Too many of them, not enough ammo!

[strayrider]

If you're going for universal caliber, then 5.56mm would be the recomended choice (at least in the US), it's the general type used by both police and military. Enviornment of engagement would depend on what kind ammunition would be carried. In close quarters, such as inside buildings, you'd want to be using short barreled shotguns and pistols. In suburban areas, everything except long range rifles would do fine. I could go on, but you get the idea. (A blunt weapon, with appropriate tactics to maximize its effectiveness, would be far better than a sword. Blunt weapons can be made with relative ease also) So you've come back Grim. Any plan on swinging by the fiction section any time soon? No, .22 Long Rifle would be better. It can be used in rifles and pistols and you can carry loads of it. -stray-

[SRP76]

No, .22 Long Rifle would be better. It can be used in rifles and pistols and you can carry loads of it. -stray- But can it penetrate a dense human forehead at say, 100 meters? All the ammo in the world won't help if you have to get close to the dead to destroy them.

[Dommm]

I would still remain on dry land, and keep to previously sparsley or non populated areas, unless I get the opportunity to build what I have said in another thread. As far as waepons go, only kill what is ness. only make noise if no other choice, run first if you can.

[Bill-117]

Go for stuff like shovels and hoes (the garden tools...) and pitchforks. Long reach, like a pike. If you can forge your own poleswords or axe-halberds, all the better. As for guns, they're better when you aren't on the move. In a watchtower or up a tree, perhaps.

[Zombill]

I guess its time to head to a space station and sit it out for about 25 years

[Yojimbo]

Again, rather use a firearm against zombies (or better yet, walk right past them). But, if I had to go the blade route, I'd choose this. http://csstoreonline.stores.yahoo.net/90vt.html Special Forces Tomahawk, used in Vietnam. While it does not replace a gun, it can be used for close quarters, deployed easily and (best of all) does not require a lot of skill to be used effectively, something which will work against you if you are trying to use a sword or a knife (or a chainsaw) against the walking dead. I should add that throwing one of these at a target would probably not be the way you would want to go since unlike using it like a hatchet, throwing one of these effectively requires a lot of skill and luck. But can it penetrate a dense human forehead at say, 100 meters? All the ammo in the world won't help if you have to get close to the dead to destroy them. SRP is correct, BTW. .22 has the advantage that you can carry a $hitload of ammo, but I doubt that it would be very effective at 100 meters, let alone have enough stopping power to deal with an angry, meth crazed freak who is charging at you while swinging a machete. I would wager that you could put five bullets into his chest and not stop him from chopping your body up. Yeah, he might die from bleeding hours later, but what good would that do you? If I was going to go the .22 rifle route (which does make some sense) I would supplement the .22 with a decent caliber pistol, like a .357 magnum loaded with nice Elmer Keith style semi-wadcutters, or a .45 automatic.

[Bill-117]

I wonder how well tracer fire in particular would work against zeds... I mean, the magnesium coating? It'd burn right through the brain. Even if you just "grazed" the skull cavity, you'd do lethal damage.

[Yojimbo]

I wonder how well tracer fire in particular would work against zeds... I mean, the magnesium coating? It'd burn right through the brain. Even if you just "grazed" the skull cavity, you'd do lethal damage. I think if you grazed the "skull cavity" with any proper bullet that this would cause lethal damage, though I do not know if this would be any more significant with a tracer round. If by "graze" you mean a bullet does not penetrate the skull and simply glances off of the cranium, again, I'm not certain that a tracer round would be any more significant. One of our resident veterans might be able to have a more informed opinion. In this regard, I have heard of folks taking a .22 LR rimfire round to the head, only to have the bullet travel along the cranium, under the skin of the scalp and the exit without causing any damage to the brain further than a simple concussion. Perhaps a tracer round, if taking the same path, might cauterize the wound channel (and potentially cause more pain), but I have yet to see a .22 LR tracer round. Again, maybe one of our veteran members could clarify if a tracer causes more damage and if this has ever been avaliable for .22 Long Rifle.

[Bill-117]

I mean, like, enters the skull - through the nose maybe, or on the side - but doesn't impact the brain. Maybe what we need is a sort of shotgun round - .22 bullets with tiny bits of metal mixed with the gunpowder.

[SRP76]

For handguns, I'd go with a simple .38 revolver (and of course speedloads are a must). Revolvers don't have the jamming troubles clips in pistols are vulnerable to, making them more reliable. The .38 is sufficient for blasting into a brain, and will get the point across to your average methheaded machete-wielder as well. But it's also lightweight, as is the ammo, and has very small kick. Perfect balance. Running around like Dirty Harry might sound like fun, but after you have to fire that .44 Magnum about 10 times to get out of a crowd, you'll see how much fun it's not. It's work, and you don't need to deal with that when fighting for survival. Best to strike a balance between killing power and punishment to your own body with a medium-caliber.

[Yojimbo]

For handguns, I'd go with a simple .38 revolver (and of course speedloads are a must). Best to strike a balance between killing power and punishment to your own body with a medium-caliber. I agree with SRP. My personal favorite piece is a Ruger Speed Six .357 magnum snubnose. Being a .357, you have the option of loading either the magnum cartridges or .38 Specials. The .38s shot out of the heavier frame of the .357 makes recoil totally manageable, and the piece is reliable and accurate with practice. Plus, it is virtually indestructible and can stand being dropped on the ground or rolled around in dirt and still come up firing. Try that with an automatic!

[rightwing401]

It's like that saying, "You put two in the chest, one in the head, they won't know the difference." Exact reason why I would never use a high powered rifle, and when I say high powered, I mean like an FNAL. .308 caliber sounds bad a**, but when you've fired one of those suckers once and it nearly breaks your shoulder, you change your mind real quick. That's why I still say a 5.56mm round is fairly good, it can universally be used for both dead and living. For long term use, I don't think an M-16 or any other complex gun would be good idea. Far too many parts to keep in order or replace. SPR76 got it right. .38 special will do the job just fine, only 5 or 6 shots, but each of them guaranteed. A 357 magnum would work good too, you could moderate between .357 and .38 caliber rounds.

[strayrider]

Again, rather use a firearm against zombies (or better yet, walk right past them). But, if I had to go the blade route, I'd choose this. http://csstoreonline.stores.yahoo.net/90vt.html Special Forces Tomahawk, used in Vietnam. While it does not replace a gun, it can be used for close quarters, deployed easily and (best of all) does not require a lot of skill to be used effectively, something which will work against you if you are trying to use a sword or a knife (or a chainsaw) against the walking dead. I should add that throwing one of these at a target would probably not be the way you would want to go since unlike using it like a hatchet, throwing one of these effectively requires a lot of skill and luck. SRP is correct, BTW. .22 has the advantage that you can carry a $hitload of ammo, but I doubt that it would be very effective at 100 meters, let alone have enough stopping power to deal with an angry, meth crazed freak who is charging at you while swinging a machete. I would wager that you could put five bullets into his chest and not stop him from chopping your body up. Yeah, he might die from bleeding hours later, but what good would that do you? If I was going to go the .22 rifle route (which does make some sense) I would supplement the .22 with a decent caliber pistol, like a .357 magnum loaded with nice Elmer Keith style semi-wadcutters, or a .45 automatic. I agree. Carry something of a larger caliber with you in case of hostile human contact. Zoms, however, are not a threat at 100-yards, or 50, or 25. You just avoid them. If they're "wall-to-wall" in every direction, you're screwed whatever gun you might be carrying. The goal is to avoid them. Save the bladed weapons for exercise in controlled situations -- to blow off a little steam against a handful, maybe. Even then the threat might be from infection from blood/fluid splatter. A droplet of infected blood in your eye could prove just as fatal as a bite or scratch. -stray-

[SRP76]

Zoms, however, are not a threat at 100-yards, or 50, or 25. You just avoid them. If they're "wall-to-wall" in every direction, you're screwed whatever gun you might be carrying. The goal is to avoid them. The problem is they cannot be avoided. To avoid them is to give up on life, and just surrender. They will see you and follow wherever you go, never stopping. As soon as you stop somewhere, anywhere, they will begin to catch up. Next thing you know, you're under siege, in a hopeless situation. Sooner or later, you will have to deal with every zombie you encounter. It's best to do it at the longest range possible.

[Skippy911sc]

hell with the 44 try the 460...on the right then the 357 then the 38 or... notice the night vision attached...this is my choice but thats just because I can shoot it WELL and reload. Or... the 308 and 556 Any way you go I would still have a 22 or 17...because as said before...the ammo is every where and small no recoil. Not very loud...although it is still loud!!!