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

[Ms Truffle]

Note: This is copy/pasted from my thread in the Extended Discussion. No changes were made except this note and the part at the end because I'm a lazy a*****e.
_____________________________________________________________________________
READ THE WHOLE OP, OR DON'T POST AT ALL.
You lazy jerk-offs...
This is pretty straight forward. What weapon do you think would be the most useful for disposing of zombies? One for long range, such as a firearm or a bow, and one for short range, such as a crowbar or a bladed weapon of some kind. However, we first have to establish some baseline rules and guidelines to keep in mind.

1. The weapons have to be somewhat readily available. No gold-plated miniguns or tanks. Be real. (This also applies for ammo) You have 1 month to gather supplies, including your weapon.
2. The most effective way of disposing a zombie is to damage the brain or spinal cord. These are not the god-mode zombies that infect you if you get some blood splattered on you, or have a super-organ in the frontal lobe of the brain that makes tasers useless or preforms the functions of other vital organs. This means that while the zombies cannot feel pain, (as is the standard condition of zombies) they can still be killed by wounds to vital organs. These zombies also are not afraid of anything, and have absolutely no survival instinct- only the instinct to bite (the only way these zombies infect) living people. (You can pass yourself off as a zombie if you have the right disguise. They do not have super-sight or the nose of a bloodhound, but they will be able to tell if you're human the same way you'd be able to tell if they're a zombie- smell, appearance, taste, (by the time they taste you, you're already screwed, though) and your voice. (moaning like a zombie can fool them, though) They can't tell by your temperature, though, as zombies can't feel anything. The exact biology behind these zombies shall remain ambiguous.
3. Although they can be killed by wounds to vital organs, because they cannot feel pain, they will still be able to come after you for a short while depending on where you hit them. The zombies cannot run exceptionally fast, but do not stumble along like a toddler. Imagine a sort of cross between a jog and a walk. (If any of you have played Resident Evil 4, these zombies move at the pace of a "running" Ganado.)
4. If you fail to support your argument and do so in an arrogant way, you will be blocked. Also, for Christ's sake, use proper grammar and spelling. If you can't bother to write a complete sentence, then I'm not going to bother to have you in my thread.
5. NO MILITARY (ONLY), SCI-FI, OR FANTASY WEAPONS. This includes the AA-12, the rocket propelled chainsaw, the lightsaber, the landshark gun, and all other weapons exclusive to military personnel and science fiction. Seriously, stop mentioning them, you pricks. (Your "giant d**k" is a fantasy weapon, by the way.)
6. If you say or imply that dismembering humans is relatively easy with [insert weapon here], you will be banned from the thread. Also, anyone referencing the Zombie Survival Guide or World War Z will also be banned. This is because they are not in any way credible sources, and were written entirely for entertainment. They relate very little to the topic at hand- weapons.
7. If you think we've had a misunderstanding or that I ignored you unfairly, contact Godwins Legal Aid. I only ever use this account to maintain the thread, now. (Thus, I won't be on it as much.)

Personally, I would not know which gun would be the most effective because I do not have a lot of knowledge regarding firearms. However, I would probably end up choosing a Glock handgun with a magazine of at least 17 rounds. This is because it is easy to service, and zombies would really only become a problem at the range a handgun could handle. The major drawbacks I could see with it, however, is the minimal stopping power, and the low accuracy. Really though, I don't think I could handle a really powerful gun, (such as a magnum) and I'm not good with most rifles at short range. My frame's too small. I would also choose the Benelli M4 Super 90 shotgun with a recoil reducing stock as a shotgun to go looting, if I would need to. It requires almost no maintenance, 12-gauge shotgun shells are fairly common around here, and it's semi-automatic. To protect my base, I would go with the Mosin-Nagant M28 rifle with iron sights. It's tough as nails, and accurate up to long distances. It kicks like a mule, though, so I wouldn't take it with me for looting. I'd only take it out of my base to go hunting for large game, or if I had to haul a** out of the area and pick up only the essentials.

For my close combat weapon, I would choose a kukri, for multiple reasons of which I am too lazy to write down, and thus will copy/paste. (Kukri have many different spellings.)

Quote:

1. Severing the spinal column is usually the most reliable way to stop a determined attacker. Whatever is below this area is paralyzed. The neck is the best area as this paralyzes the arms. Because of the curved blade, the khukuri excells at this. Lower hits will cause a person to fall down, thus making them an easier target. The khukuri, as well as any heavy (1+ lbs.) slashing blade does this job very well.

2. Smashing the skull if done with a heavy blow will, at the least, usually stun if not stop an opponent. However I don't know how it might affect large animals like bears, etc. But if such an opportunity presents itself, the khukuri will do a good job--as will any heavy blade.

3. Severing or breaking shoulder bones and limbs are also good ways to stop or at least slow down a fight. A severed limb is enough to make any but the toughest, most determined opponent stop. If it doesn't, the loss of blood will lower the blood pressure in 3-4 minutes so that the brain will not receive oxygen, and the oponent will pass out. Smashed bones also disable tactical necessities like hands an feet. The khukuri's curved blade excels at dismemberment. However any sharp heavy blade will do the job also.

It has been pointed out in previous threads that thin blades are more difficult to withdraw from flesh, and that light blades are difficult to get through bone and cause head trauma. Luckily, the kukri has both of these covered. The particular one I'm referring to is 20-25 inches long, has a thick blade, (5/8 inches thick) and is quite heavy for its size. (3.5-4.5lbs) It is pictured below.

I would also carry with me, a double-bit, 3.5lb axe. (3.5lb is the weight of the head.) This would be used if I were to ever be caught without a gun, or if I ran out of ammunition. The specific model I would be using is theNuple Ergo Power Michigan Double-Bit Axe. I could also use it for splitting wood and using to fell trees instead of my kukri, because being a two-handed tool, it would be more efficient at tasks requiring brute force. And because it has such a thick blade, it would not easily get stuck inside a zombie. Fun fact- the axe I would be carrying would actually be lighter than the kukri I would carry. (Minus the handle.)
I would also probably purchase a(n) 8'-10' kangaroo hide bullwhip, as all my other weapons are lethal. A time could come when I wouldn't need to kill someone, just incapacitate them.
(Note: This isn't everything I would carry, just the weapons.)
Question of the day-
This one's about sidearms- in fact, it's two QotD's.
First of all, which is superior: the M1911 handgun, or the Glock 17? Personally, I prefer the Glock. Don't get me wrong, the M1911 is one of my absolute favorite handguns. I'm happy for the Glock and all, and Imma let it finish, but the M1911 is one of the best handguns of all time. OF ALL TIME.
Now, the reason I choose the Glock 17 over the super-awesome M1911, is because of capacity. The Glock 17's standard magazine capacity is 17, or 17+2 with a special buttplate. You can even get a 33 round magazine for it. (Though it sort of takes away the point of a side-arm.) The standard capacity of the M1911 is... 8. The Glock's standard capacity is more than DOUBLE that of the M1911's, which should be invaluable. (I get two tries to get a headshot, with the only draw back being that if I hit the chest, a 9mm round can't cause hydrostatic shock like the .45ACP of the M1911.)
Now, for the second QotD- Which is superior: A revolver, or a semi-automatic, magazine-fed handgun? I prefer magazine-fed, myself. Far more capacity, and with no real trade off except for the fact that it's a bit more complex. (Please correct me if I'm wrong in anything about these new QotD's.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
READ THIS BEFORE YOU b***h ABOUT THIS THREAD'S LEGITIMACY-

The Extended Discussion's Rules & Guidelines

What makes a thread appropriate for ED is not subject matter alone, but the level of discussion and debate the thread topic generates. How 'serious' a subject is (war, abortion, politics) does not affect a thread's status in ED.

This thread is also NOT ABOUT ZOMBIES- it is about the best weapon to dispose of the brand of zombie mentioned previously.
______________________________________________________________________________
Note: I would only use the weapons I listed if I had to set up a camp, and couldn't find a safe haven. If I caught wind of a place I could go and stay safe, I'd screw all those weapons, and just take an M1911 and Ka-Bar.  

[ArmasTermin]

Uhm, I've said that my ideal zombie-killing weapons would be a H&K USP-9, some brand of AR with an ACOG scope, and a kukri as you said. But I'd more realistically end up with a Ruger 10/22, Beretta Px4 Storm, and a crowbar. I'm sure I'd find other stuff along the way, though.

For zombies, where a precision head-shot is ideal and you're up against a large force with minimal protection, a light and fast cartridge you can carry a lot of is generally best. .223 and 9mm ammo is cheap, readily available, light, and lots of it can be packed into one magazine. I'd also probably find a .38 caliber snub-nose revolver to tuck away for emergencies. But the primary weapon (rifle, submachine gun, carbine, shotgun) is a lot more important than whatever backup weapon.

Also, welcome to the forum! We can use all the new members we can get these days.  

[Ms Truffle]

ArmasTermin

Uhm, I've said that my ideal zombie-killing weapons would be a H&K USP-9, some brand of AR with an ACOG scope, and a kukri as you said. But I'd more realistically end up with a Ruger 10/22, Beretta Px4 Storm, and a crowbar. I'm sure I'd find other stuff along the way, though.

Can't argue with those weapons. Pretty tried and true.

Quote:

For zombies, where a precision head-shot is ideal and you're up against a large force with minimal protection, a light and fast cartridge you can carry a lot of is generally best. .223 and 9mm ammo is cheap, readily available, light, and lots of it can be packed into one magazine. I'd also probably find a .38 caliber snub-nose revolver to tuck away for emergencies. But the primary weapon (rifle, submachine gun, carbine, shotgun) is a lot more important than whatever backup weapon.

Now, I have to disagree with you on this. The M1911 handgun fires a powerful enough cartridge to be able to hit center mass and have the zombie dead on the ground within 60 seconds. That would make precision less necessary, as you can fire as you run. (Running is very important when it comes to zombies.)

Quote:

Also, welcome to the forum! We can use all the new members we can get these days.

I can't believe it took so long for Fresnel to invite me. xd  

[Requiem ex Inferni]

It's heavy, but I think my dad's maul (sort of a cross between a hammer and an axe) could do some serious damage to a zombie. If not, then a wooden baseball bat.

And maybe I can improvise a derringer for the one active .22 LR round I have.  

[Fresnel]

I'm still going with the shotgun. Yeah it's bulky ammo and heavy recoil, but you can reload it without disabling the weapon, and you can't hunt birds with a rifle. Birds are all I'd have to eat out here. Also, you can't blow the hinges off a door with a .45.

Oh, and I'm currently making my hobo stick. Found a piece of 1" pipe someone hammered into the ground seventy years ago, and it's currently soaking to get the sediment out (I HAD been using a masonry drill, but it was too hard to aim down the pipe). Tomorrow, I'll bang the mud out, thread the ends, and see about getting some caps. I tried it out today, just with mud in it... holy s**t would that be an effective head-basher. I think I'm going to cut it down to 2'6", though... 3' is kind of hard to throw.  

[Ms Truffle]

Fresnel

I'm still going with the shotgun. Yeah it's bulky ammo and heavy recoil, but you can reload it without disabling the weapon, and you can't hunt birds with a rifle. Birds are all I'd have to eat out here. Also, you can't blow the hinges off a door with a .45.

Honestly... I really don't think you need to worry about specific zombie weapons, Fresnel. You live in an area rural enough where you can just lock yourself inside and wait for the zombies to die of dehydration. xd

Quote:

Oh, and I'm currently making my hobo stick. Found a piece of 1" pipe someone hammered into the ground seventy years ago, and it's currently soaking to get the sediment out (I HAD been using a masonry drill, but it was too hard to aim down the pipe). Tomorrow, I'll bang the mud out, thread the ends, and see about getting some caps. I tried it out today, just with mud in it... holy s**t would that be an effective head-basher. I think I'm going to cut it down to 2'6", though... 3' is kind of hard to throw.

Sweet. 3nodding  

[Onani Master Luna Thoth]

To be honest, I would think that just about any weapon that effectively kills a human would also be effective against a zombie.
In terms of survival you would want some thing rugged, simple, and light. I would think a modern bolt action of semi automatic sporting rifle would fill the job. Probably in a lighter caliber, such as 7.62x36 or .223 Remington over a larger more powerful round. Since the main thing you want is accuracy and not so much stopping power. (That being that if a bullet penetrates the skull the subject in question will die, as most humans do. Then what is the point of having a massive heavy round?)

If a side arm is required, it should probably be preferably in 9mm Luger, at most .40 S&W since once again you want to be accurate and have quick response time, not be slugging around with a high caliber round.

Last for melee, thinking about the most effective tool, I would consider some thing like a pick, or spike, preferably with a two foot shaft, for use for penetrating the Brain. Think of the trench spike, only with some reach. Even if you are not the best with hand to hand combat, having that bit of extra length will help keep you out of harms way. What I usually envision is an Ax haft with two spikes on each end, and a longer one on top.

I don't really see the logic in using a pry-bar as a weapon though, it doesn't have much to offer in the way of a hitting surface, and using the curved prying side as a pick would be a bit awkward because of the motion you have to make to get it at the correct angle.  

[Ms Truffle]

Summoning the Rain

To be honest, I would think that just about any weapon that effectively kills a human would also be effective against a zombie.

You'd be wrong.

Quote:

In terms of survival you would want some thing rugged, simple, and light. I would think a modern bolt action of semi automatic sporting rifle would fill the job. Probably in a lighter caliber, such as 7.62x36 or .223 Remington over a larger more powerful round. Since the main thing you want is accuracy and not so much stopping power. (That being that if a bullet penetrates the skull the subject in question will die, as most humans do. Then what is the point of having a massive heavy round?)

Incorrect. You want accuracy AND stopping power- you should be able to hit center mass and have the zombie down by 30 seconds. You know why head shots are given bonus points in video games? Because they're difficult. Even more so considering that you'd also probably be running while gunning.

Quote:

If a side arm is required, it should probably be preferably in 9mm Luger, at most .40 S&W since once again you want to be accurate and have quick response time, not be slugging around with a high caliber round.

You probably shouldn't take out your side-arm unless you're in a close range encounter- which panics the average Joe. Thus, you should have a larger caliber round so you can aim for center mass, run, and have the zombie die in his 30 second pursuit.

Quote:

Last for melee, thinking about the most effective tool, I would consider some thing like a pick, or spike, preferably with a two foot shaft, for use for penetrating the Brain. Think of the trench spike, only with some reach.

That would be a rapier. They aren't good zombie weapons.

Quote:

Even if you are not the best with hand to hand combat, having that bit of extra length will help keep you out of harms way. What I usually envision is an Ax haft with two spikes on each end, and a longer one on top.

If you aren't the best at hand-to-hand combat, you're not going to be lodging a trench spike in a skull, much less a lengthened one.

Quote:

I don't really see the logic in using a pry-bar as a weapon though, it doesn't have much to offer in the way of a hitting surface, and using the curved prying side as a pick would be a bit awkward because of the motion you have to make to get it at the correct angle.

Because a three-foot pry bar is a good, heavy blunt instrument.  

[ArmasTermin]

I'd like to disagree somewhat with the use of hydrostatic shock and center-of-mass shots against zombies. I think the whole shoot and run thing is great until you think about the fact that as you shoot and run, you're making constant noise that can lead more to you from all directions. As far as I'm concerned, a person or squad shouldn't even bother engaging a force too big for them to handle. They should just give the horde the finger and run like hell, hide somewhere, and wait for the Zacks to disperse.

If there were a reason to use a more powerful caliber pistol, it would be to fight the humans that take advantage of the chaos and think they rule the world.

On an unrelated note, I think a spear would be a good anti-zombie weapon as long as it was light enough. Spears are about the best melee weapons for keeping a group surrounding you at bay with wide, sweeping arcs. And the thrust of a spear into a zombie skull would amount to an instant kill. Could be made with a triangular blade mounted onto a wooden shaft. Of course it would be a single-purpose item and rather bulky in practice, I'm just bringing it up for discussion.  

[Fresnel]

ArmasTermin

Of course it would be a single-purpose item and rather bulky in practice, I'm just bringing it up for discussion.

Pff, I bet I can think of ten uses for a five-foot spear.  

[Ms Truffle]

ArmasTermin

On an unrelated note, I think a spear would be a good anti-zombie weapon as long as it was light enough. Spears are about the best melee weapons for keeping a group surrounding you at bay with wide, sweeping arcs. And the thrust of a spear into a zombie skull would amount to an instant kill. Could be made with a triangular blade mounted onto a wooden shaft. Of course it would be a single-purpose item and rather bulky in practice, I'm just bringing it up for discussion.

Why would you want a spear?

Just get a bayonet. xd  

[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.  

[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.  

[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.  

[Requiem ex Inferni]

ArmasTermin

I'd like to disagree somewhat with the use of hydrostatic shock and center-of-mass shots against zombies. I think the whole shoot and run thing is great until you think about the fact that as you shoot and run, you're making constant noise that can lead more to you from all directions. As far as I'm concerned, a person or squad shouldn't even bother engaging a force too big for them to handle. They should just give the horde the finger and run like hell, hide somewhere, and wait for the Zacks to disperse.

Agreed.