface hardness test marks???

Just another wordy... as noted, my take!
Best!
John