Ranking Handgun Value in a Zombie Apocalypse

Interesting. So no Kimber's really stand out as great? Other than their 1911, but I already have that on the list.

I love how this went from effectiveness against hordes of shambling beef to QA and customer satisfaction. Hehe.

>>EDIT begin<<

Originally Posted by k9870

The only zombies that make sense are the ones in 28 days later or something that are a crazy person. Seriously, muscle function (movement) without anything but brain working? And if digestive systems gone, whyd they want to eat people? I say, zombies can be taken down with a torso shot. Get whatever gun youd use against your regular old home invader/other unneeded bipedal.

It's probably counter productive and thread-jacking to bring this up, but what the hell, my connection is crappy, and my roommate won't get out of the bathroom.

I personally love fast zombies. I think it was a great way to modernize the concept, and make it more intense, while simultaneously more realistic. The thing is, a large portion of zombie movie fanatics (I would say slightly over half, from my reading and discussions) feel that zombies who can run just aren't zombies. It just betrays what zombies have been about since Romero (and to an extent, Richard Matheson with I am Legend), that being the slow, inevitable pace of doom with overwhelming numbers. If you have a stockpiled bomb shelter, fast zombies aren't a huge problem unless they chase you down before you can get in it. Hell, you can even shoot them in the chest. Slow zombies, with supernatural durability, and a longer incubation/transformation period would spread the disease farther, and are more difficult to eradicate. Fast zombies would be a much bigger threat the first day or two, especially since they spread so fast. But they spread like a fire so hot, it eats up all it's fuel right away, and burns itself out.

Here's some work I did on this.

http://zombie.wikia.com/wiki/Differe...d_Slow_Zombies