Zombie Survival - Choice of Firearm

[AlkoTanko]

In "sequel" of Zombie Survival Guide, World War Z, US army created new rifle that to me seemed quite similar to M1. Any thoughts about having the "Rifle That Won WW2" for WWZ?

[k9870]

m14, all the way

[Zombees]

The "Zombie Survival Guide" that Alko mentioned highly recommend a M1 Carbine. Mainly because it's compact, durable, and can be used as a melee weapon assuming you have a wood stock or bayonet lug.

My brother had a pretty good idea for weapons. (Well kind of good) He said he'd use a MP5 and a Glock 17, which is not a bad idea since he'd only need to carry one type of ammo. The only problem with that idea is the MP5.

I still think he had a good idea with only need to carry one type of ammo. So I thought about using something like a Beretta Storm or HK USC and carry a 1911 as a sidearm. And of course must have shotgun! Maybe that Remington 11-87 I had my eye on.

(Day Dream)

(/Day Dream)

LOL! A guy can dream can't he.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

No full auto gun is necessary. Like the previous posters said, Zombies are not reactive to suppressive fire nor are they effected by body hits or hits to their extremities. They won't bleed out nor will they stop the attack to seek medical attention.

Anyone who thinks ANY full auto firearm is anything more than a waste of ammunition is smoking crack.

Pistol for closeup work.

Best is shotgun with 00, but the round limitations are a problem

Nice semi auto long gun with scope for medium to far work.

Just head shots are hard, but that's all you would have to worry about. You don't have to worry about cover/concealment by the enemy nor would you have to worry about them wearing body armor or firing back.

[Rockwolf66]

Having studied how to break a human body when i studies Jujitsu there is an argument for shots to bodyparts other than the head. If one breaks a load bearing bone(like a leg or a hip), then the body simply canno support itself properly. I don't care if you are a frigging powerlifter, if your hips blown out then you are not walking anywhere.

Basically I'm saying that mobility kills can be very effective when buying time to employ something more perminant.

As far as Anti-Zombie weapons I'm of thought of a Supressed SIG P226R and an HK-21E with adaptors for both caliber and magazine/belt feed. Now I'm not planning on useing it as a supression weapon but as a heavy long ranged rifle. The weapon is fitted with a scope in some counterterrorist units, and the reported accuracy is very good for a support weapon.

[Excalibur]

I actually beg to differ about zombies bleeding out. In my theories of an undead body brought back to life through some sort of virus or bacterial infection, it's more like an incomplete reserruection on a person, like you try to bring someone back to life through CPR but was only partly successful, meaning that there's enough energy flowing through the nerves system for the brain to control movement.

A zombie might not feel pain, but an undead body can still suffer from the limitations of the human form. Since this is also not a fully living body, it is constantly rotting and will eventually rot away, but if they come, we wont have the time to wait until they drop dead again.

To move a body, your muscles need to work, some degree of blood needs to flow towards it. Shooting a zombie up might slow it down, but it still needs massive blood lost and body damage to shock the nervous system into a state where even if it is undead, it can't move on, but that kind of suggestion means we'd have to waste a ton of ammo when a well placed head shot can do the job simple.


Just because we see one method of killing zombies in fiction, doesnt mean other means dont work.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

I actually beg to differ about zombies bleeding out. In my theories of an undead body brought back to life through some sort of virus or bacterial infection, it's more like an incomplete reserruection on a person, like you try to bring someone back to life through CPR but was only partly successful, meaning that there's enough energy flowing through the nerves system for the brain to control movement.

A zombie might not feel pain, but an undead body can still suffer from the limitations of the human form. Since this is also not a fully living body, it is constantly rotting and will eventually rot away, but if they come, we wont have the time to wait until they drop dead again.

To move a body, your muscles need to work, some degree of blood needs to flow towards it. Shooting a zombie up might slow it down, but it still needs massive blood lost and body damage to shock the nervous system into a state where even if it is undead, it can't move on, but that kind of suggestion means we'd have to waste a ton of ammo when a well placed head shot can do the job simple.


Just because we see one method of killing zombies in fiction, doesnt mean other means dont work.

That's YOUR theory and that's fine, but that's not many folks' theories, including MINE We all know that this is fiction so there is no TRUE answer, but I've always (a) considered that the living dead don't have a working heart. Without a working heart blood won't flow, period. Also they've been shown to be SHOT IN THE CHEST and it doesn't stop them, so it supports my NO WORKING HEART theory. (b) they are not shown bleeding, the only viscera is that which is shown flying when hit by rounds. In fact in all incarnations of the Romero series, the blood starts to decay and turn black or coagulate the more decayed they are, thus eliminating the theory that blood keeps them mobile. there is NO theory to keep them mobile other than the sci fi theory of Nannites. Since by being resurrected they're ALREADY violating the laws of physics as well as biology, so something extra-natural has to be occurring. But then arguing about what keeps zombies mobile is as worthless as arguing as to why anti gun Libtards are stupid. They just are.

[Spartan198]

Dawn of the Dead, 28 Days/Weeks Later, etc.
As my primary arms, I'd say (a) a similarly-configured Colt carbine like the one Will Smith had in "I Am Legend" with at least 300 rounds packed into 20-round magazines (less susceptible to magazine-related malfunctions) carried on me in a combat vest, LBE, etc.. A good all-arounder that can be used both at a decent range and up close. Full auto or burst capability wouldn't be particularly necessary, like Excalibur pointed out. And (b) a pump-action shotgun such as an Ithaca 37 for real nasty situations.

As my sidearm, a high-capacity pistol like a Springfield XD in 9mm (can carry more ammo, since caliber wouldn't necessarily matter in this case as long as the round hits the brain) or an FN Five-Seven. None of this Desert Eagle crap, thank you.

And when you get down to bare bones, a trusty Ka-Bar never runs out of ammo.

Resident Evil
In Resident Evil, zombies are the least of my worries, so I'd prefer to have full auto or burst capability in my AR should it be needed (Hunters, Lickers, Seekers, etc). All else identical as above.

Grenade launchers are attractive, but that 30 meter arming radius would work against me. Not to mention I can only carry a limited number of rounds for one. So I'd pass on my beloved M203 in this case, unless I'm trying to impress and get some poontang from a cute survivor before I die a horrible death...