Official Zombie Thread

Blind_Io

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
24,221
Location
Utah
Car(s)
See signature
Ok, I think a nooblet posted something Zombie related a while ago but I assure you this is different. I recently got The Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z on the advice of a friend.

I started with the Guide, but already I have spotted an issue with the weapons section. The book states that the M16 is the worst assault rifle and equates the assault rifle to the submachine gun - both are erroneous. The M-16 did face difficulty in Vietnam, but that was thanks to Colt who marketed the design (purchased from Fairchild Aircraft) as a "self cleaning rifle." As a result soldiers were not trained in how to maintain or clean the rifles and were not issued any cleaning kits. A further gripe is that the polymer stock is easy to break, nothing is further from the truth; the polymer stock is actually more robust than a wooden stock because of it's slight elasticity. Wood stocks can crack and splinter much more easily and result in personal injury when the recoil hits a weakened stock. The book fails to take into consideration the strong points of the weapon - such as the ability to carry more ammunition than a 7.62mm or hunting rifle rounds without an increase in weight. The AK47 is a fine weapon for someone who has no formal training in how to shoot or how to clean and care for a weapon. It's notoriously inaccurate because of it's loose fitting parts. Based on the Soviet military doctrine at the time of development it was more important to put out a wall of lead by an untrained conscript army than to train for accuracy - something the US military does (and the users of the M16).

I don't think the author has actually fired either of these weapons. If he had he would know that the M16 family meets the requirements set out in the sections about machine guns and submachine guns - that a single shot to the head is better than a wall of lead. My own brother has put two rounds from an AR15 through a SoBe bottle top at 60 yards with open iron sights with a cross wind.

Discuss.
 
Z day is coming.

Frankly, I agree with you but i see his point. The AK is more robust than about anything, which explains why kalashnikov and various others have been able to make the same gun for 60 years. I do think his idea vis-a-vis the M1 and m14 is interesting. A lever action semi-auto rifle would make it easier to be accurate, but ROF is an issue.
 
First of all, a lever action is a repeating rifle, not a semi-automatic (auto-loader). Although the AK can put up with plenty of abuse, it's not a precise weapon and when you can't just spray and pray at center mass the M16 is the weapon of choice. You can carry more ammo (you can even get drum magazines of 100 rounds to fit an AR15), it's more accurate, lighter weight and just as easy to use.

Sure you have to take care of it, but that is no big deal for someone disciplined enough to survive Z-Day. Rate of fire is not as important as accuracy. A semi-automatic rifle is more than enough to do the job. The .223 cal or 5.56mm round is more than adequate to pierce the skull at 400 meters or more in the hands of an experienced rifleman. The AK-47 has a longer range for the round, but it's not accurate enough to get in a good headshot past about 200 meters - at least according to my brother who is a better rifleman than I am. I have fired both and prefer the AR-15 to the AK variants - especially if you are going to be on the move. The AR is much lighter than the AK.
 
Last edited:
I can't say much because my firearm knowledge is limited, but give me accuracy over rate of fire any given day.
 
Blind you are comparing the AK-47 (a weapon over 50 yrs old) to a much newer AR-15 (M-16) and in it's A2 form, the A1 was not so hot with reliability issues especialy in a hostile environment and an auto setting. The adoption by the Soviets of the 5.56mm for the AK-74 shows there faith in the smaller caliber round. Whats you opinion on those two stacking up.

I watched a documentary once where Kalashnikov and Stoner where talking together. Stoner had nothing but praise for Kalashnikov's design, on the other hand the Russian was a little reserved when it came to the AR-15
 
The real reason the rifles are different is because of different design instructions. The AK-47 was designed to be used by uneducated conscripts just off the farm and the M-16 was designed to be used by trained markmen. Their respective designs show this. The AK-47 is designed loose with loose tolerances and the M-16 is designed with high tolerances. It is not that the M-16 is a bad rifle, it is not. The M-16 is a fine piece of engineering and is more accurate than the M-16 any day of the week. It's use of man made materials revolutionized gun design. But really in the end it comes down to who the guns were designed to be shot by. If I was a civilian with no firearm training I would pick the AK-47 but if I had at least a little experience with a firearm I would pick the M-16. Both have their weaknesses but both are great pieces of engineering.

PS: Check out the HK416.

If that is the only gripe you have with the book then that is good. I loved both books and even with the small mistakes are still some of my favorites.
 
Only to take part in that geeky discussion for short:
The AK-74 does use 5.45mm not 5.56mm, its a special russian design, as is the 7.62mm round for the AK-47, because it is only 7.62mm x 39 its in no way superior in firepower to a normal NATO 5.56mm/.223 round.
Oh and Polymer stocks can break, the G36 Assault rifle I used in the army (very good btw) uses one, and HK said it is so strong noone will be able to break it. Guess what, they have not counted in the ability of soldiers to break ANYTHING, so from time to time one bites the dust.
 
zaybxcwd12 said:
Blind you are comparing the AK-47 (a weapon over 50 yrs old) to a much newer AR-15 (M-16) and in it's A2 form, the A1 was not so hot with reliability issues especialy in a hostile environment and an auto setting. The adoption by the Soviets of the 5.56mm for the AK-74 shows there faith in the smaller caliber round. Whats you opinion on those two stacking up.

I watched a documentary once where Kalashnikov and Stoner where talking together. Stoner had nothing but praise for Kalashnikov's design, on the other hand the Russian was a little reserved when it came to the AR-15
Click to expand...

I didn't make the comparison, the book did, I merely pointed out the flaws in the argument.

If you want to compare weapons that were designed nearer each other chronologically you can always compare the M16A2 to the AK74. I have no problems with Klashnikov's design, it is ideally suited for the type of fighting the Russians were doing and with their military doctrine - lots of mostly untrained conscript farmers carrying weapons shooting a good size rifle round. However this proved fatal in Afghanistan where Russians were regularly engaged by the Taliban fighters using old Lee Enfield and even single-shot muskets from the colonial days - all at ranges greater than the AK47 or AK74.

With Zombies distance and mobility are your best advantages and the lighter, more accurate AR15 or M16 gives you both better than the AK47 or AK74.

un-dee said:
Only to take part in that geeky discussion for short:
The AK-74 does use 5.45mm not 5.56mm, its a special russian design, as is the 7.62mm round for the AK-47, because it is only 7.62mm x 39 its in no way superior in firepower to a normal NATO 5.56mm/.223 round.
Oh and Polymer stocks can break, the G36 Assault rifle I used in the army (very good btw) uses one, and HK said it is so strong noone will be able to break it. Guess what, they have not counted in the ability of soldiers to break ANYTHING, so from time to time one bites the dust.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying polymer stocks are indestructible. Anything that can be broken will be broken, if it's designed to last 10 years a soldier will find a way to break it in two. If it's indestructible it may last an extra 6 months. However, polymer stocks are lighter weight and not prone to cracking or splitting they way wood is. It's easier to care for and, while not indestructible, more resilient than wood stocks.
 
Last edited:
Is this a zombie thread or an assault rifle thread?

Frankly, in an all-out zombie invasion firearms can only do so much. Sure, it's fun blowing their crunchy heads off with shotguns, but you'll only have so much ammo to survive. How many can you take down before you run out of ammunition? 200? 300? Even if you were in a gun shop and they just kept on coming, like in Dead Rising, you would have to get out of there eventually. A machete for close range and the assault rifle for the few on the horizon, which is what most zombie specialists will agree with.

If anything, I disagreed with what he wrote about vehicles. He doesn't really give a clear advantage on what to use: I sure as hell don't want to be trapped in the woods atop a donkey when the masses come. I haven't read the book in a while, but anyone else have any ideas how to escape from a closed area and seek other survivors?
 
It depends on where you are. Here in the Bay Area I would choose to make my escape by water, since it is closest to my house and offers the best zombie-free route. I know how to sail so I am not dependent on fuel. I would load up with supplies and go anchor at an island that would have less of a chance of Zombies making it there.

If I were back home in Salt Lake, I would use an SUV. I would hole up in my home for a day to let the masses finish the initial exodus then head to the mountains with survival gear. There are several places with natural obstacles that are easily defensible. Also the harsh landscape would make the going difficult or impossible to a mindless Zombie that can't figure out how to go around something in its way. The SUV would be necessary to carry gear and the family and also to access back country areas. I'm not worried about the roads being clogged with cars, frontage roads, and the median or shoulder are just as good when you have 4wd.
 
It all depends on what infrastructures are still going to be working. Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't the power still be able to run automatically without sustained human support? At least for a short while anyway, and this would mean a huge boost in survival chances of course. Would gas pumps still be able to run? Their computer components won't work but I'm sure you could still extract gasoline from the underground reservoirs in case you need to travel long distance.
 
All you really need:
1 x
300px-Lambda-class_shuttle.png


This is for escaping the planet.

Then, 6 x
destroyer.jpg


To nuke the zombies from orbit.

Wait for the surface to cool down somewhat, and the return. Problem solved.

EDIT: 6 x Imperial Star Destroyers, not the Death Star. We don't want to blow up the whole planet.
 
M3lover said:
Who needs assultrifles? When it comes to zombies nothing does the job like these babies:
http://img407.imageshack.**/img407/2667/husq136jc0.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you want to broadcast your presence to every Zombie within a mile radius. Also chain saws are dangerous to use because they can kick back and are to easily clogged with soft tissues. Hefting one up to neck height for a decapitation is tiresome and you have to wait for Zombies to get close to use it. I would much rather go with a bladed weapon than a saw. At least then you can move faster to escape and survive which is your goal.
 
http://img523.imageshack.**/img523/2833/crowbarbk5.png
Just do it Freeman style.

And why is it that the vast majority of first person shooters have zombies in them??


On another zombie-related note, my brother got to meet George A. Romero. He even got an autographed Dawn of the Dead movie poster.
 
Maybe a horse and a full equipment of 17th century cavalry man - a sabre, a lance, a morning star - something like the polish hussars. Oh and a sniper rifle if you see them coming from a long way and feel like fun.
A katana is not bad either. But the blade must me light and able to cut not just stab, and the sabre is meant to be used with one hand, so i preffer it.
A hand granate if you are about to be eaten comes handy too.

But if you're looking for fun, a couple hundred of english longbow archers behind you should provide some entertainment.
 
Last edited:
KaJuN said:
http://img523.imageshack.**/img523/2833/crowbarbk5.png
Just do it Freeman style.

And why is it that the vast majority of first person shooters have zombies in them??


On another zombie-related note, my brother got to meet George A. Romero. He even got an autographed Dawn of the Dead movie poster.
Click to expand...
1. That is twelve levels of badasstry.

2. I've wondered the same thing, too. It's always some sort of creepy zombies or mutants. I guess it makes people feel better about shooting stuff and being violent in general if they're killing stuff that's already dead, but what if I just want to shoot terrorists or something? I bet Rainbow Six has zombies somewhere too. ;)
 
The prybar is ideal. It's heavy enough to crush the skull, some models have pointed ends or it can be machined into a basic bladed tip and it's a tool to access defensible positions, open vending machines, and such.

In an ideal world all your equipment should serve multiple functions and the prybar does this admirably. The fact that Freeman used it effectively adds to it's badassery.
 
A fluorescent tube?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top