7 Famous Zombie Killing Weapons That Would Get You Killed

[Wyldwraith]

@Mike70: Thanks man. Makes me feel better when someone "gets it." For everyone else, when you suffer from a severe chronic physical condition of some sort you eventually learn to see your life and the world through the lens of the limitations you're saddled with. In my case, that means/meant learning that since anything more than light casual movement (no lifting anything heavier than a shotgun, EXTREMELY limited capability of moving faster than a fast walk, no contorting of limbs into unusual/fully extended positions and, ABOVE ALL, no going more than 3-3 @ 1/2hrs MAXIMUM without the next dose of pain meds and muscle relaxer). It's not a matter of lack of functionality, just functionality being limited/inhibited by severe pain. Now I've had reason to learn that adrenaline can do a great job in the short term of blocking out the pain so I can function as normal. (Couple of severe altercations defending either myself or a woman who couldn't defend herself. Heh, you'd think I'd have knocked the White Knight stuff off after I got crippled to begin with, but apparently not.) So I know that if I HAD TO I could function at 90-92.5% for a few hours, or 100-100+% for a few minutes if the motivation (not getting eaten certainly qualifies) was sufficient. You called it though. I'm pretty much good for only 2 things. 1) A Last Stander, which might allow others to make good an escape, or at least thin out the local zombie population. 2) Static defender and jack-of-all-trades in a secured structure. Sounds kinda nutty, but I actually do make a point of picking up a couple boxes of 12-gauge shells and a couple boxes of (God, they've gotten expensive) .45 rounds. The last time I did a rough inventory I'm up to something like 37-40 boxes of 00 buck and 3 inch magnum slugs and about half that in .45 ammunition. Plus about 5 120-count boxes of .22lr (man's gotta eat). Not an armory by any means, but in a hypothetical Zombie Apocalypse I'd grab my 3 guns, backpack and my Z.A.K and pull a couple of muscles pushing the garage mini-fridge up the attic fold-down stairs in the garage then clip the string you grab to pull the stairs down and head out through the skylight we had put in when we let Hyperion Systems put solar panels on the roof. That's where I'd plant my flag if no better options presented themselves. Me running away from the undead would be as stupid as a zombie.

[Mike70]

@Mike70: Thanks man. Makes me feel better when someone "gets it." For everyone else, when you suffer from a severe chronic physical condition of some sort you eventually learn to see your life and the world through the lens of the limitations you're saddled with. In my case, that means/meant learning that since anything more than light casual movement (no lifting anything heavier than a shotgun, EXTREMELY limited capability of moving faster than a fast walk, no contorting of limbs into unusual/fully extended positions and, ABOVE ALL, no going more than 3-3 @ 1/2hrs MAXIMUM without the next dose of pain meds and muscle relaxer). It's not a matter of lack of functionality, just functionality being limited/inhibited by severe pain. Now I've had reason to learn that adrenaline can do a great job in the short term of blocking out the pain so I can function as normal. (Couple of severe altercations defending either myself or a woman who couldn't defend herself. Heh, you'd think I'd have knocked the White Knight stuff off after I got crippled to begin with, but apparently not.) So I know that if I HAD TO I could function at 90-92.5% for a few hours, or 100-100+% for a few minutes if the motivation (not getting eaten certainly qualifies) was sufficient. You called it though. I'm pretty much good for only 2 things. 1) A Last Stander, which might allow others to make good an escape, or at least thin out the local zombie population. 2) Static defender and jack-of-all-trades in a secured structure. Sounds kinda nutty, but I actually do make a point of picking up a couple boxes of 12-gauge shells and a couple boxes of (God, they've gotten expensive) .45 rounds. The last time I did a rough inventory I'm up to something like 37-40 boxes of 00 buck and 3 inch magnum slugs and about half that in .45 ammunition. Plus about 5 120-count boxes of .22lr (man's gotta eat). Not an armory by any means, but in a hypothetical Zombie Apocalypse I'd grab my 3 guns, backpack and my Z.A.K and pull a couple of muscles pushing the garage mini-fridge up the attic fold-down stairs in the garage then clip the string you grab to pull the stairs down and head out through the skylight we had put in when we let Hyperion Systems put solar panels on the roof. That's where I'd plant my flag if no better options presented themselves. Me running away from the undead would be as stupid as a zombie. that few minutes of maximum function might just save your ass (literally) from zombies. .22lr is nothing to dismiss. .22 wouldn't be bad in a zombie situation. sure they aren't flashy or as powerful as other bullets but they have one big advantage over other ammo sizes: because they are so much lighter than most other bullets, you can carry a shitload of .22 without much problem.

[Wyldwraith]

::nods:: I have a great deal of respect for .22s, well, the high-quality ones anyways. A good .22 is as hard to fuck up as AK-47s are reputed to be. Useful trait when you can't just run down to the local sporting goods store and have an issue with your piece cleaned up for ya. At close range (the range at which most firearm engagements happen anyways) a .22 could quite handily get the job done and much more quietly. That said, in any sort of collapse-of-civilization scenario, other humans wanting to take what you've got would be as hazardous or even moreso than any other threat. I wouldn't want to end up in a shootout with a couple of weekend warriors turned looters packing AR-15s vs. a .22 though. In the final analysis however, my choice of weapons has been more motivated by what I proved to be most comfortable with than anything else. I'm sure there are other ways one could go that are equally viable firearms-wise *for someone else*. I've probably shot 1200-1600 rounds/shells each through my 12-gauge and .45 back when I went to the range a lot with my stepdad, not to mention time spent hunting pre-injuries. I don't think Familiarity with a firearm is a trait that can be overstated. So ultimately, the best choice for everyone/anyone will be determined by their personal experience. Personally, I think that (along with First Aid training and basic land navigation) everyone should put in the effort to become proficient and familiar with a firearm of their choice. The gun in your hand is tons less likely to let you down than a government response-interval to a major crisis. That, and cops can't prevent crime, just clean up the mess. But yea, you're right Mike, if something was trying to eat me alive I'd most likely discover heretofore unknown reserves of stamina.

[babomb]

I always thought a good weapon would be one of those cattle killers like the guy has in "No Country For Old Men". Just adapted to be on the end of a pole. It uses compressed air to shoot a small cylinder out but then retracts the cylinder. By no means a 'tactical' weapon, although it is almost completely silent. But overall the best thing to do would be to avoid a confrontation at all costs. If you're going around takin on zombies like you're the terminator, then it's only a matter of time until it bites you on the ass. So the absolute best weapon against a zombie would be your brain. They need to be lured into a controlled environment and killed in a manner that doesn't require precious resources, such as ammo or human energy. That's my biggest problem with melee weapons of any style. They take alot of energy to use. Energy that wouldn't really be easy to come by in a world where you might not eat for days at a time, or where you're always on the verge of dehydration. You use up all your energy swinging a heavy weapon around, what happens if you have no other choice but to make a hasty retreat and you have no energy left to run?

[Mike70]

::nods:: In the final analysis however, my choice of weapons has been more motivated by what I proved to be most comfortable with than anything else. ) i think you've hit it right on the head here. anyone can pick up a gun and shoot it but being comfortable with it, knowing how to maintain it, knowing what kind of ammo works best is something that has to be learned. i have a decent assortment of firearms. 2 9mms, 2 shotguns, 2 .30-06 hunting rifles, and a 1943 WWII Enfield (which still works quite well). i probably need a smaller caliber weapon to compliement it all. on another note: i'd love to see what that Enfield would do to a zombie's skull.

[babomb]

My favorite is always gonna be that ol Winchester Model12-20ga. I even prefer it to the Rem870 20ga because it's got more character. It's a slam gun. Meaning, there's no disconnect between the firing mechanism and the action. So as long as you hold down the trigger it will continue to fire while you cycle the action. Modern firearms won't do that, you have to pull the trigger after you cycle it for it to fire. The downside of an old gun like a Model12 is that parts are hard to come by. But parts between the Model12-20 and the 16ga version are interchangeable. So the 16 has been reduced to backup parts for the 20. 16ga ammo is even more expensive than 20ga though so it makes little difference to me. I have an older .22 also, which is fun to shoot since ammo is cheap and abundant. So those would be my 2 main weapons, the .22 and the 20ga. I'm not much on pistols, I have an old 38 revolver and have been tempted to get a modern sidearm like a 9mm maybe. I just can't justify droppping the cash with the economy being so bad and money being so tight.

[Thorn]

I love the idea of building a maze out of concrete around your base, this came up in a comic (title withheld) and it struck me as brilliant, Zombies are dumb they would stagger around and get lost and eventually lose interest. You could walk a gangplank above to kill them at range when the maze was full. This would keep pressure off of important walls and distribute the load within the maze so no one wall was taking a constant pounding. It would also enable you to be able to get in and out through another mean while keeping them corralled in the maze. There are kinks in the system I am sure that would need to be worked out but from a theoretical standpoint I like it a great deal.

[krakenslayer]

There is one aspect of the mythology that was established in Night and continued in Dawn that seems to have been forgotten by everyone (including Romero himself). ZOMBIES ARE SCARED OF FIRE!

[mpokera]

There is one aspect of the mythology that was established in Night and continued in Dawn that seems to have been forgotten by everyone (including Romero himself). ZOMBIES ARE SCARED OF FIRE! While its true that NOTLD and DOTLD do indeed establish this fact, I think that later works have actually for the most part gone away from this enough to make it not canon anymore. And for my two cents I think it makes more sense that they wouldnt be than that they would. I think of zombies as mindless eating machines not concerned for their own safety or pain at all. While they might walk around a fire if possible, if they are chasing prey I think they would walk right into a flame and ignore the fact that they were burning as they kept attacking as long as they could.

[Ragnarr]

I love the idea of building a maze out of concrete around your base, this came up in a comic (title withheld) and it struck me as brilliant, Zombies are dumb they would stagger around and get lost and eventually lose interest. You could walk a gangplank above to kill them at range when the maze was full. This would keep pressure off of important walls and distribute the load within the maze so no one wall was taking a constant pounding. It would also enable you to be able to get in and out through another mean while keeping them corralled in the maze. There are kinks in the system I am sure that would need to be worked out but from a theoretical standpoint I like it a great deal. I don't know. Seems like an overly complex plan for defending your base. I find that the more simplistic a plan is, the less there is that can go wrong with it. Any safe position that is above the zeds would allow defenders to thin their attackers numbers out. History is full of proven methods for defending fortified positions, and many of these strategies could be easily adapted for use during a zombie apocalypse.

[krakenslayer]

While its true that NOTLD and DOTLD do indeed establish this fact, I think that later works have actually for the most part gone away from this enough to make it not canon anymore. And for my two cents I think it makes more sense that they wouldnt be than that they would. I think of zombies as mindless eating machines not concerned for their own safety or pain at all. While they might walk around a fire if possible, if they are chasing prey I think they would walk right into a flame and ignore the fact that they were burning as they kept attacking as long as they could. Exactly. Now this hits upon a point that illustrates just how pointless discussions such as this are: every film has different rules, yet no one ever sets out which film's zombies they have in mind when they begin a discussion. Therefore you easily end up with a dozen or so people all pulling in different directions with their own pet scenarios.

[Thorn]

this is the single best line in the whole article: i'd prefer quieter weapons in killing zombies over firearms. sure, i'd want to have guns handy but only as a last resort. noise seems to draw zombies like fresh elephant shit draws in dung beetles. another reason that i think people who want to keep dogs in a zombie outbreak are destined for nothing but death. also your average gunshot is about 160 decibels. that sound could travel as much as 10 km under the right conditions. my close in weapon of choice would be an Easton bomb bat. it's not going to break nor wear out anytime soon. you can generate great speed with it meaning an impact on the skull is going to do major damage. it won't get stuck in wound and doesn't have to be reloaded. the problem that the vast majority of bladed weapons would have is that they would most likely become stuck in the zombie's head. not a good thing. the major problem i'd have with swords is that the majority of the classic ones: the roman gladius, the greek xiphos, are designed as thrusting swords, to stab up and into an enemies' vital organs. not too useful against zombies. -- -------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ---------- phalanxes are only good against targets directly in front of you. they have zero lateral mobility, cannot defend themselves from side or rear attacks and would only serve to push tasty human tartar together for zombies to feast on. you seem to know a bit about the classical world. that's cool. i'm a classicist by education. nice to have someone else around besides evilned who knows what the hell a hoplon or a xiphos is and hasn't gotten their ancient history from watching "300." 300 was a fun read as a graphic novel, and it translated into an enjoybale movie experince, anyone who feels this in anyway resembles actual history is smoking somethign they shouldn't. That said the battle at thermaploaye (which of course was not just 300, as there were plenty of slaves, and peopel from other free cities there as well) was one of the most interesting moments in history for me. Not because of fan boy love of sword and sandal epics but because the sacrifice men can make under horrible conditions to do what they feel they should do. And I am not even in love with Spartans, anyone who wages war on an enemy over and over agai nand refuses to change their tactics leading to their eventual defeat... I have a hard time supporting. Especially if one ofthe mai nreasons for waring wit hthem to begin with is because they are into higher learning, arts, and the like. Now that all said I still think a phalanx could have use in specific situations and with modifications for the new foe, you have to adjust in the zombie world, as we all know even current military tactics could not remain unchanged, we would need to improvise, adapt, and over come. I would not dismiss out of hand a shield line/formation in specific areas and situations.

[Wyldwraith]

I think that so far as a sizable group engaged in an operation to say, clear a walled & gated subdivision of the undead tenants (assuming they have the manpower, nerve, necessary equipment etc.) could use a group-centric formation to systematically eliminate a FIXED number of zombies in an otherwise geographically secure area. Trying it in the open would lead to a tired team whose extended presence and consequent noise-making drawing more "new" zombies to them than those eliminated in the area where the group arrived. You could do it a variety of ways. 1) (Not necessarily ease to come by) Animal Control-style catch-and-control sticks could be looped around both of the zombies upper arms and 1 more about the neck for safety's sake. With 3 strong men wielding the poles, it wouldn't be difficult for a 4th individual to inflict the necessary brain-trauma at their leisure. A simpler, though not quite as safe variation of the process would be 2 or more individuals pushing the zombie up against a convenient wall with any suitable poles (the telescoping lock-into-position pool screen poles, minus the screen attachment could easily do the job. 2) A pair of individuals could stretch a rope taut between them and run past the zombie on either side, in effect clothes-lining said zombie and setting up a third individual with an effective but maybe difficult-to-wield against an advancing mobile zombie for a decisive blow with say, a Sledgehammer or Mattock. 3) (Also not the easiest to procure or construct weapons proper for the task) The classic boar-slaying approach from the old days. 1 or more individuals with a spear or spear-like implement which has a reasonably substantial cross-piece affixed just behind the head of the spear, to prevent the impaled zombie from walking up the spear and attacking the spear-wielder. If an enraged Russian boar, which is about as sensitive to pain and injuries not resulting in a nervous system disconnect as a zombie (for several minutes at least), and which is double the weight of your average fit adult human male can be reliably brought down by such methods, so can a zombie. Probably even easier because you don't waste energy chasing it, don't need hunting dogs, and the zombie is 100x stupider, 10x slower and 1/2 the weight. Of course you could always just go the "platoon of Daryls" route and have 4/5ths of the team primarily using Xbows, while the remaining 1/5th of the group watchdogged them with firearms at the ready in case something went wrong. The Xbow users would have guns as well, but the goal would be to minimize noise made and the expenditure of irreplaceable ammunition. (Still irritates me that Daryl has stopped even trying to recover his crossbow bolts this season. He went pretty much all the way through S1 with a steady number, but in only 4 episodes has expended all but one of them. Yes, SOME bolts would be rendered useless after striking the skull and being withdrawn from said skull, but if he could retrieve serviceable bolts all of least season, why are said rare bolts all but irretrievable this season?)

[AcesandEights]

I think that so far as a sizable group engaged in an operation to say, clear a walled & gated subdivision of the undead tenants (assuming they have the manpower, nerve, necessary equipment etc.) could use a group-centric formation to systematically eliminate a FIXED number of zombies in an otherwise geographically secure area. This is pretty much how I feel about use of medium or heavier armor and riot control tactics...it just depends on the situation. I still wouldn't hump around chainmail in a post-apocalyptic zombie setting, but if I weren't on the road and had a force of people who may have to go in and clear out infected blockhouses or contaminated sections of a settlement, then...it just may be a case of the right tool for the right job.

[Ragnarr]

This is pretty much how I feel about use of medium or heavier armor and riot control tactics...it just depends on the situation. I still wouldn't hump around chainmail in a post-apocalyptic zombie setting, but if I weren't on the road and had a force of people who may have to go in and clear out infected blockhouses or contaminated sections of a settlement, then...it just may be a case of the right tool for the right job. Now THERE'S an idea for a new zombie flick; a zed outbreak set in 12th century europe! The zeds surround the characters that are holding up in a motte & bailey. Lot's of room to explore medieval armor, weapons and seige tactics versus hordes of zombified villagers. Hell, I'd pay to see that flick twice! "An evil necromancer raises hordes of undead as an act of revenge against his local feudal lord." "Knight of the Living Dead" "Sir Vivor" "Lord of the Dead"