Analyzing/Explaining the Best/Most Common Zombie Weapons

[Shrantic]

Oh, and in regards to volley fire, I'm thinking of holding the bolt with your index finger and thumb, and pulling the trigger with the middle finger.

[Fresnel]

Shrantic

Fresnel

Shrantic

Fresnel

Shrantic

I didn't know you could volley fire a Mosin.

...Bah, those burly Russians can do anything. xp

Don't see why. You can volley fire anything, assuming it's got the sights for it.

With every mosin I've seen, they've got this weird bolt that sort of stops when bringing it up, which you need to push a bit further to be able to pull back and eject the spent casing.

I probably described that pretty terribly.

Perhaps I described my thoughts wrong. I dunno what you're thinking for volley fire, but I'm thinking "indirect fire."

You know, you complain about the accuracy of ALL your guns. This trend tells me something. IT'S YOU. That's the only common denominator.

That's because ALL of my guns are cheap hunting rifles bought from relatives after they were too old to shoot anymore. The .22 we took from my grandfather when he stopped using it. They also haven't been cleaned in the past DECADE, so they're all in terrible shape. Except for the .22, which we cleaned recently.

The parts that we thought were black were actually silver, and prior to cleaning, the rifling in the bore was not visible.

And for the shotgun we were using, we think it's the slugs. My brother Scott made the same groups at 50 yards with it, and he made slightly larger groups than me with all the other guns.

To be perfectly honest, none of the guns we own are reputable and they all cost us under 250 bucks.

Eh, I've got rifles older than most living humans. The Enfield from 1916, the Mossberg from 1944... they're still perfectly accurate today. Generally, age doesn't affect a gun a whole lot. But with those groups, I'm starting to wonder about your prowess.

Quote:

Quote:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HGGCgzVa6lw/SP-KEeWsKkI/AAAAAAAAAJk/Z0kWSLePZJc/s400/dysfunction.jpg

gonk

Disturbing to realize it's true, no?

As to volley fire, wikipedia says this: "In military parlance a volley is a simultaneous discharge of weapons, such as a volley of musket fire, or a broadside from a warship." What you described is simply an alternate method of shooting the gun, AFAIK it's unnamed. I prefer it though. Prevents thumb-in-mouth disease when firing big guns.

[Shrantic]

Fresnel

Shrantic

Fresnel

Shrantic

Fresnel

Don't see why. You can volley fire anything, assuming it's got the sights for it.

With every mosin I've seen, they've got this weird bolt that sort of stops when bringing it up, which you need to push a bit further to be able to pull back and eject the spent casing.

I probably described that pretty terribly.

Perhaps I described my thoughts wrong. I dunno what you're thinking for volley fire, but I'm thinking "indirect fire."

You know, you complain about the accuracy of ALL your guns. This trend tells me something. IT'S YOU. That's the only common denominator.

That's because ALL of my guns are cheap hunting rifles bought from relatives after they were too old to shoot anymore. The .22 we took from my grandfather when he stopped using it. They also haven't been cleaned in the past DECADE, so they're all in terrible shape. Except for the .22, which we cleaned recently.

The parts that we thought were black were actually silver, and prior to cleaning, the rifling in the bore was not visible.

And for the shotgun we were using, we think it's the slugs. My brother Scott made the same groups at 50 yards with it, and he made slightly larger groups than me with all the other guns.

To be perfectly honest, none of the guns we own are reputable and they all cost us under 250 bucks.

Eh, I've got rifles older than most living humans. The Enfield from 1916, the Mossberg from 1944... they're still perfectly accurate today. Generally, age doesn't affect a gun a whole lot. But with those groups, I'm starting to wonder about your prowess.

Were they maintained better than "make sure you don't drop that in the mud, Jeffrey!" Because that's pretty much the only care these cheap Marlins ever got. Though, after cleaning the .22, I can now hit a penny at 50 yards, so that's looking better. Previously, it was making +2in groups, which is pretty damn terrible for a rifle. (Still has pretty significant bullet drop at 100 yards, though.)

I know I'm just barely a "passable" marksman, but I can tell when it's me screwing up from flinching before recoil, and when the bullet's just not hitting POA.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HGGCgzVa6lw/SP-KEeWsKkI/AAAAAAAAAJk/Z0kWSLePZJc/s400/dysfunction.jpg

gonk

Disturbing to realize it's true, no?

As to volley fire, wikipedia says this: "In military parlance a volley is a simultaneous discharge of weapons, such as a volley of musket fire, or a broadside from a warship." What you described is simply an alternate method of shooting the gun, AFAIK it's unnamed. I prefer it though. Prevents thumb-in-mouth disease when firing big guns.

Ah. Guess I was wrong about volley fire.

Meh. Never fired a bolt-action anyways. I've seen them and examined them a bit at gun shops, but have never gotten the opportunity to shoot one.

[Fresnel]

Shrantic

Fresnel

Shrantic

Fresnel

Shrantic

With every mosin I've seen, they've got this weird bolt that sort of stops when bringing it up, which you need to push a bit further to be able to pull back and eject the spent casing.

I probably described that pretty terribly.

Perhaps I described my thoughts wrong. I dunno what you're thinking for volley fire, but I'm thinking "indirect fire."

You know, you complain about the accuracy of ALL your guns. This trend tells me something. IT'S YOU. That's the only common denominator.

That's because ALL of my guns are cheap hunting rifles bought from relatives after they were too old to shoot anymore. The .22 we took from my grandfather when he stopped using it. They also haven't been cleaned in the past DECADE, so they're all in terrible shape. Except for the .22, which we cleaned recently.

The parts that we thought were black were actually silver, and prior to cleaning, the rifling in the bore was not visible.

And for the shotgun we were using, we think it's the slugs. My brother Scott made the same groups at 50 yards with it, and he made slightly larger groups than me with all the other guns.

To be perfectly honest, none of the guns we own are reputable and they all cost us under 250 bucks.

Eh, I've got rifles older than most living humans. The Enfield from 1916, the Mossberg from 1944... they're still perfectly accurate today. Generally, age doesn't affect a gun a whole lot. But with those groups, I'm starting to wonder about your prowess.

Were they maintained better than "make sure you don't drop that in the mud, Jeffrey!" Because that's pretty much the only care these cheap Marlins ever got. Though, after cleaning the .22, I can now hit a penny at 50 yards, so that's looking better. Previously, it was making +2in groups, which is pretty damn terrible for a rifle. (Still has pretty significant bullet drop at 100 yards, though.)

I know I'm just barely a "passable" marksman, but I can tell when it's me screwing up from flinching before recoil, and when the bullet's just not hitting POA.

Alright, a penny at 50 yards isn't bad for a .22. But in the 50 yards between 50 and 100, several inches of drop is very odd.

The Enfield was manufactured in 1916. WW1 ended in 1917. It's entirely possible that my rifle saw action in the trenches. So it probably WAS dropped in the mud, along with being dropped in various other unsavory substances. And probably bayoneted into the ground and used as a tent pole at least once.

[washu_2004]

Fresnel

washu_2004

Firearms:

Benelli Vinci 12 gauge shotgun, Because it can do a good amount of damage at close range where most fighting will occur. Also the ammo is pretty common so I would be able to obtain a large amount of it with little to no difficulty from a gun shop.

That's a semi-auto bird gun. You would SHATTER that thing putting buckshot through it.

Quote:

Remington Model 700, Because it is an accurate rifle that can easily drop a man (which is what this kind zombie is effectively) at range, and the ammo is also reasonably easy to come by. It is also very easy to maintain.

You know, the 700 comes in about twenty calibers. Also, the magazine is non-removable and only holds four or five rounds. Reloads come slow and often.

Quote:

Colt M1911 Pistol: A common sporting shooters pistol with easy to obtain ammo. It would make an ideal 'emergency weapon' in case of a jam.

Melee:
Notes: Melee should always be a last option. Hand to hand combat against an opponent who knows neither fear or pain is not exactly practical. That said I would use these weapons.

Katana: good for close combat.

Not really, no.

Quote:

Combat Knife: useful for a variety of tasks apart from combat.

A good knife is a survival staple. Just don't get some Kit Rae piece of s**t and call it a combat knife.

Quote:

Sledgehammer: A useful tool and can double as a weapon
Axe: Same here, dual use tool (I will also need firewood so an axe might be useful)

Anything you can do I can do better, I can do anything better than you...

What do you expect a sledge to do that an axe can't?

Quote:

My survival strategy would be to establish a base of operations in defensible area with a good field of vision and team up with some friends so that a round the clock watch could be established at the base and foraging missions could be undertaken with greater safety. when foraging/scavenging and my group encountered some zombies we would evade if possible and fight only if unavoidable, this would conserve our ammo for when it absolutely needed for our survival.

Sounds both generic and idealistic.

At least with my choices I do not have to raid an army base to get them. I was working off the idea that the weapon choices would be the things that I could get with about a months notice. Every choice I made can be bought at a gun shop or at a hardware store.

As for the shotgun I would not use birdshot, I would use buckshot which has fewer but larger pellets or slugs instead and both of these ammo types are still easily obtained from a gun shop.

And the Remington Model 700P has a detachable magazine and is available for purchase by the general public.

A sledgehammer is better (and safer) as a tool for driving in posts or using with a wedge to split logs than an axe since it has a better balance for this task.

[uryu ishida]

washu_2004

Fresnel

washu_2004

Firearms:

Benelli Vinci 12 gauge shotgun, Because it can do a good amount of damage at close range where most fighting will occur. Also the ammo is pretty common so I would be able to obtain a large amount of it with little to no difficulty from a gun shop.

That's a semi-auto bird gun. You would SHATTER that thing putting buckshot through it.

Quote:

Remington Model 700, Because it is an accurate rifle that can easily drop a man (which is what this kind zombie is effectively) at range, and the ammo is also reasonably easy to come by. It is also very easy to maintain.

You know, the 700 comes in about twenty calibers. Also, the magazine is non-removable and only holds four or five rounds. Reloads come slow and often.

Quote:

Colt M1911 Pistol: A common sporting shooters pistol with easy to obtain ammo. It would make an ideal 'emergency weapon' in case of a jam.

Melee:
Notes: Melee should always be a last option. Hand to hand combat against an opponent who knows neither fear or pain is not exactly practical. That said I would use these weapons.

Katana: good for close combat.

Not really, no.

Quote:

Combat Knife: useful for a variety of tasks apart from combat.

A good knife is a survival staple. Just don't get some Kit Rae piece of s**t and call it a combat knife.

Quote:

Sledgehammer: A useful tool and can double as a weapon
Axe: Same here, dual use tool (I will also need firewood so an axe might be useful)

Anything you can do I can do better, I can do anything better than you...

What do you expect a sledge to do that an axe can't?

Quote:

My survival strategy would be to establish a base of operations in defensible area with a good field of vision and team up with some friends so that a round the clock watch could be established at the base and foraging missions could be undertaken with greater safety. when foraging/scavenging and my group encountered some zombies we would evade if possible and fight only if unavoidable, this would conserve our ammo for when it absolutely needed for our survival.

Sounds both generic and idealistic.

At least with my choices I do not have to raid an army base to get them. I was working off the idea that the weapon choices would be the things that I could get with about a months notice. Every choice I made can be bought at a gun shop or at a hardware store.

As for the shotgun I would not use birdshot, I would use buckshot which has fewer but larger pellets or slugs instead and both of these ammo types are still easily obtained from a gun shop.

And the Remington Model 700P has a detachable magazine and is available for purchase by the general public.

A sledgehammer is better (and safer) as a tool for driving in posts or using with a wedge to split logs than an axe since it has a better balance for this task.

And all of us regulars already own most of our things, or can get them TODAY if needed. Your point?

He didn't say that's all you would had, he said that using buckshot would BREAK IT. It's a BIRD GUN. It is calibrated and built for BIRDSHOT. A heavy-recoiling round like #00 or #00O (and doubly for slugs) would break it, and quick. It was built SPECIFICALLY for use as a bird gun, with bird shot. With the same failings as any semi-automatic shotgun.

Remington doesn't sell a 700P. According to their page, none of their models come with a removable magazine, BECAUSE IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME ACTION. SOME come with hinged floorplates, but all that does is allow the user to EMPTY the magazine easily. Nothing more. Also, they make a single Special Purpose rifle with a removable magazine, and it comes with ONE magazine, and that still holds FOUR rounds. It also has a 26" (or 28" wink barrel, and has no sights on it at all. Looking again, I notice that MOST of them don't have sights! Or rails! Just drilled 'n tapped.

Have you handled BOTH? I've noticed, handling both, that the balance and weight is damn near the same. And the axe also has a blade, thus loosing the need for a wedge (if you're good, anyway). It also has a nice flat back for blunt impacts.

[Shrantic]

Fresnel

Shrantic

Fresnel

Shrantic

Fresnel

Shrantic

With every mosin I've seen, they've got this weird bolt that sort of stops when bringing it up, which you need to push a bit further to be able to pull back and eject the spent casing.

I probably described that pretty terribly.

Perhaps I described my thoughts wrong. I dunno what you're thinking for volley fire, but I'm thinking "indirect fire."

You know, you complain about the accuracy of ALL your guns. This trend tells me something. IT'S YOU. That's the only common denominator.

That's because ALL of my guns are cheap hunting rifles bought from relatives after they were too old to shoot anymore. The .22 we took from my grandfather when he stopped using it. They also haven't been cleaned in the past DECADE, so they're all in terrible shape. Except for the .22, which we cleaned recently.

The parts that we thought were black were actually silver, and prior to cleaning, the rifling in the bore was not visible.

And for the shotgun we were using, we think it's the slugs. My brother Scott made the same groups at 50 yards with it, and he made slightly larger groups than me with all the other guns.

To be perfectly honest, none of the guns we own are reputable and they all cost us under 250 bucks.

Eh, I've got rifles older than most living humans. The Enfield from 1916, the Mossberg from 1944... they're still perfectly accurate today. Generally, age doesn't affect a gun a whole lot. But with those groups, I'm starting to wonder about your prowess.

Were they maintained better than "make sure you don't drop that in the mud, Jeffrey!" Because that's pretty much the only care these cheap Marlins ever got. Though, after cleaning the .22, I can now hit a penny at 50 yards, so that's looking better. Previously, it was making +2in groups, which is pretty damn terrible for a rifle. (Still has pretty significant bullet drop at 100 yards, though.)

I know I'm just barely a "passable" marksman, but I can tell when it's me screwing up from flinching before recoil, and when the bullet's just not hitting POA.

Alright, a penny at 50 yards isn't bad for a .22. But in the 50 yards between 50 and 100, several inches of drop is very odd.

The Enfield was manufactured in 1916. WW1 ended in 1917. It's entirely possible that my rifle saw action in the trenches. So it probably WAS dropped in the mud, along with being dropped in various other unsavory substances. And probably bayoneted into the ground and used as a tent pole at least once.

Oh, I also forgot to mention- the rifles we have pretty much weren't meant to have anything better than 3-4MOA at 100 yards. They're for hunting deer, and around here, you're not going to see many deer further than 100 yards away because they often live in the forests. So, they do the job they were made to do, but... I'm not satisfied with 4MOA accuracy at 1$ a round. xd

[InterElli]

Shrantic

InterElli

When you are dealing with any form of weapons, finesse is incredibly important. It allows for faster and more accurate attacks, as well as being less tireing.

You don't need accuracy to yell "OH SHI-!" and swing at head level.

You think that... Until you embed your weapon in their jaw or skip it off the top of their skull... Or you swing too early or to late after which the zed is no longer in the narrow effective range band of your weapon so you will never get a chance at a second shot before it has you.

Quote:

Quote:

A blade's balance is important to draw speed, and an Oh s**t! moment can happen when the zed is more than two feet away. I would much rather have two extra feet of reach than having to have to wait until the thing is within grabbing range to be able to strike at it.

When the zed is two feet away, you can hit them with a 20" kukri. neutral

The effective range band of a Kukri, because of how you have to swing it, is two to three feet away from your body. Now, you can preform a lunge or a pace with your swing to give you an extra foot or so of range, at the expense of moving you a foot or more closer if you miss.

My Spada, because of how it is designed, along with a few simple maneuvers from Advisari, is effective from a range of eight inches to just over five feet. That is without a pace or a lunge to extend my range. If I am forced to use a melee weapon then I want the much wider effective range bracket and more finesse provided by my long sword.

[Shrantic]

InterElli

Shrantic

InterElli

When you are dealing with any form of weapons, finesse is incredibly important. It allows for faster and more accurate attacks, as well as being less tireing.

You don't need accuracy to yell "OH SHI-!" and swing at head level.

You think that... Until you embed your weapon in their jaw or skip it off the top of their skull... Or you swing too early or to late after which the zed is no longer in the narrow effective range band of your weapon so you will never get a chance at a second shot before it has you.

Look, if it didn't work, Rwanda genocides would be short lasted. (Despite them using machetes, it's the same principle.) It doesn't require finesse or accuracy to be effective, just a good, strong, swing.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

A blade's balance is important to draw speed, and an Oh s**t! moment can happen when the zed is more than two feet away. I would much rather have two extra feet of reach than having to have to wait until the thing is within grabbing range to be able to strike at it.

When the zed is two feet away, you can hit them with a 20" kukri. neutral

The effective range band of a Kukri, because of how you have to swing it, is two to three feet away from your body. Now, you can preform a lunge or a pace with your swing to give you an extra foot or so of range, at the expense of moving you a foot or more closer if you miss.

My Spada, because of how it is designed, along with a few simple maneuvers from Advisari, is effective from a range of eight inches to just over five feet. That is without a pace or a lunge to extend my range. If I am forced to use a melee weapon then I want the much wider effective range bracket and more finesse provided by my long sword.

Your spada also requires training and accuracy, neither of which I would care to prepare for in an "OH SHI-" moment. I just want to swing, and be done with it then draw a firearm.

[InterElli]

Shrantic

InterElli

Shrantic

InterElli

When you are dealing with any form of weapons, finesse is incredibly important. It allows for faster and more accurate attacks, as well as being less tireing.

You don't need accuracy to yell "OH SHI-!" and swing at head level.

You think that... Until you embed your weapon in their jaw or skip it off the top of their skull... Or you swing too early or to late after which the zed is no longer in the narrow effective range band of your weapon so you will never get a chance at a second shot before it has you.

Look, if it didn't work, Rwanda genocides would be short lasted. (Despite them using machetes, it's the same principle.) It doesn't require finesse or accuracy to be effective, just a good, strong, swing.

The Rwandian Genocide (I assume you are referring to the slaughter of the Tutsis rather than one of the several smaller ethnic clensings which had happened in the past). It also helps when your target has already been disarmed, your population outnumbers them nine to one, and they are not trying to attack you, giving you the time you need for a second swing when you miss.

Our hypothetical zombie situation wont be giving us any of that.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

A blade's balance is important to draw speed, and an Oh s**t! moment can happen when the zed is more than two feet away. I would much rather have two extra feet of reach than having to have to wait until the thing is within grabbing range to be able to strike at it.

When the zed is two feet away, you can hit them with a 20" kukri. neutral

The effective range band of a Kukri, because of how you have to swing it, is two to three feet away from your body. Now, you can preform a lunge or a pace with your swing to give you an extra foot or so of range, at the expense of moving you a foot or more closer if you miss.

My Spada, because of how it is designed, along with a few simple maneuvers from Advisari, is effective from a range of eight inches to just over five feet. That is without a pace or a lunge to extend my range. If I am forced to use a melee weapon then I want the much wider effective range bracket and more finesse provided by my long sword.

Your spada also requires training and accuracy, neither of which I would care to prepare for in an "OH SHI-" moment. I just want to swing, and be done with it then draw a firearm.

My Spada has the same force in a swing, is faster to swing and has more range than your Kukri. All of which is very important in an oh s**t moment. And since this is a melee situation, we are already running under the assumption that for whatever reason we don't have out firearms at hand.

[gahad]

You could use you're self as a zombie weapon

[Fracture and Fidelity]

Shrantic

What the hell is a knife like that going to do to something that can't feel pain? All it's going to do is make him bleed all over the place, increasing your chance of getting infected.

A trench knife, on the other hand, could pierce right through the skull. It's got better grip, and a spear-point style blade that aids in penetration. In WWI, they reported that it could even stab through enemy helmets. (Though I have not confirmed this yet.)

It can cut muscles beyond a usable degree. If you happen to be in a tight spot, you can use it to disable limbs. The handle is just fine as well, you don't need fingerholes to have good grip.

Not that a trench knife doesn't have it's uses.

If you have one, by all means use it. I'm not sure if you can find them serrated, but I would recommend having a serrated knife of some kind. Straight edged knives can't cut for crap.

[uryu ishida]

Fracture and Fidelity

Shrantic

What the hell is a knife like that going to do to something that can't feel pain? All it's going to do is make him bleed all over the place, increasing your chance of getting infected.

A trench knife, on the other hand, could pierce right through the skull. It's got better grip, and a spear-point style blade that aids in penetration. In WWI, they reported that it could even stab through enemy helmets. (Though I have not confirmed this yet.)

It can cut muscles beyond a usable degree. If you happen to be in a tight spot, you can use it to disable limbs. The handle is just fine as well, you don't need fingerholes to have good grip.

Not that a trench knife doesn't have it's uses.

If you have one, by all means use it. I'm not sure if you can find them serrated, but I would recommend having a serrated knife of some kind. Straight edged knives can't cut for crap.

Those aren't for grip, they are for punching. They are knuckles built into the grip, to increase the potential in combat. if you're forced to punch, why not with spiked steel?

[Ninth Pariah]

Fracture and Fidelity

Shrantic

What the hell is a knife like that going to do to something that can't feel pain? All it's going to do is make him bleed all over the place, increasing your chance of getting infected.

A trench knife, on the other hand, could pierce right through the skull. It's got better grip, and a spear-point style blade that aids in penetration. In WWI, they reported that it could even stab through enemy helmets. (Though I have not confirmed this yet.)

It can cut muscles beyond a usable degree. If you happen to be in a tight spot, you can use it to disable limbs. The handle is just fine as well, you don't need fingerholes to have good grip.

Not that a trench knife doesn't have it's uses.

If you have one, by all means use it. I'm not sure if you can find them serrated, but I would recommend having a serrated knife of some kind. Straight edged knives can't cut for crap.

*facepalm* Those aren't fingerholes for better grip, that's a goddamn knuckle duster for breaking jaws and s**t. And straight edges can cut, just not as roughly as a serrated edge, and they need to be sharpened more.

[Fracture and Fidelity]

uryu ishida

Fracture and Fidelity

Shrantic

What the hell is a knife like that going to do to something that can't feel pain? All it's going to do is make him bleed all over the place, increasing your chance of getting infected.

A trench knife, on the other hand, could pierce right through the skull. It's got better grip, and a spear-point style blade that aids in penetration. In WWI, they reported that it could even stab through enemy helmets. (Though I have not confirmed this yet.)

It can cut muscles beyond a usable degree. If you happen to be in a tight spot, you can use it to disable limbs. The handle is just fine as well, you don't need fingerholes to have good grip.

Not that a trench knife doesn't have it's uses.

If you have one, by all means use it. I'm not sure if you can find them serrated, but I would recommend having a serrated knife of some kind. Straight edged knives can't cut for crap.

Those aren't for grip, they are for punching. They are knuckles built into the grip, to increase the potential in combat. if you're forced to punch, why not with spiked steel?

Well, that makes a bit more sense.

Every little bit helps.