As part of its effort to build out the AR-15 family of small arms, Colt introduced the Model 608 in 1965. This was intended to be an aircraft survival rifle, able to pack disassembled into a small space with four 20-round magazines for use by the US Air Force. With a 10 inch barrel, fixed tubular stock, and cut down grip it weighed just 4.75 pounds and had a maximum length of just 17.6 inches when disassembled. It was only produced as a prototype, with ten or fewer being made in total.
Many thanks to the Royal Armouries for allowing me to film and disassemble this rifle! The NFC collection there – perhaps the best military small arms collection in Western Europe – is available by appointment to researchers:
https://royalarmouries.org/research/national-firearms-centre/
You can browse the various Armouries collections online here:
https://royalarmouries.org/collection/
Interestingly, the USAF has returned to this concept and is now using an AR survival rifle w/ a removable barrel system.
It is called GAU-5A by them https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/u-s-a-assault-rifles/gau-5a-2/ which makes it Airborne Gun (hence GAU)
Philosophically, I’ve always been of the opinion that there’s a reasonable case for “make them regret shooting my aircraft down” as a policy. If your efforts at air defense lead to having a well-armed, well-trained half-mad saboteur running around in your rear areas, well… You might experience a bit of reluctance to create said saboteur by shooting his aircraft down in the first place.
Not saying it’s a reasonable or well-thought out concept, but I can see some points to it. Some of the guys shot down in Europe during WWII joined in with the various resistance organizations, and proceeded to do some rather unpleasant things to the German war effort. With a little forethought, and some time for training? Not to mention, the proper attitude on the part of the involved aircrew? You could shift the mentality, just a bit… Make them regret shooting that aircraft down, in other words. Cost-benefit ratio could work out to be… Interesting.
The whole thing is indicative of culture, though. The Japanese had their Kamikaze mentality, which was “I am going to die for the Emperor, no matter what…”
Which, admittedly, did tend to cut down on their pension costs. I’d submit that a far more beneficial mentality would be for said airmen to have the mentality that “I’m going to do as much damage as humanly possible to the enemy, and if that’s flying an aircraft, so be it. If it means I’m on the ground in enemy territory, with access to arms and the ability to fight, well… Let’s get at it: Gee, that-there factory/facility looks a little lonely… Wonder what I could do to it, here on the ground?”
At the very least, give them some beacons to set up for targeting. I mean, if rescue isn’t possible, then let them go “weapons free” and have at it.
Granted, it’s something of a waste of highly-trained specialized manpower, but if you’re not going to get them back anyway? Why not?
It was probably made easier during World War Two by the fact that USAAF airmen were Army airmen. And USMC airmen were, well Marines.
Meaning, every one of them had at least been through boot camp plus what we now call Basic Combat Training (BCT).
I.e. they had been trained in rifle and pistol marksmanship, unarmed combat, knife combat, basic combat medic, and at least had a working knowledge of things like hand grenades, mines (placing and disarming) and etc.
All of which would be skills necessary for guerrilla warfare.
They had also received extensive survival training, and the “survival kits” in the aircraft reflected that. Look at a WW2 USAAF aircrew survival kit. It’s considerable larger and better equipped than most modern versions, and includes (gasp!) weapons and ammunition intended for combat, not just “foraging”.
The Marine versions were similar, except generally substituting .38 caliber S&W Model 10 or Colt Official Police revolvers for M1911 .45 automatics. (Based on weight considerations.) These were not intended for rabbit hunting. (Although a .38 Special is a sensible caliber for jacks at ranges under 50 yards; .22 rimfire is too light for them at any range.)
The difference, in the end, is training and what the airman is expected to do after being unceremoniously deposited in the enemy’s back yard. In Vietnam, Evasion and Escape (E&E) and pickup by C/SAR helo was the goal, and if that failed, the airman ended up a POW. (The VC actually paid “bounties” for captured American airmen; I always wondered where the đồng came from.)
In “Greater Germany”, he might also end up in a “kriegie camp”, where his duty was to escape (thereby causing the Germans manpower allocation difficulties). The facilitation of this was of course the MIS-X program, much of the details of which are still secret in spite of it never being used after 1945.
In Japan, a shot-down airman might as well do a Frank Luke. The locals would kill him even if he tried to surrender. In 1945-48, the occupation authority hanged a few hundred Japanese civilians for that (over MacArthur, Grew, and Herbert Hoover’s strenuous objections).
SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training is mainly a morale reinforcer. “Stay cool, stay hidden, we will come for you.” Except in real war, it’s not that simple, no matter what Hollywood says.
There’s a big difference between “The Way We Were” and “They Way We Are Now”. And it’s not an improvement.
clear ether
eon
The idea that one would not shoot down a multi million dollar aircraft and a highly trained expensive pilot capable of causing immense damage every time he/she took to the air on the infinitesimal chance that said pilot might somehow cause even more harm as a lone saboteur running around behind the front line is…..ridiculous.
You miss the point.
It’s an aspirational goal: “The enemy should regret shooting me down.” Not “I’m gonna die for the Emperor and leave a black stain of my aircraft profile on an enemy hull…”
Just because you find yourself bereft of your expensive aircraft and behind enemy lines, you’re still a combatant, and still able to do things that will disadvantage the enemy. Keep that mindset, and you’re miles ahead. If it means they tie up hundreds of men just trying to find you, so be it… If that’s all you can accomplish.
Make trouble. Make them regret the action of damaging your aircraft.
The ground forces need similar mentalities inculcated into them: “Oh. We’re surrounded. Too bad for them, now we don’t need to worry about finding them…”
Too often, the choice is made to say “Yeah, we’re screwed, let’s surrender…”
Which is absolutely not a good idea with most, if not all of our enemies.
During WWII aircrafts were cheap and the German forces spread in hostile territories with long supply lines. A stranded US airmen, joining Resistance forces, had good probabilities to inflict to the German war efforts damages worth more than his downed aircraft. Only think to the advantage, for that group, of having that guy as contact officer with the Allies.
The situation today is pretty different. Aircrafts are VERY expensive, so they are EXTREMELY worthy targets. And it’s not that likely for a downed pilot to join a friendly Resistance group. There are high probabilities the population would be hostile. Imagine IE a US pilot downed in Serbia in 1992. What could he have realistically done?
Nice almost fantasy “concept” Kirk, but pilot isnt a Rambo.
He specializes in air, not roaming on land, and its easy to see how one can be lost in Vietnam jungles like fish out of the water. Even for army and their patrols, who have it regulary, terrain is rough, not to mention pilot who is out of his element.
I guess that in a silly sort of way, that rifle makes some sense
apart from one or two parts, that can be cheaply made, almost everything is standard production.
Ammunition is standard as well, which helps with resupply if the pilot is able to meet up with resistance or friendly troops.
I wonder whether that suppressor was as much or more about controlling flash, as it was about taking the edge off the sound?
as a gun for foraging, that thing is a disaster.
The first shot will alert everyone for miles around, and unless you get a head or neck hit on a bird or a bunny, there’s not going to be anything edible.
with a deer or a boar, you can probably throw the front end away and eat the rear.
a couple of adapters for. 22rf would hugely increase the usefulness for foraging.
I’ll strenuously disagree with .22rf being inadequate for Eurasian and African hares, it will also do dogs, roe deer and pigs if you’re a half decent shot, and .22rf is about the only cartridge that won’t completely ruin a bird with a body shot.
Out of a rifle length barrel (like the AR-7) that might be true, but if the “survival gun” is a pistol it’s a different story. As Jeff Cooper stated;
-Cooper, “Trail Guns”, Guns & Ammo,/i>, July-August 1959, pp 32-35.
In many respects, a hiker’s requirements for a “trail gun” and an airman’s requirements for a “survival/escape” firearm are remarkably similar. Most obviously, both are on foot and require minimum bulk and weight for their accoutrements.
In this respect the .22 LR caliber makes very good sense. An AR-7 plus 200 rounds of .22 LR high-speed hollow points will weigh about 4.3 lbs (2 kg), making it by far the lightest option in a “full-length” rifle. (The fact that it takes down and stores in its stock helps, too, especially in getting it into the bailout bag.)
Very few handguns can match those statistics and still have enough velocity and power for taking game- or self-defense.
Those who consider the .223 (5.56 x 45mm) questionable as a “deer” cartridge would find the .22 rimfire, even out of a rifle-length barrel, even more so. Count me in that category.
Seen in this light, a 5.56 x 45mm carbine might be defined as a compromise choice, if the airman is properly trained in its use for both self-defense, foraging, and possible “unconventional warfare”. (“Beware the man with only one gun; he probably knows how to use it.”)
Probably the best combination for an airman (or hiker) would be something like the AR-7 in .22 LR (or better yet .22 WMRF) along with a powerful but relatively lightweight centerfire handgun.
If we set the maximum allowable weight for that at around 1.5 pounds (.68 kg) as Cooper does, we’re pretty much restricted to the “subcompact” 9 x 19mm automatics from Glock, Ruger or etc., or the new breed of polymer frame subcompact revolvers in .357 Magnum or 9 x 19mm from Ruger (again), Kimber, or etc.
But none of them have the two things Cooper states are necessary for such use. Namely, a long enough barrel for maximum muzzle velocity (about 5 inches/ 13cm) and adjustable sights. As he puts it;
-Cooper, op.cit.
Probably the ideal “aircrew survival” gun, of any sort, was the old Charter Arms Target Bulldog revolver in .357 Magnum, a five-shot double-action with adjustable sights, a 4 or 5-inch barrel, and an aluminum frame, resulting an all-up (loaded) weight of only 26 ounces (.74 kg). Unfortunately, it is long OOP.
Now, if Charter, or Kimber, or Ruger, or somebody could be induced to give us a version of their ubiquitous 5-shot compact .357 revolvers with a 5 inch barrel and adjustable sights, I suspect they’d sell more than they might think. Especially to the military and particularly to the Air Force.
cheers
eon
in a sporting setting, .22LR would be inadequate, inhumane and illegal for most of the animals I listed
lots of poachers and poor country boys have managed very nicely with a .22LR including for poaching Roe Deer.
lots of negligent or very unlucky people have found out that it will kill humans as well.
I know someone who by a miracle survived a self inflicted head shot with a .22Lr sub sonic. it knocked him out cold for several hours, and he’s lucky that the blood loss didn’t kill him.
accounts that I read decades ago of experiments with silenced .22LR rifles in Vietnam, suggests that it was very effective with head shots on humans, despite being sub sonic at the muzzle.
“(…).22rf being inadequate for Eurasian and African hares, it will also do dogs, roe deer and pigs if you’re a half decent shot(…)”
That being said USAF issued .22 Hornet weapon for purpose of “hunting of varmint-size animals” namely Harrington and Richardson M4 https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.php?smallarms_id=1296
Somewhere I still have a box of Remington-UMC .22 Hornet 40-grain JSP my father had for his Savage 340. It was apparently USAF issue for the M4, since on one side there’s a pasted-on label stating that it was for foraging only, and not to be used vs. “enemy personnel”.
Given the choice between a pistol and even a .22 Hornet rifle in that situation, I think my response would be “You can call me ‘Jack’.”
Short for “Jackal”.
clear ether
eon
.22 hornet is a very different cartridge to .22RF long rifle.
in 40 grain loadings it has more than twice the muzzle velocity of high velocity .22lr loadings, ie, more than 4x the muzzle energy
I’ll put that into some perspective, because .22 hornet really is a very different round to .22lr
it’s actually a much greater difference in order of velocity and energy than going from 7.62×51 to .338 lapua, and almost as big as the order of difference in muzzle energy between 7.62×51 and .50BMG.
in terms of sporting rounds, going to four times the muzzle energy of say .308 (around 2,500 foot pounds) would take you way beyond the energy of even the largest cartridge intended for stopping charging elephants
i know that I’m labouring the point here, but .22 hornet and .22lr rimfire are very very very different cartridges with very different performances.
I’ve used .22 hornet a lot, mostly on foxes and occasionally on dogs that were attacking livestock, and sometimes to put injured livestock out of their misery with brain shots, when the hornet was all I had with me, and going home to get something bigger would have meant prolonging that misery.
the terminal effects of .22 hornet are much more in line with the other. 22 centre fires. you get big wound channels in small animals at 2600 fps.
unless you can get good hits with head shots, there won’t be much of a rabbit, hare or pheasant size bird that’s edible.
.22 hornet does tend to have a fairly mild report compared to 5.56×45
with my old Brno fox 2 rifle, .22H was comfortable to use in the open without ear protection though that changed if there was a wall to reflect the sound back.
“the jackal” novel, had a .22 WMR rifle. it’s in the same general area as hornet.
The.22 Johnson spitfire, intended for Johnson carbines, was also in the same case capacity and operating pressure/ performance area as the hornet and K hornet, with the advantage of being rimless for use through semi and selective fire carbines.
is Ian going to be getting a look at one of the five prototypes for the Colt IMP .221 rem fireball arm guns?
Just because you are well armed doesn’t automatically mean you will go looking for a firefight. Take MAC-V SOG for example. They would go in gather intelligence and get out without but armed to the teeth incase they were comprised. It gave them the chance to fight off the enemy long enough to hopefully get plucked out. I feel a downed pilot should have the same means.
The thing I notice that is missing on all the “aircrew survival” arms, including the GAU-5 mentioned above, is a suppressor. Which I would think would be the thing you would absolutely need on an “escape and evasion” arm.
For that matter, a “night sight”, like the Knight Vision UNS-SR, should be on top of it. Better yet, a LER version on that detachable barrel to ensure that the sight and bore remain in proper boresight with detach/reattach.
In fact, I question the concept of an AR platform that separates the barrel from the upper receiver. I’d think the standard breakdown (barrel and upper in one piece, lower and stock in the other) would be good enough.
It worked for me for a lot of years.
cheers
eon
“(…) shooting something small to eat”
Hmmm… Then perhaps a harty can would actually do better than a rifle, without a need to resort to ballistic exercises and subsequent cooking; I’d propose:
https://arpol.net.pl/pl/products/slonina-wojskowa-z-papryka-770-g-318.html
🙂