Zombie Apocalypse - Page 18

Post a Reply

Prev 1 16 17 18 19 Next All

Conquerer67

United States605 Posts

September 18 2011 20:05 GMT

#341

Between eight and ten of these, combined with about 10 or 12 of these,

[image loading]

and maybe one or two of these

[image loading]

and I should should be fine. And in the case of emergencies,

[image loading]

to a

where I can safely remain underwater for a few months at a time. When the zombies come a knockin', drop me a PM for a nydus worm conveniently delivered to your location at a very reasonable price.

UndercoverNerd

88 Posts

September 18 2011 20:38 GMT

#342

On September 19 2011 04:57 ChrisXIV wrote:

Show nested quote +

No, I never tried it. But many(most?) zombies in movies have seemingly no problem with that. Which is all I'm saying.

Thats cuz a normal kevlar isnt fullbody, obviously. Zombies like to bite you in the neck or the arms where a standard police/military kevlar won't protect you at all. The suit could prevent quite some bites or scratches when u get ambushed from the side or from behind, delaying an infectious touch long enough to deal with them. For those who don't have such an swesome suit I would recommend tight, thick clothes(maybe rubbebands to make the ends even more tighter) and ofcourse ski-glasses.

Grobyc

Canada18410 Posts

September 18 2011 21:51 GMT

#343

On September 19 2011 04:27 SafeAsCheese wrote:
^ Get a hammer and you will look like thorzain xD

Now that's a good idea :D

iNdEMAND

130 Posts

September 19 2011 01:49 GMT

#344

my weapon of choice,

http://www.amazon.com/Stanley-FatMax-Xtreme-55-120-FuBar/dp/B000VSSG3O

ShadeR

Australia7535 Posts

September 19 2011 01:59 GMT

#345

I'm a casual zombie apocalypse enthusiastic. Can you guys recommend some good films and literature.

Zealotdriver

United States1557 Posts

September 19 2011 02:04 GMT

#346

If you're going to resort to melee weapons, you may as well go all-in with a knife that injects an explosive ball of gas into the target.
http://www.waspknife.com/index.php

phathom321

United States1730 Posts

September 19 2011 02:22 GMT

#347

I'd go all Klingon on those zombie asses. And if that fails,

[image loading]

Ideally I'm also a space marine in this zombie apocalypse. :3

Icectar

United States99 Posts

September 19 2011 03:46 GMT

#348

forget about guns, i'll just hijack one of these haha

airstrikes are imba

GhandiEAGLE

United States20754 Posts

September 19 2011 04:09 GMT

#349

No zombie motherfucker gonna get me as long as I have Bessie..

dogabutila

United States1437 Posts

September 19 2011 04:55 GMT

#350

On September 19 2011 01:53 Percutio wrote:

Show nested quote +

+ Show Spoiler +

The entire rifle/shotgun point is great in ideal situations or military situations which are by far not the same for a generalized survival situation where available supplies are low and the people involved are very unreliable.

1. In context you probably won't have a cleaning kit or tools, you probably will need to cycle more rounds with the rifle, and you will almost certainly have a reliability issue before you would with a shotgun.

2. I did say that the weight of shotgun rounds can potentially be a problem, but having that many rounds is pretty lucky in and of itself. You can also do a hell of a lot of shit with just the shotgun round itself in the case of the gun failing.

3. There are going to be a lot less situations where you have the range of the rifle available and choose to use it because you are not trying to engage everything and certainly not wanting to waste any ammo. That said if a lot of stuff is coming at you then you certainly will need the range and fire rate of a rifle, when it comes down to it you have higher killing potential. However, seeing as how this situation deals with avoiding conflict and killing things that rush at you the range at which shotguns are more advantageous than rifles is going to occur as often if not more so.

4. Penetration is probably not desirable. It is kind of a risk/waste ammunition-wise and can of course defeat some risky situations, but the situations where it is undesirable are numerous. You don't want to be destroying your shelter, potentially shooting someone else in a defense situation, or damaging potential supplies. Not to mention body armor is even less a factor here.

5. You can get familiar with a shotgun a lot faster than with a rifle especially when it comes down to a novice aiming for simple effective use. Not to mention operation between different models is even more simple than it is with rifles.

6. I like your handgun opinion, especially the part where zombies don't have to be engaged past 25 yards. 25 might be shorter than I would say, but either way the point is that the limited range of pistols (And shotguns to a lesser extent) is less important considering the nature of the vast majority of engagements in this situation (Just like armor is a non issue).

I also like the CQB part of this comparison because handguns really only get difficult to use when you start shooting farther out (Even in conservative ranges considering ammunition). This is pretty valid considering the fact that carbines are damn near the only common thing that can outperform them in close quarters and the vast majority of people aren't trained that highly.

Pistols should only have situational advantages rather than range advantages compared to shotguns and rifles. As soon as it gets cramped or you have to deal with zombies that are coming from a lot of directions are close, pistols have advantages because of their maneuverability.

7. My problem with handguns is they are the toughest to kill things especially in regards to speed. It is probably different for different people, but personally it is harder to shoot quick accurate shots with my handgun rather than say my carbine. On top of that you are going to be reliant on how many magazines you have and the fact that you can reload easily. Still, they also can't be used for hunting nearly as well or to effectively bash something/someone in a pickle like you can with many rifles and shotguns.

If you haven't noticed I think that in zombie survival you have shit supplies, shit ammo, don't want to fight, are most likely terrible at fighting, your weapons undergo shitty conditions, and you want whatever you have to be generally good because you probably won't have many options or opportunities.

+ Show Spoiler +

1) But that's the point though. You don't have to. Rifles have almost exactly the same power as shotguns do, and better maintain the power the farther out you go. You might make the argument that you might miss less with a shotgun, but really... Most people have optics with rifles and not the shotguns. Most shotguns don't even come with decent irons, just a front bead. You have to pay more to get tri-irons or ghost rings.

1A) AK's will function far longer then your shotgun will, and under worse conditions. Bolt rifles will function far longer then your shotgun will function.

2) Having that many rounds isn't luck. It's preparation.

3) In a zombie apocalypse situation you have more then just zombies to deal with. Zombies. And people trying to take your shit. Imagine the bad guys in Book of Eli. The chances of close range zombie encounters go up the closer you are in to urban areas. The chances of meeting up with other people scrounging for supplies increases the close you get to urban areas.

4) Barrier penetration is kind of valuable when fighting against people. Remember, we aren't just planning for zombies. Not many people carry body armor sure. But the ones that have it are the ones you don't need to worry about, or the ones you really really really need to worry about. Why not have something that can deal with it?

5) No, No, and maybe. Have you taught people to shoot? I've taught all sorts of people to shoot. They tend to learn rifles far faster then shotguns. Why? because the semi automatic principal crosses over from nearly any other previous firearms knowledge they have. For novices, once you get the weapon all set up to go bang, you want it to keep going bang without having any intermediate steps. Further, if we are talking about novices, the downsides to shotguns and reloading really come back to bite you. For getting on target? Rifles all come with generally decent / useable iron sights. Shotguns do not.

Also, you're equating comparing a pump driven to a pump driven vs every type of rifle. When you break it down, controls will always have to be learned. They are in different spots and require different things on rifles just like they are on shotguns. The fact that you need to work the action between every shot in a shotgun is a downside, not a simplicity thing. Follow me here, on both shotguns and rifles you need to learn the safety. On shotguns you need to learn to pump every shot. On rifles, just work the charging handle once.

6) Pretty much exactly. There aren't range advantages pistols hold over shotguns or rifles, but neither do rifles or shotguns hold range advantages inside a pistols effective range (whatever we feel like arbitrarily defining it as... 25 probably is a little too far out for new shooters). However, situational advantages would make me pick the handgun over the shotgun for close in work. I might be biased because I've trained for more extensively with them though.

7) No doubt it's harder to get combat effective hits with handguns then it is with rifles or shotguns. But zombies are only going to die from headshots and they move slowly anyways. Re mags and number: Reload with retention. Re: bashing. The cool thing about handguns is you can hold other things while still shooting the handgun.

I don't disagree that for most people this will be true. Just a little bit of preparation (for any type of crisis really) goes a long way towards being ready for other crisis's. Thats why people like the hypothetical zombie scenario. You get to envision a chaotic breakdown of society and realize you need supplies and a plan. Prepping for the zombies leads to prepping for everything else, and only fine tuning is needed for other occurrences. Not to mention, they probably aren't as terrible.

Having said that, an AK is still more reliable then any shotgun.

dogabutila

United States1437 Posts

September 19 2011 05:04 GMT

#351

On September 19 2011 00:28 Brethern wrote:

Show nested quote +

I'll them ask them how many rounds they put through their shotgun. The people I know who own 88's put 2000+ rounds through them a year.

2000+ isn't actually that much. Think of a normal (non-novice) training course. That's anywhere from 3-500. Think of how many you run or teach in a year. Think of a 3 gun competition. Or trap, or skeet. 2000+ might seem like a lot to you. But once you get into shooting for real, 2000 is a drop in the bucket. Especially when you consider it's only over a year.

Spartan

United States2030 Posts

September 19 2011 05:21 GMT

#352

Run 'em over with my truck and beat down with my spiked bat.

Here's how she stands today..

[image loading]

And very soon, something like these..

[image loading]

Percutio

United States1672 Posts

September 19 2011 09:28 GMT

#353

On September 19 2011 13:55 dogabutila wrote:

Show nested quote +

On September 19 2011 01:53 Percutio wrote:

On September 18 2011 12:09 dogabutila wrote:

On September 18 2011 03:14 Brethern wrote:

On September 17 2011 15:15 dogabutila wrote:

On September 17 2011 13:07 Percutio wrote:
Not sure what is with all the shotgun hate in this thread. For most people and most situations if you had to pick one it would be the best option.

The vast majority of people and situations aren't going to have a fully decked out arsenal and be properly trained to use it. With that in mind most people aren't going to have many magazines to reload their weapons and are going to be slow in doing so relatively speaking. They will also not be good enough to really take advantage of any weapon's range or accuracy. Additionally the firepower of the shotgun can help a ton and again most people won't have that much ammo for the shotgun.

If someone was decked out then the shotgun still stands out for its reliability, versatility, power, and efficiency.

Hell at that point you could pick up magazines for your shotgun and even though the ammo is heavy it isn't terrible in comparison to how much damage you can do with it. The range becomes less ideal considering someone is really decked out but with the right ammo you can still shoot pretty damn far.

You don't know jack shit about firearms and shooting do you?

On September 17 2011 05:23 wongfeihung wrote:

On September 17 2011 05:05 Brethern wrote:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I'm good also I'm oh so not fighting zombies sober.

My initial thoughts on your setup...
+ Show Spoiler +

Also, is that a Remington or a Mossberg? I can never spot the difference off the top of my head.

It's hard to tell because the most obvious differences are the control locations. Namely the safety and the action release. From the angle in the picture it's really hard to tell unless you spend craploads of time with them. Don't feel bad that you can't spot the difference, most people couldn't from the picture given.

The Remington has the safety located pretty much on the frame just above the trigger guard and the action release forward of the trigger guard on the left side.

The Mossy has the safety on the top of the gun, near the back of the receiver before the stock. The action release is near the back of the trigger guard on the right hand side.

Wut? the safety on the mossberg is on the front of the trigger guard.

As to shotguns and why people choose them. They are rugged and like being treated rough they can take anything for 2 3/4 to 3.5" shells depending on the model and with practice you can hit targets up to 200 yards with them.

If you find a shell that you can't fire you can take it apart and reload the shot and powder into a shell that fits your gun.

The Maverick has a crossbolt safety like the Remington, but in front of the trigger guard yes. When people are referring to shotguns as Mossburgs or Remingtons they are referring to 500 series or 870 series shotguns. Not Mossy Maverick 88's. Mossburg safeties are traditionally located on top of the receiver. If you didn't cheap out on an already cheap shotgun you would know this.

200 yards from a rest with slugs and no wind. Too bad the effective range is far lower. Just because you can ring a gong or make it through paper doesn't make it an effective round at that range. CS and SD means slugs bleed off energy really fast.

And that isn't something you can't do with regular rounds anyways. Reloading is reloading.

Why people shouldn't choose them? They have no significant advantages over a rifle. They have some advantages in terms of firepower over a pistol, but then become limited by mobility issues in real close building combat. Really, there is only a short range where the shotgun could be arguably considered superior to a rifle, and not mobility restricted like a pistol would be in the same ranges. Shotguns don't penetrate body armor. Shotguns do not blow things up like in video games. Shotguns are not significantly more reliable then DI rifles, and not at all more reliable then piston driven systems. Then, shotgun ammo is far less valuable in terms of weight vs volume vs utility then are certain handgun rounds or rifle rounds.

This does not even consider the inherent usage problems with standard shotguns like loading, limited capacities, and ease of use when compared to anything magazine fed.

Rifle rounds don't even start with that much less muzzle energy then shotguns do, and carry the energy far better. They have a far better effective range and have far better inherent accuracy. They have a higher sustained, accurate rate of fire and provide barrier penetration that shotguns do not. They can punch through most body armor and don't have any mobility issues that shotguns do not.
If you are going to carry a longarm, why would you NOT choose something that is easier to use/operate, easier to load, and is all around more effective? The right rifles are actually more reliable and rugged then shotguns.

With all this said if you still believe shotguns to be superior, then why do militaries issue rifles rather then shotguns? It would HAVE to be something specific to zombie fighting which makes shotguns better, but in an apocalypse scenario, rifles become even better then shotguns due to the inherent nature of round effectiveness vs weight and space.

Shotguns over handguns? Maybe, again, there is only a limited range in which shotguns are better then handguns. Zombies any farther then 25 yards don't really have to be engaged, and then pistols are just as easy to operate and far easier to shoot while moving. Neither are going to be of good use against raiders with armor, but pistols can be shot 1 handed. And loaded one handed. CQB use of cover strongly favors handguns over shotguns or rifles.

So, shotguns are really only better then handguns from 25+ yards without use of cover and only has slight advantages over rifles 75 yards and in. Against people trying to kill you, rifles are clearly better choice. Against zombies, shotguns only give you an advantage in range that you aren't going to take advantage of because you'd want to conserve ammo until they get closer and show hostility anyways.

+ Show Spoiler +

1. The missing thing is pretty much my point for that. True, optics are a bonus but even a novice can figure out how to just point the shotgun and get hits within 20-25 yards.

Even with AKs being pretty popular they aren't all that common. You probably have a better chance of finding an AR rifle and definitely a bolt action before either. Of course as soon as it is a bolt action you lose a huge amount of advantages while really only gaining reliability.

2. Which the vast majority of people will lack in this situation. I can tell you right now there are some pretty serious chunks of time where I would be unprepared and that fact has only changed recently.

3. And they will be the more dangerous yet far less common threat. Priorities if you ask me. Sure at some point it could happen, but there are going to be a lot of situations where neither party can risk an outright firefight considering the danger of having people and zombies potentially trying to kill you at the same time.

4. Probably less useful than it is helpful. I've only ever known 2 people who owned good quality body armor that weren't involved with the military or police and one guy ended up selling it anyways.

5. Yeah, not to a tactical level, but you can just jump into operating the shotgun a bit more simply. Less problems or potential difficulties you can encounter. In regards to using one without hurting yourself it's always been shotguns>rifles>pistols from less to more likely.

6-7 With tons of training any one of the weapons becomes superior to the others from 30 yards and in regardless of setup/equipment available. I would say in the perfect most prepared situation you can rock a carbine all the way to the bank. Light, won't have a reliability issue if taken care of, delivers a fuck ton of pain quickly and accurately, has the best ammunition, and is small enough to be used indoors.

Hell if you are competition level then you would be able to do what you needed with a semi .22

Most people are going to be in shit situations where they can rely on the shotgun the most effectively. Then a smaller group of people have enough stuff and just enough training to be able to use a handgun more effectively than a shotgun or rifle. Then another small group of people will be nearly totally prepared and have great confidence with their weapon in which case it probably is and should be a rifle.

acker

United States2958 Posts

September 19 2011 09:38 GMT

#354

How could an AK be more reliable than any shotgun? That really doesn't make much sense...you'd think that there would be a good selection of pump shotguns that are much more reliable than any autoloading rifle, the same way some revolvers are more reliable than any semi-automatic pistol; fewer parts and better tolerances are inherent to the design. And break-open designs would be even more reliable still.

I'd personally take a shotgun, being completely inexperienced with guns. I'd imagine hitting a moving tin can at 30 yards would be near-impossible for me otherwise.

Realistically, from the stuff currently available to me...maybe grab an axe or pickaxe from the shed. And a couple cinder blocks for throwing (or rather, dropping). And the pellet gun, just for fun. Pretty much no hope for survival where I live (except maybe in winter), but I could probably get a positive K:D ratio.

+ Show Spoiler +

I'd move the following items up to the second floor as soon as word of an outbreak spreads:

-Every tool and potential weapon in the shed.
-All gasoline currently in the cars we own.
-Food, water, and medical supplies. Turn on all the taps and fill all water containers.
-Heavy furniture and the refrigerator.
-All the useless crap we have in the garage that might come in handy.

Would demolish staircase and use refrigerator and other heavy items to make past staircase gap higher. If time permitted, I would clear the land around my house to create a firebreak. Otherwise, if there's a fire, I'm screwed. Would also contact neighbors that I can trust and aren't immediately running away. Would note houses that were deserted by their owners.

Could probably hold off 50-100 walker/runner zombies if detected. Would be absolutely screwed against intelligent or "I Am Legend" (the movie) "zombies". Looters would also be an issue...but I don't own guns, and they probably would, so the point is moot regardless. Could burn house down (with all zombies in it) with the gasoline if absolutely necessary...though probably wouldn't, would ruin the entire block's chances of survival if the fire spread.

I'd then lay low for the next week or so until the initial outbreak phase ends. Looters would be the main problem. I suppose I could hide in the crawl space if worst came to worst.

After the initial outbreak/tidal wave, after the area depopulates of zombies, I'd probably have to get down and finish off any zombies still in the house. Would then...

-If supplies are desperately low, loot other houses, starting with ones I marked down as unoccupied. Would have to knock first otherwise and risk getting my head blown off.

-If supplies are manageable, check up on other neighbors contacted earlier. If any are alive, would consolidate position and supplies with the others and make future plans.

From there, it's largely playing it by ear depending on the situation.

Larsion

Sweden25 Posts

September 19 2011 09:50 GMT

#355

On September 19 2011 10:59 ShadeR wrote:
I'm a casual zombie apocalypse enthusiastic. Can you guys recommend some good films and literature.

The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead
written by Max Brooks

it could be the best book ever written

zatic

Zurich15325 Posts

September 19 2011 09:57 GMT

#356

Why are all you guys discussing the reliablilty of specific shotguns when the real issue is that they get outperformed by rifles in virtually every encounter. As has been said numerous times in this thread you will need a weapon that is good against other survivors first, zombies second.

About the kevlar suit: That might work if you are up against 1 or 2 zombies. But what if there are 5-10? Or more. Your only chance is to run. Have fun sprinting in full body armor.

That doesn't mean clothes aren't something to think about though. The Zombie Survival Guide has good recommendations here. Tight, flexible clothing over loose things can make the difference. Same goes for hair. Rather shave or trim that stuff off to length no man or zombie can grab a fistful anymore.

acker

United States2958 Posts

September 19 2011 10:26 GMT

#357

On September 19 2011 18:57 zatic wrote:
Why are all you guys discussing the reliablilty of specific shotguns when the real issue is that they get outperformed by rifles in virtually every encounter. As has been said numerous times in this thread you will need a weapon that is good against other survivors first, zombies second.

My aim would be terrible with any weapon, might as well choose something I might hit a brick wall with. And speaking of killing other survivors...well, shotguns have twice the hit probability of assault rifles below thirty meters if the British Malaya study is to be believed, and my eyesight is ridiculously bad. Perfect weapon for me.

Chilling5pr33

Germany518 Posts

September 19 2011 11:47 GMT

#358

My prefered car would be:

For a weapon i would choose:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/sa_vz_58/sa_vz_58_7.jpg
And a Corner gun adapter with an recoil free gun on top.

BleaK_

Norway593 Posts

September 19 2011 12:04 GMT

#359

Well. Most of us will die trying to protect who we love (girlfriend, wife). Having to take care of another person (who will most likely be in a state of panic, run slower etc.) will drasticly reduce the chance for survival.

Setev

Malaysia390 Posts

September 19 2011 12:31 GMT

#360

Ah screw the kevlar, I like the armored car concept better. But here's another thought - how about an amphibious transport? Its sexier and more versatile than a speed boat, but can save more fuel than air transport like a miniature chopper.

[image loading]

Its very hard for civilians to get decent guns in Malaysia (bribery won't get you anywhere nowadays in Malaysia, transparency levels of government agencies are getting too good), so flight is the only option. Digging in and defending will get me screwed.

Prev 1 16 17 18 19 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Zombie Apocalypse - Page 18

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming