Too many of them, not enough ammo!

[Yojimbo]

In that particular scenario, i guess your best option would be a brisk walk without firing ANY shots at all. Fighting without fighting. Agreed with that. Yes, like Domm, I say best thing to do is to conserve ammo and shoot only when necessary. Unless you have an endless stockpile of ammo - and I assume you would not if you were on the move - I would not attempt to exterminate every ghoul I happened upon.

[EvilNed]

Forget the katana idea. The sword would probably break after only a few strokes. If it's supersharp, then it'll just break all the easier. If it's not,then it'll be dull and worthless for chopping off heads. Historically, slashing swords were not as effective as thrusting swords when you went into battle. If you're crowded with enemies then slashing took more time and energy to perform. Slashing blades were, after the romans conquered it with their short, thrusting blades, mostly used by cavalrymen. If you ever wondered why european swords were straight, and not curved, it's because they were supposed to deal with a variety of situations which a curved blade would have more trouble dealing with. And thrusting was it's main purpose. Thrusting requires less energy and time to deal out a piercing, more lasting would. As Caesar said; The barbarians who slashed with their swords, wasted more time to deal inferior wounds. While his own troops, the romans, simply stabbed the barbarians to cause piercing of flesh and organs. A thrust also easier penetrates armor and flesh. With that in mind, I wouldn't go for a big sword overall, if I wanted one. A short-ranged machete or the greek falcata sword would be my first choice and then only reserved to desperate, emergency situations. I have no delusions of being able to wield such a blade with expertise. But it would be a hell of a lot easier for me, a non-warrior, to wield than a longer sword. That said, while thrusting works marvels against humans, it probably wouldn't work against a zombie. Even if you pierce his organs, he would still be coming after you. The best defence against zombies would probably be to run.

[Mike70]

or ned one of these trusty puppies at your side for use in those desperate instances.

[EvilNed]

Of course, but choosing the gladius is sooooo, 100 B.C... You do know that 332 B.C., retrostyle, is whats hip this year, right?

[Mike70]

Of course, but choosing the gladius is sooooo, 100 B.C... You do know that 332 B.C., retrostyle, is whats hip this year, right? well 100 B.C is fine with me and is an interesting time period anyway. that was about the time the republic began to show signs of the decay that would lead to the rise of the empire. the late republic is very interesting. my deal academically is when the republic was at its height (around 200 BC) and rapidly beginning to expand to the east.

[dracenstein]

I think a mace will be better than a sword. 1) A mace won't get trapped in a zombie/human body (just in case you have to defend your last tin of Spam from another starving soul, human or zombie). 2) A mace is designed to break bones, and in medieval times, the kinetic shockwave on plate armour was just as devasting (trapped in a suit of armour, when a mace struck it, the shockwave going through flesh is like a ripple through water, and could burst vital organs). A decent whump! with a mace to a zombie's head should be enough to stop it dead. 3) You don't need to keep it sharp.

[mista_mo]

ALL I WOULD NEED IS THIS.

[dracenstein]

And the spray of blood, bones and brains will go everywhere, including on you, and if it sprays on you, or even in your mouth, will that make you infected?

[mista_mo]

I think scipio and capn would get my previous post :P

[MaximusIncredulous]

ALL I WOULD NEED IS THIS. Till you run outta gas. Then you're stuck with a very unwieldy club. The mace might work, until you club yourself in the head from all that wild swinging around with it. Best weapon really are your legs. If you're going to get exhausted from expending energy fighting them, may as well run like Hell when approached by large numbers of those things and hope you've got some distance from them before you crap out.

[SRP76]

I think the numbers are going to overwhelm you/us regardless of what weapon is used. That's the point the OP was making: there are simply too many, no matter where you run. The only "safe" (yeah, famous last words) strategy that I can come up with is using a boat. If you can haul a bunch of ammo onboard, you can sit offshore and take potshots at the dead as they wander toward the water. They shouldn't be able to stagger out into the ocean after you, so you'll be safe to thin the herds a bit. Once they stack up too much for comfort, you can simply take the boat further up/down the coast to an area with fewer of them, and start again. By the time you have to leave this area, the first area should have dispersed a bit, so you can go back and plink away again. Keep cruising up and down the shoreline in this manner, and rack up a huge number of relatively safe kills.

[Mike70]

. They shouldn't be able to stagger out into the ocean after you, so you'll be safe to thin the herds a bit. unless big daddy and his merry band of underwater walking marines come after you.

[MaximusIncredulous]

... Keep cruising up and down the shoreline in this manner, and rack up a huge number of relatively safe kills. Until hunger and thirst sets in, unless the boater in question is good at fishing and desalinating saltwater.

[Mike70]

I think scipio and capn would get my previous post :P that you're a lumberjack and you're ok?

[SRP76]

Until hunger and thirst sets in, unless the boater in question is good at fishing and desalinating saltwater. Supply runs ashore will obviously be made once an area is cleared. The key is to spend as little time on land as possible. It sure beats just staying on land all the time, and waiting to be eaten. This would work best if many people have the same idea, and you get a whole bunch of boats patrolling.