Best Zombie Weapon? [Copy/paste from my ED thread]

[Fresnel]

OO23OO

Fresnel

OO23OO

For me, I would go with a WASR 10 or some other AK variant since I seem to kick major a** with AK sights. Mags are pretty readily available, as is ammo, and it requires little maintenance. Along with the fact that the 7.62x39 round offers good defense against the living, and the fact that an AK is an intimidating weapon, I would feel safer. The heavy b*****d could cause some damage with a blow from the stock, as well.

For a side arm I'll go with a 1911 of some sort. 45 ACP stopping power, and the recoil reducing design of the 1911 (The felt recoil of a 9mm round from a Beretta 9X is roughly that of a .45 out of a 1911) make it a winner for me. And don't bring mag cap into this, I live in NY, so high capacity magazines are hard to come by.

For a melee weapon, I would probably go with a kukri for the reasons stated.

Read in reverse order.

NY caps at ten, right? Must ******** WASRs hardcore.

Not with forty plus years of hi-caps floating around.

I'd have thought those would be illegal too, like in commiefornia.  

[Buki_Actual]

Fresnel

OO23OO

Fresnel

OO23OO

For me, I would go with a WASR 10 or some other AK variant since I seem to kick major a** with AK sights. Mags are pretty readily available, as is ammo, and it requires little maintenance. Along with the fact that the 7.62x39 round offers good defense against the living, and the fact that an AK is an intimidating weapon, I would feel safer. The heavy b*****d could cause some damage with a blow from the stock, as well.

For a side arm I'll go with a 1911 of some sort. 45 ACP stopping power, and the recoil reducing design of the 1911 (The felt recoil of a 9mm round from a Beretta 9X is roughly that of a .45 out of a 1911) make it a winner for me. And don't bring mag cap into this, I live in NY, so high capacity magazines are hard to come by.

For a melee weapon, I would probably go with a kukri for the reasons stated.

Read in reverse order.

NY caps at ten, right? Must ******** WASRs hardcore.

Not with forty plus years of hi-caps floating around.

I'd have thought those would be illegal too, like in commiefornia.

They are unless you have a blocked mag catch. You know, the ones that take a tool to remove. At least, I think that's how it is...  

[Maddness91]

am i the only one who thought "a slow friend" befor anything else?

after thinking more, i agree w/ fresnel's shotgun because of it;s multi-use functionality... no one ever thinks about what happens when there arn;t zack running circles around ur house  

[OO23OO]

Fresnel

OO23OO

Fresnel

OO23OO

For me, I would go with a WASR 10 or some other AK variant since I seem to kick major a** with AK sights. Mags are pretty readily available, as is ammo, and it requires little maintenance. Along with the fact that the 7.62x39 round offers good defense against the living, and the fact that an AK is an intimidating weapon, I would feel safer. The heavy b*****d could cause some damage with a blow from the stock, as well.

For a side arm I'll go with a 1911 of some sort. 45 ACP stopping power, and the recoil reducing design of the 1911 (The felt recoil of a 9mm round from a Beretta 9X is roughly that of a .45 out of a 1911) make it a winner for me. And don't bring mag cap into this, I live in NY, so high capacity magazines are hard to come by.

For a melee weapon, I would probably go with a kukri for the reasons stated.

Read in reverse order.

NY caps at ten, right? Must ******** WASRs hardcore.

Not with forty plus years of hi-caps floating around.

I'd have thought those would be illegal too, like in commiefornia.

Both of the WASRs I shot were the home of 30 round magazines, and the one I was looking at buying came with a 20 rounder (wicked sexy), so.....  

[Stoic Socialist]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think a slow friend is considered a weapon. ; þ

Personally, I'd like the Springfield Armoury Scout Scoud. It's an 18" barreled M1a. I'd have a red-dot mounted on it, zeroed at somewhere between 25-50 yards, and the irons sighted in at 200 (but the plan would be to avoid zombies at that distance). The optic would probably have to be mounted fairly low, high, or at a 15 degree angle (similar to some open-class rifle rigs). My sidearm might be a Ruger Vaquero. We have one, it's fairly light weight, and I can make fairly accurate shots decently fast (but reloads are painfully slow). My melee would probably be something like a Scrapyard Knives Dog Father, or maybe a Swamp Rat Waki.  

[ArmasTermin]

Maddness91

am i the only one who thought "a slow friend" befor anything else?

after thinking more, i agree w/ fresnel's shotgun because of it;s multi-use functionality... no one ever thinks about what happens when there arn;t zack running circles around ur house

I'm not discounting the idea of shotgun use, I'm just saying it wouldn't be my preferred weapon. Ideally one would travel in a small group and a member of the squad would have a shotgun for said multi-use capabilities. Birdshot for small game, buckshot for bigger game and Zacks, slugs for longer-range shooting. And maybe a few Jerry-rigged door-knockers, flares, less-lethal, etc.

And one guy would have a bow and a sword. xd  

[Fresnel]

ArmasTermin

And one guy would have a bow and a sword. xd

The slow friend?  

[ArmasTermin]

Fresnel

ArmasTermin

And one guy would have a bow and a sword. xd

The slow friend?

Naw, that was an allusion to my zombie book where one of the main characters has a bow and a sword.  

[Fresnel]

ArmasTermin

Fresnel

ArmasTermin

And one guy would have a bow and a sword. xd

The slow friend?

Naw, that was an allusion to my zombie book where one of the main characters has a bow and a sword.

...right. Should have caught that.  

[Maddness91]

ArmasTermin

Maddness91

am i the only one who thought "a slow friend" befor anything else?

after thinking more, i agree w/ fresnel's shotgun because of it;s multi-use functionality... no one ever thinks about what happens when there arn;t zack running circles around ur house

I'm not discounting the idea of shotgun use, I'm just saying it wouldn't be my preferred weapon. Ideally one would travel in a small group and a member of the squad would have a shotgun for said multi-use capabilities. Birdshot for small game, buckshot for bigger game and Zacks, slugs for longer-range shooting. And maybe a few Jerry-rigged door-knockers, flares, less-lethal, etc.

And one guy would have a bow and a sword. xd

the thing is if your having to carry a whole backpack full of ammo and empty mag after mag of .223 (or w/e ur preferred gun fires) into zacks just to get through the day, chances are ur getting boned one way or another... either zack isn;t going to be stopped in time, or ur going to run out of rounds fast... shotguns give a reasonably high assurance of "if you hit it, it;s not getting up" for each and every round... and that;s what i think matters most on z-day (food/water/shelter aside)... i'd rather know that i can stop me from dieing in this very instance immediately, than know that i have to get in a few shots and hope this zack isn;t tough...  

[ArmasTermin]

Maddness91

ArmasTermin

Maddness91

am i the only one who thought "a slow friend" befor anything else?

after thinking more, i agree w/ fresnel's shotgun because of it;s multi-use functionality... no one ever thinks about what happens when there arn;t zack running circles around ur house

I'm not discounting the idea of shotgun use, I'm just saying it wouldn't be my preferred weapon. Ideally one would travel in a small group and a member of the squad would have a shotgun for said multi-use capabilities. Birdshot for small game, buckshot for bigger game and Zacks, slugs for longer-range shooting. And maybe a few Jerry-rigged door-knockers, flares, less-lethal, etc.

And one guy would have a bow and a sword. xd

the thing is if your having to carry a whole backpack full of ammo and empty mag after mag of .223 (or w/e ur preferred gun fires) into zacks just to get through the day, chances are ur getting boned one way or another... either zack isn;t going to be stopped in time, or ur going to run out of rounds fast... shotguns give a reasonably high assurance of "if you hit it, it;s not getting up" for each and every round... and that;s what i think matters most on z-day (food/water/shelter aside)... i'd rather know that i can stop me from dieing in this very instance immediately, than know that i have to get in a few shots and hope this zack isn;t tough...

You know shotgun shells weight a lot, right? And take up a lot of space? Say it takes two hits to kill a zombie with a .223--that's 15 kills per mag. With a shotgun, maybe one kill per shot--that's 8 at most, and more likely five. Not to mention slower reload times. And automatic shotguns still have a propensity to jam. We're talking about a creature that ignores minor wounds entirely. Shoot off an arm and it's not going to run for cover, it's going to keep coming. You can't count on a few stray pellets in his pancreas or liver or some nicks on his ribs to take him down in a minute or so, you need him on the ground now. A direct shot to the heart or brain are the only ways to shut them off at once and a highly accurate weapon capable of holding many rounds for the high number of infected is, to me, the best possible choice. That combined with light and fast ammunition that's readily available and I think an AR-15 is superior to a shotgun against zombies in most instances.

Now for indoor situations a faster-pointing, shorter weapon with a broader hit radius is better when you don't have the time and room to move around to line up better shots. There I think a shotgun would be better there.

And for wide open spaces where you can see for miles (like where Fresnel lives) a longer-range rifle would be plenty-suitable. If you can hold up in one place and bring down 500 of the things before they can get to 50 yards, you're not doing badly. But if there were 500 after me alone, I'd sooner throw whatever I needed into the getaway vehicle and take off into the sunset.

And that's why I never liked "best weapon" debates, because it has a lot to do with where. Here in small-town Louisiana (few open areas, small population, wet climate) a lever-action rifle and revolver would do just as well as a 12-gauge and 1911, or an AR and an XDm. So there you go.  

[Fresnel]

ArmasTermin

Maddness91

ArmasTermin

Maddness91

am i the only one who thought "a slow friend" befor anything else?

after thinking more, i agree w/ fresnel's shotgun because of it;s multi-use functionality... no one ever thinks about what happens when there arn;t zack running circles around ur house

I'm not discounting the idea of shotgun use, I'm just saying it wouldn't be my preferred weapon. Ideally one would travel in a small group and a member of the squad would have a shotgun for said multi-use capabilities. Birdshot for small game, buckshot for bigger game and Zacks, slugs for longer-range shooting. And maybe a few Jerry-rigged door-knockers, flares, less-lethal, etc.

And one guy would have a bow and a sword. xd

the thing is if your having to carry a whole backpack full of ammo and empty mag after mag of .223 (or w/e ur preferred gun fires) into zacks just to get through the day, chances are ur getting boned one way or another... either zack isn;t going to be stopped in time, or ur going to run out of rounds fast... shotguns give a reasonably high assurance of "if you hit it, it;s not getting up" for each and every round... and that;s what i think matters most on z-day (food/water/shelter aside)... i'd rather know that i can stop me from dieing in this very instance immediately, than know that i have to get in a few shots and hope this zack isn;t tough...

You know shotgun shells weight a lot, right? And take up a lot of space? Say it takes two hits to kill a zombie with a .223--that's 15 kills per mag. With a shotgun, maybe one kill per shot--that's 8 at most, and more likely five. Not to mention slower reload times.

...says the revolver fanatic. I think you can see all the pro-revolver arguments still apply here.

The upside to tube-fed weapons, as seen in Halo shotguns, is that you don't need to finish reloading before you can shoot it.

Quote:

And automatic shotguns still have a propensity to jam. We're talking about a creature that ignores minor wounds entirely. Shoot off an arm and it's not going to run for cover, it's going to keep coming.

You know why your arm hurts before you have a heart attack? There's some big ******** arteries in your limbs, and the arm closest to your heart (the left one) feels it first. Anything that just had an arm shot off only has about ten to fifteen seconds of consciousness left in it, and might not survive even with immediate medical attention.

Quote:

You can't count on a few stray pellets in his pancreas or liver or some nicks on his ribs to take him down in a minute or so, you need him on the ground now. A direct shot to the heart or brain are the only ways to shut them off at once and a highly accurate weapon capable of holding many rounds for the high number of infected is, to me, the best possible choice.

You're comparing a shot to the arm to a shot to the chest/head. That's biased. A shotgun to the face will take down anything just as fast as a rifle round to the face (and the sheer number of pellets makes it less likely to crease the skull and do no damage), a shotgun to the chest is more likely to hit vital organs (and more of them) than a single rifle round, and a rifle round to the arm is less likely to do something horrible than a shotgun blast to the arm. Shotguns aren't inaccurate, and trap/skeet/clays should prove that. The advantage of a rifle is range, and a rifled barrel on a shotgun can dump a .58 caliber, saboted copper slug several hundred yards with MOA accuracy. Now I don't have a shotgun, but if I remember my brother's correctly, you can switch the barrel on an 870 in under 30 seconds. I remember the 870MCS could change from an underbarrel accessory weapon to a full-size tactical shotgun in under 60.

Quote:

That combined with light and fast ammunition that's readily available and I think an AR-15 is superior to a shotgun against zombies in most instances.

Now for indoor situations a faster-pointing, shorter weapon with a broader hit radius is better when you don't have the time and room to move around to line up better shots. There I think a shotgun would be better there.

And for wide open spaces where you can see for miles (like where Fresnel lives) a longer-range rifle would be plenty-suitable. If you can hold up in one place and bring down 500 of the things before they can get to 50 yards, you're not doing badly. But if there were 500 after me alone, I'd sooner throw whatever I needed into the getaway vehicle and take off into the sunset.

Honestly, I'd be doing more escape/evade out here. If I see him before he sees me and I can help it, I'm just going to avoid him. I don't know why I'd WANT to take out a target from 500 yards when I could just lay low and let him pass. Conserve ammo for when I need it.

And then there's the hunting thing. Sorry Will Smith, but hunting deer with a .223 just don't work so well. Hunting birds with a .223 works even worse. And then there's the whole 'breaching' thing, if you ever find you have to do that.

Quote:

And that's why I never liked "best weapon" debates, because it has a lot to do with where. Here in small-town Louisiana (few open areas, small population, wet climate) a lever-action rifle and revolver would do just as well as a 12-gauge and 1911, or an AR and an XDm. So there you go.

Sounds like you want a marine shotgun. mrgreen  

[Maddness91]

ArmasTermin

Say it takes two hits to kill a zombie with a .223--that's 15 kills per mag.

2 shots per kill? maybe in a minute or 5, but to drop a sprinting zack under 20 yards is going to take a fair few more... shotgun 1-2 shots at most... even a bad shot would effectively slow it down

Quote:

With a shotgun, maybe one kill per shot--that's 8 at most, and more likely five. Not to mention slower reload times.

slower for a full tube, but those extra 2-3 shots that u can pump in in when u have a spare second beat the empty mag and having ur life depend on a speed reload

Quote:

You can't count on a few stray pellets in his pancreas or liver or some nicks on his ribs to take him down in a minute or so, you need him on the ground now. A direct shot to the heart or brain are the only ways to shut them off at once and a highly accurate weapon capable of holding many rounds for the high number of infected is, to me, the best possible choice.

u try to run and gun and hit a head / heart shot... w/ a shotgun, a shot to the leg / anywhere around the center of mass is going to SERIOUSLY slow it down at worst... and that;s all you really need to get away

Quote:

That combined with light and fast ammunition that's readily available

12 gauge is more readily available in Canada, because we don;t have AR's... we have shotguns and hunting rifles(mostly .30-06 and .308 from what i've seen in the local hunting shop)

Quote:

And for wide open spaces where you can see for miles (like where Fresnel lives) a longer-range rifle would be plenty-suitable.

for what? drawing them to you? if you can't hit them w/ a shotgun, because there to far away, then they arn;t a big threat to you confused
and poking back to your point of "two hits to kill a zombie with a .223--that's 15 kills per mag" they still have to be reasonably decent shots, which are harder to get far away... i'd rather wait for zack to run all the way here, and take a short, and controlled shot that i know will put him down... (w/ either an AR or shotgun)  

[ArmasTermin]

Too lazy to put quote tags on everything, so:

I'm a revolver fanatic, but I realize in some instances a semi-automatic is better than a revolver. Like: with everyday CCW where the odds say you'll come upon a single threat and statistics say the average gunfight ends with 2.3 rounds fired, 5-6 shots from a jam-free gun with great pointability are plenty. But against a large force of slow individuals (I stand by the shambler ideal, not the sprinter) where you'll face a lot and you have more time to place shots, something that holds more seems ideal.

The whole thing about only shooting what's close to you seems good, but what happens when it's not 1 that's close to you, but 100? Do you wait for them to come in range for your shotgun? Hopefully you have a lot of slugs. If they're in ideal range for a shotgun (5-50 yards with bucksot, or am I wrong? Correct me if I am. 51-150 with slugs) they're in ideal range to swarm you and make your 5-8 round tube a bit of a hindrance.

Hunting deer with a .223--well I'm no expert, but heavier loads from a full length AR are more believable than standard ones from Smith's M4. Tell all the AR-hunters out there that it can't be done. And I'm not ruling out cartridges like 6.8 for use, though that's sidetracking from my argument so I'll avoid it.

As for using a shotgun because the powers that be say ARs are evil, that's perfectly understandable. A shotgun would be a good weapon against zombies, I just think there's better.

It's hard to compare two different weapon systems. One can be more generous with ammunition when firing a hail of shot because a good hit is more assured with less time aiming. And any hit is better than no hit, just those pellets spread and lose velocity fairly quickly. And there's still the weight of the ammo. One can carry a lot of .223 for the same weight as much less 12-gauge. I believe Sierra would be here to stick up for me on this issue if, you know, he ever actually showed up anymore. gonk

Why yes, a Marine shotgun had crossed my mind. 3nodding  

[Fresnel]

ArmasTermin

Too lazy to put quote tags on everything, so:

I'm a revolver fanatic, but I realize in some instances a semi-automatic is better than a revolver. Like: with everyday CCW where the odds say you'll come upon a single threat and statistics say the average gunfight ends with 2.3 rounds fired, 5-6 shots from a jam-free gun with great pointability are plenty. But against a large force of slow individuals (I stand by the shambler ideal, not the sprinter) where you'll face a lot and you have more time to place shots, something that holds more seems ideal.

Shamblers would never be a real threat. The only reason it works in movies is because of their horrible Sixth Sense Of Drama that tells them to hide behind doors, in closets, in dark spaces, and around corners for maximum shock factor on the viewing audience. Any real situation would have them shuffling around the corner long before you got there, or bumping into a wall and giving themselves away, not leaping out with inhuman speed and gnawing on your head the moment you get there. Anything that slow could be taken out by the score by one kid with a Louisville Slugger.

That said, against sprinters, you'd want something that can incapacitate quickly so they can't get to you before they pass out and die.

Quote:

The whole thing about only shooting what's close to you seems good, but what happens when it's not 1 that's close to you, but 100? Do you wait for them to come in range for your shotgun? Hopefully you have a lot of slugs. If they're in ideal range for a shotgun (5-50 yards with bucksot, or am I wrong? Correct me if I am. 51-150 with slugs) they're in ideal range to swarm you and make your 5-8 round tube a bit of a hindrance.

If there's 100 after me, I'd take the shotgun so I can shoot over my shoulder with some chance of hitting while doing my best impression of Jesse Owens.

Quote:

Hunting deer with a .223--well I'm no expert, but heavier loads from a full length AR are more believable than standard ones from Smith's M4. Tell all the AR-hunters out there that it can't be done. And I'm not ruling out cartridges like 6.8 for use, though that's sidetracking from my argument so I'll avoid it.

Heavier loads (70-90 grains) are all HPBT match ammo, not hunting ammo. They don't expand at all. They'll chew through light steel like it was cardboard, even... I've done that myself, on request to see if his targets were suitable for 3-gun. I'm not saying that you can't hunt with an AR, predator hunting is a nearly exclusive AR sport, but coyotes top out at 50 pounds, and deer run closer to three hundred. It's just not an effective weapon. You're more likely to grievously injure a deer than kill it.

Quote:

As for using a shotgun because the powers that be say ARs are evil, that's perfectly understandable. A shotgun would be a good weapon against zombies, I just think there's better.

Can't fault that. Legality is always a thing to consider.

Quote:

It's hard to compare two different weapon systems. One can be more generous with ammunition when firing a hail of shot because a good hit is more assured with less time aiming. And any hit is better than no hit, just those pellets spread and lose velocity fairly quickly. And there's still the weight of the ammo. One can carry a lot of .223 for the same weight as much less 12-gauge. I believe Sierra would be here to stick up for me on this issue if, you know, he ever actually showed up anymore. gonk

It is difficult to compare them, but it really should be done, IMO. And yeah, I agree that Sierra would back you up, but I'm not so certain he's right either. razz

Also, I'm curious exactly how MUCH heavier 00 is than .223. I know it's notable, but I'm curious as to the specifics, if anyone has some 00 (20 rounds is preferable). I can weigh a box of Wolf Military Classic .223 for comparison.

Quote:

Why yes, a Marine shotgun had crossed my mind. 3nodding

What exactly is the difference with a marine finish? I know it's better for wet areas, but I don't know why.