Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Of the Tabletop, and other, lesser varieties.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Pa-Patch
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Pa-Patch » Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:38 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Mostly because against a Rage infected, I don't think there'll be enough time to react. You're pretty much royally fucked. I don't really see humans lasting long in a Rage infected area, they'll either be killed/become one of the infected, or die when the place is nuked (from orbit).

True. I should have mentioned that the only zombies I think are worth bothering to plan against would be somehow infected but not fast. Maybe they start off kind of fast and wreck their legs with their first sprint and have to shamble around thereafter, or are just slow for whatever reason.
If they're not infected with something and won't gradually break down, there are two ways it could go: They get taken care of fast and easily by the military, since the infection doesn't get to spread before they're clearly zombies (how I imagine an actual outbreak would work if it's actually going to affect any portion of the world) or they're somehow already widespread and not going to die on their own. This means we'll have zombies everywhere, floating in the oceans, in every forest and under every swamp. Unless I had the good fortune to immediately run into an organized group of survivors/pocket of the military, I imagine I'd off myself. I'd have no chance. There'd be little chance of survival, and no good times on the horizon for anyone for the next few generations. Just be too many and they'd keep popping up.

Edit: Oh, and fast zombies, especially unusually strong ones, we wouldn't have a chance against those. Either the military does their job before they spread far, or you're boned. You could barricade but good luck ever farming or anything.

User avatar
scrovak
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: Harford County, MD [USA]
Contact:

Zombie Survival

Postby scrovak » Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:20 am UTC

This idea is sort of stolen from another forum that used ot be good but pretty much went to shit thanks to an overzealous who need-not be mentioned *ahem-sidnacious-erhem*.

Anyway, here's how it goes. This is not a game, which is why it is not in the game thread. This is for actual, logical, occasionally humorous, constantly imaginative discussion on how to survive the inevitable Z-Day. (FYI, that's D-day, but for zombies, hence the 'Z')

I want to work from the 28 Days Later scenario. You wake up from some accident to an empty hospital with zombies essentially banging at the doors. What would you do? Keep in mind rations, other survivors, the trends to killing/surviving zombie onslaughts from the movies. Let's hear some details!
MrGee wrote:I would never eat a person. Have you seen the conditions they're raised in?
kapojinha wrote:You're amazing, which is why I'm going to marry you.

Angua wrote:coordinated baby attacks

Mo0man
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:46 am UTC
Location: 2 weeks ago

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby Mo0man » Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:28 am UTC

There's a thread in the Gaming forum. Don't ask me why, it's just there, only it deals with classical zombies.
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=16580
causa major dormuc vulnero ut ovis goatee
I'm number 20075. Remember that. It's important

User avatar
scrovak
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: Harford County, MD [USA]
Contact:

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby scrovak » Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:36 am UTC

True, but I take a more practial, in depth approach, from the movie standpoint, and go into details. or so I hope to...
MrGee wrote:I would never eat a person. Have you seen the conditions they're raised in?
kapojinha wrote:You're amazing, which is why I'm going to marry you.

Angua wrote:coordinated baby attacks

Mo0man
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:46 am UTC
Location: 2 weeks ago

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby Mo0man » Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:44 am UTC

Read WWZ and Zombie Survival Guide? We've all got detailed zombie plans, they just don't need to be posted online. Anything with more depth than we've got on that thread doesn't work on the internet cause not everyone on the internet lives where we do.

In other news, I'm acting all superior cause I feel like it, it's not a reflection on these fora.
Though it could be.
Yeah.
I need to sleep
causa major dormuc vulnero ut ovis goatee
I'm number 20075. Remember that. It's important

User avatar
scrovak
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: Harford County, MD [USA]
Contact:

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby scrovak » Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:58 am UTC

Same here, but I don't get off work for another 2.5 hours.
MrGee wrote:I would never eat a person. Have you seen the conditions they're raised in?
kapojinha wrote:You're amazing, which is why I'm going to marry you.

Angua wrote:coordinated baby attacks

User avatar
Fledermen64
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:29 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby Fledermen64 » Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:32 am UTC

I kinda just size up buildings for zombie survivability. Not to big into it though. The odds against a desiease that could produce zombies is so astronomical that its not that big a deal to me.
"I just want to say before I do this that I have no idea what I'm doing and I love you all very dearly. Ok lets light this bitch and hope for the best"
-Myself before a homemade 4th of July fireworks extravaganza

User avatar
scrovak
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: Harford County, MD [USA]
Contact:

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby scrovak » Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:29 am UTC

However, there are reports of diseases that could soon come to fruition, and a particular agent that scientists said is 100% possible and they're surprised hasn't come out yet - one that inhibits the mind's conscious reactions, essentially leaving our emotions and self in the primitive kill and eat phase
MrGee wrote:I would never eat a person. Have you seen the conditions they're raised in?
kapojinha wrote:You're amazing, which is why I'm going to marry you.

Angua wrote:coordinated baby attacks

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3727
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:30 am UTC

ZSG is wrong on a few points:

Being viewed as a 'model citizen' is not necessary in a Zombie uprising. Unless you are a serial killer/cannibal, the police are unlikely to come knocking at your door at the first sign of an outbreak of undeath. Of course, staying out of prison is desirable in general, however, in a Zombie outbreak, a well maintained prison may serve as, at least temporarily, a decent fortress, as long as the authorities have the sense to keep people out.

Blades are not always better, Mr. Brooks spends some time discussing how hard it actually is to break the skull of an unwilling opponent (even an unliving one) when discussing bludgeoning weapons, then completely ignores that when discussing bladed ones.
he also ignores that a bludgeon can easily break arms and legs with much the same effect as severing those limbs and makes the 'Magical Katana' mistake. A well maintained, expert crafted Katana is incredibly sharp, but the blade is quite brittle and will only withstand a few chops at best before blunting. And modern, factory made blades are somewhat less impressive. Other two handed swords are also prohibitively heavy.

The Shaolin spade makes about as much sense at the Katana with the caveat that it requires even more skill to use effectively than other weapons mentioned.

repeating crossbows exist, obviating the strength/relaod time problems, such a crossbow would likely be lighter than a rifle and has the advantage that with some fletching skill you can make your own ammo with minimal materials. Though a rifle will have vastly more range and ammunition.

A decent submachine gun is not as prone to failure as Max indicates and has a pretty decent range, the average person would likely be able to achieve similar effective range with a good SMG as with a rifle.

The M-16 is perfectly serviceable if you maintain it well. And later generation M-16s are much more improved than the author seems to imagine. Additionally, the 'temptation to rock and roll' is ridiculous, a civilian is not likely to acquire any AR with a rock and roll option. A modern AR-15 is quite a decent weapon for facing down the moaning masses.

The AK-47 is truly great, but a good battle rifle such as an FN-FAL or G-3 will probably serve at least as well, if not better.

The M-1 Garand is nice, but an M-14 is essentially a modernized M-1, and comes with many more options for modification (such as optics and forearm rails), plus, magazine loading is easier than using stripper clips.

.22 lr (long rifle) will not penetrate the skull at anything less than point-blank range and has never exhibited any ability to 'richochet' inside the brain case. .22 long rifle would be infinitely more useful than the even shorter rimfire cartridge advocated by Brooks the younger.

Modern collimating optics (red dot sights) are a good compromise between a laser sight and an optical scope. Many use tritium or other such glowing materials to illuminate the sight so battery life concerns are avoided.

The shrapnel of a fragmentation grenade possess more than enough energy to penetrate the braincase of the moaning masses at quite a decent radius around the device. Concusion grenades can destroy brain material quite effectively, and modern focused lethality explosive would be more effective than both.

Burning corpses outside the walls of your home or fortress could easily ignite the very walls you depend on to defend against the ghoul gang, and might also attract further attention of the shambling scourge. far safer to find another way to dispose of these corpses.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Surgery
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:22 am UTC
Location: Western New York

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby Surgery » Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:32 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:ZSG is wrong on a few points:
A decent submachine gun is not as prone to failure as Max indicates and has a pretty decent range, the average person would likely be able to achieve similar effective range with a good SMG as with a rifle.

Range probably, but accuracy? Really doubtful. And if you aren't going to be accurate than what the hell's the point of range.
Modern collimating optics (red dot sights) are a good compromise between a laser sight and an optical scope. Many use tritium or other such glowing materials to illuminate the sight so battery life concerns are avoided.

All of the affordable red dot sights I've seen (i.e. under $300, which I would imagine is what most people have) are battery powered. I think even the middle-class EOTechs ($400-$1000) are battery powered. The cheapest collimated optical sighting system I've seen that's tritium illuminated is the Trijicon ACOG at around $900.

User avatar
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: I am a child of the city of destruction . . . So, my location is the city of dectruction!
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel » Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:54 am UTC

Torvaun wrote:
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:
Torvaun wrote:I don't know what you're talking about with the salt thing. If you're talking about rock salt as a deterrence load in the shotgun, that's a terrible idea. It won't kill zombies, it won't kill people, and it'll drastically increase the amount of maintenance you'll have to do to keep your gun in working condition.

You got the rock salt idea from supernatural, admit it! :twisted: (the rock salt in the shotgun, that is)
No. Never seen/heard/read/whatever-the-hell-you-do-with-supernatural supernatural. Rock salt in the shotgun is (I thought) well-known. It was used in one of the old James Bond movies. This guy, who happens to be like the Mythbusters for guns and shooting, tested it out and found it wanting, even against normal living targets.

In supernatural (its a TV show) The main character guys put rock salt in their shotguns to shoot ghosts. A circle of salt protects you from ghosts, so shooting a ghost with rock salt would probably have some good effect of some kind. I read somewhere (maybe on this thread or one of the websites that were posted here) that salt does something to [magical*] zombies (I cant remember exactly what it did to them)

Note to all governments: No nuking! Don't do it! If you nuke them, they will become radioactive and then mutate even more and become more evil (like they may [after being nuked] be radioactive, and that would make all melee/short range weapons useless)

We seem to have (mostly) ignored the problem of headcrab zombies . . . although, with headcrab zombies there would be meny more problems like barnacles and those things that shoot rockets at you and those huge things that take almost all of your ammo . . . that reminds me, the military tried to kill everyone in Half life! What makes people think that they won't try that in real life? What would stop the government/army from killing lots of people to save themselves?

*in case of magical zombie, learn to throw fire and/or lightning . . . its realy the only thing you can do.

User avatar
Torvaun
Posts: 2615
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: 47°9′S, 126°43′W
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Torvaun » Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:43 am UTC

Really? Nuking will lead to mutated radioactive zombies? That's why the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki all have three arms and two heads and shit? Life. Is. Not. Fallout. And really, radioactive zombies are going to make it impossible to use melee or short range weapons? You're not actually worried about dying of cancer after the zombie apocalypse, are you? Because that's about how much radiation you're going to get from beating an irradiated zombie with a stick. Tops.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

User avatar
wing
the /b/slayer
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 5:56 am UTC

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby wing » Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:45 am UTC

Empty hospital? Hospitals are NOT IDEAL, too many glass doors. Enough zombies piling up against a glass door will eventually break it. This means I need an escape route that assumes the entire first floor is a no-go zone.

First stop is the helipad (assuming it's rooftop - if it's street accessible that's a no-go) to see if there's a shiny piece of aviation gear. If there is, a quick inspection to make sure it's airworthy and has fuel. THIS INCLUDES STARTING THE HELICOPTER. Do *NOT* assume it will run. Also make sure to properly cut-off the electrical systems so the battery doesn't drain - medevac chopper crews will often leave the electronics hot so they save on the extensive preflight time. If the electricals were on when you got there, run the engines for a few minutes and let them recharge just in case your start drained the last bit of life out of them.

The next step is to determine the resources available to me without ever touching a floor with street-level doors on it. This means searching as much of the building as possible and moving supplies to the room in which I will make camp (nearest the helipad if there's a helicopter, other choice locations will depend on the specific layout of the hospital).

Obviously medical supplies should be stockpiled in great quantities, but snack machines and the cafeteria should not be overlooked. Nor should oxygen tanks, which make great flamethrowers (also find some source of fire). Bust open all the medical electronics you can - most of it will have batteries for backup purposes (and if it wasn't in use, they'll be charged)

At this point, a raid against the ground level surgical suites and ERs should be conducted (these will always be ground level for rapid access in emergencies and will have THE BEST choice of useful supplies) if feasible and zombie free.

The next step is to prepare elevator-free passage throughout the building (find keys or destroy locks and interior doors as necessary to give you all-access), find the generator and DISABLE IT. If the grid is still running, shut down the feed. If you have power, it will only attract more people, and with more people comes the horde. You can turn the generator back on during daylight hours as-needed in order to charge your batteries (save some of the gear the batteries come in so you can plug it in to recharge), or if you need the elevators to move some particularly heavy find.

If an ambulance, police car, or other emergency vehicle is handy at the ER access door, take it and go gun-shopping (if you have a police car, check the trunk first. You probably have a either a shotgun or an AR-15.) Emergency vehicles also contain ready-made fire (flares), and COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT. If you have plenty of zombie-free time, go ahead and take the radios all the way out of the car and move them to your lair - they'll run well off your freshly harvested batteries.

Days should be passed by continually searching the building for supplies and ensuring your security. At the first sign of trouble, or when you run out of consumables, to the helicopter with you. Avoid refugee camps. Military bases will be quite alright, if they're still manned. If you can't find any place that looks suitable, an airport with airliners will do - one creative man with a lot of free time can bootstrap a 747 and go anywhere in the world that he wishes to go. Just be sure you only go somewhere when you know it's safe. A large airliner (747, 767, 777, A340, A380, DC-10, MD-11, etc.) will have at a MINIMUM VHF radios, probably HF radios (used for over-ocean comms), and possibly even more exotic communications equipment. The HF aviation bands will be well monitored. Always remember to start the APU when running the electrics on the plane - the battery will last AT MOST 15 minutes. There's PLENTY of fuel for you to continue stealing.

An MD-11 is actually the most intelligent choice here - the level of automation is very high and will require a much smaller learning curve if you have to fly it. FedEx is the world's largest operator of MD-11's. An A380 would be the next best, but not nearly as easy. The other planes with intercontinental ranges (and for that matter, smaller planes, too) all require pretty intense manual management of their subsystems and will not be easy for a single pilot in any way. If you can find a safe place to go, by all means, go. Do not count on the plane being to self-navigate (it primarily uses ground-based radio beacons which probably are not electrically powered anymore), find yourself charts and teach yourself how to navigate using nothing but a stopwatch, the groundspeed indicator (NOT THE AIRSPEED), and the plane's magnetic compass. The plane will still do okay self-navigating with just GPS (if equipped) and its own inertial reference system - but if those go out, or you fuck up with the IRS, you'll need to do it by hand. Autoland will probably not function at all - that relies ENTIRELY on ground-based radio beacons (though you may be escaping to a location untouched by the plague, in which case, ILS landing will work fine). This is another reason to choose an MD-11 if possible: They are small and nimble and thus easier to hand-fly.
I AM A SEXY, SHOELESS GOD OF WAR!
Akula wrote:Our team has turned into this hate-fueled juggernaut of profit. It's goddamn wonderful.

User avatar
Toeofdoom
The (Male) Skeleton Guitarist
Posts: 3446
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:06 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Toeofdoom » Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:14 pm UTC

I haven't posted it here yet, but personally I would look into the possibility of gathering the large community of gamers at my university. As for a fort, I would probably aim for one of the better Darkzones (laser tag). Largely because the good ones already have multiple levels designed for running around with guns including defensible positions should the fort be breached and plenty of combat practice stuff (once we find a generator). They also typically have a single entrance. I'd pretty much try to contact as many people as I could via email/mobile before the networks went down too. Then the idea is everyone grabs as much food as possible and drives or rides a bike to the place (public transport sounds like a terrible idea).

Note there are downsides to this: No supply of real weapons and very little of food or of water, depending on the venue in question. (Most places with food or weapons will probably be taken by other people, however) Also, most of them are in relatively highly populated or atleast public areas.

Other possibilities include: Getting a small group of camping-able people to drive up to my uncles shack in the country. Sure, it doesnt have electricity or a phone or anything but that's going to be pretty standard. Assuming we have nothing extra to fear from the wildlife, it should be fairly remote from most zombie threats and have supplies of raw materials as required. Stuff we'd need: Water filters and water containers (there are streams and such), any available weapons, any tools that arent already there, bring extra axes and saws etc. just in case. Also bring as much food as possible. Tents and sleeping bags are good to bring as options (has tent safety been discussed here yet?). Stock up on coffee and sugar for watchpeople.

Possible weapons in the area pretty much amount to knives, sports equipment and bows, from what I know. Oh, and boomerangs. Not a huge amount of guns around anyway. However if we happened past a police station (or army base, haha) we could check, but I figure it would be pretty well locked.
Hawknc wrote:Gotta love our political choices here - you can pick the unionised socially conservative party, or the free-market even more socially conservative party. Oh who to vote for…I don't know, I think I'll just flip a coin and hope it explodes and kills me.

Website

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Random832 » Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:06 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Whether a zombie is fast or slow, capable of speech or coherent thought or not, can we all at least agree that zombies are corpses - that is, dead human bodies - that are (somehow) walking and moving around?


No.

Zombies are a stock element of modern fiction, as created by George Romero and built on by others since then. Details (including, yes, whether it classically alive or animated by some alternative means) tend to vary. The cultural consensus is that such things as 28 days later, I am Legend, etc do qualify as a zombie scenario.

Jebobek wrote:A few times in this thread, to prevent zombie arguements from going circular with "Well, IF they could run" or "Well, IF they're 28-style zombies" we've been standardizing zombies as "Living dead, shabling around, if you get bit or possibly scratched you get infected, die, rise again."


I don't think that's necessary - you don't have to "go circular" to consider multiple possibilities - and we certainly haven't standardized whether already-dead corpses can rise, which is a much bigger tactical consideration than the nature of how they are animated.

If you actually do find yourself in such a scenario, you may simply have to experiment to find out - for instance - how to kill them; we've been taking for granted the need to destroy the head but that's only one possibility.

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Berengal » Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:50 pm UTC

Re: how to kill them. The two basic versions are that you either need to destroy the brain, or kill it like you kill an ordinary human (optionally, they may be able to sustain more injuries than a normal human, but in essence they die if beaten enough on). In either case, destroying the brain satisfies both conditions for death.
The third option is that zombies can't die, which you also see every now and then. In that case we're basically fucked no matter what, as even grinding them up would just net you a couple million pieces of angry zombie flesh trying to eat you. Burning them might still be an option...
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

User avatar
Yuri2356
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:00 pm UTC

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Yuri2356 » Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:04 pm UTC

Berengal wrote:Re: how to kill them. The two basic versions are that you either need to destroy the brain, or kill it like you kill an ordinary human (optionally, they may be able to sustain more injuries than a normal human, but in essence they die if beaten enough on). In either case, destroying the brain satisfies both conditions for death.
The third option is that zombies can't die, which you also see every now and then. In that case we're basically fucked no matter what, as even grinding them up would just net you a couple million pieces of angry zombie flesh trying to eat you. Burning them might still be an option...

But Zombie-mulch would be devoid of the mechanisms normally needed to wound a human, like motor control or sharp edges.

A sufficiently mutilated zombie is functionally inert, even if all of its parts are still undead and kickin'. That's really hard to do without a lot of prep time and gear, but it can be done.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3727
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:29 pm UTC

Surgery wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:ZSG is wrong on a few points:
A decent submachine gun is not as prone to failure as Max indicates and has a pretty decent range, the average person would likely be able to achieve similar effective range with a good SMG as with a rifle.

Range probably, but accuracy? Really doubtful. And if you aren't going to be accurate than what the hell's the point of range.


The average person is only going to be accurate out to around a hundred meters with a rifle anyway, and out to that range an SMG is generally going to be just as effective and accurate (depending on the SMG of course, an MP5 could do it, a skorpion probably couldn't)
really it depends on optics and such, but with similar optics, you'll get similar results out to around a hundred meters

Modern collimating optics (red dot sights) are a good compromise between a laser sight and an optical scope. Many use tritium or other such glowing materials to illuminate the sight so battery life concerns are avoided.

All of the affordable red dot sights I've seen (i.e. under $300, which I would imagine is what most people have) are battery powered. I think even the middle-class EOTechs ($400-$1000) are battery powered. The cheapest collimated optical sighting system I've seen that's tritium illuminated is the Trijicon ACOG at around $900.


True, but the ACOG is worth it.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Gunfingers » Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:35 pm UTC

Remember this isn't a firefight we're talking about either. I'd prefer a rifle or carbine even for close quarters marksmanship if we were talking about shootouts. But we're talking zombies. They won't be using cover, or going prone, or shooting back. They'll be charging you, making a straight bee-line. Heightened accuracy isn't important against a shambling wall of the undead. You just need to stop the bursts often enough that the recoil doesn't have you shooting straight up. SMGs, or Squad Assault Weapons if you're hardcore enough, are the way to go against zeds.

Xaddak
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Xaddak » Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:56 pm UTC

And then you run out of ammo and get eaten.
Are you on this forum? Do you play EVE? Then join the xkcd channel! In your chat window, click on the speech bubble in the upper right corner. In the window that opens, type in xkcd and hit join.

-X

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3727
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:23 pm UTC

you'd basically have to be Frank Castle or Rambo to use a SAW or other LMG against the brain-munching bunches except from a fortified position against a large number of the horrible horde.

This is another subject on which I must take issue with Max on. He believes that it would be better to use single shot weapons in all situations against the slavering swarm because an automatic weapon will leave plenty of living-unliving to deal with when you run out of ammo.
In reality, against a large group, a machine gun will be almost necessary to thin down the horde enough that you won't be over-run trying desperately to get enough shots off with single short or even semi-automatic weapons to make a dent in the advance of the terrible troop.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
OmegaLord
LXIX
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby OmegaLord » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:51 pm UTC

Phrozt. I am going to hit you. Your government lists being thrown to the horde as a choice for not being willing to serve. Serving is good. Adding another to the ranks of the enemy is bad, especially if they are at all intelligent. Which zombie will hate you more: the one you've never met or the one you threw to be eaten? Secondly, the "zombies get tired" theory is crap. However, physical exercise creates tiny tears in the muscles. Assuming that zombie cannot heal themselves (and you better pray that's the case), they will weaken over time as their muscles fall apart both from decay and use. The effect will be similar, although it will take much longer.
So what do you guys know about *glances down at sheet* the kingdoms of orgasms
but I just don't see why someone would tape themselves together.
Bear Police wrote:I got Ready to Die today. Took me too long. Great record.

User avatar
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: I am a child of the city of destruction . . . So, my location is the city of dectruction!
Contact:

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel » Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:05 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:The AK-47 is truly great

You are 100% right on that. It is the gun I would want. (Specifically Saddam Hussein's gold plated AK-47, but that is just a dream (also, I cant find the url where I got the picture of it from)

EdgarJPUblius wrote:repeating crossbows exist, obviating the strength/relaod time problems, such a crossbow would likely be lighter than a rifle and has the advantage that with some fletching skill you can make your own ammo with minimal materials. Though a rifle will have vastly more range and ammunition.

They do? How much would one cost? Would you need a firearms licence to get one? Is it possible to make one? I want one! :twisted:

A decent submachine gun is not as prone to failure as Max indicates and has a pretty decent range, the average person would likely be able to achieve similar effective range with a good SMG as with a rifle.

Depending on the sub-machine gun, it would be a very good idea. I do not recommend using a machine pistol because it would use up a lot of ammo (machine pistols most commonly use 9mm ammo and it would be best to use that 9mm ammo on a MP5 or a decent 9mm handgun) . . . If you were using a MP5, it might have the max range of a hunting/sporting rifle, but not any military rifle. If you use a sum-machine gun like a rifle, put it on semi-automatic. There's nothing like accidentally leaving a gun on full auto and trying to snipe something.

Surgery wrote:Range probably, but accuracy? Really doubtful. And if you aren't going to be accurate than what the hell's the point of range.

Shouldn't a rhetorical question have a question mark? Sorry . . . A sub-machine gun would be fairly accurate if you keep it on semi-automatic and attack a mini-scope to it.

Torvaun wrote:Really? Nuking will lead to mutated radioactive zombies? That's why the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki all have three arms and two heads and shit? Life. Is. Not. Fallout. And really, radioactive zombies are going to make it impossible to use melee or short range weapons? You're not actually worried about dying of cancer after the zombie apocalypse, are you? Because that's about how much radiation you're going to get from beating an irradiated zombie with a stick. Tops.

It could. I mean, if zombies can be real, what's to stop them from mutating from radiation? Yeah, it is. It might, if the zombies stay radioactive! Also, they might be able to store up the radiation in their rotting flesh and release it when you try to hit them with your baseball bat. Yes, we have to think of every possibility if we are to survive.

. . . ok, the effects of radiation on zombies might have been a bit much . . . but since we cant currently study the effects of radiation on zombies, we simply don't know.

Toeofdoom wrote:has tent safety been discussed here yet?

1: zombie finds you sleeping in a tent.
2: Zombie calls all his friends to the tent by yelling "arghhh! fooooood!!! arghhhh!"
3: Zombies pile up on your tent
4: your tent falls over
5: you are traped in a mess of rope, fabric and [possibly] tent poles (tent poles might make an ok improv weapon)
6: zombies eventually eat you and part of your tent
7: . . .
8: [zombies] profit!

Toeofdoom wrote:Oh, and boomerangs.

boomerangs are crap. My dad has one. They might be good for someone who realy knows how to use them, but not someone who hasn't had much experience using them.

Xaddak wrote:And then you run out of ammo and get eaten.

That's why we have machete's, baseball bats, knives, the butt of the rifle your using, crowbars, hammers (I cant believe that no one has mentioned using a hammer yet!) and other melee weapons.

WraithXt1
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:26 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby WraithXt1 » Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:19 pm UTC

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:The AK-47 is truly great

You are 100% right on that. It is the gun I would want. (Specifically Saddam Hussein's gold plated AK-47, but that is just a dream (also, I cant find the url where I got the picture of it from))


Why would you want that? it's gold plated making it heavy, and the gold will melt off once you start actualy shooting with it. I'd give it a two or three mags on auto before it dies on you.

EdgarJPublius wrote: ..the average person would likely be able to achieve similar effective range with a good SMG as with a rifle.

That's not true in the least bit. A nSMG round does NOT have the same effective range as ANY rifle, I dont care what weapon its in.

Surgery wrote:Range probably, but accuracy? Really doubtful. And if you aren't going to be accurate than what the hell's the point of range.


One thing video games and movies really destroy is the accuracy of nearly all weapons. On semi auto and MP5 for example can still hit a target out to 15 yards With a scope, and of course the right skill you can get a lot more out of it than people think. Full auto is another story, but the fact is that you can still hit your target if you want.

Now, what would I want as a weapon? Either what I can get my paws on, or if I have a choice one of the following, in the order I would take them m14>Dragunov>M16 Series>Ak47 Series

Of course you need a side arm, so I'd go for a Detonics .45 with as much .45 ammo as I could manage.

User avatar
Upsilon
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:53 am UTC
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Upsilon » Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:22 am UTC

I'd like an M1 carbine. Wikipedia tells me that it was intended as a close-range defensive weapon, and that's exactly what I'd be using a firearm for in the zombie apocalypse. And since they are still in production and are available for civilian use, acquiring one pre-outbreak shouldn't be too hard.
22/M/USA
age/sex/location
Spoiler:
Upsilon avatar from TaintedDeity.

User avatar
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: I am a child of the city of destruction . . . So, my location is the city of dectruction!
Contact:

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel » Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:42 am UTC

WraithXt1 wrote:
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:The AK-47 is truly great

You are 100% right on that. It is the gun I would want. (Specifically Saddam Hussein's gold plated AK-47, but that is just a dream (also, I cant find the url where I got the picture of it from))


Why would you want that? it's gold plated making it heavy, and the gold will melt off once you start actualy shooting with it. I'd give it a two or three mags on auto before it dies on you.

EdgarJPublius wrote: ..the average person would likely be able to achieve similar effective range with a good SMG as with a rifle.

That's not true in the least bit. A SMG round does NOT have the same effective range as ANY rifle, I dont care what weapon its in.

Surgery wrote:Range probably, but accuracy? Really doubtful. And if you aren't going to be accurate than what the hell's the point of range.


One thing video games and movies really destroy is the accuracy of nearly all weapons. On semi auto and MP5 for example can still hit a target out to 15 yards With a scope, and of course the right skill you can get a lot more out of it than people think. Full auto is another story, but the fact is that you can still hit your target if you want.

Now, what would I want as a weapon? Either what I can get my paws on, or if I have a choice one of the following, in the order I would take them m14>Dragunov>M16 Series>Ak47 Series

Of course you need a side arm, so I'd go for a Detonics .45 with as much .45 ammo as I could manage.

I didn't think of how heat would effect the gold . . . It's still one of the coolest guns that I have ever seen! :mrgreen:

What's the conversion of yards to metres?

Full auto is for when there are huge numbers of zombies and you don't have the time to aim . . . also, it's only good if you have enough ammo . . .

the M14 is a battle rifle rather than a sniper rifle, right?

Upsilon wrote:acquiring one pre-outbreak shouldn't be too hard.

I'm a post-outbreak kind of person (as in, I would be scavenging most of my weapons post-outbreak)

I see that SecondTalon edited one of my earlier posts . . . I guess I spelt SecondTalon wrong . . . Sorry
Last edited by Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel on Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:37 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ArchangelShrike
Rodan's Title
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:39 am UTC
Location: Waikiki

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby ArchangelShrike » Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:56 am UTC

OmegaLord wrote:Phrozt. I am going to hit you. Your government lists being thrown to the horde as a choice for not being willing to serve. Serving is good. Adding another to the ranks of the enemy is bad, especially if they are at all intelligent. Which zombie will hate you more: the one you've never met or the one you threw to be eaten? Secondly, the "zombies get tired" theory is crap. However, physical exercise creates tiny tears in the muscles. Assuming that zombie cannot heal themselves (and you better pray that's the case), they will weaken over time as their muscles fall apart both from decay and use. The effect will be similar, although it will take much longer.


Yes yes yes, if zombies are not outside of the laws of physics, muscles will break apart, zombies must expend energy to move which leads to a need for a food source or practically consuming their own bodies for death (whatever mechanism) and the notion about oceans - if 3000 meters of water will crush a human body, it should crush a reanimated human body. Zombies would not be able to walk along the ocean floor to travel from the Americas to Europe/Asia, for example, but as long as the mechanism for producing energy is anaerobic they would not need as much oxygen, unless all of the human systems has somehow been adapted to work without oxygen.

Lakes and rivers will not keep you safe, unless you have a cabin in the woods surrounded by rapids - then you could probably destroy whatever bridge that connects you to the outside world with tripwires or whatnot.

WraithXt1
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:26 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby WraithXt1 » Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:04 am UTC

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:I didn't think of how heat would effect the gold . . . It's still one of the coolest guns that I have ever seen! :mrgreen:

I agree, I'd love one to put on my wall, I can only imagine how much one would cost!!

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:What's the conversion of yards to metres?

1 yards = 0.9144 meters

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:Full auto is for when there are huge numbers of zombies and you don't have the time to aim . . . also, it's only good if you have enough ammo . . .

If you're using a 9mm or other small caliber SMG you're not going to have the penetration power to make the most of auto at close range. For example a battle rifle would tear through 5-6 zombies with devastating effect as opposed to a 9mm not penetrating one!

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:the M14 is a battle rifle rather than a sniper rifle, right?

Yes, the M14 is a battle rifle.

Upsilon wrote:I'd like an M1 carbine. Wikipedia tells me that it was intended as a close-range defensive weapon, and that's exactly what I'd be using a firearm for in the zombie apocalypse. And since they are still in production and are available for civilian use, acquiring one pre-outbreak shouldn't be too hard.


Really? It's an old and obsolete weapon with a weak round compared to other close range defensive weapons. You'd be much better off with an MP5 series weapon or even a P90. both are smaller with better handling. Do you REALLY want a weapon thats not going to drop a zombie on one hit though?

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3727
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:45 am UTC

WraithXt1 wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote: ..the average person would likely be able to achieve similar effective range with a good SMG as with a rifle.

That's not true in the least bit. A nSMG round does NOT have the same effective range as ANY rifle, I dont care what weapon its in.

Surgery wrote:Range probably, but accuracy? Really doubtful. And if you aren't going to be accurate than what the hell's the point of range.


One thing video games and movies really destroy is the accuracy of nearly all weapons. On semi auto and MP5 for example can still hit a target out to 15 yards With a scope, and of course the right skill you can get a lot more out of it than people think. Full auto is another story, but the fact is that you can still hit your target if you want.


True, but an average person won't be able to hit a target at the max effective range of a rifle, you need good eyesight and lots of practice to reliably hit targets even 300meters away, let alone 600-1000, even with good optics. With a rifle, shotgun slug or an SMG though, an average person with a reasonable amount of experience should be able to hit targets ~100 meters away.

WraithXt1 wrote:Now, what would I want as a weapon? Either what I can get my paws on, or if I have a choice one of the following, in the order I would take them m14>Dragunov>M16 Series>Ak47 Series

Of course you need a side arm, so I'd go for a Detonics .45 with as much .45 ammo as I could manage.

That is a horrible set of rankings. The M-14 is at least equivalent to an AK-47, if not better, and the Dragunov is far superior to the M-16.


Really? It's an old and obsolete weapon with a weak round compared to other close range defensive weapons. You'd be much better off with an MP5 series weapon or even a P90. both are smaller with better handling. Do you REALLY want a weapon thats not going to drop a zombie on one hit though?

Ah, now I understand, you have no idea what you're talking about.

An M-1 is a battle-rifle and as such, fires quite a hefty round, the .30-06 springfield, a round still prized by hunters for it's power and accuracy. True, it's less powerful than some WW1 era rounds, but compared to pea-shooters like the MP-5, it might as well be a tank shell.

the MP-5 fires 9mm para generally, like most SMG's, a pistol round (the various rounds fired by mp5 variants are also pistol rounds). The P-90 would be a better choice if it's power you want, as it fires a custom high-velocity round, but it still doesn't hold a candle to the good ole aught-6.

Incidentally, the M-14, which is basically a modernize M-1 according to some sources, fires the later .308 NATO, another battle rifle round, not quite an aught 6, but still a heckuva cartridge.
An experienced shooter with either of these fine guns (M-1 or M-14) and a decent optic could blow zeke's head off his rotting shoulders at hundreds of meters beyond the range at which even a p90's round starts to bounce off balloons.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: I am a child of the city of destruction . . . So, my location is the city of dectruction!
Contact:

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel » Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:07 am UTC

WraithXt1 wrote:
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:I didn't think of how heat would effect the gold . . . It's still one of the coolest guns that I have ever seen! :mrgreen:

I agree, I'd love one to put on my wall, I can only imagine how much one would cost!!

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:What's the conversion of yards to metres?

1 yards = 0.9144 meters

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:Full auto is for when there are huge numbers of zombies and you don't have the time to aim . . . also, it's only good if you have enough ammo . . .

If you're using a 9mm or other small caliber SMG you're not going to have the penetration power to make the most of auto at close range. For example a battle rifle would tear through 5-6 zombies with devastating effect as opposed to a 9mm not penetrating one!

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:the M14 is a battle rifle rather than a sniper rifle, right?

Yes, the M14 is a battle rifle.

Upsilon wrote:I'd like an M1 carbine. Wikipedia tells me that it was intended as a close-range defensive weapon, and that's exactly what I'd be using a firearm for in the zombie apocalypse. And since they are still in production and are available for civilian use, acquiring one pre-outbreak shouldn't be too hard.

Really? It's an old and obsolete weapon with a weak round compared to other close range defensive weapons. You'd be much better off with an MP5 series weapon or even a P90. both are smaller with better handling. Do you REALLY want a weapon thats not going to drop a zombie on one hit though?

Just the clip would cost more than my car and computer. The funny thing is, it was given to him as a gift!

Thank you.

From what I gather, 9mm is the most common ammo for handguns and sub-machine guns. I have only heard of 3 sub-machine guns that specifically use .45 (Thompson submachine gun, P90 and I cant remember the other one) I don't know any sub-machine guns that use .50. Note: the P90 comes in several different ammunition calibres (.45, 9mm and .22 (maybe more, but that's what I remember from the wikipedia article))

I would love to have a Thompson submachine gun or a P90 or both . . . They wouldn't be too great for zombie killing because they are not ment for accuracy, they simply use the idea of "lots of bullets realy fast kill everything" . . . It would be good to do this if I had either of them (or both of them) : Get a ute/pick up truck/flat-bed truck and put 3 people on the back. Two of them have the Thompson submachine guns/P90's and one of them has an accurate rifle of some kind (sporting/hunting/sniper rifle) and the truck drives around town. The SMG-guys mow down anything that gets close to the truck, rifle-guy shoots zombies that are not trying to climb on the truck. The driver of the truck has someone beside him with a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, shotgun-guy shoots any zombies that try to get inside the truck. The front of the truck has bull-bars on it. The windows are reinforced so that nothing can get in or smashed out so that shotgun-guy can shoot at things . . . I think I like the second one. lol.

EdgarJPublius wrote:That is a horrible set of rankings. The M-14 is at least equivalent to an AK-47, if not better, and the Dragunov is far superior to the M-16.

I kinda agree. The SVT Dragunov is a sniper rifle based on the AK-47 design (according to wikipedia, I think). It would be better at long range, but when the zombies get close, you're going to want something that can quickly fire lots of bullets (M16 has a 30 round mag, the dragunov has 5 or 10) . . . AK-47 would be much better than a battle rifle. On some game I used the M14 . . . I found it to be useless when I had a M16. The M16 has less range, but more power and more rounds.

WraithXt1 wrote:Of course you need a side arm, so I'd go for a Detonics .45 with as much .45 ammo as I could manage.

I agree with the calibre, not the brand. Colt .45 ACP M1911A1 would be my pick. Well, a pair of them. And the local gun shop just happens to have a pair (one black and one gray, easy to tell apart) for about $500 each.

EdgarJPublius wrote:An experienced shooter with either of these fine guns (M-1 or M-14) and a decent optic could blow zeke's head off his rotting shoulders at hundreds of meters beyond the range at which even a p90's round starts to bounce off balloons.

Bouncing off balloons?
Attachments
Saddam Hussein's gold plated AK-47.jpg
Saddam Hussein's gold plated AK-47.jpg (12.83 KiB) Viewed 47513 times

User avatar
Surgery
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:22 am UTC
Location: Western New York

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Surgery » Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:07 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
Surgery wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:ZSG is wrong on a few points:
A decent submachine gun is not as prone to failure as Max indicates and has a pretty decent range, the average person would likely be able to achieve similar effective range with a good SMG as with a rifle.

Range probably, but accuracy? Really doubtful. And if you aren't going to be accurate than what the hell's the point of range.


The average person is only going to be accurate out to around a hundred meters with a rifle anyway, and out to that range an SMG is generally going to be just as effective and accurate (depending on the SMG of course, an MP5 could do it, a skorpion probably couldn't)
really it depends on optics and such, but with similar optics, you'll get similar results out to around a hundred meters

Modern collimating optics (red dot sights) are a good compromise between a laser sight and an optical scope. Many use tritium or other such glowing materials to illuminate the sight so battery life concerns are avoided.

All of the affordable red dot sights I've seen (i.e. under $300, which I would imagine is what most people have) are battery powered. I think even the middle-class EOTechs ($400-$1000) are battery powered. The cheapest collimated optical sighting system I've seen that's tritium illuminated is the Trijicon ACOG at around $900.


True, but the ACOG is worth it.

In reality the accuracy of a weapon fired from a gun vise is going to depend on the manufacturer and condition of the weapon as well as the ammunition being fired from it. What I should have said was that the average person will be less accurate with an SMG, primarily because most people would think full-auto = better and not fire in semi-auto. Also, I agree about the ACOG, but I think most civilians who own red-dot sights or other collimating opticals do not own ACOGs or anything similar.

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:I kinda agree. The SVT Dragunov is a sniper rifle based on the AK-47 design (according to wikipedia, I think). It would be better at long range, but when the zombies get close, you're going to want something that can quickly fire lots of bullets (M16 has a 30 round mag, the dragunov has 5 or 10) . . . AK-47 would be much better than a battle rifle. On some game I used the M14 . . . I found it to be useless when I had a M16. The M16 has less range, but more power and more rounds.

First off, you do realize you can buy different size clips for the same gun, right? I have 10 rd and 30 rd clips for my ar-15, and they make them from 5 rounds up to 200 rounds for that rifle also. And: the M16 has more power? The M14 uses 7.62NATO, and the M16 uses 5.56NATO
Image
5.56NATO on left, 7.62NATO on right.
I guess if by power you mean force applied by bullet on collision with target, well, the .223 is generally a faster round (being light and all) but the .308 is quite a bit heavier, so I don't know for certain. But if I wanted to do a lot of damage with one shot, I'd go with the .308.
Last edited by Surgery on Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:09 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

WraithXt1
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:26 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby WraithXt1 » Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:09 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
WraithXt1 wrote:Now, what would I want as a weapon? Either what I can get my paws on, or if I have a choice one of the following, in the order I would take them m14>Dragunov>M16 Series>Ak47 Series

Of course you need a side arm, so I'd go for a Detonics .45 with as much .45 ammo as I could manage.

That is a horrible set of rankings. The M-14 is at least equivalent to an AK-47, if not better, and the Dragunov is far superior to the M-16.


That's my ranking, based on what I would chose. It's my opinion based on my own personal experience with each weapon, also, the M14 is my Top pick, not last. I chose the Dragunov based on the assumption that I would be getting the latest one with synthetic furniture and a folding stock with a new PSO scope. I chose the M14 because I know the M14 inside and out, and it's a damned reliable weapon. Again, all synthetic, no wood. I know the AK47 fairly well, and as amazing of a weapon as it is I do prefer the M16 to it because I've used the m16 so many times.

EdgarJPublius wrote:
Ah, now I understand, you have no idea what you're talking about.

An M-1 is a battle-rifle and as such, fires quite a hefty round, the .30-06 springfield, a round still prized by hunters for it's power and accuracy. True, it's less powerful than some WW1 era rounds, but compared to pea-shooters like the MP-5, it might as well be a tank shell.

the MP-5 fires 9mm para generally, like most SMG's, a pistol round (the various rounds fired by mp5 variants are also pistol rounds). The P-90 would be a better choice if it's power you want, as it fires a custom high-velocity round, but it still doesn't hold a candle to the good ole aught-6.

Incidentally, the M-14, which is basically a modernize M-1 according to some sources, fires the later .308 NATO, another battle rifle round, not quite an aught 6, but still a heckuva cartridge.
An experienced shooter with either of these fine guns (M-1 or M-14) and a decent optic could blow zeke's head off his rotting shoulders at hundreds of meters beyond the range at which even a p90's round starts to bounce off balloons.


I have no idea what I'm talking about? Really? Why dont you get a damn clue and re read what I was talking about. He said M1 carbine, it's not the same weapon. Next post you make, I'd expect a nice apology for acting like a douche for no reason.

Also, as someone who's used, fired, and broken down both an M1 and an M14 and who has studied the history behind both weapons I can tell you that the M-14 is a revision of the M1, Its not an "according to some sources" thing. I guess you might not know that if you're another Wikipedia armchair General.

Also, the P90 fires what comes down to being a smaller 5.56 round designed for greater armor penetration than a conventional SMG round. A P90 round isnt going to be bouncing off of anything at any range.

I'm looking forward to my apology.


Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:
WraithXt1 wrote: Of course you need a side arm, so I'd go for a Detonics .45 with as much .45 ammo as I could manage.

I agree with the calibre, not the brand. Colt .45 ACP M1911A1 would be my pick. Well, a pair of them. And the local gun shop just happens to have a pair (one black and one gray, easy to tell apart) for about $500 each.


As cool as two guns look, it's just not practical, at all. Think about it, you fire off 8 rounds with your two 1911's and then what? How do you reload? Do you put one down or what?

Also, the Detonics .45 is a cut down 1911A1. I chose it due to its small frame since I would preffer to carry a larger weapon such as the Dragunov or M14.

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:An experienced shooter with either of these fine guns (M-1 or M-14) and a decent optic could blow zeke's head off his rotting shoulders at hundreds of meters beyond the range at which even a p90's round starts to bounce off balloons.

Bouncing off balloons?


He's trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about when it comes to firearms.

User avatar
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: I am a child of the city of destruction . . . So, my location is the city of dectruction!
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:20 am UTC

WraithXt1 wrote:
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:I kinda agree. The SVT Dragunov is a sniper rifle based on the AK-47 design (according to wikipedia, I think). It would be better at long range, but when the zombies get close, you're going to want something that can quickly fire lots of bullets (M16 has a 30 round mag, the dragunov has 5 or 10) . . . AK-47 would be much better than a battle rifle. On some game I used the M14 . . . I found it to be useless when I had a M16. The M16 has less range, but more power and more rounds.

First off, you do realize you can buy different size clips for the same gun, right? I have 10 rd and 30 rd clips for my ar-15, and they make them from 5 rounds up to 200 rounds for that rifle also. And: the M16 has more power? The M14 uses 7.62NATO, and the M16 uses 5.56NATO
Image
5.56NATO on left, 7.62NATO on right.
I guess if by power you mean force applied by bullet on collision with target, well, the .223 is generally a faster round (being light and all) but the .308 is quite a bit heavier, so I don't know for certain. But if I wanted to do a lot of damage with one shot, I'd go with the .308.

I know that you can get different clip sizes for all guns, I was just meaning that was what is standard for that gun.

Ok, I was wrong on the M16 having more power . . . I guess the game I was playing (it was something like rainbow six raven shield, I think) wasn't accurate . . . damn.

Wouldn't heavier/bigger do more damage . . . but be a bit harder to aim because of it falling to the ground faster from being heavier? . . . I might be over thinking things . . .

WraithXt1 wrote:That's my ranking, based on what I would chose. It's my opinion based on my own personal experience with each weapon, also, the M14 is my Top pick, not last. I chose the Dragunov based on the assumption that I would be getting the latest one with synthetic furniture and a folding stock with a new PSO scope. I chose the M14 because I know the M14 inside and out, and it's a damned reliable weapon. Again, all synthetic, no wood. I know the AK47 fairly well, and as amazing of a weapon as it is I do prefer the M16 to it because I've used the m16 so many times.

So a gun you know is better than a gun that is actually better? . . . I would chose a better gun that I had less experience with (mainly because I have no experience with guns, I would more likely bet a bow and/or crossbow rather than a rifle because I have the experience. But when I run out of ammo, I would defiantly be using the rifle (although this is assuming that I don't leave my hide out)

WraithXt1 wrote:As cool as two guns look, it's just not practical, at all. Think about it, you fire off 8 rounds with your two 1911's and then what? How do you reload? Do you put one down or what?

I seem to either write too much or not enough. I would not use them both at the same time, I would carry both and use one at a time. (If it wasn't obvious, they would be in holsters on my belt and/or sholder) What happens if a zombie finds me while I'm reloading one of them and I cant shoot it because I'm reloading? I would pull out the other gun and shoot it, that's what. Also, if I ever loose one, then I have another to use. Although, if I'm in a room [that I've never been in before] that has like 4 or 5 entrances, then I might have one gun pointed in one direction and the other pointed in another direction. (as long as I don't have a shotgun or rifle or something)

WraithXt1 wrote:Also, the Detonics .45 is a cut down 1911A1. I chose it due to its small frame since I would preffer to carry a larger weapon such as the Dragunov or M14.

Why not have more than one gun? Both the .45 and the M14!

I would have the pair of .45's, some knives and a rifle/shotgun/large melee weapon . . . if I could. 8)

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:An experienced shooter with either of these fine guns (M-1 or M-14) and a decent optic could blow zeke's head off his rotting shoulders at hundreds of meters beyond the range at which even a p90's round starts to bounce off balloons.

Bouncing off balloons?

He's trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about when it comes to firearms.[/quote]
I hate when people do that! At least I tell you guys that most of my knowledge comes from computer games and/or wikipedia!

Also, if people didn't notice; I put the picture of Saddam Hussain's gold plated AK-45 in my signature. I want to see the bullets fired from it, maybe they are tipped with diamonds or something cool like that!

What do people think of the Colt .45 long-barrel peacemaker? It is a simple design, it fires .45, the long barrel would increase range. What do people think?
Attachments
colt .45 peacemaker.jpg
When being Rambo sucks, become a cowboy! Yeha!
colt .45 peacemaker.jpg (14.77 KiB) Viewed 4534 times

WraithXt1
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:26 pm UTC

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby WraithXt1 » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:01 am UTC

So a gun you know is better than a gun that is actually better?


When people say "this weapon is better than this weapon" it's all subjective. Some are better for x and some are better for y. I chose weapons I know and like for various reasons.

So what happens when I chose a weapon that I dont know how to break down and clean, or properly clear a jam with? I'm right fucked if that happens.

And since you've never actually carried an M16 and an M9 pistol at the same time you cant understand that carrying another pistol or a shotgun on top of that is TOO FUCKING MUCH for any one person to carry. It will only slow you down and get you killed. Even a pistol as a backup is debatable.

User avatar
aion7
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:43 am UTC
Location: In a base with which you identify, killing dudes to whose team you belong

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby aion7 » Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:33 pm UTC

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:Wouldn't heavier/bigger do more damage . . . but be a bit harder to aim because of it falling to the ground faster from being heavier? . . . I might be over thinking things . . .


Everything falls at the same rate.
Spoiler:
Zeroignite wrote:And you have suddenly become awesome.

joshz wrote:Oh, you so win.

internets++ for aion7.

jerdak wrote:Nothing says hello like a coconut traveling near the speed of light.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26531
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:41 pm UTC

WraithXt1 wrote:When people say "this weapon is better than this weapon" it's all subjective. Some are better for x and some are better for y. I chose weapons I know and like for various reasons.
Even cleaning issues aside, if a weapon this thread deems "inferior" for whatever reason happens to be one you know how to use well (especially if you own one), it's going to be the better choice for *you*, because.. you know how it works. Especially if you own one. Especially in the case of firearms. A random gun is not very likely to be sighted properly... of course, unless you know the Preferred Official Method of sighting a gun, it's likely one you own isn't sighted properly either - but you know how your gun shoots. You know you need to aim slightly to the left because you've never bothered to fix the sights but you know it so why bother because it hasn't been a problem yet. You won't know that about a random gun until you're actually trying to use it.

Same thing for any sort of blade or bludgeon. If you have no real idea on how to swing a sledge for an hour or so in an efficient way, but you play a shitton of baseball and can stay in the batting cage for hours - use a baseball bat, not a sledgehammer.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Jebobek » Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:14 pm UTC

So in the case of zombie attacks, what would be the best gun for me, my noobish self, to pick up and start shooting? Best answer is "NONE, learn to use a gun, or let someone else use it," but if I HAD to take a gun?

Actually, we had TodayIsTomorrow help us out with gun questions a while back. He knew alot of gun stuff. Here's what he had to say about what would possibly be the best guns to start off with:
For a newbie to pick something up and fire it without a problem would be an issue if they've never fired anything in their lives. If you've had any experience at all then it'd be significantly easier. For pistols, its a tossup between a .38 Special revolver and the 1911. The .38 is so simple that a 4 year old can use it (for the love of GOD, don't give a 4 year old a firearm). It has a hammer, a trigger, and the cylinder release. Its single action most of the time, though there are a few doubles out there. Pretty much, if its loaded, you pull the hammer back, point, pull the trigger. The 1911 is one of the most user-friendly automatic's ever created. If you hold the pistol and hold your arm out, you're already looking down the sites. It has a grip safety, a slide safety, the slide release, and the magazine release. Its a single action automatic, so you have to either pull the hammer back on the first round if its down, or rack the slide if there is not a round in the chamber. Like I said before, its one of the easiest pointing pistols in existance, making it a favorite for competition shooting.

For rifles, its a little tougher. If we're going with a rifle that has no optics, then it'd be the AK47. It never jams (we've tried, you can't do it unless you FILL it with sand), is accurate out to about 100 metres, has both semi and fully automatic, and there is an abundance of ammo. The M16 is also a good choice, but is far more finicky. It likes to jam if it isn't perfectly clean, will jam if the magazine is even slightly bent (which is apt to happen if you land on your magazines when you hit the dirt), and honestly has sites that are more difficult to use. If you've got optics on the weapon though, almost every assault rifle ever made can be shot with a good degree of accuracy from even really really strange positions and even one handed. The Aimpoint sites that we use on our M16's now are a god-send for people with no shooting experience. Once you have it zeroed, if you put the dot on the target and pull the trigger, the bullet is going into the dot. Even if the dot is way off to the side of the scope, its still going to hit.

The ultimate newbie weapon is truly the 12 Ga. shotgun though. There's nothing simpler until you have to reload. You rack the slide, point in the general direction, pull the trigger, target is full of holes.

The best arsenal you can have going into combat, if you've got no experience shooting, and a pair of brass balls, is an AK-47, and a 9mm 1911 variant. The shotgun is great for close in work, but ammo is really hard to come by. Everyone outside the US uses 7.62 to feed their AKs and 9mm is so common it isn't even funny.
Ammo as we've noted is a factor, and this might not apply to zombies..
Let the enemy be your quartermaster. Once you're out of ammo, pick up their stuff. Pretty much every AK has the same operating controls, and just about every semi-automatic pistol in existance has the same controls unless you find some of the more odd-ball russian and german stuff.
So zombies won't be holding ammo for you (unless you're trapped in a video game or the army has been zombified), but carrying a weapon where ammo is plentiful is obviously important.
Image

User avatar
Susy
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:44 pm UTC
Location: Monterrey, Nuevo Léon, México
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Susy » Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:23 pm UTC

Torvaun wrote:Shotguns are not best. They shred and maim, which works wonders on living creatures, but won't kill zombies unless you hit the head. The ammunition is heavier and bulkier per shot than a rifle. It's a good choice if you're going raider, and murdering other survivors for your supplies, but other than that, no.

I don't know what you're talking about with the salt thing. If you're talking about rock salt as a deterrence load in the shotgun, that's a terrible idea. It won't kill zombies, it won't kill people, and it'll drastically increase the amount of maintenance you'll have to do to keep your gun in working condition.


I still think shout guns are the best. One shot takes a lot of damage. And is one of the top 5 weapons to kill a zombie. (do have an article on that, if you wish I can share it)

Salt thing, no, not has a deterrence...we do know there a severals types of zombies, one of them are these "returned" zombies, which in theory (acc. to voodo folkore) if they are fed with salt they will go back to the grave (salt kills them)...

User avatar
Phrozt
Posts: 465
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby Phrozt » Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:38 pm UTC

OmegaLord wrote:Phrozt. I am going to hit you. Your government lists being thrown to the horde as a choice for not being willing to serve. Serving is good. Adding another to the ranks of the enemy is bad, especially if they are at all intelligent. Which zombie will hate you more: the one you've never met or the one you threw to be eaten? Secondly, the "zombies get tired" theory is crap. However, physical exercise creates tiny tears in the muscles. Assuming that zombie cannot heal themselves (and you better pray that's the case), they will weaken over time as their muscles fall apart both from decay and use. The effect will be similar, although it will take much longer.


It's for scare factor. It would be assumed that if we threw someone to the horde, we'd watch them get torn up and then dispatch them along w/the zombies that came to feast on the person. Being ripped apart alive would be much more of a deterrent than a simple execution. Also, this is for people who AREN'T serving, so you're not losing an asset, and you're getting rid of a liability.

Ok, physical exercise creates muscle tears. That's cool. However, throwing a spear at them isn't going to be much more significant than their normal "life" span. Yeah, they're going to walk with a limp, but they're going to go almost as long as they would if they weren't wounded. This has been discussed to great lengths. You're not going to see a zombie with a spear in his back stop and say, "Whoa wait... hold on a second guys... my back is KILLING me...."

EdgarJPublius wrote:True, but an average person won't be able to hit a target at the max effective range of a rifle, you need good eyesight and lots of practice to reliably hit targets even 300meters away, let alone 600-1000, even with good optics. With a rifle, shotgun slug or an SMG though, an average person with a reasonable amount of experience should be able to hit targets ~100 meters away.


No.... just... no. For RIFLES, people who regularly shoot should be DECENTLY accurate (I'd say 75% hits and MAYBE 25% headshots). With a slug/SMG, no. Shooting competitions (read: controlled environment, professionals, non-moving target) have courses from 50 ft to 100meters for small bore rifles ( http://www.nrahq.org/compete/smallbore.asp ). So with a slug/smg, in an uncontrolled environment, against moving targets, as a scared citizen w/little shooting skill on average (you said average person), there's no way in hell you're going to be anything close to accurate at 100 meters, much less get a single headshot.



How exactly does everyone have a cache of military grade armaments available to them? Why not choose something practical as a weapon? A .22 pistol and a good ol' Ruger semi-auto rifle is perfect ( http://www.ruger-firearms.com/firearms/ ... &famlst=39 ). It's simple, effective, easy to maintain, and plentiful (can be found in any wal-mart with a gun counter). Not as heavy as other rifles, so it wouldn't be quite as effective in close combat, but it'll still pack some punch if needed. Gun newbies should have ABSOLUTELY no problem handling one of these, because of their simplicity and the fact that there's practically no kick at ALL. Ammo is plentiful and a lot lighter than other calibers.

Hell, my old ruger is already perfect, because I have two 30 round clips taped together. 60 rounds in a lightweight, easy-to reload configuration? Yes please.

Seriously people...

User avatar
Torvaun
Posts: 2615
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: 47°9′S, 126°43′W
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Torvaun » Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:02 pm UTC

I have a bunch of rifles and shotguns available to me because my dad and both grandfathers are hunters and NRA members. With under 10 miles of total travel from where I'm sitting right now, I'm sure I could lay hands on 30 guns in an assortment of 12 gauge shotguns, 20 gauge shotguns, .22 rifles, .243 rifles, and .30-06 rifles. And a hand loader for reusing cartridges. Scopes for some, not all.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.


Return to “Gaming”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests