Ranking Handgun Value in a Zombie Apocalypse

[S&Wshooter]

P226's are standard police issue down here, but everyone uses a Kimber or Glock

What would you say the best widely available Kimbers are?

[S&Wshooter]

Originally Posted by Yooka

What would you say the best widely available Kimbers are?

I dunno. Probably because Kimber makes a friggin billion different pistols

[k9870]

Id avoid kimber.....there cstomer service maes HK look good. There older gns were great then QC took a nosedivve. The Glock 22 is the most overrated gun. So many people get them like "oh it holds lots of 40 bullets." Its also too light for the cartridge and has poor ergos so it sucks to shoot.

[S&Wshooter]

Originally Posted by k9870

Id avoid kimber.....there cstomer service maes HK look good. There older gns were great then QC took a nosedivve. The Glock 22 is the most overrated gun. So many people get them like "oh it holds lots of 40 bullets." Its also too light for the cartridge and has poor ergos so it sucks to shoot.

No one is worse than H&K. For example, my father's Kimber had an off spec slide, so he sent it in and they replaced the slide, polished the gun and then sent it back all within 2 weeks. If the slide on your H&K is mesed up and you send it in, they'll probably sent it back to you with a note sdaying "if you were an operator, you would have fixed it yourself" (because they hate you)

[k9870]

Kimber has a 1 year warranty and is nown to piss on customers. springfield armory has a lifetime warranty and is known to pay shipping both ways and throw in goodies like a free mag. Smith and wesson is known to be very good too. Ruger has no official warranty but has a solid rep of taking care o customers. My friends dad has an older kimber 2, external extractor MIM and all and it works great. I just wont give kimber my business.

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

[S&Wshooter]

Originally Posted by Yooka

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<<



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.

But slow zombie make for better target practice

[Krel]

In "Night of the Living Dead", Romero did have fast moving living dead, Romero has said that his creations are not zombies. But they were very uncoordinated in their movements.

David.

[ManiacallyChallenged]

Keep in mind Romero's "zombies" climbed a ladder to get on the roof in the final scene.

This sort of thing is no longer considered possible by "traditional" zombies in all the current zombie literature.
Speaking of zombie literature, does anybody know of other prolific stuff other than the Zombie Survival Guide or WWZ?