Headshot, Boom!! Headshot, Boom!!!

[sgrosse]

Has anyone noticed how incredibly accurate people are in these Zombie movies? Other than Dawn, when the dead rise, everyone seems to turn into Marksmen. I say other than Dawn because Romero actually addressed this issue(brilliantly i might add). To me, other than the Idea of Zombies rising from the grave, the idea that someone can turn into a killing machine with little to no firearm training is absurd and for some reason, really puts me off the movie. Ive gone on record here saying that I loved the Dawn remake. But one of the issues I had with the movie was not how fast the Zombies ran, but how awsome everyone was at shooting. I dont know, maybe I missed some critical part of these movies where everyone stops running and enjoys a day at the fireing range.

[fartpants]

if you knew a headshot was the only thing stopping you from being eaten i reckon you would get to be a good shot pretty damn quick...

[darth los]

Has anyone noticed how incredibly accurate people are in these Zombie movies? Other than Dawn, when the dead rise, everyone seems to turn into Marksmen. I say other than Dawn because Romero actually addressed this issue(brilliantly i might add). To me, other than the Idea of Zombies rising from the grave, the idea that someone can turn into a killing machine with little to no firearm training is absurd and for some reason, really puts me off the movie. Ive gone on record here saying that I loved the Dawn remake. But one of the issues I had with the movie was not how fast the Zombies ran, but how awsome everyone was at shooting. I dont know, maybe I missed some critical part of these movies where everyone stops running and enjoys a day at the fireing range.



A good example of that is house of the dead. First the chicks are party ho's, then they inexplicably turn into unstoppable killing machines. It really is laughable.:lol: Not that there's anything wrong with party ho's.:D

[MinionZombie]

It's not going to be impossible, but then again, it's not going to be piss easy.

I just thought of the "high noon" character in Land, she blasts off about 20 rounds before nailing the zombie in the head...and before anyone bitches, clearly she was a new recruit/not a proper soldier...she may have been wearing camo, but think about it - zombie plague, the first line of defense is the soldiers, who'd sustain heavy casualties, therefore you'd be taking on anyone with minimal training (or at least, not proper military training) to stock up on defenses...so, you're not going to have a crack shot...and some people are just sh*t shots as well. :sneaky:

[DVW5150]

It's not going to be impossible, but then again, it's not going to be piss easy.

I just thought of the "high noon" character in Land, she blasts off about 20 rounds before nailing the zombie in the head...and before anyone bitches, clearly she was a new recruit/not a proper soldier...she may have been wearing camo, but think about it - zombie plague, the first line of defense is the soldiers, who'd sustain heavy casualties, therefore you'd be taking on anyone with minimal training (or at least, not proper military training) to stock up on defenses...so, you're not going to have a crack shot...and some people are just sh*t shots as well. :sneaky:

I do believe the woman you refer to is GARs daughter.The one who nails the zed walking into the electric fence.

Its true that some can adapt to head-shots, but acquiring your target is a whole other story.

[sgrosse]

I did say that Romero did a great Job covering this issue. I did say only in Dawn though, so you got me there. I admit Romero got it right in pretty much all of his films.

To the distinguished poster that brought up that if it was the only way you could keep from being eaten you would learn quickly(paraphrasing of course) I would say, that is the exact reason you wouldnt be able to pull off a head shot. Could you imagine the fear of this? The terror and adrinaline pumping through you. Im not talking about ten years after an outbreak where people have made a habit out of survival, Im talking about now. The human head is not a big target. The brain is encased in a thick bone. On top of that, it is not a stationary target. It might be slow moving, but it is swaying. If you take all of those factors, unimaginable terror against an impossible adversary, zero to minimal firearms training, and a nonstationary target, the odds of getting off a headshot are severly against you.

Have to run good talking to yall

[Philly_SWAT]

I have to wonder, sgrosse, have you ever fired a weapon? I would guess no, but I could be wrong. Firing a weapon is not an overly complicated thing to do. It is true that some people are a lot more of a ..."natural good shot" than others, but with minimal training, anyone could become fairly proficent. Especially if your life depended on it.

[acealive1]

if you knew a headshot was the only thing stopping you from being eaten i reckon you would get to be a good shot pretty damn quick...

AMEN TO THAT!!!

[sgrosse]

I guess I should have mentioned this, I was a gunnermate in the Navy. So you would assume wrong on that. But you had no way of knowing so that my fault. I have fired a weapon. For a good chunk of time, that was one of the things that I did on a day to day basis. I qualed(never could spell that right) on small arms. So I am familiar with firearms enough to say while firing is indeed easy, it is far from the point and click method of most of the Zombie movies.

[Philly_SWAT]

I guess I should have mentioned this, I was a gunnermate in the Navy. So you would assume wrong on that. But you had no way of knowing so that my fault. I have fired a weapon. For a good chunk of time, that was one of the things that I did on a day to day basis. I qualed(never could spell that right) on small arms. So I am familiar with firearms enough to say while firing is indeed easy, it is far from the point and click method of most of the Zombie movies.
Well, anchors away then! :)

While it is true that firing accurately is not a simple point and click method, I have seen many first time shooters being shown how to shoot at small targets, and while they do miss frequently, they dont miss by a mile, they miss be a little bit, after only a couple of minutes of trying. A zombie head is a lot bigger than little shotgun shells (or whatever other little items are generally set up as targets) and a slight miss off center would still result in a head shot. A newbie to firing a weapon usually doesnt miss the watermellon target very often.

[jim102016]

Well, anchors away then! :)

While it is true that firing accurately is not a simple point and click method, I have seen many first time shooters being shown how to shoot at small targets, and while they do miss frequently, they dont miss by a mile, they miss be a little bit, after only a couple of minutes of trying. A zombie head is a lot bigger than little shotgun shells (or whatever other little items are generally set up as targets) and a slight miss off center would still result in a head shot. A newbie to firing a weapon usually doesnt miss the watermellon target very often.

I too spent a lot of time on Uncle's Sam's firing ranges shooting at paper, pop-up, and fixed targets...I'm certain it would be a hell of a lot more difficult to hit just above a rapidly advancing pair of teeth that were out to eat you. Philly, unless a particular zombie has broken his legs (even then he may drag his ass down the street to get you) you're talking about hitting a moving target in the head which will be different than hitting a watermelon on a fence.

Shuffling zombies would be tough...but what if they were running like we saw in that disgrace of a remake in 2004! Then even the most experienced shots in the world would be in deep sh*t!

[Philly_SWAT]

Well, a running zombie wouldnt be any more difficult to hit than a running human, and ever since the invention of the firearm, we as the human race have seemed to become very adept at shooting other people to death (admittedly, not with just headshots).

I disagree that a shambling zombie would be that hard to shoot. They would make no moves whatsoever to avoid your shots, just keep coming at you (so would runners, for that matter.) The relative position of their head wouldnt move much. Again, human being adapt very quickly to complex tasks. What do you think is more difficult, driving a car, or hitting a target at close range? To successfully drive you a car, you must just distances while you are moving, taking note of other drivers as you go along. You must pay attention to traffic signs and signals. You need to check your mirrors and use your signals. It is safer to use both hands, although I generally use only one, and if you have a standard transmission, you must use both feet to use the clutch, brakes and gas petals. To shoot a target, all you have to do is hold the gun steady, aim, and shoot. If you miss, repeat. Most everyone can drive a car successfully, I submit that most everyone car shoot successfully enough to shoot a zombie, which would be much easier than shooting a live person, due to their unwillingness to try to avoid your shot.

[jim102016]

Well, a running zombie wouldnt be any more difficult to hit than a running human, and ever since the invention of the firearm, we as the human race have seemed to become very adept at shooting other people to death (admittedly, not with just headshots).

I disagree that a shambling zombie would be that hard to shoot. They would make no moves whatsoever to avoid your shots, just keep coming at you (so would runners, for that matter.) The relative position of their head wouldnt move much. Again, human being adapt very quickly to complex tasks. What do you think is more difficult, driving a car, or hitting a target at close range? To successfully drive you a car, you must just distances while you are moving, taking note of other drivers as you go along. You must pay attention to traffic signs and signals. You need to check your mirrors and use your signals. It is safer to use both hands, although I generally use only one, and if you have a standard transmission, you must use both feet to use the clutch, brakes and gas petals. To shoot a target, all you have to do is hold the gun steady, aim, and shoot. If you miss, repeat. Most everyone can drive a car successfully, I submit that most everyone car shoot successfully enough to shoot a zombie, which would be much easier than shooting a live person, due to their unwillingness to try to avoid your shot.

Philly, usually your knowledge in these matters astonishes me...but to compare shooting to driving a car? Shooting is a science that takes practice. Undoubtedly some will be naturals right out of the gate...but most will need time to make a headshot with a rifle or a pistol. If one were to shoot out of a tree at paused zombies below, I think that would be easy.

Sure, the human race has grown used to killing each other with firearms....its just as easy as can be. It doesn't take a headshot to kill us! We shoot each other in the back, sneak up on one another at point blank, etc. A shambling zombie may make no move to avoid a shooter, but its not going to stand still and smile for the camera either. It’s still going to bump and grind along the terrain....maybe with a limp or broken bones to alter its natural step. Runners are a different category completely.

Shame I don't own some land in Florida....we could rig up a contraption to make the watermelons mobile to see the difficulty of shooting them!

[MissJacksonCA]

Well I mean the odds that average people would become marksman is directly related to the odds of the dead rising with a hunger for human flesh. I thought it was strange how many guns they had in Dawn 04 before entering the gun store. Mall cops dont carry real guns they're taser guns. But next thing you know they're heading to Andys Gun Works to raid them for ammo and guns and they have a stahload. I could be wrong i'll have to watch it again...

I dont really know of a whole lotta other zombie movies besides the GAR movies where they seemed to be awful good at shooting. 28 Days later had a lot of improvised weaponry before the armed forces came in. Zombie 2 had few guns involved but a lot of burning. Shaun of the Dead did a lot of comedic improvization.

From a personal stand point its not hard for me to aim and fire at a steady target but its hard for me to run while shooting something thats running at me with his spleen sticking out of the hole in his stomach

[Philly_SWAT]

Philly, usually your knowledge in these matters astonishes me...but to compare shooting to driving a car? Shooting is a science that takes practice. Undoubtedly some will be naturals right out of the gate...but most will need time to make a headshot with a rifle or a pistol. If one were to shoot out of a tree at paused zombies below, I think that would be easy.

Sure, the human race has grown used to killing each other with firearms....its just as easy as can be. It doesn't take a headshot to kill us! We shoot each other in the back, sneak up on one another at point blank, etc. A shambling zombie may make no move to avoid a shooter, but its not going to stand still and smile for the camera either. It’s still going to bump and grind along the terrain....maybe with a limp or broken bones to alter its natural step. Runners are a different category completely.

Shame I don't own some land in Florida....we could rig up a contraption to make the watermelons mobile to see the difficulty of shooting them!

I had written a brilliant and lengthy response to this, and as I hit submit reply, my computer froze and I lost it. I HATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS! I will simply say now that yes, accurately firing a weapon is a science that requires practice. So is driving a car, and there are a lot more variables that you need to master to drive a car that to accurately fire a gun. And watermellon shot out of a catapault wold be more difficult to hit than a slow, shambling zombie.

[darth los]

You can put in your HPOTD memoirs when it's all said and done. You can call it: Philly: the lost responses.:p

[Eyebiter]

There are a few tricks you can use to get a higher number of headshots. Firing from above down on a crowd of zombies is a good one. Not only do you have a more secure location, but this also gives you a good field of view. Just don't get caught on top of the town water tower or a roof top without adequate ammo, food, and water. Another option is to use a rifle with a scope. Any one trained to use a "scoped deer rifle" should be able to pull off head shots at 100 yards. Of course this assumes a sling, sandbag, bipod, or other aiming device is used. While there are some people who can pull off such a shot offhand with iron sights, it takes a lot of practice to maintain that skill level.

[darth los]

Just don't get caught on top of the town water tower or a roof top without adequate ammo, food, and water. Another option is to use a rifle with a scope.


David Blane could pull it off, no problem. :cool:

[jim102016]

I had written a brilliant and lengthy response to this, and as I hit submit reply, my computer froze and I lost it. I HATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS! I will simply say now that yes, accurately firing a weapon is a science that requires practice. So is driving a car, and there are a lot more variables that you need to master to drive a car that to accurately fire a gun. And watermellon shot out of a catapault wold be more difficult to hit than a slow, shambling zombie.

Damn Philly, I would liked to have read that lost response...one less for Philly's greatest hits album I suppose.

A watermelon out of a catapault? How about one shot out of a cannon? Maybe we can use a slingshot or just throw it out of a biplane.

I meant something slower, maybe drive it on a cable at a fast rate to simulate a speed a GAR zombie would move, or faster to simulate the ones from the George-wannabe movies.

[darth los]

It's not going to be impossible, but then again, it's not going to be piss easy.

I just thought of the "high noon" character in Land, she blasts off about 20 rounds before nailing the zombie in the head...and before anyone bitches, clearly she was a new recruit/not a proper soldier...she may have been wearing camo, but think about it - zombie plague, the first line of defense is the soldiers, who'd sustain heavy casualties, therefore you'd be taking on anyone with minimal training (or at least, not proper military training) to stock up on defenses...so, you're not going to have a crack shot...and some people are just sh*t shots as well. :sneaky:

True but with millions of zombies out there and a finite amount of ammo, consevation is essential.

[krakenslayer]

Zombie Flesh Eaters was actually quite realistic when it came to how well inexperienced gun users managed to deal with headshots. At least it depicts them having to take a few shots before landing one between the eyes. Watch this clip, especially 1:10 to 1:25:

OwtlYBDNnlI

[capncnut]

I love it when they initially start throwing the molotovs. You see each explosion but no fire. :D

[Skippy911sc]

I think shooting is easy...hitting the target that is a bit harder. I think one thing we don't look at very closely is the ammo. I am an active shooter and have found huge differences in ammo manufacturers. one round could hit dead center and the next may hit high and right. I reload so I am after the most accurate shot pattern as possible and it frustrates to shoot store bought ammo. One of the first few responses was regarding GARs daughter...she does not know how to hold a rifle...watch her shoot...I hate those little problems in movies. Rant has ended...SORRY!!!

[Publius]

To the distinguished poster that brought up that if it was the only way you could keep from being eaten you would learn quickly(paraphrasing of course) I would say, that is the exact reason you wouldnt be able to pull off a head shot. Could you imagine the fear of this? The terror and adrinaline pumping through you. Im not talking about ten years after an outbreak where people have made a habit out of survival, Im talking about now.

Absolutely right. One thing we learn from actual experiences of military and law enforcement personnel in combat situations is that the stress of combat decreases accuracy, rather than increasing it. If you watch videos of short-range (even nearly contact range) police shootouts with criminals, it's amazing how many shots they get off without hitting a damn thing. That's why whenever there's a police shooting or other self-defense shooting and the family of the victim wails "why didn't they just shoot him in the arm or leg and incapacitate him?", anyone who knows anything about shooting shakes their head in disbelief. In an actual self-defense situation, you always aim for center of mass, because that's the only thing you can count on having a semi-decent chance of hitting. Planning on shooting at anything smaller is planning to miss. Any defensive shooting instructor (unless your talking SWAT/special operations level of competency) will teach shooting center of mass for this reason, and you move to riskier head shots only if you know your target is wearing body armor or COM shots aren't having effect. Or you can start out with a "failure drill"/"Mozambique drill" (and I know they aren't completely the same) -- two to the chest and one to the head -- but the head shot is a backup in case the COM shots are ineffective. Everyone knows the COM shots are more likely to hit.

Doh! I didn't notice this was a necropost. Oops!

[Wyldwraith]

Want to weigh in on this issue,
Zombies tend to shamble in very linear paths towards the nearest source of warm human flesh. The only two things known to cause them to deviate from this course once set is a) if they're forced to circumvent an obstacle directly in their path. Like a wooden roadblock sawhorse that they're on one side of and their potential meal is on the other. Or b) If the zombie is acted upon by an outside force.

So saying that it's difficult to predict where a zombie's head is going to be after watching it for 2-3 seconds is sort of disingenuous. Yes, hitting a human head at moderate to long range is difficult under any circumstances, but at under 10 feet? Me personally...I don't consider myself an expert marksman by any means, but if I can hit a coffee can half full of water that I've hung from a tree branch and set to swinging relatively quickly 75% of the time from 10-12ft away then I believe I can consistently put rounds into the skulls of the undead at the same range. Assuming of course that I survive my "Oh my God, the dead are rising to attack the living" period of shock, dismay and panic. I've been in exactly 3 life or death situations in my life. Only one of which involved being attacked, but I know I tend to adapt relatively quickly. Some people don't. I don't dispute that. Nor do I dispute that between the people who will panic when confronted by the undead, the people with absolutely no firearms experience whatsoever, those with terrible luck and those who for whatever reason can't bring themselves to do what's necessary a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE.

It won't be because hitting an adult head with a pistol round at 10 feet distant is a particularly difficult task though. I'm not saying everyone is going to be downing 7 zombies for every 7 bullets fired, but even 3/5 hit rate will probably keep anything you saw coming from reaching arms length.

After all, that is what we're talking about here. A zombie can't hurt you until it can reach you with its hands. A human on the other hand has a legion of potential methods to reach out and do brain trauma beyond arm's reach.

Point blank range is almost retard proof if the gun isn't on safe.

[Crappingbear]

Absolutely right. One thing we learn from actual experiences of military and law enforcement personnel in combat situations is that the stress of combat decreases accuracy, rather than increasing it. If you watch videos of short-range (even nearly contact range) police shootouts with criminals, it's amazing how many shots they get off without hitting a damn thing. That's why whenever there's a police shooting or other self-defense shooting and the family of the victim wails "why didn't they just shoot him in the arm or leg and incapacitate him?", anyone who knows anything about shooting shakes their head in disbelief. In an actual self-defense situation, you always aim for center of mass, because that's the only thing you can count on having a semi-decent chance of hitting. Planning on shooting at anything smaller is planning to miss. Any defensive shooting instructor (unless your talking SWAT/special operations level of competency) will teach shooting center of mass for this reason, and you move to riskier head shots only if you know your target is wearing body armor or COM shots aren't having effect. Or you can start out with a "failure drill"/"Mozambique drill" (and I know they aren't completely the same) -- two to the chest and one to the head -- but the head shot is a backup in case the COM shots are ineffective. Everyone knows the COM shots are more likely to hit.

Doh! I didn't notice this was a necropost. Oops!

Excellent post and dead on. Massad Ayoob has written extensively on stress fire even naming one of his books that. He has been an expert witness in many justifible shootings defending lethal force. One of the greatest examples is them having a guy with a knife face off with a guy with a holstered gun 21 feet away and how the guy with the knife usually sticks the guy with the gun before he can clear holster and aim properly.

Some misc thoughts on shooting in a zom world, first I'm assuming the Romero slow zom world. When it first breaks out there is the "oh shit" moment when you put a .45 slug in their breastbone to no affect and have to figure out the headshot. But once you know whats going in then you know how to take down the zoms. Distance becomes a determining factor of what shot you take and whether you need to close the distance or not. I'd favor an open sight rifle for most mid range situations (long range means you aren't in danger). Hitting a moving target with a telescopic scope isn't the easiest thing if you aren't experienced at it and that leaves out everyone except military or very experienced hunters. I recall a few years ago touring the book depository in Dallas where Lee Harvey was. I was surprised at just how close it was from there to the street and how any decent deer hunter could have hit his target from there. Any of the other conspiricy theory spots such as the overpass, grassy knoll and building near the book depository provided similar short shots. But, I digress.....

In close quarters, I'd favor a pistol over a rifle or shotgun so I don't risk rounding a corner and zom grabbing the end of my rifle. Using standard po po or mil room clearing techniques you should be fine, especially a two person team. If you have 5-10 yards distance a shotgun with birdshot is all you need. Not much expansion but just enough to give you an ashtray sized hole in what you hit. At that point if you aim at their mouth you stand a good chance to taking the top of the skull completely off or blowing through their spine at the neck putting them down. You don't have to aim for the cranial nasal cavity for a direct brain puncture. I also think sometimes you might get distracted by looking a scary zom in the face and trying to aim, so just look down and shotgun a leg out from under them and you can walk up to put them down with an axe to the skull.

On groups of zoms, the key is creating distance so you aren't in a panic trying to be Wild Bill Hickock from 5 feet away. Then you can take your time and put down an army of dead with a simle open sight .22 rifle.

[FoodFight]

What CB said. Mozambique drills to train yourself to headshot progression and mobility kills with followup shots for the other troublesome zeds.

[Yojimbo]

If you have 5-10 yards distance a shotgun with birdshot is all you need. Not much expansion but just enough to give you an ashtray sized hole in what you hit. At that point if you aim at their mouth you stand a good chance to taking the top of the skull completely off or blowing through their spine at the neck putting them down. You don't have to aim for the cranial nasal cavity for a direct brain puncture. I also think sometimes you might get distracted by looking a scary zom in the face and trying to aim, so just look down and shotgun a leg out from under them and you can walk up to put them down with an axe to the skull.




Well said, crappingbear. Regarding shotguns, I might add that I have taken total firearm newbies (after a strict primer on gun safety) to shoot clay pigeons, and though they might miss the first few pigeons, with just a bit of guidance they are able to hit their marks at a fairly consistent rate. Now a clay pigeon is a lot smaller than a human head, and they move much quicker than any slow moving GAR ghoul ever did.

The above being said, I admit that it would be effectively impossible to take a newbie to the trap range and do the above with a pistol rather than a shotgun (I have been shooting since I was a little kid and I am not sure that I would be able to do this with much accuracy), so I do agree that the idea that someone with no firearms experience is not going to be able to pick up a pistol and pierce anyone's skull the first time out.

[Crappingbear]

Well said, crappingbear. Regarding shotguns, I might add that I have taken total firearm newbies (after a strict primer on gun safety) to shoot clay pigeons, and though they might miss the first few pigeons, with just a bit of guidance they are able to hit their marks at a fairly consistent rate. Now a clay pigeon is a lot smaller than a human head, and they move much quicker than any slow moving GAR ghoul ever did.

The above being said, I admit that it would be effectively impossible to take a newbie to the trap range and do the above with a pistol rather than a shotgun (I have been shooting since I was a little kid and I am not sure that I would be able to do this with much accuracy), so I do agree that the idea that someone with no firearms experience is not going to be able to pick up a pistol and pierce anyone's skull the first time out.


Almost without exception, when I have taken gun noobs shooting the women are better than the men, especially pistol. Guys seem to think they have some innate ability to pickup up a pistol and based on watching movies be able to hit something. Women tend to have no ego about it and typically are afraid its going to kick or hurt. After a couple of rounds just to get used to the recoil and noise, they calm right down and take instruction very well.

[MaximusIncredulous]

True but with millions of zombies out there and a finite amount of ammo, consevation is essential.

With the distance between the tower and the fence, I never understood why she went off full auto and waste all that ammo.

[Yojimbo]

Almost without exception, when I have taken gun noobs shooting the women are better than the men, especially pistol. Guys seem to think they have some innate ability to pickup up a pistol and based on watching movies be able to hit something. Women tend to have no ego about it and typically are afraid its going to kick or hurt. After a couple of rounds just to get used to the recoil and noise, they calm right down and take instruction very well.
Funny that you mention that -- the newbies I had been referring to in my post were in fact all women, with the exception of one high school friend who did not do as well as the females consistently did. Good call!

[Mike70]

Absolutely right. One thing we learn from actual experiences of military and law enforcement personnel in combat situations is that the stress of combat decreases accuracy, rather than increasing it. If you watch videos of short-range (even nearly contact range) police shootouts with criminals, it's amazing how many shots they get off without hitting a damn thing.

here is a decent example of just that. this is a vid of two clinton county (ohio) sheriffs pulling over a truck. they don't know it but the two guys inside it are aryan brotherhood members and are on the lam for murder in arkansas. one of the deputy sheriffs and one of the dudes in the truck blast away at each other from maybe 20 feet to no avail.

the action starts at about 1:25 or so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk9zC6PzpqI

[Crappingbear]

here is a decent example of just that. this is a vid of two clinton county (ohio) sheriffs pulling over a truck. they don't know it but the two guys inside it are aryan brotherhood members and are on the lam for murder in arkansas. one of the deputy sheriffs and one of the dudes in the truck blast away at each other from maybe 20 feet to no avail.

the action starts at about 1:25 or so.

Hk9zC6PzpqI

For some reason the vid didn't work but I've seen that one before. My theory on why this happens is that in training you are taught to focus on the front site and the rest takes care of itself (in very simplistic terms). But, when faced with someon moving and shooting at you, I think you focus on them and lose sight of the pistols sights so when you pull the trigger, there is no telling where the bullet will go. Just a theory.

[Mike70]

For some reason the vid didn't work but I've seen that one before. My theory on why this happens is that in training you are taught to focus on the front site and the rest takes care of itself (in very simplistic terms). But, when faced with someon moving and shooting at you, I think you focus on them and lose sight of the pistols sights so when you pull the trigger, there is no telling where the bullet will go. Just a theory.

i should've tested this before i posted. i would've noticed that the embedding is disabled.

sorry bout that. i'll be fixing that right away.

[sandrock74]

Hell, in the old G.I. Joe cartoon, they used to shoot the guns out of the Cobra soldiers hands...while they were running, jumping and everything. Now that, my friends, is a crack shot!

[SRP76]

I don't think this was meant as people shouldn't hit the heads in Romero's films. Those are somewhat realistic: the zombies are slow, and there is no long-range, with a handgun, rapid-fire multi-headshots going on. It's mostly long-distance, with a rifle, one-at-a-time. Yes, people CAN do that. They usually aren't directly under attack.

The problem is in the Dawn remake-type movies. People pegging whole crowds of zombies who are running and juking like Barry fucking Sanders. THAT is unrealistic. Nobody's going to be able to do that (especially while also running and dodging, themselves). Those are the things that should be "fixed" in any future movies.

[strayrider]

It depends on the distance. With a pistol, even an inexperienced "noob" should be able to make a headshot at very close range -- say within 5-8 feet. The sights are not that important at "point-blank".

But, what about greater ranges? 10-25 yards? Say the "noob" shoots, intending for the head, but the shot is high and to the right. With no "marker" on the target, how would the shooter know in which direction to adjust his/her aim? With ghouls coming at you, that is not the time to learn how to use a gun sight, or attempt to understand the various trajectories of various bullets. Noobs shooting like Rambo are pure Hollywood -- for entertainment purposes only.


I admit that it would be effectively impossible to take a newbie to the trap range and do the above with a pistol.

I recall one time -- many, many years ago -- I hit a clay bird with a Ruger 10/22, firing from the hip, just messing around. Never been able to do it again and quit trying a looong time ago.

:D

-stray-

[Crappingbear]

It depends on the distance. With a pistol, even an inexperienced "noob" should be able to make a headshot at very close range -- say within 5-8 feet. The sights are not that important at "point-blank".

But, what about greater ranges? 10-25 yards? Say the "noob" shoots, intending for the head, but the shot is high and to the right. With no "marker" on the target, how would the shooter know in which direction to adjust his/her aim? With ghouls coming at you, that is not the time to learn how to use a gun sight, or attempt to understand the various trajectories of various bullets. Noobs shooting like Rambo are pure Hollywood -- for entertainment purposes only.



I recall one time -- many, many years ago -- I hit a clay bird with a Ruger 10/22, firing from the hip, just messing around. Never been able to do it again and quit trying a looong time ago.

:D

-stray-

I've long held to the belief that some people are natural "shooters". Not marksmen, but just some inate ability to quickly hit a target and when you talk to them they aren't using front sites, Weaver stance or anything tradiitonal; they simply throw up the gun and hit their target. I'm a bit like that myself. My accuracy is better aimed, but not much different just throwing up the pistol and firing as soon as the gun is semi level with my target. Its a strange thing I can't really explain.


I stand by my long held belief that in a dead world, a "shooter" would be of premium value to the collective and be the resident superstar who is held in awe above all others. We need gardeners, medics, and the like but a handful of hardened shooters would be the creme de'la creme of society.


It depends on the distance. With a pistol, even an inexperienced "noob" should be able to make a headshot at very close range -- say within 5-8 feet. The sights are not that important at "point-blank".

But, what about greater ranges? 10-25 yards? Say the "noob" shoots, intending for the head, but the shot is high and to the right. With no "marker" on the target, how would the shooter know in which direction to adjust his/her aim? With ghouls coming at you, that is not the time to learn how to use a gun sight, or attempt to understand the various trajectories of various bullets. Noobs shooting like Rambo are pure Hollywood -- for entertainment purposes only.



I recall one time -- many, many years ago -- I hit a clay bird with a Ruger 10/22, firing from the hip, just messing around. Never been able to do it again and quit trying a looong time ago.:D

-stray-

I recall that there was a trick shooter back in the 50s or so who would use a .22 rifle to shoot 1" blocks of wood out of the air, even coins, he was dead on. When I just out of high school, I used to hunt on an old black mans land. Armstrong was in his late 80s at a minimum at that time and blind as a bat. He would shoot his .22 rifle from the hip and could chase a beer can all over the back pasture and never miss. Cool stuff.

[EvilNed]

Gotta say I'm on sgrosses and jims side on this. Shooting zombies in the head would be difficult, especially if you're life depended on it (You can't take a cool, quiet moment as in the firing range). Now they were running? And you had to get a head shot? Practically impossible, I'd say.

[Crappingbear]

As for running zombies, if you are going to stay in an area for any amount of time you need to put up obstacles or tanglefoot to slow them down or trip them so you can put them down. Barbed wire might be your best friend in a zom world. I've always thought it would interesting to hook up a live wire extension cord from a house/building and tie to the barbed wire to give zoms a 110 jolt and see what happens to their brains electrical system. If you are in farm country, bales of hay could be used along with barbed wire for obstacles. These are things that can be put in place relatively quickly and readily available in rural areas which is where I'd be or try to get to anyway.

[Skippy911sc]

I think a lot of people in this post have been referring to a technique called point shooting...this used to be taught in the armed forces but has since disappeared. This is the technique of just pulling the gun out and using the front sight to shoot. I have found that this is very useful but also difficult to master, and using this to obtain a head shot...good luck, even at 8 feet. If anyone has ever been in a traumatic encounter or excited heavily (you know what I mean) the heart starts pumping the adrenalin starts flowing and most people get to shaking. Can you imagine a hoard of flesh eaters moving in on you and staying perfectly calm to make head shot after head shot? I do know some people who are very good shots, but they were not born that way.

The point is...practice practice practice!

[AcesandEights]

I assure you all, the day zombies rise I will be dropping scores of them by head shot from the back of my flying pig.

That said, it is nice to see nods to realistic human emotions, reactions, foibles and failings in horror and even action movies from time to time. I guess it depends on the tenor the film is setting.

[bassman]

I see no reason why an average joe with minimal firearms training couldn't hit most of the head shots in a "calm" situation. If you're surrounded and don't have time to think, then maybe that's a different story.

I used to be "afraid" of guns but recently purchased a few to protect my family. Having no kind of former training or experience I found I was quite good with them after a few practice sessions. I had a police officer train me, but it was still quite easy once you get the hang of it.

So it depends on the situation, I spose. If you've got time and are taking them out in the distance, no problemo. If they're surrounding you or they're track stars like Dawn04.....you're probably screwed.

[Crappingbear]

for you shooters who are tired of shooting at the same old targets, if you have a rural area you shoot at, a fun change of pace is a variation of the old "chase the tin can around the pasture with a .22 game". Get your bag of charcoal bbq briquets out and chunk them out on the ground. When you shoot them you get a nice little black poof cloud. You can also have a buddy hand throw them like skeet for shotgunning. Small so harder to hit but fun. Cheap and its biodegradable. You get good at hitting 2" briquets and a zom head is going to look like a watermelon in your sites.

[Wyldwraith]

Something I was thinking about,
When people here talk about the difficulties inherent in even near point-blank shootouts they often reference conflicts between two human beings who are shooting at each other.

To me that's apples and oranges if you're talking about shooting zombies in the head. Three critical differences make all the difference. 1) Human beings don't want to be hit by bullets, and do everything they can to avoid being hit. 2) Someone shooting back at you constrains your actions. 3) Humans are worlds smarter, faster and unpredictable than zombies.

By comparison you're talking about pegging a target that doesn't react at all even if you paint their face with the brains of the other zombie that was next to them. Your targets can always be relied on to take the same plodding shortest-distance/straight line to the flesh path, and they're SLOW.

Shooting an adult zombie in the head isn't much harder than shooting at stationary targets. Unless you're being threatened by imminent attack, what exactly makes it any different? The target isn't going to change course. It won't care if your first shot grazed its cheek.

Not saying it's child's play, but logically it's GOT TO BE exponentially easier than an opposed shootout between humans.

[MoonSylver]

True. I wonder though if panic, the sheer horror of the situation, & the numbers surrounding the shooter might not produce similar results?

In some of those shootout videos you see of police & a perp blasting away at close range & not hitting a thing, no one is really dodging much (just kinda flinching away), but it's just the blind panic of the situation keeping them from hitting each other.

If one could stay calm & collected & carefully take their shots that's one thing. A lot of people (initially anyway) would be blindly firing away.

[AcesandEights]

If one could stay calm & collected & carefully take their shots that's one thing. A lot of people (initially anyway) would be blindly firing away.

Yup. Add to that emotional and physical exhaustion, adrenaline, battle stress/shock and I think a lot of people would have issues with head shots at times. Again, this is all going to depend on the individual and circumstances, but one's world being turned on its head and heaps of carnage will certainly effect people.

[Skippy911sc]

Yup. Add to that emotional and physical exhaustion, adrenaline, battle stress/shock and I think a lot of people would have issues with head shots at times. Again, this is all going to depend on the individual and circumstances, but one's world being turned on its head and heaps of carnage will certainly effect people.

Another point to mention regarding this...the police are well trained to use firearms...probably more than most. I used to think you aim the firearm and shoot away...not true. If you have not fired a gun, don't try to tell those who have how easy it is. There are a lot of factors to take into consideration...distance...bullet weight...but the most important factor is this...just because you aim correctly and squeeze perfectly...the bullet still can go where you do not intend it to. That's right kiddies factory ammo is not the most accurate thing in the world...read a few articles on this and you find mention of grouping...MOA...etc... I am not trying to be cynical or bash anyone...just think this through logically...a group of flesh eaters are shambling towards you (or running, whatever your preference is) and you have 7-15 shots to hit each one of them perfectly...if they had been completly still you might have a hard time but think...shambling means moving in an unexpected way...back and forth up and down...BANG...miss...Bang...miss. If you were 5 yards from these things you would be more inclined to run than stand and shoot. I would anyway. A good rifle on the other hand, from 40-50 yards...sighted in properly...No Prob Bob!...but still I would run to secured position first.

[Publius]

If you were 5 yards from these things you would be more inclined to run than stand and shoot. I would anyway. A good rifle on the other hand, from 40-50 yards...sighted in properly...No Prob Bob!...but still I would run to secured position first.

Agree - if you're at close range and CAN run away to get distance, do so. Shoot only as necessary to create an opening. For example if you're unexpectedly surrounded, pick the weakest-looking side of the circle, shoot one or two and try to dash through the gap.

[Wyldwraith]

Ok,
My comments weren't meant as an endorsement of the "Blast any rotter you lay your sights on" strategy. It was only meant as commentary on the fact that using the result of point-blank shootouts between human beings and shooting at slow-moving zombies are apples and oranges.

As to the concept that the initial shock and horror of being confronted by the collapse of civilization and being confronted initially by the reality of cannibalistic human corpses will degrade one's performance with a firearm I say: OF COURSE IT WILL. Such stressful circumstances will degrade a human being's performance at every sort of task one could imagine, not counting blindly running in the opposite direction from the visible threat.

My statements were more about those shooters of limited (but still having a bare-bones competency with the weapon in hand) skill that have managed to survive past that critical 24-48hr window after their first encounter(s) with the undead. Discussing the performance of humans during that initial encounter is almost a moot point, since even police and relatively young honorably discharged military veterans will be shooting at a much-reduced accuracy rate. Individuals killed due to the phenomena fall in my mind into the category of expected casualties.

Now, if we're talking about the mechanical difficulty of pegging a shambler in the noggin with a pistol absent the "shock & horror factor" of the initial encounter, I think some are overestimating just how much raising/lowering of the undead skull occurs with each shambling step. Yes, there will be the occasional off-balance stumble that sends the zombie into an erratic gait for a few paces, but the typical foot-dragging shambles seems to keep the head *relatively* level. Not saying that a bullet meant for the forehead might end up instead hitting them at the top of the bridge of the nose. I just don't perceive the undead gait as GAR and the few other quality sources of zombie flicks present it is that erratic a thing. The majority of the difficulty IMO is getting past that hellish initial period of shock, horror and revulsion. If you can do that (No, I'm NOT minimizing the difficulty of getting past such a thing) then your worries mostly become splitting your attention between what you're aiming at and keeping an eye/ear/nose out for the zombie(s) that might be sneaking up on you while you're trying to peg the one in front of you.

FYI, I'm quite conversant with my limited number and types of firearms owned by myself and my stepfather. My only pistol experience is with my S&W .45, but I have gone to the range either once a week or twice every other week. I have a lot of hunting experience from before I was injured, so...

Anyways, just my .02. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers :)

[Crappingbear]

Ok, lets look at another factor--to wit, my assertion that you make your own luck. So, when the zom breakout happens, I'm going to be very conservative and say that 50 % of the gun owners are proficient at using them and the other half or bleh. My contention is that percentile of armed and skilled users will make up for the non-gun users and the shitty shots. For example: one "decent" shotgunner can literally kill thousands of doves in Argentina in a couple of days hunt. You guys try to tell me a shambling zombie's head is harder to hit than a swooping, diving dove flying 40 mph is? I beg to differ. I do agree that accumilated factors mean stressfire shooting and problems, but I also say that a moving team of 2-4 hunters, cops or mil men can do some serious damage to the zom population. If you take it a step further to include a quickly put together team of zom destroyers with ropes, poles and axes and even more damage is done.

I do agree with the naysayers that non-shooters are in trouble trying to use a gun ala Shaun of the Dead.

[Rancid Carcass]

I do agree with the naysayers that non-shooters are in trouble trying to use a gun ala Shaun of the Dead.

Cock It! :lol:

[Wyldwraith]

Ok, lets look at another factor--to wit, my assertion that you make your own luck. So, when the zom breakout happens, I'm going to be very conservative and say that 50 % of the gun owners are proficient at using them and the other half or bleh. My contention is that percentile of armed and skilled users will make up for the non-gun users and the shitty shots. For example: one "decent" shotgunner can literally kill thousands of doves in Argentina in a couple of days hunt. You guys try to tell me a shambling zombie's head is harder to hit than a swooping, diving dove flying 40 mph is? I beg to differ. I do agree that accumilated factors mean stressfire shooting and problems, but I also say that a moving team of 2-4 hunters, cops or mil men can do some serious damage to the zom population. If you take it a step further to include a quickly put together team of zom destroyers with ropes, poles and axes and even more damage is done.

I do agree with the naysayers that non-shooters are in trouble trying to use a gun ala Shaun of the Dead.

You're basically saying what I said,
About decreasing the rate at which the zombie outbreak would spread. If only 1 in 100 individuals has both the firearms/ammunition, and the proficiency/mindset to cause the destruction of 50 or more zombies, than even small towns could be expected to field a large handful of individuals who are doing a great deal of damage to the ranks of the undead.

Remember the scenes with the rednecks lead by mostly-redneck law enforcement officials burning piles of zombies? That would be the Midwest IMO. The scenes with roving trucks with guys in the back with shotguns would be the South.

My point is that even if you make every argument possible against human proficiency versus the undead, the fact remains that any one person with the right equipment, positioning, skillset/mindset can destroy hundreds of zombies by themselves.

Hell, zombies are dumb enough that if you had a situation like Andy from DotD '04 was in, but in a smaller town, Andy might've extinguished the entire zombie population of his town before succumbing to starvation.

I'd be interested in hearing some thoughtful theories on what the regular civilian/collective of civilians could do in the face of the zombie masses...

[strayrider]

Hell, zombies are dumb enough that if you had a situation like Andy from DotD '04 was in, but in a smaller town, Andy might've extinguished the entire zombie population of his town before succumbing to starvation.

Heck, if I were in Andy's situation, there'd have been no zoms around my hide-out. I'd spend 8-hours a day sitting on the roof enjoying target practice.

:D

-stray-

[Wyldwraith]

I never quite understood that either,
Probably a topic best explored in another thread, so I'll just say that if Andy had been more proactive with his sniping at the outset he need not have ended up trapped without critical supplies. At the very least, if I HAD allowed myself to be trapped in such a way I would've been burning through ammo like it was going out of style. Every zombie I destroyed was one less for a luckier soul to be potentially stalked/infected/killed by.

Still, the "Andy tactic" merits some consideration. If you have a moderate size town whose population has been completely or almost completed killed and/or reanimated, you could make huge strides towards retaking the area IF you can maintain access to the following:

1) Manpower. It won't take a huge number of individuals, but if you need to clear a town with a former (living) population between 50-75,000 you're going to need a few dozen shooters and a few supporting personnel. Individuals who can do reloads, more than the most basic gun repairs (tasks beyond your average civilian shooter), maintaining other vital equipment (more on this shortly), some sort of medics, and at least a couple of pilots.

2) Equipment: A real no-brainer to some extent, but if your goals are larger than moment to moment survival you're going to need reliable firearms, all the ammunition you can scrounge up, plus everything else needed to outfit our intrepid zombie hunters and support their endeavors. It could be a real drag if your entire operation comes to a grinding halt because you've run out of batteries for the radios that allow the HQ and individual squads to remain in contact, or if the lack of a previously 50$ part is keeping your one and only chopper grounded. Basic wartime logistics here. Not overlooking, but feel the supplies required to keep 35-40 bodies going in some semblance of good health go without saying.

3) A defensible headquarters. Could be a variety of structure types. It just has to be something you can lock down tight. Either with a great deal of sheltered indoor area (ala Monroeville Mall), or a combination of protected outdoor grounds and indoor area to work from. Something like the military compound from Day, with a bit better fence.

I fully realize that this combination of resources would be very difficult to come by under the conditions of a zombie apocalypse. It just serves as my "Ideal" as it were. Some cobbled-together compromise combination is much more likely.

I still maintain that a few dozen determined individuals could destroy heaps of the undead with a low casualty rate. I guess I'm just re-iterating my basic assertion that we seem to underestimate the potential of regular people to be effective in their efforts to stem the tide of undead.

It's just too easy to draw up a laundry list of neat reasons why humanity would be doomed. I feel the naysaying pessimistic positions overlook the great potential of human beings to adapt and in many cases even prosper under the most adverse conditions.

My best argument that it could be done is that someone like Max Brooks can envision a variety of possible ways that groups/communities/nations can survive to beat back the hordes.

More interesting though is why we seem to consider it such a truism that we'd be doomed in the face of the zombie uprising. Or why we tend to most often focus on the idea of an individual or (at best) a very small group facing those hordes.

Is it as simple as the idea that we're just following GAR's nihlistic lead? Or is there another reason or reasons that we consider it all so hopeless?

Why do we tend to believe that nearly mindless, slow, extremely uncoordinated, reactive and predictable creatures could drive us into extinction without even a strong showing before we go down in flames?

I ask because I just don't get it. Not anymore than I can grasp how many people familiar with firearms can believe the majority of gun users would lethally fail to accomplish vital headshots at point-blank range.

Confused but interested and listening.

[Crappingbear]

Heck, if I were in Andy's situation, there'd have been no zoms around my hide-out. I'd spend 8-hours a day sitting on the roof enjoying target practice.

:D

-stray-

Nobody believes it but you and me and a few of us. A Ruger ranch rifle could clear that mall parking lot in easy fashion. Seriously, it ain't that hard to put down barely moving targets as you well now.

[AcesandEights]

Is it as simple as the idea that we're just following GAR's nihlistic lead?

That's largely the case with a lot of these discussions. There's also all sorts of wish fulfillment that go into it for a lot of people, which--I feel--dictates how they respond to such discussions.

I think I'm pretty realistic with regards to how most people would react to such a situation and, as is usually the case, human emotional frailty and a socialized inability to quickly adapt (note: over-reacting is not full adaptation) are the largest limiting factors for most people when it comes to following the perfect plan.

As always, some people will adapt, some people's sanity will not erode as quickly as others and, for others still, their lack of sanity and empathy will not interfere with their ability to survive (and it may actually help them).

[Rancid Carcass]

I don't think that general pessimism that people have about us being utterly sunk in the event of a zombie apocalypse isn't purely down to just following GAR's ideas, though personally I don't think he was all that wide of the mark. I think that it's a case of expect the worst and hope for the best. If you've planned for and are expecting a worst case scenario then you are psychologically 'armoured' (or as much as you can be given the circumstance), against what will a long hard struggle to survive, then every little success, every minor victory will be a massive psychological morale boost. Whereas if you've just planned for 'best case scenario' and things don't go according to plan – like running out of food, or you only make nine head shots out of ten or even accidentally dropping your gun over the side of a building into the rotting horde below, then each incident becomes a set back you haven't really planned for and makes it much harder to deal with. It chisels away at any hope rather than adding to it.
It does seem like some people here (no offence!), are expecting the apocalypse to unfold in a particular way, 'if I do this, the zombies will do that' then we can ride out the storm with our six-shooters and wait for civilization to bounce back and we can all go home for Corn Flakes. While I don't dispute that a few well armed crack-shots from a fortified location could clear out a car park or a small town, I still maintain that no matter how good a shot you are, it's simply not possible to shoot your way out of a zombie apocalypse. Assuming that it is an apocalyptic event, the car park or small town won't stay clear for long, you may buy some time, maybe a day or two depending on your location but eventually it'll fill back up again, you can't keep it clear indefinitely and sooner or later you'll run out of ammo. My main concern about firearms is that they can give you a false sense of empowerment, an 'I'll be okay I've got a gun, I'll just shoot 'em' mentality that can make people dangerously complacent - just as thinking that it will all turn out okay in the end will. Certainly a gun is a useful tool but it's probably best used for either the 'Grand Plan' or as a last resort – usually when the Grand Plan goes horribly wrong!
Don't get me wrong I'm not one of the doom-merchants hoping it all goes to hell but I can't see how it wouldn't. I'm not convinced that we could get it together enough in the beginning, to stop it snowballing out of control. For all our capacity to adapt and survive in the face of such overwhelming odds on an individual basis, it's on an international level where the fight against the undead hordes will be won or lost – it's going to take multinational cooperation on a scale never before seen to contain the spread and that, I'm afraid, is where the battle will be lost.

[Publius]

Now, if we're talking about the mechanical difficulty of pegging a shambler in the noggin with a pistol absent the "shock & horror factor" of the initial encounter, I think some are overestimating just how much raising/lowering of the undead skull occurs with each shambling step. Yes, there will be the occasional off-balance stumble that sends the zombie into an erratic gait for a few paces, but the typical foot-dragging shambles seems to keep the head *relatively* level. Not saying that a bullet meant for the forehead might end up instead hitting them at the top of the bridge of the nose.

This suggests some considerations for aiming when shooting at zombies. The skull is more likely to drop unexpectedly (due to stumbling) than to rise unexpectedly. Also, when thinking of headshots, people naturally tend to assume a higher aiming point than is required to hit the most vital parts of the brain. This means that when shooting at a zombie, you should aim lower than you think you need to. If you aim at the forehead, a slight stumble could result in a glancing blow off the dome of the skull, and is too high anyways. Aim for the bridge of the nose from the beginning. If you hit a little higher than expected you may still get the brain, and if you hit a little lower than expected you may sever the spinal column which is effectively as good.

[Eyebiter]

If your really worried about skull penetration issues avoid the 223 and use a good deer rifle cartridge like .270, 7mm, .308, or 30-06 instead. Most 150+ grain bullets shouldn't have any problem taking down your average zombie, assuming proper shot placement.

[Publius]

If your really worried about skull penetration issues avoid the 223 and use a good deer rifle cartridge like .270, 7mm, .308, or 30-06 instead. Most 150+ grain bullets shouldn't have any problem taking down your average zombie, assuming proper shot placement.

True, although (1) those cartridges are all heavier than .223/5.56mm meaning you can't carry as many of them, (2) one should also know where to aim when at close range using a handgun, or using a lighter weapon due to availability of ammo. It'd be very useful to know how to effectively put down zeds with .22LR even if you have a heavier rifle available when you really need it, because you'll attract a lot less attention, can stockpile thousands of rounds at little expense, and can save your heavier ammo for more dangerous targets (i.e. live humans) and larger game (I'd rather whack a zombie with a .22LR and put venison on the table than whack a zombie with a .30-06 and settle for rabbit!).

[Crappingbear]

I wonder if Red Dawn is a better template on surviving a zombie world than most zom flicks are.

[Wyldwraith]

Really makes you think,
The terrifyingly horrible of today is "just the way things are" a few weeks down the road. If you had interviewed the people prior to the Black Death they would've told you that you were insane when you informed them that in a few months time they would be burning people alive in their homes, and that ox-drawn wagons of diseased corpses headed for the nearest mass grave would become a commonplace sight.

Shock and horror are fleeting, while the will to survive/meet one's needs and wants remains constant. It might seem outlandish to us, but a society that barely survived a zombie uprising might end up with children capable of jamming a spike through dear ole grandpa's forehead when they discovered he wasn't breathing when they woke up, and go on to whine about being out of their favorite breakfast food to their mother a few breaths later.

How you define horror is all relative after all. The original DotD did a wonderful job of conveying that. After a certain amount of time had passed once they'd secured the mall, the reality of the thousands of undead outside stopped phasing them to the point they grew lethally complacent. When you have someone teasing the undead who wants to eat him, you know all horror concerning the situation has fled.

Not saying that's a GOOD thing mind you. We saw how it turned out for our complacent mall rats after all. Just using them to illustrate the point.

There's this really great series of books available online about a worldwide zombie epidemic. Monster Nation starts the series. It isn't purist GAR zombies 100%, but it deals with a lot of the complicated societal changes that could arise out of generations coping with, and finally defeating the undead menace. Child soldiers, maximized breeding efforts, the whole nine yards. Check em out.

As to bullet caliber. For hunting the .22 is nice, but I would have an extremely hard time placing my faith in the caliber as an anti-zombie round. I'd prefer a bit of added weight to simply carry more of my primary ammunition in a larger caliber. The arguments for and against the use of the .22 are all very well constructed however, so I feel it's a matter of outlook/style, rather than one of necessity.

[Publius]

As to bullet caliber. For hunting the .22 is nice, but I would have an extremely hard time placing my faith in the caliber as an anti-zombie round. I'd prefer a bit of added weight to simply carry more of my primary ammunition in a larger caliber. The arguments for and against the use of the .22 are all very well constructed however, so I feel it's a matter of outlook/style, rather than one of necessity.

Good points.

[AcesandEights]

I wonder if Red Dawn is a better template on surviving a zombie world than most zom flicks are.

Just don't let that Daryl along. He'll get everyone eaten!

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/reddawnschoolmatee.jpg
"But i just wanted to see my family!" *Cry, cry*

[Wyldwraith]

You know,
I just finished watching the Savini remake of NotLD, and it made me think we need an extra classification of zombie beyond simply shamblers & runners. I was curious, so I watched the original Night back to back with the remake, and Savini's zombies are EVEN SLOWER.

When you can slowly turn a circle around a zombie using no more than two of your own footsteps, and have no trouble whatsoever managing it/pushing it back/holding it in place just by poking it with the barrel of your gun then that's a whole new classification of undead. The Ultra Weak Super-Slow-Shambler, or U.W.S-S-S for short.

If we're talking about Savini zombies then a retarded chimp with a revolver could score headshots. They're so glacially slow and non-reactive that you'd never be in any danger besides perhaps the chance of splashback gore infecting you.

I was laughing hysterically during the scene where Barbara escapes from the doomed farmhouse at a slow introspective walk, while stopping to see the sights along the way. In her position I wouldn't have felt threatened either.

So, we all agree that headshotting Savini zombies constitutes the easiest killing of intact ghouls in any major survival horror film?

[Publius]

That was just as funny as Trin's Incredible Hulk zombies. Y'all are a riot today.

[Wyldwraith]

Glad you enjoyed it Publius,
Sadly I was rather serious. The idea of anyone with the barest firearms proficiency not being able to headshot a group of 4 Savini zombies that are 20ft away before any of them reach the shooter is what's funny to me.

What do you think Publius?

[Yojimbo]

As to bullet caliber. For hunting the .22 is nice, but I would have an extremely hard time placing my faith in the caliber as an anti-zombie round. I'd prefer a bit of added weight to simply carry more of my primary ammunition in a larger caliber. The arguments for and against the use of the .22 are all very well constructed however, so I feel it's a matter of outlook/style, rather than one of necessity.

Agreed. I have heard stories of folks taking down a deer with a .22, and while I concede that it might be possible it does not make me use my .22 for anything but light varmiting. I once heard that a guy took down a bear with a .22, and while I am not sure that story is true, I personally would not take the chance.

Against a slow moving zombie, I think that a .22 would be fine, but where I would worry would be against other survivors, since if some freak is running at me intending to knife me I would rather put my trust in a heavier caliber for it's stopping power. I do know that if I put several .22 hollowpoints in a looter's ten ring in rapid succession that he will be seriously injured and in all probability without immediate medical intervention would eventually die a very slow and painful death, but I would rather have a round that is likely to hurt and stop a living attacker immediately than having to bank on a lucky shot with a .22 or waiting around for my attacker's lungs to fill with blood before he stops his assault.

[Skippy911sc]

Agreed. I have heard stories of folks taking down a deer with a .22, and while I concede that it might be possible it does not make me use my .22 for anything but light varmiting. I once heard that a guy took down a bear with a .22, and while I am not sure that story is true, I personally would not take the chance.

Against a slow moving zombie, I think that a .22 would be fine, but where I would worry would be against other survivors, since if some freak is running at me intending to knife me I would rather put my trust in a heavier caliber for it's stopping power. I do know that if I put several .22 hollowpoints in a looter's ten ring in rapid succession that he will be seriously injured and in all probability without immediate medical intervention would eventually die a very slow and painful death, but I would rather have a round that is likely to hurt and stop a living attacker immediately than having to bank on a lucky shot with a .22 or waiting around for my attacker's lungs to fill with blood before he stops his assault.

Like the mighty Smith & Wesson .460 NOW THAT'S POWER!!!

[Wyldwraith]

Umm,
Not suggesting everyone needs to carry a .454 Casull or .50 Desert Eagle during the zombie apocalypse, but what's wrong with a nice reliable Socom .45 with extended 15-round clips? Solid 1-shot stopping power vs living and undead targets alike. The .45 round is one of the more common ammunitions, with only the .22, .38 and 9mm being more common.

It's a debatable issue, but for any sort of self-defense I place my faith in my S&W .45 and mossberg 12-gauge. I'm mediocre with a rifle, but not familiar with many besides plinking cans and rodents with a .22, or using one of my stepfather's .306's the few times I've gone deer hunting. I don't downplay the need for a reliable rifle for long-range applications, I'm just not the most savvy individual when it comes to rifles.

[Publius]

Glad you enjoyed it Publius,
Sadly I was rather serious. The idea of anyone with the barest firearms proficiency not being able to headshot a group of 4 Savini zombies that are 20ft away before any of them reach the shooter is what's funny to me.

What do you think Publius?

I agree! As long as the reality of being confronted with actual zombies doesn't make you panic and either flip out or freeze up, Savini zombies in small groups should be no problem as long as they aren't literally within arm's reach when you stumble upon them.

[Yojimbo]

I agree! As long as the reality of being confronted with actual zombies doesn't make you panic and either flip out or freeze up, Savini zombies in small groups should be no problem as long as they aren't literally within arm's reach when you stumble upon them.
Yojimbo agrees: Once again Publius speaks the truth.


Umm,
Not suggesting everyone needs to carry a .454 Casull or .50 Desert Eagle during the zombie apocalypse, but what's wrong with a nice reliable Socom .45 with extended 15-round clips? Solid 1-shot stopping power vs living and undead targets alike. The .45 round is one of the more common ammunitions, with only the .22, .38 and 9mm being more common.

It's a debatable issue, but for any sort of self-defense I place my faith in my S&W .45 and mossberg 12-gauge. I'm mediocre with a rifle, but not familiar with many besides plinking cans and rodents with a .22, or using one of my stepfather's .306's the few times I've gone deer hunting. I don't downplay the need for a reliable rifle for long-range applications, I'm just not the most savvy individual when it comes to rifles.

Your post along with the suggestion of a few others, combined with a bit of research has convinced me that my next purchase should be a flat shooting .45 auto. Combined with a nice modern-manufactured Thompson with the 20 round clip should me more than enough for the zombies let along any crazed marauder should the apocalypse eventually come.


Like the mighty Smith & Wesson .460 NOW THAT'S POWER!!!
Funny thing is I was looking at the Taurus JUDGE 410/45 pistol - that watermelon video is too rich! .460 or 410/45 combo - just gotta love that overkill!

[FoodFight]

Your post along with the suggestion of a few others, combined with a bit of research has convinced me that my next purchase should be a flat shooting .45 auto. Combined with a nice modern-manufactured Thompson with the 20 round clip should me more than enough for the zombies let along any crazed marauder should the apocalypse eventually come.


The .45 isn't a particularly flat-shooting caliber, especially in a sidearm. I carry one, but my concern is primarily its' terminal performance.

Ammo commonality can sometimes be a good thing, but if you're going to carry a shoulder-fired arm you may as well carry a rifle (increased range and accuracy) or a shotgun (MUCH greater short range damage). Plus, those Thompsons are quite heavy, even when empty.

[Skippy911sc]

No doubt the .45 is a good handgun and the caliber is readily available...here anyway. I thing the .223 or 5.56 light AR platform for a rifle would be a good choice...it can get out there, with the right person and optic, as well as a great CQC firearm...all around good choice. Not to mention they do make a hell of a lot of noise, good or bad, so the human opposition would think twice about confronting. You can also get a rifle that has the ability to have a Can installed and that would assist in quieting it down, a bit. But the .460 is capable of firing 3 different types of ammo and it is fuuuuuuuuun! So if you find some 45 colt (nice ammo to shoot) it will take it, 454 casull is will take it, or the mighty .460 s&w...

There is really no true winner in this realm, it all comes down to what you are able to handle in a confident and accurate manner, but I still think the average joe will have a hard time with a handgun hitting moving target in the head...but thats just my opinion...and you know what they say about those.

[Jonathan]

if you knew a headshot was the only thing stopping you from being eaten i reckon you would get to be a good shot pretty damn quick...

""We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level of our training."

[Wyldwraith]

Again,
It's absolutely crucial to describe what sort of target you're talking about when making a statement related to difficulty of landing a headshot. If we're talking about Dawn '04 Runners then a headshot would be all but impossible without multiple shooters with automatic weapons wasting a helluva lot of ammo. In such a situation you would be MUCH better off with a 12-gauge, or even two sawed-offs. Your best best under those circumstances would be avoidance/stealth, moving through territory difficult for the less-coordinated/unable to plan runners, and only getting in a shootout as a last resort. If you were forced to try and put runners down you'd be much better off trying to do critical damage to the spinal column or legs than go for the headshot.

Now, if we're talking about GAR-shamblers: While not exactly easy, shooting an object the size of a pineapple that's moving at 2-3mph AT BEST, in an extremely predictable and unchanging trajectory that only rarely rises or falls (the occasional stumble) shouldn't be prohibitively difficult. Dragging the issue of people freaking out because they're facing zombies into the issue is sort of disingenuous, because that sort of shock/horror/panic/revulsion can be said to impair ANY task under those conditions. Besides, anyone that cannot find a way to overcome their fear and act decisively in spite of it will be dead by Day 3 of the epidemic at maximum unless they're extremely lucky, or find someone/a group able and willing to protect their useless carcass.

So we can assume that when we're talking about a hypothetical shooter taking hypothetical headshots at hypothetical undead cannibal corpses during a hypothetical zombie epidemic that we're talking about individuals who've already found a way to deal with their fear to the extent it's no longer significantly impairing their performance. Everyone else will be dead, it just being a matter of time.

Then if we're discussing scoring headshots on Savini zombies...well, believe we've already established that a retarded chimp can do that.

Like I said, the debate is shaped by the target in question.

[Publius]

Dragging the issue of people freaking out because they're facing zombies into the issue is sort of disingenuous, because that sort of shock/horror/panic/revulsion can be said to impair ANY task under those conditions. Besides, anyone that cannot find a way to overcome their fear and act decisively in spite of it will be dead by Day 3 of the epidemic at maximum unless they're extremely lucky, or find someone/a group able and willing to protect their useless carcass.

So we can assume that when we're talking about a hypothetical shooter taking hypothetical headshots at hypothetical undead cannibal corpses during a hypothetical zombie epidemic that we're talking about individuals who've already found a way to deal with their fear to the extent it's no longer significantly impairing their performance. Everyone else will be dead, it just being a matter of time.

True about "individuals who've already found a way to deal with their fear," but part of the question is how many people will make it that point, considering the widespread ability of guns. Those who do not survive will die and those who do not die will survive, granted, but the freaking out issue isn't disingenuous, it's a factor relevant to figuring out what fraction of the population is likely to fall into each category.