Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Of the Tabletop, and other, lesser varieties.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

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

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Phrozt » Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:22 pm UTC

Torvaun wrote: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.


I'm talking about the people debating whether to take "their" AK-47, M16, or M1.

Your collection sounds normal. Speaking of which... would you agree w/me that a 10/22 Ruger would be just about the easiest gun you could hand over to a noob?

Nice that you have an ammo loader, but unless you have a lot of supplies for it, that's not going to help all too much.

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 5:26 pm UTC

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote: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 . . .


No biggie about being wrong on the M16. Video games and movies have confused a lot of things up.

As someone already said, the bullets don't fall at different rates. However, the .223 is a faster round, which means it has a flatter trajectory fired straight. But, it's also lighter, so it's more likely to be affected by wind. But (and this is the biggest but) neither of those things probably matter much at the range at which you will most likely be shooting at zombies.

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 5:43 pm UTC

Phrozt wrote:Your collection sounds normal. Speaking of which... would you agree w/me that a 10/22 Ruger would be just about the easiest gun you could hand over to a noob?
I don't know if I'd say -the- easiest, but it's certainly close to the top. I'm torn between that and a .22 revolver, given that a noob isn't going to know the first thing about maintenance and a revolver will be more forgiving on that front.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

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

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Phrozt » Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:57 pm UTC

Torvaun wrote:
Phrozt wrote:Your collection sounds normal. Speaking of which... would you agree w/me that a 10/22 Ruger would be just about the easiest gun you could hand over to a noob?
I don't know if I'd say -the- easiest, but it's certainly close to the top. I'm torn between that and a .22 revolver, given that a noob isn't going to know the first thing about maintenance and a revolver will be more forgiving on that front.


IMO, the ruger 10/22 is easier to maintain than a semi-auto pistol. Yeah, the revolver is much easier than EITHER of those two categories, but I just can't get past the load time of a revolver. W/my Ruger, I'm shooting 60 shots before I even have to look for a clip. W/a revolver, I'm having break out the cylinder, look for bullets, match them up to the little holes, and flip it back in EVERY 6 shots (or 8).

To me, that much time screams zombie food. Every time I see someone mention a revolver I wince.

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 6:08 pm UTC

I respectfully suggest that if you need 60 shots, you're already screwed. Besides that, why would I give one of my -good- guns to a noob, they're already likely to be zombie food either way.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Ixtellor » Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:36 pm UTC

I have been reading this thread with some curiosity, and here is my current thinking:

1) Have a small group of people. I am thinking 5-8 is the ideal number. Allows for guard duties, and it is a managable group for getting supllies.

2) Get a semi truck and a typical trailer. Because zombies move slowly, having a mobile 'fortress' is a good way of moving around, but still having the carrying capacity to hall needed supplies.
If a place you need to be is infested with zombies, just drive on.

I figure the 3 main places you will continually want to stop at/look for are:
1- Grocery stores for canned goods.(This includes walmart and target for odds and ends)
This could also include homes. Homes provide water possible some food and some weapons.
2- Gas stations to refuel
3- Gun and ammo stores. (again walmart works great)

The semi truck could be modified in a large number of ways to make it the ideal 'fortress', even if you don't have welding skills. Fortifying the cab is very important, because the driver needs to stay safe. But even this problem can be overcome if you just keep on the move.
If zombies are coming for you, drive through them.

If you do have the skills and/or the time you could eventually add additional fuel storage, gun ports, and additional anti-zombie devices (could be as simple as wood placed over the windows)

Eventually you might want a hatch from the cap to the trailer.

The trailer would have ample room for supplies and enough room to hold the small group of people. They could cook in the back, fix weapons, sleep, etc with basically total safety from zombies.

Additionally, it is not like you have to be constantly driving. It would be fine to drive a few miles, park and scavang until zombies show up in numbers that a shotgun can't handle.
If you start to run low on supplies you would drive back into a town and load up. If there are too many zombies you just move on.
Semi trucks have great range, and great reliablity.

I assume the major cities would be inexcessable because of the amount of abandoned cars, but for most of America, towns even with walmarts and gas stations never have that many cars on the road at any one time.

A mechanical breakdown would be a major hassle, and could prove deadly if you break down in the midst of a massive zombie hoard.


Any thoughts?


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

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

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Phrozt » Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:51 pm UTC

Torvaun wrote:I respectfully suggest that if you need 60 shots, you're already screwed. Besides that, why would I give one of my -good- guns to a noob, they're already likely to be zombie food either way.


I respectfully suggest that if you only have 6 shots before having to reload... and what you have to reload is a revolver, you're already screwed. I wouldn't imagine having to use all 60 shots in a single situation (I'd be frightened of that myself), but I'd feel a LOT more safe if I had that many shots at my disposal at any given time. Not to mention, due to the size and weight of these bundled banana clips, you could actually get close to the 300-500 round range of bullets that video games say a person can carry (which we all know is BS).

And as for giving a good gun to a noob... I would assume that a higher power rifle that you're more familiar with would be a "better" gun for you. A Ruger 10/22 would pretty much be an "infantry"/"training" gun IMO.


Ixtellor. The semi idea is pretty good. I was on a similar line of thought when I made my ZSP and included raid vehicles.
Last edited by Phrozt on Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26508
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 7:52 pm UTC

I think you'll run into fuel supply problems long before engine breakdowns would become an issue. Gas Stations are worthless without power. Rural areas especially are going to lose power quickly.
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
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Gunfingers » Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:00 pm UTC

The gas is still down there, you just won't be able to use the pump. Anybody know how to open those caps they use to dump gas under the gas stations? From there you should just be able to siphon it out.

Then comes the tricky part of knowing which one contains diesel. That and getting all this done without getting eaten by zombies. It's plausible, but tough to implement.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:01 pm UTC

WraithXt1 wrote:
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.

Ah, your > were misleading, in that case, your list makes much more sense (you should be careful with those < and >)
WraithXt1 wrote:
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.

Obviously my mistake, and I'm sorry, on the other hand, an M1 Carbine still fires the (albeit less powerful than the Springfield) .30 carbine round, which is still more powerful than the 9mm para used by the MP5 or the 5.75 of the P90. So, despite my mistake, the point stands, either M1 will kill a zombie in one hit at decent range.

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.

Some people for whatever disagree, I didn't feel like getting into an argument on the origins of the M14 if you were such a one, and given that I was under the mistaken impression you were placing an M-16 over an M-14 or a Dragunov and thought you were calling the M-1 Garand 'weak' I'm sure you can understand that I thought you might be such an individual even though the mistakes I made were rather egregious.


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.

It'll run out of energy eventually, just because it's high velocity and armor piercing doesn't make it an unstoppable bullet of death, try to pop a balloon with one at 300-400 meters, I dare you, if you're lucky it may hit point first which might pop the balloon, but since it's pretty much guaranteed to be tumbling at that range, it's pretty unlikely and won't have the energy left to pop a balloon.
an M1 Garand could do it, and event he m1 carbine has more than three times the muzzle-energy of the P90 and would be able to maintain a good velocity out to 300 meters.

I'm looking forward to my apology.


Hey, I'm sorry, we all make mistakes, espescially at 1 in the morning. But even though I mistook the carbine for the garand, you were still wrong about it being worse than the p90

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.

the M1911's are definitely great guns, but event he cut-down detonics are a little heavy, espescially for only six+one, I'd rather lose the one in the pipe and use a .38 revolver which'll be more reliable, easier to maintain, and safer to carry fully loaded (you gotta be careful with a round hot, otherwise you're liable to lose it), or get a lightweight Glock .40 with twice the capacity.


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.

we need to decide on a metric for gauging accuracy here, I go with non-moving targets in a controlled environment because it's easier to compare weapons that way, against moving targets in an uncontrolled environment, you've got take all kinds of different things that have nothing to do with the gun into account and we could spend centuries arguing over which were talking about when saying such and such person with such and such gun could hit such and such target at such and range and we'd never get anywhere.

Against an unmoving, man sized target with optics, a person with minimal experience/practice should be able to hit up to 100 meters away around 50% of the time with a rifle, SMG or shotgun slug, Upt ot hat range, the performance of these three archetypes of weapons will be fairly consistent. Beyond that however, the curve for rifle accuracy is much shallower than for the other two weapons.

A person who hasn't prepared for the zombie apocalypse with any weapons training or by purchasing a weapon then should realize that any of these choices will be about equal for them until they gain more experience with firing at longer ranges.

I respectfully suggest that if you only have 6 shots before having to reload... and what you have to reload is a revolver, you're already screwed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedloade ... eedloaders
with one of these babies, I can reload my .357 magnum as fast as I can switch magazines with my dad's Colt defender, and I'd much rather reload a revolver in combat than stack rounds in a magazine
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
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Ixtellor » Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:16 pm UTC

Gunfingers wrote:The gas is still down there, you just won't be able to use the pump. Anybody know how to open those caps they use to dump gas under the gas stations? From there you should just be able to siphon it out.


I am fairly certain the caps are labelled. If not by name, then by color.
I was thinking a portable generator could help in the siphoning as well, but I would have to mess with it for a while. Maybe rigging some sort of vaccum cleaner might help out. It would have to be trial and error, and which is why you would want to find a remote station to hone your skills on.

SecondTalon wrote:I think you'll run into fuel supply problems long before engine breakdowns would become an issue. Gas Stations are worthless without power. Rural areas especially are going to lose power quickly.


I have a few solutions or explanations.

1 - you don't have to travel around that much if you can get to say Kansas or Oklahoma.
Low populations, LOTS of small towns, lots of gas stations.
With 5-8 people and a few guns, especially if you are on Top of the tractor trailor or firing through a gun port, it should be easy enough to clear out a small town.
Once that is done, or if you just happen across a way out station with no zombies around you could fill up the tanks, and fill up any other containers you find.

I would store a lot of diesel in the trailer in various containers. Ultimatly you would want to have many drums of diesel back there. Just take safetly precautions if you are going to be cooking back there. And have great ventilation. A large port or door in the ceiling would be ideal to vent out any possible fumes, if the drums aren't air tight.

If you could establish a nice little base in the midwest, the range on rigs is very far and you could make severel excurisions hundreds of miles.
I just checked and rigs get between 8-4 mpg depending on load.
The tank capacity is between 150-400 gal of fuel.
So this is a range of Worst case: 600 miles
Best case: 3200 miles
With the reality probably in the middle somewhere around 1700 miles.

That should be suffiencent.

Other than your fuel concerns, any other foreseeable problems with the 'mobile fortress' idea? (not yet addressed)
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

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

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby Phrozt » Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:17 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
Phrozt wrote: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.

we need to decide on a metric for gauging accuracy here, I go with non-moving targets in a controlled environment because it's easier to compare weapons that way, against moving targets in an uncontrolled environment, you've got take all kinds of different things that have nothing to do with the gun into account and we could spend centuries arguing over which were talking about when saying such and such person with such and such gun could hit such and such target at such and range and we'd never get anywhere.

Against an unmoving, man sized target with optics, a person with minimal experience/practice should be able to hit up to 100 meters away around 50% of the time with a rifle, SMG or shotgun slug, Upt ot hat range, the performance of these three archetypes of weapons will be fairly consistent. Beyond that however, the curve for rifle accuracy is much shallower than for the other two weapons.


We're talking about the zombie apocalypse here. Why even SUGGEST that we're talking about a controlled environment and non-moving targets? And wtf optics are you talking about that you're going to put on a shotgun/smg?

Either way, I'll bet you $10,000 (seriously... I'd wager this much money and be covered if I lost this bet) that you can't take 10 random people off the street (including petite women, and people who have no clue how to shoot a shotgun and will knock themselves on their ass/take out their shoulder in the first shot) and get an average of 50% accuracy against a head-sized target at the end of a football field with an SMG, much less shot gun slugs.


EdgarJPublius wrote:
I respectfully suggest that if you only have 6 shots before having to reload... and what you have to reload is a revolver, you're already screwed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedloade ... eedloaders
with one of these babies, I can reload my .357 magnum as fast as I can switch magazines with my dad's Colt defender, and I'd much rather reload a revolver in combat than stack rounds in a magazine


Oh, I'm well aware of speed loaders, but again... where are we getting all of these nice little gadgets? Also, how many speed loaders do you plan on carrying with you at all times? It's not like the bullets magically stick themselves in the speed loader so the next time you need to reload they are there...

User avatar
Lolsaur
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:40 pm UTC
Location: Stonehaven, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Lolsaur » Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:34 pm UTC

Phrozt wrote:Either way, I'll bet you $10,000 (seriously... I'd wager this much money and be covered if I lost this bet)


Can I ask, what relevance does your current financial situation play in the argument, other than you bragging and saying "Hey, look at me! I've got $10,000!"?

I'm just saying that you don't need to impress anybody with your finances, why not just put forward your side of the issue in a calm way, without resorting to calling people noobs or idiots.
Worst Fight Scene Ever

This cosy, special made for this Teapot

Spoiler:
You've never looked better than you did that night
And your eyes have never looked so blue
And when we kissed it was like nothing else existed
As time stood still for me and you

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

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Phrozt » Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:46 pm UTC

Lolsaur wrote:
Phrozt wrote:Either way, I'll bet you $10,000 (seriously... I'd wager this much money and be covered if I lost this bet)


Can I ask, what relevance does your current financial situation play in the argument, other than you bragging and saying "Hey, look at me! I've got $10,000!"?

I'm just saying that you don't need to impress anybody with your finances, why not just put forward your side of the issue in a calm way, without resorting to calling people noobs or idiots.


Because people say, "DOOD I'LL TOTALLY BET U A MILLION DOLLARS I'M RITE!!1@!$!!" I'm actually putting my money where my mouth is. And I wasn't trying to impress anyone. It's not like coming by $10k would be EASY for me... which is part of the reason it's a bet... but it is something that I could realistically bet, and could cover in the event I was actually wrong.

Tell you what, how about I bet him a buck instead... does that make it ok? Simple fact of the matter is, I would actually put money down on a bet that he's wrong.

User avatar
Lolsaur
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:40 pm UTC
Location: Stonehaven, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Lolsaur » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:02 pm UTC

If you were wrong, would you send the money?

I can't realistically see you giving over said money to a complete stranger on the internet, so I don't see the relevance of you betting money at all. Why not just put forward valid citations of what you're trying to say?

I would say that you are right in this case, but there are better ways of proving it, rather than what you've done.

Sorry for the off topic post, everyone.
Worst Fight Scene Ever

This cosy, special made for this Teapot

Spoiler:
You've never looked better than you did that night
And your eyes have never looked so blue
And when we kissed it was like nothing else existed
As time stood still for me and you

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

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Phrozt » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:14 pm UTC

Lolsaur wrote:If you were wrong, would you send the money?


Yes, that's the point of a bet. I'd realistically risk the specified sum of money from my own funds with the assertion that I'm correct about the given situation. Though it doubles as a way to reinforce my opinion, I'd also gladly make that wager.

But back to the topic, it seems that there are several people on this thread talking about guns that have no clue on how they work, reasonable expectations from them and/or an accurate idea of certain distances.



EDIT: You know what? Come to think of it... screw a zombie 100 meters away... I'd freaking walk past it, as it would be over a football field away.
Last edited by Phrozt on Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
thecommabandit
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:25 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby thecommabandit » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:17 pm UTC

So what about us Brits, who don't have guns and can't just pop down the local shops to get one and a bagful of ammo? How would we survive an infection? I have a plan, but there are probably some holes.

My house is about an hour's walk from the city centre, so I'd get my backpack and load it up with canned food, two can openers, about three or four litres of water, as many painkillers, antibiotics, disinfectants and wounds dressings as is reasonable. I'd dress in flexible but tough jeans, tuck them into my walking boots, tuck a long-sleeved shirt into the trousers, put thin gloves over my hands and secure them over my sleeves with elastic bands, then wear a bandana around my mouth and nose, swimming goggles over my eyes and maybe a warm hat for good measure. I wouldn't take any chances of getting infected so I'd cover every orifice and every patch of skin I could. Also got to put a can of WD40, a roll of duct tape and a roll of garden twine in the bag, but first use the twine to secure my machete to my belt. Maybe my katana too, but it's too long to unsheathe if it's on my back and a bit unwieldy to have banging at my leg while I walk, so I might have to leave that. Besides, the machete is sharper. Then I'd head off for the city centre.

There I'd hit the camping and outdoors shops to loot for misc useful stuff I don't have, maybe switch my backpack for a higher capacity proper trekking pack, as well as stuff as many Kendal mint cakes and other high energy density foods in there as I can fit. Maybe hit the extreme sports shop for some more spacious and less likely to steam up ski goggles. I would also try to break into the local police station if it's abandoned, as I'd expect (I don't know for sure) them to have an armoury, with stab-proof vests and hopefully firearms with a sufficient supply of ammo. If I get the vest I'd make sure to put duct tape over all the "POLICE" text on the vest lest I mislead people.

If I met anyone on the way and they joined up I'd get them to dress similarly, but put some identifying mark on them, like a certain colour shirt or a letter in duct tape on the front and back of their shirt. If we're bundled up to our eyeballs it'll be more difficult to see who's who.

If I come across zombies, first plan is to run like hell. If that's not an option, out comes the machete. Though the situation will be pretty dire if I have to do that. If I have guns from the police station however... first plan is still to run like hell. It puts me in less danger and is less draining on the ammo supply.
Image

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

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Gunfingers » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:35 pm UTC

Leave the katana. They don't work like they do in movies. The machete is a good idea, though you're more likely to use it as a tool than as a weapon.

I'm not sure if "city centre" means something goofy in british, but if it means going towards the center of the city, where the population will be more dense, then it's a bad idea. Get camping equipment now and head straight for the unpopulated areas when the outbreak occurs.

You also have the advantage of living on an island, so you shouldn't be more than a few day's trek from the ocean no matter where you are. Once there you can try to find a boat. Travel a few yards from the shore, where you can see what's going on without being in danger of zombie attack. Whenever you find somewhere safe, go ashore for supplies. Keep an eye out for friendly looking islands where you can settle down more permanently.

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 » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:11 pm UTC

Yeah, I imagine the police station would be pretty swarmed with people, lots looking to get guns themselves. The kinda crowds you'd run into at a time like that are pretty dangerous. Keep in mind that everyone's going to want a gun, and a lot of those are going to think of the police as well. If you're thinking AFTER the outbreak the place might be more lootable, but you wouldn't want to still be in the city.

Also, everyone talking about fighting the zombies up close should try imagine it for a second. You'll be fighting for your life and ten times more terrified than you've ever been. You'll probably be shaking with fear and shitting yourself. You probably won't be well-rested either. You don't have experience bashing in skulls. All it takes is ONE slip-up, one bite, one scratch, and that's it for you, and there a lot more zombies than there are you. Even if you're a relative pro there's always a chance you'll slip up. A lot of fights will have numbers against you too. I'm not saying a baseball bat or something is a bad idea to have on you (a bladed weapon IS a bad idea), but fighting is ALWAYS the last choice. If you're in a hallway with one exit (you shouldn't be) and zombies are in the way, yeah. If booking it is at all an option, that's the safer bet.
Even guns are a bad idea to rely on for anyone without practice, especially if only head shots do the job. Even if you have practice I can't imagine you preforming well when your life is on the line and your target is on the move. Also, ammo is only going to become more and more of an issue and should only be used when you have to.
Think of it this way: Have you ever screwed up at something, or done worse than you could have, just because the stakes were higher or the pressure was on? I imagine that pressure was nothing next to a zombie a few feet away trying its hardest to kill you.

Edit instead of another post: Oh, and while, as mentioned below, heading out to sea without knowing what you're doing is a bad idea, being near a body of water would have one good use. Sleeping on the move. It's way safer than a tent to just get a canoe or whatever is available ten meters out and anchor it for the night. If you have the manpower to keep a watch going that's still probably not a bad idea, but it's definitely safer than a tent.
If you don't have a water, but do have the right kind of trees, sleeping in those is another way to stay safe while resting. Keep a watch and be ready to leave if you do see zombies, because you don't want to get stuck above a mob. Assuming you're very, very careful you don't fall out it'll be a better idea than a tent.
My point is that a tent is hella dangerous.
Last edited by Pa-Patch on Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:30 pm 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 10:17 pm UTC

If you can't handle a boat, try to head as far inland as possible. The only thing worst than being lost in a zombie attack is being lost at sea with no experience. The safest way is to put as many physical barriers as possible between you and the zombies, such that they would have no possibility of crossing such as oceans, mountains, rapids, etc. Assuming you're traveling fast and light with no preexisting medical conditions a small medkit would be reasonable, your goal is to evade all zombies while not hurting yourself on the terrain. Make sure you have an idea for what to do when snow arrives, and I'd second the camping pack although it might be a bit too much to overload if you're not used to carrying that much weight on your back. If you feel up for it you could try to set up hammocks in the trees, as I think zombies wouldn't be able to climb trees, although you'd be in quite a pickle (but alive) if zombies were to gather below you when you sleep.

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 10:48 pm UTC

I agree about fighting the zombie up close, hence my desire to have a high powered long range rifle for self defense, I dont plan to let them get close to me!!

The first thing to do would be get your ass away from cities and get into the forests.

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

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Random832 » Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:52 pm UTC

Gunfingers wrote:The gas is still down there, you just won't be able to use the pump. Anybody know how to open those caps they use to dump gas under the gas stations? From there you should just be able to siphon it out.


No - you can't siphon it unless you're putting it somewhere lower than the tank. You can, of course, _pump_ it out, but you need something to do the pumping. Now, hand pumps do exist (or, if nothing else, you could dip a length of hose in, seal the top end, pull it out, dump it into a container), but it's not going to be as easy as siphoning.

What you probably want to do, if you have the resources, is get as much as you can into some sort of above-ground storage (tanker trucks, barrels, whatever's on hand) using the station's pumps before the electricity goes out. Or maybe find a station with a generator - anything to let you be able to run the pumps.

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 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:30 am UTC

WraithXt1 wrote:
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 don't 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.

I'm screwed if any gun that I use jams! I see what you mean about the x vs y thing. X rifle is good because it can shoot up to 1 kilometre but Y rifle is good because it has very common ammo.

Do you guys think that a pistol crossbow would be about the same weight as a handgun? It's quite solid and its made of steel. It's longer than most handguns that I have ever seen. I find it no problem to carry around. (I took it out the back of the farm once to shoot pumpkins. It made them splatter everywhere! :twisted: )

SecondTalon wrote: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.

SecondTalon get out of my head? Or at least my living room. I have my dads metal baseball bat sitting right beside me. I play with it every day and I would use it in the case of zombie attack.

Jebobek wrote: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 a lot 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 existence, 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.

From what I know about guns, that is 100% . . . Hell, its 120%! The Smith and Wesson .38 special single action revolver is a true gangsters weapon (as in, real gangsters from the 50's, not street kids who say "yo, I'm from da streetz! I'll put a cap in yo ass. Pimp ya hoes!" because no one who says that can really be a gangster)

When it comes to reloading, the 1911 will ultimately come out on top. The .38 will take a long time to reload and has only 4 or 6 rounds in it (depending on the revolver)

Ak-47's are awesome. There is no other way to put it. You can drop them in water, bury them in sand, cover them in dirt, drive over them with a car, pick it up and fire it!

I hate German guns. Especially the Luger. It is the most stupid gun I have ever seen! Although, if I had one and I didn't have any other weapon, I guess I would use it. But I would rather use a Colt python .357 magnum double action revolver (wikipedia told me that it can fire .38 special as well as .357 magnum, is that true?)

Susy wrote: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)...

Please share the link. And that's what I was meaning about the salt! Although, it wouldn't work against virus zombies and some other zombies.

Note to self: if Phrozt comes to my town looking for help, leave him outside the walls until he agrees to play nicely with the rest of the children.

Phrozt wrote:How exactly does everyone have a cache of military grade armaments available to them?

New Zealand had a terrorist training camp (according to the police) and they had napalm! I know a guy who illegally makes guns! The law is not going to stop someone getting a good gun. And I'm only in New Zealand! In USA or somewhere like that, most of the illegal guns in New Zealand would be legal. The illegal guns in USA or other places like it would be much better than the illegal guns in New Zealand. From what me friend, it's much harder to get a good gun in Britain because of stricter gun laws. Just imagine what kind of guns you could get in a 3rd world country! Seriously, it's not that difficult to get a cache of military grade armaments anywhere in the world! :twisted:

Torvaun wrote:I don't know if I'd say -the- easiest, but it's certainly close to the top. I'm torn between that and a .22 revolver, given that a noob isn't going to know the first thing about maintenance and a revolver will be more forgiving on that front.

I agree with the revolver part, but I would say .38 special or .357 magnum. When someone who knows absolutely nothing about guns is shooting at zombies with a revolver, they are going to want a bullet that is going to do some real damage.

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.

Wow! That's exactly what I would do! (Use duct tape to tape two clips together) . . . I'm GLaD so see that someone is using their head!

3- Gun and ammo stores. (again walmart works great)

Is Wal-mart an American store? I haven't seen any in New Zealand.

Not to mention, due to the size and weight of these bundled banana clips, you could actually get close to the 300-500 round range of bullets that video games say a person can carry (which we all know is BS).

As long as the ammo is light, you have a bag to store it in and you're not stupid, it could be possible. But only carry up to a max of 10 clips (including the two already attached to the gun) because everyone keeps telling me that weight is an issue. Ok, maybe only 6 or 8 clips . . . because you would need room for other things like food and a spare change of clothes in your bag.

The gas is still down there, you just won't be able to use the pump. Anybody know how to open those caps they use to dump gas under the gas stations? From there you should just be able to siphon it out.

Simple, once you remove the caps, put a clear hose into the fuel, suck on it, when you see fuel coming up the hose, take your mouth away quickly and put the hose in the gas tank opening. Simple. Although, I don't know how to open the caps, it wouldn't be too difficult if you had the time to play around with it.

the 5.75 of the P90

P90 comes in a variety of ammo calibres, most commonly .45 . . . according to wikipedia.

It'll run out of energy eventually, just because it's high velocity and armor piercing doesn't make it an unstoppable bullet of death, try to pop a balloon with one at 300-400 meters, I dare you, if you're lucky it may hit point first which might pop the balloon, but since it's pretty much guaranteed to be tumbling at that range, it's pretty unlikely and won't have the energy left to pop a balloon.

I wish to try this. Now I need a P90, a gun license and ammo for the P90. Can you provide all that? If you can, then I will try it as soon as I get the gun, license, and ammo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedloade ... eedloaders
with one of these babies, I can reload my .357 magnum as fast as I can switch magazines with my dad's Colt defender, and I'd much rather reload a revolver in combat than stack rounds in a magazine

I already knew what speed loaders are. They are always used on video games to increase revolver reloading time. But it is still slower than putting another clip in a pistol. But from what you say, your dad only has one clip for it. That will cause major problems. You must have more than one clip if you want to reload in combat.

I was thinking a portable generator could help in the siphoning as well, but I would have to mess with it for a while. Maybe rigging some sort of vacuum cleaner might help out. It would have to be trial and error, and which is why you would want to find a remote station to hone your skills on.

It's funny when people think of much more complicated ways of doing things slower than doing it the manual way. Its like looking all around your lounge for your remote when you can simply get up and change the channel on the TV.

We're talking about the zombie apocalypse here. Why even SUGGEST that we're talking about a controlled environment and non-moving targets? And wtf optics are you talking about that you're going to put on a shotgun/smg?

I once saw a pump action shotgun with a mini scope on it. I never saw it get fired, but it looked like the most stupid idea ever! Also, you can attack scopes to SMG's fairly easily, just make sure that you cant see further than you can shoot.

I can't realistically see you giving over said money to a complete stranger on the internet, so I don't see the relevance of you betting money at all. Why not just put forward valid citations of what you're trying to say?

Hahahahahahaha! I would never ever expect anyone to ever give anyone money over the internet. Even if it was $1 . . . you would send the $1 in the mail! . . . but nothing more than $1 lol

EDIT: You know what? Come to think of it... screw a zombie 100 meters away... I'd freaking walk past it, as it would be over a football field away.

Seriously a good idea! . . . or go closer where you can actually aim at it!

thecommabandit has a good plan . . . except for the Katana idea . . . Katana are heavy and not to easy to come by.

Wow . . . I spent two and a half hours going through all that!

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Zombie Survival

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:40 am UTC

Phrozt wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:
Phrozt wrote: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.

we need to decide on a metric for gauging accuracy here, I go with non-moving targets in a controlled environment because it's easier to compare weapons that way, against moving targets in an uncontrolled environment, you've got take all kinds of different things that have nothing to do with the gun into account and we could spend centuries arguing over which were talking about when saying such and such person with such and such gun could hit such and such target at such and range and we'd never get anywhere.

Against an unmoving, man sized target with optics, a person with minimal experience/practice should be able to hit up to 100 meters away around 50% of the time with a rifle, SMG or shotgun slug, Upt ot hat range, the performance of these three archetypes of weapons will be fairly consistent. Beyond that however, the curve for rifle accuracy is much shallower than for the other two weapons.


We're talking about the zombie apocalypse here. Why even SUGGEST that we're talking about a controlled environment and non-moving targets? And wtf optics are you talking about that you're going to put on a shotgun/smg?

If you want to argue which weapon is more accurate at which range, you talk about shooting fixed targets. Otherwise you're just circle jerking over the circumstances.
Any optic you can put on a rifle you can put on an SMG or a shotgun if it's equipped with a suitable optics rail and most civilian variant SMGs and high end shotguns have such optics rails at least as options.

Either way, I'll bet you $10,000 (seriously... I'd wager this much money and be covered if I lost this bet) that you can't take 10 random people off the street (including petite women, and people who have no clue how to shoot a shotgun and will knock themselves on their ass/take out their shoulder in the first shot) and get an average of 50% accuracy against a head-sized target at the end of a football field with an SMG, much less shot gun slugs.

I bet you're right, but I bet I can get two out of three of them hitting a man sized target inside an hour.
Like I said, when you compare shit, you compare it under controlled circumstances, it's Science! It works bitches.
EdgarJPublius wrote:
I respectfully suggest that if you only have 6 shots before having to reload... and what you have to reload is a revolver, you're already screwed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedloade ... eedloaders
with one of these babies, I can reload my .357 magnum as fast as I can switch magazines with my dad's Colt defender, and I'd much rather reload a revolver in combat than stack rounds in a magazine


Oh, I'm well aware of speed loaders, but again... where are we getting all of these nice little gadgets? Also, how many speed loaders do you plan on carrying with you at all times? It's not like the bullets magically stick themselves in the speed loader so the next time you need to reload they are there...


We're talking about preparing for the zombie apocalypse right? We bought/borrowed/stole them along with the gun.

And I'll carry as many speed loaders as you carry magazines, when we both run out of ammo pre-loaded ammo, I bet I can reload my revolver and fire all six rounds twice before you can push six rounds into the magazine once.

EDITED instead of double post:

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:
WraithXt1 wrote:
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.

I'm screwed if any gun that I use jams! I see what you mean about the x vs y thing. X rifle is good because it can shoot up to 1 kilometre but Y rifle is good because it has very common ammo.

Do you guys think that a pistol crossbow would be about the same weight as a handgun? It's quite solid and its made of steal. It's longer than most handguns that I have ever seen. I find it no problem to carry around. (I took it out the back of the farm once to shoot pumpkins. It made them splater everywhere! :twisted: )
reloading might be a concern, but go for it.

From what I know about guns, that is 100% . . . Hell, its 120%! The Smith and Wesson .38 special single action revolver is a true gangsters weapon (as in, real gangsters from the 50's, not streat kids who say "yo, I'm from da streatz! I'll put a cap in yo ass. Pimp ya hoes!" because no one who says that can realy be a gangster)

When it comes to reloading, the 1911 will ultimately come out on top. The .38 will take a long time to reload and has only 4 or 6 rounds in it (depending on the revolver)

With a speed loader and some practice, it takes a functionally identical amount of time to reload a revolver and a semi-automatic handgun.
Additionally, a compact 1911 will only hold six rounds plus one round in the chamber (which is dangerous to go gallivanting about with, note the plethora of stories of people getting shot with their own gun while it's still in the holster because they chambered a round, very few people get shot with a revolver that isn't being held by someone) and a standard size 1911 weighs twice as much a .38 revolver at least.

Ak-47's are awesome. There is no other way to put it. You can drop them in water, bury them in sand, cover them in dirt, drive over them with a car, pick it up and fire it!
Agreed, can we please stop fellating the Kalashnikov now, unless somebody has something negative to say about it (unlikely) then we're not really adding anything.

I hate German guns. Especially the Luger. It is the most stupid gun I have ever seen! Although, if I had one and I didn't have any other weapon, I guess I would use it. But I would rather use a Colt python .357 magnum double action revolver (wikipedia told me that it can fire .38 special as well as .357 magnum, is that true?)

German's make pretty good guns, I'd rather have an H&K than many American guns.
(yes, pretty much any .357 magnum revolver will shoot .38 spc with no problem)

.



Torvaun wrote:I don't know if I'd say -the- easiest, but it's certainly close to the top. I'm torn between that and a .22 revolver, given that a noob isn't going to know the first thing about maintenance and a revolver will be more forgiving on that front.

I agree with the revolver part, but I would say .38 special or .357 magnum. When someone who knows absolutely nothing about guns is shooting at zombies with a revolver, they are going to want a bullet that is going to do some real damage.

Agreed, .22 round won't penetrate the skull unless you practically shove the barrel in a zombies face.


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.

Wow! That's exactly what I would do! (Use duct tape to tape two clips together) . . . I'm GLaD so see that someone is using their head!

lulz, taped clips, the standard issue weapon of African militias everywhere.
(it's a good idea, just generally considered to be a very redneck/african militia thing to do in most situations)

3- Gun and ammo stores. (again walmart works great)

Is Wal-mart an American store? I haven't seen any in New Zealand.

yes it is.

Not to mention, due to the size and weight of these bundled banana clips, you could actually get close to the 300-500 round range of bullets that video games say a person can carry (which we all know is BS).

As long as the ammo is light, you have a bag to store it in and you're not stupid, it could be possible. But only carry up to a max of 10 clips (including the two already attached to the gun) because everyone keeps telling me that weight is an issue. Ok, maybe only 6 or 8 clips . . . because you would need room for other things like food and a spare change of clothes in your bag.

Soldiers are generally issued between one hundred and three hundred rounds, not all of it in magazines.
For their part, the soldiers generally try to carry as much sweet ammo as possible in as many magazines as they can fit in their pockets/pouches. I wouldn't put it past a marine to not try packing up to a thousand rounds on top of standard gear, but for normal people, 500 is doable but probably as a maximum load.

That's all for modern assault rifle rounds like 5.56 NATO, for larger battlerifle rounds, half of that is probably a good number.

the 5.75 of the P90

P90 comes in a variety of ammo calibres, most commonly .45 . . . according to wikipedia.

I can't find any reference to P90's chambered in anything other than 5.7x28mm SS190. not even wikipedia.


It'll run out of energy eventually, just because it's high velocity and armor piercing doesn't make it an unstoppable bullet of death, try to pop a balloon with one at 300-400 meters, I dare you, if you're lucky it may hit point first which might pop the balloon, but since it's pretty much guaranteed to be tumbling at that range, it's pretty unlikely and won't have the energy left to pop a balloon.

I wish to try this. Now I need a P90, a gun licence and ammo for the P90. Can you provide all that? If you can, then I will try it as soon as I get the gun, licence, and ammo.


do you doubt that wind resistance will eventually drain all of the forward momentum out of the round? otherwise, no reason to preform the test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedloade ... eedloaders
with one of these babies, I can reload my .357 magnum as fast as I can switch magazines with my dad's Colt defender, and I'd much rather reload a revolver in combat than stack rounds in a magazine

I already knew what speed loaders are. They are always used on video games to increase revolver reloading time. But it is still slower than putting another clip in a pistol. But from what you say, your dad only has one clip for it. That will cause major problems. You must have more than one clip if you want to reload in combat.

Video games =/- reality, espescially not wrt to firearms. As I mentioned earlier, with practice, you can reload with a speed loader as fast as you can reload with a magazine loading weapon and you can carry as many ready speed loaders as ready magazines (if not more, a pseed loader weighs less than a magazine). And again, it takes less time to reload a revolver without a speed loader than it takes to reload a magazine.
I didn't say my dad only has one extra clip, nor do I have only one speed loader.

thecommabandit has a good plan . . . except for the Katana idea . . . Katana are heavy and not to easy to come by.

Wow . . . I spent two and a half hours going through all that!

Katanas are also fragile and quite difficult to use., there are many more reasons not to use a katana than just that they're heavy and expensive, proving once again that video games =/= reality.
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
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26508
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 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:40 am UTC

Hey, guys..

Can we please stop fucking quote sniping? That'd be great.
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
Upsilon
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:53 am UTC
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Upsilon » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:43 am UTC

I'd like to bring up the fact that I haven't touched a ranged weapon more powerful than a BB gun. I imagine that some people have had even less experience than this. Here's some advice to any of those people who may be reading this: Don't fire a gun if you don't know the proper method of using it. You could be injured from recoil, or be killed by that zombie you missed and the 20 others you've attracted because your gun walked up while you were firing.

If I don't learn how to use a gun before the apocalypse, I'm not going to do the stupid thing and try to use that high-powered rifle that I somehow found laying in the street alongside a bunch of ammo; I'm going to leave the shooting to the people who know how to shoot.
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 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:18 am UTC

Agreed, .22 round won't penetrate the skull unless you practically shove the barrel in a zombies face.

and that's only a good idea when the zombie is practically right in front of you.

lulz, taped clips, the standard issue weapon of African militias everywhere.
(it's a good idea, just generally considered to be a very redneck/african militia thing to do in most situations)

I would rather survive Z-day and look like a redneck than die in Z-day because I was fumbling around with my ammo.

Soldiers are generally issued between one hundred and three hundred rounds, not all of it in magazines.
For their part, the soldiers generally try to carry as much sweet ammo as possible in as many magazines as they can fit in their pockets/pouches. I wouldn't put it past a marine to not try packing up to a thousand rounds on top of standard gear, but for normal people, 500 is doable but probably as a maximum load.

Wow! . . . Ya learn something new every day. Should I post that in the "what did you learn today" thread?

I can't find any reference to P90's chambered in anything other than 5.7x28mm SS190. not even wikipedia.

Really? Huh. It said .45 when I looked it up on wikipedia . . . that was a couple of months ago though. Someone must have changed it. Sorry for my miss-infomation.

Video games =/- reality, espescially not wrt to firearms. As I mentioned earlier, with practice, you can reload with a speed loader as fast as you can reload with a magazine loading weapon and you can carry as many ready speed loaders as ready magazines (if not more, a pseed loader weighs less than a magazine). And again, it takes less time to reload a revolver without a speed loader than it takes to reload a magazine.
I didn't say my dad only has one extra clip, nor do I have only one speed loader.

Understood. I must have read something wrong which was why I assumed your dad only had one clip for the gun. I think i need to spend more time reading through everything. I usually read fast. I will try to slow town and take my time.

video games =/= reality.

Every single human being with an IQ above 0 should agree with you.

Hey, guys..

Can we please stop fucking quote sniping? That'd be great.

What's quote sniping?

If I don't learn how to use a gun before the apocalypse, I'm not going to do the stupid thing and try to use that high-powered rifle that I somehow found laying in the street alongside a bunch of ammo; I'm going to leave the shooting to the people who know how to shoot.

I would take it with me, but only use it if I needed to. Or only use it once I get a nice place that I can snipe zombies from.

Has anyone shot something that is dead? (Like a dead cow or something that has been dead for a while and is rotting) because we need to know how its different from shooting something that's alive.

Edit: The people who know how to shoot will most likely have guns and ammo.

What do people have against learning to shoot after Z-day? Assume you live past the first week. You meet up with a bunch of survivors. Most of them know how to shoot. Wouldn't it be better to teach people to shoot so that you have more people who can shoot zombies?

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 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:06 am UTC

Quote sniping: What you just did.

Alright, you don't hand a .357 magnum to someone who's never used a gun before because the first thing they will do is learn that recoil is a bitch, and quite possibly injure themselves learning that lesson. I agree that the .22 doesn't have the penetrating power I'd like, but for a neophyte it's probably the best option.

Also, Flesh, we know the process behind siphoning fuel, but as SecondTalon already pointed out before you described it to us, it won't work that way with buried tanks.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

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 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:47 am UTC

Where I quote a small part of what someone has said and reply to it? I find that the best method of replying to a comment on here. Unless I am the first one to reply after they said it, some people might get confused. Also, if I go back through and read it, I will be able to sort it out beter.

I know that recoils a bitch. I saw someone fire a desert eagle and give herself a very large bruise on her forehead. It was hilarious but pointed out how powerful the recoil on guns in.

Did you see that I put "man, I've been on this topic for 2 and a half hours!"? I often open the "post reply" bit in another tab and read through from where I last posted. I will quote someone and reply to that quote. I must not have realised that I replied to the siphoning bit when I read SecondTalon's comment about it. Sorry.

Edit:
Leave the katana. They don't work like they do in movies.
In what movies have Katana been used against zombies? Or were you meaning just in general. As in, you cant chop off someone's arm with a Katana?

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 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:59 am UTC

If nothing else, take the gaps out of the quotes. Especially when you have a lot of them, it saves a lot on space.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

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 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:38 am UTC

Torvaun wrote:If nothing else, take the gaps out of the quotes. Especially when you have a lot of them, it saves a lot on space.
like this? Ok, I will try to conform to your (or you're?) expectations. As long as you guys don't use the AWESOME!!1! key, we should be fine.

EDIT: Shouldn't readability be better than saving space? I mean, if I write a lot in a small space and it's unreadable, wouldn't that be bad? Even if it does save space? Wouldn't it be better for my writing to take up a little more space but be much more readable?
Attachments
the awsome key.jpg
the awsome key.jpg (15.3 KiB) Viewed 4213 times

User avatar
thecommabandit
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:25 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby thecommabandit » Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:01 am UTC

@ Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel:

Use paragraph spacing. If people complain about your post taking up too much space ignore them, because a wall-of-text is worse.

Yeah, the katana's meant to be ornamental anyway. It's not sharp, but it's quite heavy and well balanced. I was thinking more about the weight than sharpness, but the fact of the matter is that it's impractical and not worth its own weight to me, whereas the machete would be useful as a tool for cutting food, rope, etc. I hadn't however though about bladed weapons being a bad idea. Infected blood spraying everywhere is not a good idea. I might try and find a cricket bat around somewhere in a sports shop. Always a classic.

I was picturing this as after the infection, so the town centre wouldn't be swarmed with live people. My reasoning was that most people would be irrational and loot worthless goods like electronics, or loot food and water, allowing me fairly free pick of the useful but less thought of items like trekking and camping gear.



But yes, if you see a zombie, you should always try to avoid it. ALWAYS. None of us will be Rambo on Z-day, and we'll be scared out of our heads. The further you are away from the rotting, shambling corpses that will kill you, the better. Combat is the very, very, very last option. The kind of point where you don't expect to live any longer and are either trying to take as many with you as you can or holding them off to save someone else.
Image

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 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:39 am UTC

Thank you! Paragraphs are what I intend . . . but I usually have a whole lot of quotes which cut up the paragraphs. Also, I like having a line between paragraphs, it makes them easily definable.

Cricket bats are very irregularly shaped. You might do beter finding yourself a baseball bat. They are both wooden (although, I have seen some metal baseball bats) and around the same size (the cricket bat is most likely larger, but that adds to the weight) so they would be around the same leval of effectiveness. If I had the choice between the two, I would have the baseball bat.

You have my reasoning. People will either be feeding the mobs, hiding in their homes, looting things, trying to get the police to help, trying to fight the mob of zombies all by themselves, running away or doing something stupid like running around in circles panicking. Also, a few people might be spending their last night on earth as a living human being fornicating 'till they can fornicate no more.

Ah, the "suicide at last stand" method of fighting. This is where you don't need to know how to clean your gun or even how to fix a jam. All you need to know is how to fire the gun, and how to pull the pin out of your grenade when you run out of ammo!

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

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Phrozt » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:01 pm UTC

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:
Phrozt wrote:How exactly does everyone have a cache of military grade armaments available to them?

New Zealand had a terrorist training camp (according to the police) and they had napalm! I know a guy who illegally makes guns! The law is not going to stop someone getting a good gun. And I'm only in New Zealand! In USA or somewhere like that, most of the illegal guns in New Zealand would be legal.


You missed my point. I asked how everyone would have a cache of military grade armaments AVAILABLE to them. You people are talking like if Zday hits, the matrix armory shelves are going to rush in around you and you can pick wtf ever you want to play with. If we're taking the zombie scenario "seriously" that's never going to happen.

EdgarJPublius wrote:If you want to argue which weapon is more accurate at which range, you talk about shooting fixed targets. Otherwise you're just circle jerking over the circumstances.
Any optic you can put on a rifle you can put on an SMG or a shotgun if it's equipped with a suitable optics rail and most civilian variant SMGs and high end shotguns have such optics rails at least as options.


Becuase I doubt zombies are going to wait for us to get set up, get all our safety gear on, line the target up and hold still so we can shoot their head off. We're talking about a zombie apocalypse. As far as optics, I was wondering why the hell anyone would put one on a shotgun. So they can get an instant black eye?? I mean seriously.


EdgarJPublius wrote:
Phrozt wrote:Oh, I'm well aware of speed loaders, but again... where are we getting all of these nice little gadgets? Also, how many speed loaders do you plan on carrying with you at all times? It's not like the bullets magically stick themselves in the speed loader so the next time you need to reload they are there...


We're talking about preparing for the zombie apocalypse right? We bought/borrowed/stole them along with the gun.

And I'll carry as many speed loaders as you carry magazines, when we both run out of ammo pre-loaded ammo, I bet I can reload my revolver and fire all six rounds twice before you can push six rounds into the magazine once.


If I have taped banana clips (which I honestly do.... in reality... not some made up fantasy land where I can loot wtf ever I feel like taking), I can shoot 60 shots by reloading only once. In that time, you'll have reloaded 10 times and used up 10 of your "clips." Even if you could reload your revolver faster w/a speed loader than I could take a clip out, flip it over, and push it back in (which I HIGHLY doubt), I'll still take my one reload to your 10. And if we BOTH go through 300 rounds and we still need a lot of firepower? We have bigger things to worry about than silly squabbles.

EdgarJPublius wrote:lulz, taped clips, the standard issue weapon of African militias everywhere.
(it's a good idea, just generally considered to be a very redneck/african militia thing to do in most situations)


You know what? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I won't really be worried about what walking corpses of rotting flesh think about me in terms of fashion and/or background.

Upsilon wrote:I'd like to bring up the fact that I haven't touched a ranged weapon more powerful than a BB gun. I imagine that some people have had even less experience than this.


That's why I like a 22. Barely any kick at all, so it shouldn't scare anyone... and it's easy as hell to work with.

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

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby Random832 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:53 pm UTC

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:Cricket bats are very irregularly shaped. You might do beter finding yourself a baseball bat. They are both wooden (although, I have seen some metal baseball bats) and around the same size (the cricket bat is most likely larger, but that adds to the weight) so they would be around the same leval of effectiveness. If I had the choice between the two, I would have the baseball bat.


I'd suspect that baseball bats are more likely to be available in the US, Canada, Japan, Latin America, etc, whereas cricket bats would be more available in english-speaking countries other than the US/Canada. It's a matter of what sports are popular.

User avatar
thecommabandit
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:25 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby thecommabandit » Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:57 pm UTC

Also, I'd imagine the flat side you use to hit the ball is well-shaped for smashing skulls (as morbid as that thought is), which you don't get with a baseball/rounders bat.
Image

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 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:12 pm UTC

Really? I would've gone with the edge, for skull smashing. Less impact area = higher force:area ratio. But uh... yeah. You're going to get tired of that quickly. The reason edged weapons work is because you dont need to hit that hard if you keep them sharp.
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

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Taking it seriously: The zombie problem

Postby sophyturtle » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:53 pm UTC

Wooden base ball bats are not that hard to break. Aluminum ones are not that hard to bend. I sort of still wish I had my field hockey stick somewhere. Unlike baseball bats that seem to break on the head, those things stand firm while you opponent goes unconscious. (I was speaking from experience, because while I have known people who have had bats broken on their heads without much trouble I know women who have been knocked out with field hockey sticks, if only momentarily).

Same issue with golf clubs or many things that seem like a good idea. You have to think of how easy it is to break. If a base ball can break a baseball bat, maybe you will want a more sturdy zombie hitting stick. I am not familiar with cricket bats, maybe they are harder to break?
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26508
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 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:04 pm UTC

The main saving grace of the baseball bat is that lots of people have one or two around... I mean, I've got two in my garage, and I've not played baseball or similar in over ten years. I'm not quite sure where they even came from.

I wouldn't expect it to last long.. just long enough to get something sturdier.

As far as cricket bats go, after looking at images of them, assuming they were solid wood I would assume the stress point would be right where the handle connects to the head, as you've basically got a big thick piece that immediately becomes a thin piece. If there's a metal rod in there, that would help matters but would still likely bend.


[thread musing]
Hmm.. maybe we need to start designating our ideas for things like Early Outbreak (Day 1 to Day 7, when people are panicking and trying to flee/gather supplies as quickly as possible, and the whole thing's complete anarchy), After the Fall (probably a month or two in - after most people have died, fled, etc.. and come to the realization that no magic army is going to appear and save their asses) Getting A New Life (Probably around the six month mark, when people stop trying to just stay alive from day to day, and start trying to.. well, basically start in on long term settlement plans and getting a permanent base, even if the permanent base is mobile in nature) and Long Term Survival (stuff pertaining to what happens A year + after the outbreak began)[/thread musing]
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
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 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

For low quality cricket bats, you're definitely right about the weak point, but for better ones they can eventually snap pretty much in the middle from cumulative wear (particularly if you hit the ground a fair bit). Of course otherwise that's just hitting relatively light cricket balls.
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


Return to “Gaming”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests