Aircrew survival rifles today

[simonrichter]

Is there still such a thing or has the idea of survival rifles been abandoned as such?

[raimius]

Mostly abandoned, although some aircrews in combat areas will bring rifles with them. I've talked to/seen a few cases of people bringing M4s with them (one even carried a modified M14).

[lamarw]

I am a little confused. Is the question about the type of rifle or is it about why flight crews do not carry?

Henry has come out with their line of survival rifles. I suspect military will be equipped with firearms and will be rescued. Passenger planes will be rescued. It is up to private small plane operators whether they want a firearm or not.

So, I am not sure of the question.

[RJay]

At one time the USAF ( SAC crews ) had a small foldable rifle / shotgun in their survival kits . I believe it was the M6 ?. 22 Hornet over 410. SAC crews flew over some very rough isolated places. The combo rifle shotgun had 14 inch barrels. I do believe this is what the OP was referring too. Good question, I don't believe they still pack a weapon ( other than a knife ) in the kits now. Don't know for a fact and I don't know any B-52 or B-1people to ask.

[FITASC]

They now call them "Blackhawks"......

[lamarw]

I agree Blackhawks are the survival firearm for military aircraft crews.


Following is available to private aircraft operators,
The Henry Survival Rifle: https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/u-s-survival-ar-7/

[FrankenMauser]

There really isn't such a thing any more. Everything that I know of is a standard issue firearm.

Even then... It depends upon the type of aircraft, type of aircrew, and type of mission being flown.
An F-16 pilot flying from San Francisco to Hawaii, for example, probably won't have anything more than the standard survival gear (no firearm).
Even a B-1B crew, flying over "unfriendly" countries is not always going to be armed. Sometimes, the presence of the weapon is worse than just being captured.
But an Army CH-47 crew, or Air Force MV-22 crew, flying into hostile territory, is likely to have M9s strapped to their legs and M4s available in the cabin (and even the cockpit).
And, all crews on armed aircraft are trained to make the best of what they have available - up to and including dismounting M2s, miniguns, grenade launchers, Bofors cannons, and accompanying batteries to run them, if necessary - in order to put up a fight.

As FITASC hinted at: The basic premise of modern "survival" is immediate rescue. If you can't be pulled out in the first few hours, you're assumed to be captured or dead by that point, anyway. (Rescuers won't give up. It's just that the time frame for rescue [and survival] is generally pretty short.)

The modern approach is not escape and evasion, even though it's still taught in the classical manner. Rather, it's, "sit tight, defend your position, and hold out until evac arrives." (...Or you're captured. )

"Survival firearms" are now just whatever weapon you have available, or issued.

[RJay]

I'm very familiar ( very familiar , having crewed, rebuilt, and worked on the mad Russians helicopters since the H-19C thru to the Apache and as good as the Blackhawk is, it cannot follow a a B-52 several thousand miles for a rescue attempt.

[T. O'Heir]

Not enough space in a fighting aircraft for any kind of rifle. No firearms attached to or tucked in the rocket powered lounge chair they drive around in either. It gets separated from the driver(who will likely be hurt from using it)when used anyway. Transports and helicopters, maybe.
"...cannot follow a B-52..." That's what the Boat People are for. Assuming they're close enough. Only 76 B-52's left anyway. Only 66 B1B's.
You won't be dismounting a Bofors cannon or a mini-gun. Nobody's going to ride the aircraft down either. That quick, sudden, stop at the end of the fall, hurts.

[Deaf Smith]

The powers-to-be will decide if they will let you be issued a standard rifle or pistol. Survival rifle? Governments are rarely worried about any soldier/sailor/marine's survival these days. They go asleep on ships and let them get rammed and issue 10 missing sailor bulletins while the bodies are still in the ships.

Harsh? Yea, but I just don't see the higher ups worrying about survival weapons. They have even closed down a lot of the survival schools! Cost cutting you know while we have gender training.

Deaf

[Cirdan]

Aside from handguns, there are a few candidates, both from Ruger. A 10/22 takedown wouldn't take much space, and be good for small game. I believe they also make an AR takedown as well. Henry still makes their survival rifle (AR6?).

[FrankenMauser]

Transports and helicopters, maybe.
"...cannot follow a B-52..." That's what the Boat People are for. Assuming they're close enough. Only 76 B-52's left anyway. Only 66 B1B's.
You won't be dismounting a Bofors cannon or a mini-gun. Nobody's going to ride the aircraft down either. That quick, sudden, stop at the end of the fall, hurts.

B-1s and B-52s don't have Bofors.
Show me the ejection seats in a C-130.


If it can be man portable and operated outside of the aircraft, it's a contingency weapon.
Modern times aside, there are documented cases of miniguns, cannons, and even rocket pods being pulled from downed or disabled aircraft to defend FOBs under attack in Vietnam.

[hdwhit]

SimonRichter wrote:
Is there still such a thing or has the idea of survival rifles been abandoned as such?

The last purpose-made "survival rifle" issued to aircrews was, as RJay pointed out in past #4, the M6. First issued in about 1951, it was withdrawn from service by about 1973. Armalite designed the AR-5 (designated MA-1 when adopted by the Air Force) as a replacement for the M6 as part of the XB-70 program. Although the MA-1 was adopted, the cancellation of the XB-70 program eliminated the need for the rifle and so none were procured beyond the prototypes and they were not issued to flight crews.

[Unconventional]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

Not enough space in a fighting aircraft for any kind of rifle... Transports and helicopters, maybe.

Transports and helicopters, absolutely. I know an MH-6 pilot who has more kills with his M4 firing from the cockpit than with the weapons on the stubs. (This is due to the ridiculous ROE in place that require "Star Fleet Command" level approval to do a gun run, yet allow unfettered use of small arms even while in flight, albeit while under the presumption of use for self-defense). I think his M4 falls under the category of "any kind of rifle".

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

B-1s and B-52s don't have Bofors.
Show me the ejection seats in a C-130.


If it can be man portable and operated outside of the aircraft, it's a contingency weapon.
Modern times aside, there are documented cases of miniguns, cannons, and even rocket pods being pulled from downed or disabled aircraft to defend FOBs under attack in Vietnam.

Agreed. For as long as aircraft have been in combat, egress kits have been used to allow the mounted guns to be used away from the aircraft for E&E situations. This is true today such as with certain variants of the M240.

[simonrichter]

Thanks for the replies so far, and yes, I did refer to whether they are still in use by armed forces pilots

[FrankenMauser]

Agreed. For as long as aircraft have been in combat, egress kits have been used to allow the mounted guns to be used away from the aircraft for E&E situations. This is true today such as with certain variants of the M240.

I don't know if it's still true on the MV-22 Osprey, but the USAF MH-53Ms that were replaced by it had at least two modern instances in which the M2s were dismounted for semi-auto use (an electrical interrupter in the USAF version prevents full-auto without being energized).

One was in Afghanistan in early 2002. Brown-out hard landing.
M2s and issued weapons used to form perimeter. Evac came after the dust blew away. Aircraft swarmed by Taliban. JDAM inbound. BOOM!! Early in OEF, there was an 'iconic' photo of an Afghani child rolling an "Apache" tire down the street, while the Taliban claimed to have shot down and seized a US helicopter (with photos of a partial cockpit on a truck). They didn't mention that we killed over 30 of them with the JDAM, or that we blew it up ourselves. No one bothered telling the media that it wasn't an Apache.

The second was in Iraq in 2004. RPG to cockpit (no detonation, but major damage to controls).
Safely landed in a courtyard surrounded by hostiles. M2s dismounted. M134 dismounted and moved to aircraft tail, but crew evacuated before it could be hotwired for use. Army grunts kept the M2s on the perimeter until a QRF came in to get them on the second evac. Sadly, again... The area was too hot to go back in for aircraft recovery. JDAM... BOOM!!

[globemaster3]

I'll weigh in on this one. Bonafides up front: 23-year (and counting) AD USAF pilot who spent the majority of his career in KC-135, C-141, and C-17 before making a career change at the 20-year point.

Lots of combat time low level, high level, and everything in between. Landed between the craters on runways in C-17s when you could still see the mines in the dirt next to the taxiways/runways at Bagram and Kandahar.

Kosovo, OEF, and OIF on those airframes and now quite a bit of time in OIR on another. I have ground deployments working staff weenie/desk flying in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

All I was ever issued/allowed to carry for flying duties was an M-9. That's it. No M-4/M-16/M-249/M-240 etc. Just the M-9 and some magazines of ammo. Ground deployments were different. I've carried the M-4 and M-16A2 in addition to the M-9 on those with standard combat ammo loadouts.

A funny aside was in the 2003 timeframe, they issued a magazine of hollow points with our loadout for use on the aircraft since it would cause less damage to the aircraft than ball ammo in case we needed it. The JAG explained that if we were forced down, we were to swap our ammo for the ball... The blank stares abounded... The scenario of just being forced down in hostile territory, with bad guys coming for us, and I'm going to unload my pistol, swap mags, and then defend... Obviously this is the legally correct answer since hollowpoints are prohibited in combat by LOAC, but the practical application side of it was somewhat....

I recall there being some open source discussion inside the USAF years ago about an MP-5 variant that was super short being packed into fighter kits, but I don't know if that ever made it into fruition.

As for AFSOC or rotary wing, I cannot speak for them. But for your AMC heavies, they'd all be the same (C-5, C-17, C-130, KC-135, KC-10, etc).

[Husqvarna]

I think ze germans did it right with a drilling

make it in titanium and carbonfiber

make it 12 gague 12 gauge and 308win
with 223, 762X39 and 9mm inserts stored in the buttstock
a bandolier with ammo

I mean NATO pilots will probably not need to survive for that long

[agtman]

Is there still such a thing or has the idea of survival rifles been abandoned as such?

What were once called "survival rifles" have long since been replaced by the issuance (at least to pilots) of the much more powerful Beretta 9mm pistol.

[simonrichter]

Update: New Aircrew Self Defense Weapon!

Any additional information on this piece, anybody?

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

Not enough space in a fighting aircraft for any kind of rifle. No firearms attached to or tucked in the rocket powered lounge chair they drive around in either. It gets separated from the driver(who will likely be hurt from using it)when used anyway. Transports and helicopters, maybe.
"...cannot follow a B-52..." That's what the Boat People are for. Assuming they're close enough. Only 76 B-52's left anyway. Only 66 B1B's.
You won't be dismounting a Bofors cannon or a mini-gun. Nobody's going to ride the aircraft down either. That quick, sudden, stop at the end of the fall, hurts.

Been a few years but we carried sidearms when getting 'green ink'..'issue' was those S&W model 10..but most I knew carried their own they brought on cruise with them..many full sized SA..I carried a 5 shot snub nose in my g-suit pocket. Been a few years but I'm pretty sure guys flying in the ME carry a sidearm, fast movers. Me F-4, F-14..

[Rachen]

I did refer to whether they are still in use by armed forces pilots

I never even knew that there was such thing as a "survival rifle" built for MILITARY pilots. I have seen the AR-7 and also the takedown rifles made by Henry that superficially resembles a C-96 Mauser a lot. These guns are referred to as "US Air Force Survival Rifles", but I always thought it was a sales gimmick. The military issues guns for it's members, and different units, different missions get assigned different weapons. As aircrews fall under the category of elite forces, they should be allowed to take aboard weapons of their own choices. Like some of the others mentioned, 5-6 shot S&W short barreled revolvers in .38+P or .357 are excellent vest pocket guns.

Otherwise, aircrews should just be issued sidearms. Because busy people who are more of scientists and mathematicians than actual combat grunts (Having to operate all sorts of instruments, flying planes and calculating weather, ballistics...) already have their hands full with the tasks they are given to be burdened with infantry gear. A holstered M-9 strapped to the calf is a lot easier to manage, stays out of the way of more important things, and yet, is there when it is needed.

"Survival Rifles" are for civilian pilots, ie. bushcraft transporting hunters and equipment into remote wilderness areas.

[Drm50]

I don't kown about today's military but in the past there were several survival guns issued
over the years. These weren't for SD they were to survive, to shoot things to eat. A light 22
rifle is a lot more practical than a service pistol to harvest eating material.

[kymasabe]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...ver-shot-down/

[kymasabe]

And this would be a good choice as well.
https://www.foldar.com