Again, for survival after escaping from an unflyable aircraft? The idea
is
"not to die of exposure, hunger or angry wildlife", not "stand off all
of 3
Shock Army singlehandedly". Every ounce of grenades, heavy-calibre
ammunition, et cetera you carry is an ounce less of food, water, radio
beacon, spare batteries, flares, dye markers and other items that might
actually improve your chances of living until rescue.

Respectfully, doesn't that depend on what you are most likely to need
to do in order to survive?

WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
enemy lines in time of war.

A lone downed airman -or lone downed crew for that matter- isn't
in a position to get into fire fights: there's just no way they can have
brought enough fire power with them. Not getting captured means
stealth and recovery. Survival means not ****ing off the more heavily
armed people around you, water, shelter in bad weather and food.
In that order.
A good knife can be used stealthily in making shelter, some places
getting water and food. Perhaps a gun with subsonic ammo would
be sufficiently comforting and useful for small game in a long term
situation to be worth while.



History has not borne out the need for firearms in a survival situation
following am aircraft downing so far as I am aware. Roger Locher survived on
the ground for 21 days in North Vietnam without using his sidearm and another
fellow survived in the Sierras for nearly three months after ejecting into a
snowbank in late winter, finding a cabin, then walking out after being given up
for dead. IN an area where there is lots of wilderness your main needs are
wate, signalling, and shelter for a long term situation, not protection from
critters..