I took my newest and homeliest CZ to the range to day - an early Springfield M6 - which was made for Springfield by CZ.

It's not pretty but is shoots quite well and is actually a lot of fun.

I wanted one for years but never found one when the timing was right, and decided today that I was not likely to find another one in as nice a condition anytime soon.



I used the USAF field expedient method of wrapping 550 paracord around the barrels to create a hand guard, partially for comfort (as the barrels do get hot) but mostly, to add a ready supply of 550 para cord to a rifle, since it will probably spend some time in the baggage compartment if I fly up in the frozen north again.

I also ran 24 ft of paracord in 4 loops over 2 nails 36" apart (with one end through a sling swivel), and then wrapped it with 45 ft of paracord in a solomon bar to create a 36" sling - and increasing the total 550 paracord on the rifle to about 75'.

I then grabbed some Super-X 2 1/2", 1/2 oz, 7 1/2 shot shells, and some .22 LR and headed to the range.

The compartment in the butt holds four .410 shot shells and 15 rounds of .22 LR to feed both barrels.





Being an early model M6 it has no trigger guard - but has a variety of safety mechanisms.

First the hammer has a safety notch that prevents it from going fully forward unless the trigger is still depressed, so it provides a back up in the event the hammer is jarred off the sear, or slips out from under your thumb on cocking.

Second, the firing pin selector has an intermediate position where the hammer will not contact either firing pin, and it can be locked in this position by rotating the round selector knob.

Third, it has a cross bolt safety that serves as a very solid hammer block.

Finally, it has a hammer that must be manually cocked for each shot.

The trigger is unconventional but the pull is pleasantly light.

I started off shooting prone over a field expedient - my range bag. I figured it was pointless to test it over a rest and rear bag when I'd have neither in the real world.

I used A-23 targets at 25 yards and I found that the peep sight shot about 1" low at that range with high velocity ammunition. That's good news as it means the front post can be filed down a bit to achieve the desired point of aim. Groups were not stellar by CZ standards but they ran around 1.25" with bulk ammo (Win 555 and Win Xpert HV, and were about an inch with both Win T-22 and Eley Target rifle. To be honest though, I think I am bumping up against the limits of of the sights rather than the rifle.

Still, it's adequate accuracy for the role, and I noted no tendency for the zero to wander as the barrel warmed up. 10 shot groups showed basically no growth over a pair of 5 shot groups with a cool down in between. Below is a typical bulk ammo 25 yard group (Win 555 in this case).



I also patterned it at 10, 15 and 20 yards and found that the 10 yard group was quite tight - about the size of a 100 yard small bore target with good pattern density and more or less perfect for snakes.

At 15 yards, the pattern expanded to cover an area equal to about four sheets of 8 1/2" x 11" paper and again showed pretty even coverage.

At 20 yards, I was starting to lose pellets off the 32" x 24" target and the pattern was developing some holes, but it would still easily bring down a grouse sized bird.

I thought it was actually pretty good performance for an 18" barreled .410. My thoughts are that I'll try some 3" 11/16 oz loads with 6 shot as with that load it should hopefully pattern a bit better at 20 yards and perhaps still be good to go on birds out to perhaps 25 yards.

For firing the .410, it uses the other arm of the flip sight with a very open V notch sight for the shot gun barrel. As with the .22LR peep sight it shoots a bit below the point of aim, which is more good news as shortening the front sight will help bring both sights up to point of aim.

My understanding is the later M6 Scouts had a rifled barrel that will accommodate .45 LC but while I'm a fan of the . 45 LC, the rifled barrel would really compromise pattern performance when used with bird shot. I will however try some slugs in it, and if accurate enough out to 50 yards, it might offer a larger game option.

The M6 replaced the WWII era bolt action .22 Hornet M4 in the early 1950s. The USAF version had a shorter 14" barrel, no cross bolt safety and a slightly more skeletonized stock, and was also chambered for .22 Hornet. The shorter barrel allowed it to fit in the seat pans and survival kits of the ejection seats of the era.



The civilian version has an 18" barrel to meet the minimum legal limit for shot gun barrel length in the US. It also has a cross bolt safety in addition to the other three safety systems, apparently for legal liability purposes.

The later M6s also had a trigger guard but I personally don't see the need given the overall design of the weapon. Those later M6s are also intended as take down rifles, removing the pivot pin rather than having the rifle fold back on itself in large part because the trigger guard is now in the way and prevents it from fully folding. They are also drilled and tapped for a scope mount that again tends to move it farther way from the intended purpose.

The bolt action AR-5 was also used during this time period, but the AR-7 was never adopted or used by the military. The AR-7 was a cheaper to produce semi-auto development of the AR-5 however and looks a lot like the AR-5 so former aircrew often see the AR-7 and mis-remember seeing it in survival kits when in fact they saw an AR-5.

I basically paid $600 for it when all was said and done. That's the ball park going rate depending on condition for an early M6 - not a steal by any means but a fair market price as they are getting hard to find and tend to sell pretty fast when they show up. It's interesting as in 1998 they sold for $170. I wish I had bought several of them then.

Not to high jack the thread, but does the USAF? or any current branches still use survival guns?

They generally go out of service when the aircraft they are on are retired from service. So, given that the B-52H is still in use, I suspect there are still M6 and/or AR5s on board them.

I have no idea if the B-1 and B-2 have a survival rifle in the survival kit, but I'd be surprised if they did not. The idea was that bomber crews would be going places beyond the range of possible extraction and would have to escape and evade on foot living off the land and benefiting from a fairly quiet survival weapon. That along with size and weight considerations drove the caliber choice.

The M4 was a WWII development. The M6 replaced it in new aircraft beginning in 1951. As those older aircraft retired, so was the M4.

TAC versus SAC was more or less irrelevant as it was the size of the seat pan and survival kit in the ejection seat that mattered. None of them were overly large. In both cases, the driving focus was that pilots could be downed in remote areas (or just plain run out of fuel on a one way mission) and be in need of a survival rifle.

I can see where the distinction would get blurry however. The F-105 for example was developed as a nuclear bomber designed around a long range hi-lo-hi mission profile, but by the time the bugs were worked out, it was just in time to become the workhorse TAC fighter bomber for use over North Vietnam.

The AR-5 was not purchased in any great quantity as the USAF still had loads of M4s and had just procured the M6 5 years earlier by the time the AR-5 (MA-1) was developed in 1956.

This is of course part of the appeal of the M6. You just don't see these types of historical discussions about a 10/22 or a derivative of a 10/22.

Which M4? the WWII era bolt action or the more recent semi-auto carbine?

Nice old M6. If I am not mistaken, that is an early model having the cross bolt safety and lacking trigger guard and as such was manufactured in the US by Springfield Armory. The later CZ guns IIRC all had the trigger guard and lacked the cross bolt safety.They were clearly marked made in czech republic. If so I'd say the $600 price paid is right in line with today's market.

I bought a US-made M6 a few years ago [for a princely sum of $230.00] and have not been able to get any adequate groups with the .22 barrel. I have wrapped the barrels with paracord clear to the muzzle and wonder if the wrapping is applying adverse tension to the barrels. I've taken various small game with the .410 though and enjoy carrying the gun during small game season.

There sure have been rumors of their re-emergence, but if I recall correctly, Springfield Armory still owns the rights to the production and after a falling out with CZ, have not given approval to anyone to resume production, which is a shame as the revised version that was on the cusp of being released had a side folding stock, proper grip and traditional trigger...

My understanding is that they were all "made" by CZ - the difference perhaps being where the parts were assembled on the earlier SA marked versions. Mine is marked Springfield Armory, Geneseo Il, but I suspect al that means is that it was assembled there with parts made under contract by CZ.

I like the original trigger. I hear complaints from people who find the squeeze grip trigger concept difficult, but the answer to that is pretty simple - just move your hand back a bit and used the curved bit at the end like a regular trigger with your index finger.

If you add a side folding stock, a pistol grip and a conventional trigger, then you've in effect just created a side folding stocked superposed .22/.410 rifle/shotgun and it's no longer really a backpack/survival rifle. You just as well polish it up, give it a nice blued finish and a petty wooden hand guard while you are at it.

I can see room for both versions but I'd prefer they at least produce the original as well.

You go the early one without the trigger guard. Good score.

I sold both mine when the price went through the roof.

They adapted that from their equally ugly (IMHO) looking pistol, which had the same rifled .410 barrel configuration.