|
|
Love this thread. Where do you get that zombie response sticker? PM me, I want one =]
|
i'm going to hurt my head thinking about what i can use as a weapon in my house and i only think i have knives to save me. Maybe a baseball bat, and broomstick.
|
Here is a paper that looks at the mathematics behind a zombie infection. If math is not your forte, read section 7. It essentially says we need to eradicate as fast as possible.
And here's a website that does quality melee weaponry. Most swords you find these days are immitations not suitable for combat. Not these. Their blades are 0.2 inch thick (0.5cm) and full tang. I'm impartial to 'The Deuce' because of it's extra length.
I've read WWZ, the Guide, essays, webcomics, Wade Davis. Seen a bunch of zombie movies, television shows, mockumentaries. Designed weapons (not that I have the skill to build them), buildings. Reworked The Prince for a zombie scenario. My plan would just be another in the pile of an already informed crowd. So here's the two parts that probably differ.
I'm less concerned about surviving the zombie apocalypse -I'm statistically not going to- and more concerned with keeping society together (the apocalypse is not going to be won by one person, but by groups working together). Hiding and waiting is not an option. Relying on stressed out people who are malnourished and tired to headshot faster than the depletion of food? Really? Is that a plan? The biggest problem will be keeping those with 'courage' from doing something 'courageous'. People with the emotional ability to fight a relentless horde will be in decreasing supply if that happens. I don't think the mentality of North America is ready to work together like this, so the trick will be changing that faster than the infection spreads.
Also, I would develop a kata. The beauty of fighting hordes of undead in melee, is they can't adapt, so it doesn't have to be as rigorous as a martial art. It would still be stressful, but I think it would be easier. It would focus on side-lining the zed by taking out plexus and dealing the killing blow later.
|
|
On September 19 2011 18:28 Percutio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 13:55 dogabutila wrote:+ 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. + 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.
+ Show Spoiler + 1) Sorry I worded that terribly. I meant there is more of a buffer for not perfect aim. If you miss by 2 inches with a rifle, then you still missed completely. If your POA is off with a shotgun by 2 inches at 40 feet you still make a partial hit (assuming some sort of buck). HOWEVER. Rifles come with sights (unless you are building your own AR). This negates any POA buffer advantage shotguns have because those typically do not until you get to higher ends. Shotguns are not easier to pick up and make hits with randomly, because they have no sights.
AK's aren't as popular as AR's sure. But they are far more popular in the US then you might think precisely because there are so many flavors of them. Bolt action rifles, really just more suited to distance precision work. They have inherent accuracy advantages but it requires a good user to take advantage of it.
2) No doubt. But there's still no reason to push for shotguns over rifles because of ammo availability. weight vs volume vs utility remember? Shotguns fail at this because their ammunition is terrible for this metric.
3) Zombies, relatively easily avoided. You can engage them with a bat or crowbar or something. I don't see why you would choose a firearm more suited for zombies when you won't even need it for that. Remember handguns? Superior to shotguns against zombies, so why wouldn't you pick that instead? I think you underestimate the chances of people trying to steal your shit very much. There are preppers, and then there are people who just own guns. Those people who own guns but don't have all their own shit, those people whose plans are to go to the supermarket after stuff happens will quickly realize that everybody went to the supermarket and nothing there is left. How are they going to get stuff? Well, they have guns and you don't. It is going to happen at some point.
4) You think people won't take body armor off of dead bodies? I know of a few people with some, not many... But if it exists, you think people won't use it? Just because there is relatively few in existence in civilian hands now doesn't mean that the ones that exist in police or military hands don't exist or will always remain in military or police hands. Again, the people that have it are probably either good guys, or really really really bad guys. Why not be prepared for them?
5) Shotguns definitely have a higher learning curve then rifles. If you can shoot a shotgun, you can shoot a rifle. If you can shoot a rifle, you can't necessarily shoot a shotgun.
+) Sure if you only used one of course you would be better with it then others. BUT, that doesn't mean one isn't superior to the other. If I perfected a bad build order, I could use it better then a perfect build order I preform at a bronze level. But if you had either of them at the same familiarity, one is obviously better then the other.
I just don't think that advising people to use an inferior weapon is good for any reason.
On September 19 2011 18:38 acker wrote: 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.
Yes and no. It's a combination of simplicity of design, the viability of the design itself, and the tolerances needed for the design to work. Then you need to factor in strength of materials and if any part is stressed more then others.
Revolvers still go down, and some of them are picky. Other autoloading handguns have well deserved reputations for reliability and really can survive things that revolvers don't.
AK's have a very simple design, a very GOOD design, and does not require tight tolerances. Most shotguns work on a simple design which is good enough for the most part, but have tighter tolerances for moving parts.
There are some problems with shotguns you might not realize. Feeding tubes on new 870's have had widespread problems with FTF. Dirt getting into receivers and ejection ports causes FTF or FTE. AK's? Fill the bolt with sand, fire the mag off ez. How many shotguns do you know of that have been worked hard, not just for the life of the owner, but for generations? Not only that, put them in the worst environment known to man for firearms... the desert. Think they would still do well? Doubtful. But AK's do.
|
On September 20 2011 14:03 dogabutila wrote: There are some problems with shotguns you might not realize. Feeding tubes on new 870's have had widespread problems with FTF. Dirt getting into receivers and ejection ports causes FTF or FTE. AK's? Fill the bolt with sand, fire the mag off ez.
Your statement will make sense when you say the AK is more reliable than some shotguns, not all shotguns. Note that I have never claimed that every shotgun on the planet is more reliable than any AK. Read your post again, please.
On September 19 2011 18:28 Percutio wrote: Having said that, an AK is still more reliable then any shotgun.
It's logic that an inherently simpler design will have at least some variants that are more reliable than models off of a more complicated design. Therefore, some pump shotguns, let alone break-open shotguns, will be more reliable than any auto-loading rifle for that reason. The same way some bolt-action rifles will be more reliable than any auto-loading firearm. The same way some revolvers will be more reliable than any semi-automatic pistol, and some muzzleloaders will be more reliable than any revolver, and some slings will be more reliable than any muzzleloader.
This is not an endorsement of slings or any specific sling model. Nor is this an endorsement of revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, semi-automatic rifles, autoloading rifles, or break-open/pump shotguns. This is fact checking.
On September 20 2011 14:03 dogabutila wrote: How many shotguns do you know of that have been worked hard, not just for the life of the owner, but for generations? Not only that, put them in the worst environment known to man for firearms... the desert. Think they would still do well? Doubtful. But AK's do.
I'm not sure how much thought you've put into this, but troops are still policing Taliban shotguns and bolt-action rifles that are over a hundred years old. It's really not that difficult to find break-open heirlooms over a century old that are still in working condition. Hell, people are still buying and selling original 1987/1912 Winchester pump shotguns. At ridiculous prices, of course. Even more for the 1912 combat model.
|
Sure you can find older shotguns then AK's. The oldest AK can only be 67 years old.
The key isn't how old it is. Any safe queen can be in working condition if it hasn't been used very much. The key is "worked hard." Look at round counts over time from AK's to shotguns. Merely existing is a terrible way to judge reliability.
And you are wrong. Simpler designs are not always more reliable. Far more goes into reliability then design simplicity. Things like tolerances, materials used etc all factor in. Submerge a glock into 5 feet of mud, pull it out, empty the magazine. Try that with the .357mag revolvers police departments switched out of. Doesn't work.
Simplistic design factors heavily into reliability, but it is not the be all end all measure of reliability.
|
Yeah I just googled it as well after my post. Thanks!
|
On September 20 2011 16:27 dogabutila wrote: Sure you can find older shotguns then AK's. The oldest AK can only be 67 years old.
You are the one who asked me to point out pump/break-open shotguns that lasted for generations. Not me.
On September 20 2011 16:27 dogabutila wrote: And you are wrong. Simpler designs are not always more reliable. Far more goes into reliability then design simplicity. Things like tolerances, materials used etc all factor in. Submerge a glock into 5 feet of mud, pull it out, empty the magazine. Try that with the .357mag revolvers police departments switched out of. Doesn't work.
*Facepalm* Read my post for once and stop strawmanning, this is getting ridiculous.
It's logic that an inherently simpler design will have at least some variants that are more reliable than models off of a more complicated design.
If you build a revolver completely out of wood, it's going to be shit. No one's arguing that simpler designs are always more reliable, it's that some models off of a simpler design will always be more reliable than models off of a more complicated design.
|
On September 21 2011 03:06 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 16:27 dogabutila wrote: Sure you can find older shotguns then AK's. The oldest AK can only be 67 years old. You are the one who asked me to point out pump/break-open shotguns that lasted for generations. Not me. Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 16:27 dogabutila wrote: And you are wrong. Simpler designs are not always more reliable. Far more goes into reliability then design simplicity. Things like tolerances, materials used etc all factor in. Submerge a glock into 5 feet of mud, pull it out, empty the magazine. Try that with the .357mag revolvers police departments switched out of. Doesn't work. *Facepalm* Read my post for once and stop strawmanning, this is getting ridiculous. Show nested quote + It's logic that an inherently simpler design will have at least some variants that are more reliable than models off of a more complicated design.
If you build a revolver completely out of wood, it's going to be shit. No one's arguing that simpler designs are always more reliable, it's that some models off of a simpler design will always be more reliable than models off of a more complicated design.
I think you need to reread my post. I understand yours completely, but you appear to not be understanding mine. I never asked you to point out a shotgun that lasted for generations. I asked you to point out shotguns that have been worked hard for generations. Which is a completely different thing. Which you haven't been able to do.
Not a strawman. It's all about reliability, which does not equate simplicity. You are the one that that claimed that it is logical to believe that a more simple design would generally be more reliable then a complicated design. It isn't a strawman to point out that there are other factors in reliability. You can't weasel word with "some models" if you go on to say that those certain models will always be more reliable then those of a more complicated design.
The fact of the matter is, simplistic designs are a factor in reliability, but that isn't the end all be all of factors that go into it. An AK will be more reliable because even though the design is more complex, it is a better design that builds in tolerance for error. You're of the impression that break-opens will always work forever, and while they are pretty damn reliable, they do have issues. Light primer strikes comes to mind.
|
I have enough shotguns and couple handguns including a ruger super black hawk, shitload of knives, I think I'm okay
why haven't I seen any mokotov cocktails? CHEAP yet effective as long as you don't accidently drop it and burn yourself and everything around you.
I got a great idea for short people- +
![[image loading]](http://images.orgill.com/200x200/8805699.jpg) lawn mower blades.
Have the little dudes run into a zombie crowd. Win?
|
i think that the biggest tool i have at my disposal is my knowledge of zombies and awareness. it all comes down to how smart you are in a zombie apocolypse, not how many guns you have.
|
AK you can carry a lot of ammo for, and lots of people have the ammo. Shotgun, yeah, people have the ammo, but like 30 rounds tops. AK users keep hoardes of rounds cause our guns eat the ammo.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PXSOa.jpg)
I'll list what's on the picture just in case, from top to bottom we have:
An aluminium baseball bat A chinese "han dynasty sword" (that's what it's called, it's not old or anything ) A chinese broadsword A throwing knife, throwing star and a machete And lastlie two butterfly knifes.
Zombie apocalypse, here I come ! If the Zombies really came I'd put my faith in the Chinese broadsword since it has the best hacking capabilities, it's not really made for finesse or anything but to merely cut down what you swing it at but since it only has a one handed grip I'd dual weild the "Han dynasty sword" in my other hand 
Also, reading the thread really got me interested in that Zombie survival book, I might check it out.
|
Not putting up pics due to weapons being strategically stashed in my house, but:
Two machetes purchased from Malaysia of varying size One shoddy replica katana One good replica katana Half a dozen Bowie knives Approximately two dozen folding knives, butterfly knives, switchblades, and belt knives One throwing star
|
|
|
|
|