I was wandering around in the vast wilderness that is the World Wide Web, when I stumbled upon an article, a blog post actually, that described the Maori mere, a short warclub, generally made of New Zealand greenstone, a type of local jade.  The story is that a skilled warrior could thrust the sharp edge of the weapon into an opponents skull and with a twist of the wrist, actually wrench the top of the skull off. :o

So, does anybody have any more information on this thing.  Is that a myth? Is is proven anywhere? I know the British had a hell of a time subduing the Maori in the 1800s...maybe becasue they all had the tops of their heads removed?

By the way, the Wikipedia site has some good pictures and information.

my ultimate zombie weapon would be my cold steel kukri machete or my tomahawk, or if i can get it a shaolin spade.  "If"  this happens,  nopt when but if,  Ill most likely abandon firearms perhaps expend the last of the ammo in the beginning and go light back to primitive weapons.  I have about 1050 .22 LR rounds that would be perfect for zombie-extermination,  if I keep my cool I or any other companions can drop em 1 at a time,  then retreat as carefully as possible(droppin a few as we go) out into the wild up to Northern Alaska  ;).

An Incan star mace. A bronze head on a wooden handle. Not the most elegant weapon, but it was specifically designed to smash heads.

---

if you watch the program (can't remember what the series is called) - shaolin monk versus maori warrior.
He has one.

Hilarious program.

Every time the monk uses a non-fatal weapon the maori guy says: 'yeah, but while you've broke my arm, I've got close enough to rip yer bloody head off mate'.

The green stone knife/axe looked seriously nasty.

Deadliest Warriors it is called

Mere Testing on Deadliest Warrior

He cracked the cow skull like it was nothing.

This seems to happen a lot lately. Someone will mention something that I just watched the night before. That was a funny episode though. I got the sense that most of the weapons chosen from the Shaolin side (presumably by the shows producers) were specifically chosen to make the contest closer than it actually would have been.

One of the weapons, the hook swords, were absolutely devastating. While the other three from an actual fighting stand point were kind of a joke. The shaolin still won though.

And yea, what you say is true C_A. Everytime..."Yea so they cut me wide open, but now I'm gonna rip his head off!" Funny stuff.  ;D

As far as the zombie question goes are we talking undead zombie or disease zombie. Undead I would go with some sort of head basher. Diseased I would go with a light sword like a katana.

no offense meant, but For diseased, I don't think a katana would work to well unless you're strong enough to hack straight through a limb or skull with one solid strike, not to mention whether a skinny blade would actually hold up after repeated use unless it was very well made. It seems like a heavy machete or stout short sword would work better, as long as you could still maneuver quickly with it. Also easier to build from scrap metals.

Edit: it seems like a terrible idea to go melee  against a disease zombie. it would be a disease of the blood if it could also be spread through saliva, you would have to wear like a painter's suit to avoid getting infected from the blood splatter.

Cthulhu wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 4:17pm:

it seems like a terrible idea to go melee  against a disease zombie. it would be a disease of the blood if it could also be spread through saliva, you would have to wear like a painter's suit to avoid getting infected from the blood splatter.

You'd have the fluid problem with any zombie.  A tactical painter's suit though,  :-? hmm...

I actually brought this up becasue I just finished reading World War Z and he references the mere, but in metal.  Has anybody heard of this made in metal?  Would it be feasible?

Makiakiasaurus, again that show is still preditable the use a light steel knife and a heavy club in a blunt force trauma test of course the heavy club won. Though an iron mere with the same size, shape, and weight would be pretty beast  :o .

Anyway poor show but, a really cool weapon. I think with zombies this weapon would only be good on less than a dozen or so enemies past that they might overwhelm you in such case a longer weapon (example cold steel gun stock warclub :)  8-) )  would be better to keep them at a distance and have the mere as a back up or perhaps an AA-12  with Frag-12 rounds if you have the budget.  

I dunno about the gunstock warclub, that little blade seems like a liability, I could see it sticking.  How thick is that blade anyway?  Would it bend?  It's neither a cutting weapon nor a bludgeon, so it may be only mediocre at either task.  How heavy is it? As heavy as a bat?  If not, I could see it having trouble cracking the skull in a single blow.  I do think that it could be a fearsome weapon against a limited amount of zeds, but I don't think that is what you were going for.

I do think an iron or steel mere would be a great backup weapon, though.

On the topic of deadliest warrior: I find it funny that they are wrong in their facts, but they still proclaim them as if they are clearly correct, and anybody who disagrees is an idiot.  For example, the episode with the Roman centurion.  They claimed he wore butted mail, but, unless I am much mistaken, nobody, least of all a Roman centurion, wore butted mail.  I actually ran across a test someone did that showed how when a broadhead struck a target in butted mail, it would not only punch through, but also drive broken rings into the flesh.

 I don't know about it being the best, but a good hardwood ball headed warclub has quite an impact and is designed to crush skulls, it's lightweight and easy to carry, can also be used pretty well up close.  My kit would probably consist of some type of sword like a katana and a light but strong shield, for primitive I would go with a roman or viking shield but for modern a riot shield along with the helmet with visor.  The other thing I thought about the other day was that if you wore full chainmail it would be pretty frigging hard for a zombie to bite you...it will stop a sharks bite.  In which case the shield, full leather clothing and chainmail gloves and around my neck/shoulders for armor.
 The one thing that must be remembered though is that zombies attack in masses, so you don't want to use a weapon that allows them to get too close, and you don't want to use a weapon that will get embedded in someone and you won't be able to get it out in time for the next attacker.
 I've always thought a sling in a scenario like in Dawn Of The Dead the remake, where you are on top of an apartment building and there are masses of zombies below you.  You could just sit up there with a makeshift sling and chuck all kinds of projectiles at them and probably get a lot of kills as you would be shooting down so a lot of headshots would result.
 A cool weapon on deadliest warrior belonged to an African tribe, I can't remember the name... it was made of iron and looked a little like a swastika, but it was a phalus symbol for the tribe, kind of a I'm a man weapon that was thrown like a giant throwing star.  I think the opponent was an aztec jaguar.  That thing was extremely devastating.
 
 

LukeWebb wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 1:30am:

with the helmet with visor.  The other thing I thought about the other day was that if you wore full chainmail it would be pretty frigging hard for a zombie to bite you...it will stop a sharks bite.

A helemt would only cut down on your vision.  Zombies aren't going for a headshot, although a splatter shield might be nice.  And chainmail is not a viable alternative to not getting bitten, besides it being a lound hinderance.  By the way, I'm paraphrasing from the Zombie Survival Guide.  The author goes into helmets and chainmail in depth and essentially nixes both.

LukeWebb wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 1:30am:

A cool weapon on deadliest warrior belonged to an African tribe, I can't remember the name... it was made of iron and looked a little like a swastika, but it was a phalus symbol for the tribe, kind of a I'm a man weapon that was thrown like a giant throwing star.  I think the opponent was an aztec jaguar.  That thing was extremely devastating.

The knife is called a mambele, and different tribes make them in different shapes all over Sub-Saharan Africa. For a while I was kinda obsessed with getting one. The best site to look at them is The Guido T.Poppe Collection Website because it breaks the knives down into categories and tells you which tribe makes which knife for what. A really cool bit of information is that some Bantu descended tribes have a religious taboo against touching iron with bare skin, so they actually trade for their mambele with another tribe and have the hilts wrapped in copper wire up to the ricasso.

Thunder chief it is about as heavy as a bat maybe a little heavier. However unlike a baseball bat the war club comes down to more of a point and focous all the force onto a small striking surface, though my dream war club would also be either a desert hardwood War boomerang or a polypropylene gunstock earclub the same shape as the cold steel one but an inch shorter and a 5/16 in blade witdth instead of the 1/8 in.

However the current cold steel blade is very sturdy because it is so short. Here is the Cold Steel test video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtqOiKUcT_Q

Alright, you have me converted.  I actually thought it was longer and flimsier; that size would be better for more confined spaces.  While I would gladly do battle with the undead horde while weilding this thing, I still think I prefer the ball-head club, it just seems a little bit more heavy duty.

By the way, where can I get one of them "earclubs"? ;D

Typing a little to fast I guess,  :-[  . lol

Just call on Chuck Norris. Problem solved.

 Ha ha, I also thought that if you are fighting hordes pitch pots from slings could be good up to a certain distance for something you could make at home.  
 A ball headed war club really is great for crunching a skull as it focuses all the power down on a small point and then radiates it outward, so you get a nice radial fracture like a bb hitting glass, might make a hertzian cone out of your head haha.   I wouldn't use any weapon that has a blade sticking out that would get jammed in a zombies head and be hard to remove, if two are attacking you and you hit one with a gunstock club with a 2in. blade and the blade happens to stick in and not cut through you will have to pry on it to get it out, by that time your brains will already be devoured.  What might work well though is a plains indian warclub, the kind with a rawhide handle and biconical stone head, it probably wouldn't stick in and would do SERIOUS damage.  Also a Meteor Hammer would work well.

I'm not so sure about the pitch pots.  I don't think there's very much that's worse than a flaming zombie, who happens to still be trying to eat you.
If you were in a static defensive position that's absolutely fireproof, maybe.

In a zombie apocalypse, I would rather use a weapon that still can be used as a tool.

I read the Zombie Survival guide just for fun (2 times)  And I must say it's quite a good work but has several flaws:

1: Real Japanese Katanas were in fact weaker weapons than European swords. Their steel was poorer, broke more than the European steel, their forging technique was outdated, and the fact it had no flexible taper made it fast to break and twist, or at least faster than an European sword of the same period.

2: What do you do, after having destroyed the stairs, when the outbreak goes from 2 to 3, then 4, and that there is no food left in your high grounded shelter, with hordes of undead around it? You can't get out, you're dead.

In a Zombie Apocalypse, since I live in a quite nordic region of Québec, Canada, I would have nothing to fear at least during half of the year, where zombies would freeze solid, having only to dispatch them while they're not able to move.

During the other half of the year, I would gather people I know (mainly LARPist and family) in a northern place of my region, establish a round of guard, and train the rest into a search and rescue army.

We would be equiped with large roman-like shield, light one handed axe or crowbar (again, can be used as tools) and wearing thick leather armour, gloves, etc. and have people with rifles (mainly carbines) mounted in pick-ups to open a covering fire.

Being formed into a roman like formation, we would advance making a lot of noise so the Zombies would head straight for us as we are not yet in the place, so we would confront them  on only one front.

If all alone, I'd use a hunting crossbow and  a sling as long distance weapons, some kind of home made halberd as mid-range weapon, and axe and crowbar as close range.

The brain doesn't have to be destroyed for the zombie to be killed. I imagine once a zombie was burning well he wouldn't last very long ( massive tissue/organ damage, especially to the lungs). There is virtually no way any of us could take more than 3 zeds, absolute max. We are dealing with infected humans who now think nothing of their own survival and want nothing more than to infect/kill you. Unless the human was quite obese, their bodies are going 110%, with bodies flooded with adrenaline ( i.e, using all muscles to greatest extent, both stronger and faster than us) . They don't think, every sense fires straight into their altered instincts ( meaning greatly increased reaction times). We would die hand-to-hand, if not by getting eaten, than by getting cut and infected.  Our only advantage is our technology and our minds. So yeah, hide upstairs for a month or two with a shotgun.

Cthulhu wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 10:35pm:

The brain doesn't have to be destroyed for the zombie to be killed. I imagine once a zombie was burning well he wouldn't last very long ( massive tissue/organ damage, especially to the lungs). There is virtually no way any of us could take more than 3 zeds, absolute max. We are dealing with infected humans who now think nothing of their own survival and want nothing more than to infect/kill you. Unless the human was quite obese, their bodies are going 110%, with bodies flooded with adrenaline ( i.e, using all muscles to greatest extent, both stronger and faster than us) . They don't think, every sense fires straight into their altered instincts ( meaning greatly increased reaction times). We would die hand-to-hand, if not by getting eaten, than by getting cut and infected.  Our only advantage is our technology and our minds. So yeah, hide upstairs for a month or two with a shotgun.

I'm talking about classic infected zombies. Their brain is highjacked by an organism that caused its death, altering its motor capacities, focusing on the senses.
And even if I had to face a huge musculated guy, me being quite tiny, having a weapon would increase largely my chances of winning.

And your plan of hiding upstairs for a month or two with a shotgun= bad.
When you're upstairs, there's no emergency exit. If you're surrounded, there's no way out. You can't aim for a zombie free exit cause there's only one... or at least there's only one exit you won't fall from, breaking your leg or your knee.

Plus,  a shotgun is a quite loud weapon. Only one infected comes, you shoot, they all hear and they all come. You're dead. (Plus the fact it's quite slow to reload. Swords and axe don't need a reload.)

I agree that fire would be a good thing to use BUT, by the time the fire took out all the ability of the zombie to walk or even crawl, they would have made a good way forward, setting fire to every inflammable thing they would have touched.

the problem with all these ideas is, who's going to listen to them when the time comes? most people will argue over what to do, and in the end most will debate them selves into defeat

thats why you roll alone or with 1 or 2, absolute max. A large group, unless at a highly fortified and defendable location with a defined, agreed, organizational hierarchy, equals easy prey.  brains..om..nom...nom...

Max Gibson says a crowbar is the ultimate zombie weapon and all around post-apocalypse utility tool  ;D

zombie survival guide a very funny peice literature, as long as you understand the tongue-in-cheek humor, I recomend it

Thunder Chief wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 2:20am:

LukeWebb wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 1:30am: with the helmet with visor.  The other thing I thought about the other day was that if you wore full chainmail it would be pretty frigging hard for a zombie to bite you...it will stop a sharks bite.   A helemt would only cut down on your vision.  Zombies aren't going for a headshot, although a splatter shield might be nice.  And chainmail is not a viable alternative to not getting bitten, besides it being a lound hinderance.  By the way, I'm paraphrasing from the Zombie Survival Guide.  The author goes into helmets and chainmail in depth and essentially nixes both.

Neither of which he understands well. Mail is quite light, very protective, and not all that loud. Unless one has to sprint or move through water its not even a huge encumbrance over a short time. As far as helmets go, protecting the head and face from the human jaw isn't exactly difficult.

You can all debate the merits of specific weapons, their multi uses, effectiveness of killing zombies, all you want.
In the meantime, I'm going down looking bad ass with a katana and wakizashi in my belt. I'm still debating my battle gear.

Woonilsra wrote on Jan 31^st, 2011 at 8:14pm:

You can all debate the merits of specific weapons, their multi uses, effectiveness of killing zombies, all you want. In the meantime, I'm going down looking bad ass with a katana and wakizashi in my belt. I'm still debating my battle gear.

---

Woonilsra wrote on Jan 31^st, 2011 at 8:14pm:

You can all debate the merits of specific weapons, their multi uses, effectiveness of killing zombies, all you want. In the meantime, I'm going down looking bad ass with a katana and wakizashi in my belt. I'm still debating my battle gear.

If I went down it is unlikely my sword or knife would be in my belt but more likely deeply implanted in my opponents head or upper torso.  ;)

lol i couldn't resist this one. The cold steel gunstock club would be a fine choice. as far as it sticking the force behind that thing when you swing it would be more than enough to rip clean through pretty much anywhere, especially a head shot. A friend of mine has one of those. pretty danged cool. swords would work but a face shield would be very necessary being as blood splatter would go everywhere. i personally would choose a medium one handed club and a tomahawk for melee. .45 cal pistol and club or tomahawk if available. shoot till you run out of ammo then swing. nothing says "i've got the door" like a pump shotgun full of buckshot loads.  i made a club once out of a piece of 1 1/2 in black pipe 2 ft long with a 90 degree elbow on the end of it. I put a hemp wrapped grip on it secured with contact cement. quite a weapon i kept it under the bed for years. Any of the breaching type hatchets available could be used to devastating effect. Cold steel makes a nice one. Swords would be ok for open areas but using one indoors would be quite difficult unless it was a short sword. a Gladius type sword would be perfect. Above all else durability would be foremost. weapon failure in that situation would not be an option. interesting thread in theory. i think we have a lot bigger and more realistic problems to think of when it comes to end of the world-apocalyptic scenarios. In the age of nuclear/bio/chemical weapons i see zombies as an unlikely problem. l8er.

i would carry a gun with me during a zombie invasion. it's much more useful then not having it, and you'll probably have some more melee weapons with you when you run low on shot anyways

Leadrocks has the idea 45. is the way to go recently a congress woman was shot in the head with a 9mm and still survived, I have a feeling zombies might be even tougher.

Also tomawks are awesome I have the CS Trail hawk for the woods and the Sog Fusion for fighting, no doubt one of the best fighting wapons ever made.  ;)

Clearly we should all be using slings because we damn well know how good they are. Free ammo and if its a mass of zombies, even we cant miss that target!

My main issues with using guns is that they are heavy, ammo is heavy, and who here honestly thinks they can make ammo for whatever gun hey are using? This is why i say a bow is the way to go. Make it all yourself and craft ammo, and should zombies be able to hear, its silent in comparison to a gun.

I think if you could get a group of people together slinging with Fundi's 2 or 3 stone slings you could wipe out a horde of zombies pretty quick. Imagine 20 guys slinging 3 stones per swing.  ;D

hmmm I was thinking if this actually happens that I'm gonna leave my guns at home and take bows,  slings and bolas,  they dont rust or require gun oil or explosive powder or complex moving parts I might goo all-primitive and travel light but not without nothing,  just the bare essentials.

Dan wrote on Feb 1^st, 2011 at 7:55pm:

Woonilsra wrote on Jan 31st, 2011 at 8:14pm: You can all debate the merits of specific weapons, their multi uses, effectiveness of killing zombies, all you want. In the meantime, I'm going down looking bad ass with a katana and wakizashi in my belt. I'm still debating my battle gear. If I went down it is unlikely my sword or knife would be in my belt but more likely deeply implanted in my opponents head or upper torso.  ;)

Well said, well said.

Jabames wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 7:59pm:

hmmm I was thinking if this actually happens that I'm gonna leave my guns at home and take bows,  slings and bolas,  they dont rust or require gun oil or explosive powder or complex moving parts I might goo all-primitive and travel light but not without nothing,  just the bare essentials.

I could not agree more. Well, I could, but this is quite good. I'd suggest a bike, easy enough to keep maintained, or a horse if you know how to take care of one.

I'd take a bike for transportation, and mostly primitive weapons. If I happen across a few guns, then great! I'd treat them as semi-disposable, since I don't really know how to clean/maintain them properly.


For melee, I'd have a kukri as my sidearm/general utility knife:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a22/donnersclag/Weapons/KnightCombat019.jpg

and either a 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a22/donnersclag/Weapons/1796LightCavalrySabre.gif

or possibly a Venetian Schiavona:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a22/donnersclag/Weapons/Venetianschiavonaofthelate17thcentury.jpg

Although I'd prefer a longsword because of their sheer versatility, but I'd probably need the sheer stopping power lent by a dedicated-cutter, rather than a Jack-of-all-trades. (Although longswords are pretty damn good at everything they do.)

However that's with preferred equipment. If there were a zombie outbreak tomorrow, I'd be stuck with having to survive with slings, a stringless bow (& 5 arrows), a kukri, a CS Trail Hawk, and a katana. :-/

I got it worse,  I only have a cs Kukri machete and a cold steel frontier hawk,  no swords for me,  maybe id bring my .22 with 1050 rounds  ;)

Jabames wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 1:06am:

I got it worse,  I only have a cs Kukri machete and a cold steel frontier hawk,  no swords for me,  maybe id bring my .22 with 1050 rounds  ;)

I would imagine that a .22 would be fine, if not preferred. All you need are head shots, after all. ;)

Donnerschlag wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 12:14pm:

Jabames wrote on Feb 4th, 2011 at 1:06am: I got it worse,  I only have a cs Kukri machete and a cold steel frontier hawk,  no swords for me,  maybe id bring my .22 with 1050 rounds  ;) I would imagine that a .22 would be fine, if not preferred. All you need are head shots, after all. ;)

yupp close range though,  Im guess not more than 50 yards

Jabames wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 3:42pm:

Donnerschlag wrote on Feb 4th, 2011 at 12:14pm: Jabames wrote on Feb 4th, 2011 at 1:06am: I got it worse,  I only have a cs Kukri machete and a cold steel frontier hawk,  no swords for me,  maybe id bring my .22 with 1050 rounds  ;) I would imagine that a .22 would be fine, if not preferred. All you need are head shots, after all. ;) yupp close range though,  Im guess not more than 50 yards

When I was younger I used to take out my dads scoped 22. out to 100yds and I got about a 10in group but, I am older now and a lot more accurate the hard part is that the 22. drops about a foot at this range so you have to set the sights up pretty high, however it works really well with headshots because after it hits it tumbles around inside tearing up the brain tissue.

.22 is my preferred gun for any SHTF scenario, I guess that would include zombies.  ;D Try putting 1000 30 06 rounds in your pack that would make for heavy going.

Now what happens to you guys when you run out of ammo? Will you just ditch the gun, or try to find more ammo. I assume you will have backup weapons?

yeah a secondary pistol for me,  if I run out of ammo then I use hand or other weapons,  Id have to use the sling bow atlatl and bola to compensate for the loss of gun ammo

Jabames wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 1:07am:

Id have to use the sling bow atlatl and bola to compensate for the loss of gun ammo

You'd seriously go up against a creature who cannot be killed without a headshot with an atlatl? Are you that good at any kind of range? And how many six foot long darts can you realistically carry?  And what are you going to do with a bola? Trip it and then go bash in it's skull?  

I don't think that primitive ranged weapons, with a few exceptions, have any place in undead warfare.  They simply cannot gurantee a clean kill, at least not without years of practice and real-world experience, something that very few of use have.

And, just because it's late and I'm grumpy, why is it that slings, bows, atlatls, and bolas, are always grouped together?  It is highly unlikely that you would carry all of them all at once, and there is no way that you could be expertly proficient with them all anyway.  There is no reason to carry them together anyway, as the bow totally negates the atlatl, and is the bola really any good outside of isolated hunting excursions?  And what's with all the talk of going primitive? Could you even do it for long periods of time? Do you know when to harvest the local food plants and what to do with them at different times of the year? Do you know how to store them, process them, even find them?  We, as a people (if you are on the internet reading this [barring a very few specialists], you are lumped in too), do not spend our lives in the wild, we are soft, and there is no way that we will survive long periods in the wilderness without intense preparation and planning.

The primitive weapons are for hunting mostly,  I'd use them after expending all the gun ammo I can against undead if I run in to some.  I'd use the bow more than the atlatl in hunting,  since you said it negates the atlatl then I'd disregard it maybe,  bolas for small game slings too.  maybe I won't go primitive,  idk maybe lugging around my .30-30 or .30-06,  my double barrel shotgun sawed-off on my back,  other guns if possible...

Thunder Chief wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 3:19am:

Jabames wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 1:07am: Id have to use the sling bow atlatl and bola to compensate for the loss of gun ammo You'd seriously go up against a creature who cannot be killed without a headshot with an atlatl? Are you that good at any kind of range? And how many six foot long darts can you realistically carry?  And what are you going to do with a bola? Trip it and then go bash in it's skull?   I don't think that primitive ranged weapons, with a few exceptions, have any place in undead warfare.  They simply cannot gurantee a clean kill, at least not without years of practice and real-world experience, something that very few of use have. And, just because it's late and I'm grumpy, why is it that slings, bows, atlatls, and bolas, are always grouped together?  It is highly unlikely that you would carry all of them all at once, and there is no way that you could be expertly proficient with them all anyway.  There is no reason to carry them together anyway, as the bow totally negates the atlatl, and is the bola really any good outside of isolated hunting excursions?  And what's with all the talk of going primitive? Could you even do it for long periods of time? Do you know when to harvest the local food plants and what to do with them at different times of the year? Do you know how to store them, process them, even find them?  We, as a people (if you are on the internet reading this [barring a very few specialists], you are lumped in too), do not spend our lives in the wild, we are soft, and there is no way that we will survive long periods in the wilderness without intense preparation and planning.

Well, the primitive talk comes about due to the massive hordes of zombies infesting the cities, which is where the food is. Now if i want to get food, I need to hope that the zombies leave the city, which doesn't seem all that likely. Therefore, I should learn how survive in the wild to increases my chances of survival in a zombie invasion. as or right now, if it happened, im dead. Id hide in my town and kill as many as i could. And of course raid the library to learn these skills.

I would carry a sling and a bow. bola is not useful for murder really, atlatls impractical for me.  sling because its just so easy to carry, you might as well take one. Maybe you could even use it to sling a stone with a message attached to someone out of reach, though you could the same with a bow.

bolas as I see it would be extremely useful. You have a moving target on your hands, rapidly moving toward you. Once you get good with a ( especially large )bola you have a like 4 foot wide whirring wall of death you can chuck at it. Might not kill it but it will knock it down, get it caught up, or better yet break it's legs.

Cthulhu wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 11:14am:

bolas as I see it would be extremely useful. You have a moving target on your hands, rapidly moving toward you. Once you get good with a ( especially large )bola you have a like 4 foot wide whirring wall of death you can chuck at it. Might not kill it but it will knock it down, get it caught up, or better yet break it's legs.

I see the Atlatl being useful in the same way at longer range. Chuck a dart at a zombie and suddenly its got a 6 foot dart impeding its movement letting you finish it off at your leisure. My *primitive* zombie kit would be a glaive or a spear for fighting with, and a sling to incapacitate the zombies before they get to me, and a big knife/machete for up close work. After I run out of .243 ammo of course. :)

only issue with the atlatl or sling is how long it takes to be able to readily hit a moving man sized target, not to mention the burden of carrying multiple 6-foot darts .bolas are easier to build and learn.

Though I would do my best to keep the zombies at bay for as long as possible with projectile weapons, they just keep coming.  Eventually you run out of atlatl darts, arrows, bullets, sling rocks, etc..  Sooner or later it's at close quarters, like it or not.  I would choose this:
http://www.swordandaxe.com/chinese-war-sword.html
At 57.7 oz. it has some real head lopping ability.

---

I still prefer one handed axes or crowbar. If you need food or medics, they can be useful as weapons AND tools.  :D


Halberd at mid-range combat.

And Crossbow at long range.

If I can organise my Larpist and other geek friends, (and we ALL already had that convo since we are geek XD )  we would go for a roman formation with small axes instead of Gladius, and leather coats instead of those skin exposing uniforms they had with Lorica Hamata and Segmentata

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

After watching the cold steel videos, this looks like a good candidate for zombie killing. Takes nothing to use it unlike a sword.

Rockman wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 12:34pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJvLNkFzblQ After watching the cold steel videos, this looks like a good candidate for zombie killing. Takes nothing to use it unlike a sword.

Impressive. Very Impressive. Still, a nice sharp bladed weapon would be better for murdering zombies than a blunt one, even if its indestructible.

Jabames wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 3:36am:

my double barrel shotgun sawed-off on my back

You have a sawed off shotgun? Do you have a permit? And if you do, why? Or is it, that you will saw it off when the time comes?

haha its not sawed off,  I meant I might shorten the barrel for close encounters "if" this happens,  that would be the right time to do it...

Rockman wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 12:34pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJvLNkFzblQ After watching the cold steel videos, this looks like a good candidate for zombie killing. Takes nothing to use it unlike a sword.

Sweet, Rockman.  I wonder how one gets the job of smashing things at Cold Steel?  I would love that job!

The first requirement seems to be a good pair of black daisy dukes. Every thing else is negotiable.

Morphy wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 5:27pm:

The first requirement seems to be a good pair of black daisy dukes. Every thing else is negotiable.

I tried google, and I got a punch of women scantily clad. what are you referring to?

Woonilsra wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 6:23pm:

Morphy wrote on Feb 10th, 2011 at 5:27pm: The first requirement seems to be a good pair of black daisy dukes. Every thing else is negotiable. I tried google, and I got a punch of women scantily clad. what are you referring to?

Black short shorts at 1:41 in this video.
And these.
And these at 0:33.
And these at 0:51.
There's more, but I'm starting to feel a little weird for searching online for video of a man in daisy dukes... :-[

There was some Cold Steel vids I watched a while back with a pretty big fellow wearing some really short black shorts. A few people, myself included, wondered why is this big guy wearing these really short shorts that are usually worn by young women showing off their legs? Now unfortunately I associate CS with that image.  ;)  It was one of those off the top of my head comments. Probably a bit too vague to be posting.

EDIT: Yep there you go...Masi, welcome to my world of disturbing mental images.

What's wrong with a bush ax with a fiberglass handle?  It is similar to the CS two handed kukri but you can get one at wally world or Ace Hardware for about $20.  You can chop down small trees with one swing, it takes minimal training to use, and nothing human is going to take a hit from one.  Not very exotic, though.  Bill

Thunder Chief wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 2:49am:

Jabames wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 3:36am: my double barrel shotgun sawed-off on my back You have a sawed off shotgun? Do you have a permit? And if you do, why? Or is it, that you will saw it off when the time comes?

lol.... federal law states that sawed off shotguns are legal as long as the barrel is at least 18 in long and the buttstock isn't sawed off. there's a minimum overall length too although i can't recall it at the moment. i have a double barrel 12 gauge "coach gun" with 18 in barrels. as long as state laws don't make it illegal it's fine. perfectly legal here

I think the overall length is 26". Do NOT quote me on that!

By "sawed off" I took it to mean actually sawed off at home to something like 12".  By the way is it black powder?  If it's a bp muzzlelader, the barrels can be any length you want, they are unrestricted.

Thunder Chief wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 11:11pm:

I think the overall length is 26". Do NOT quote me on that! By "sawed off" I took it to mean actually sawed off at home to something like 12".  By the way is it black powder?  If it's a bp muzzlelader, the barrels can be any length you want, they are unrestricted.

nahh smokeless

I think If I were to chose cold steel weapon for zombie combat it is highly unlkely it would be a walking stick but probably something more along the lines of the special forces shovel, one of their hawks' or they even have some large kung fu swords like Rat man was showing.

Rat Man wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 3:29pm:

Rockman wrote on Feb 9th, 2011 at 12:34pm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJvLNkFzblQ After watching the cold steel videos, this looks like a good candidate for zombie killing. Takes nothing to use it unlike a sword. Sweet, Rockman.  I wonder how one gets the job of smashing things at Cold Steel?  I would love that job!

Judging by their videos, a pre-requisite is to weight 300 pounds.

Rockman wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 2:34pm:

Rat Man wrote on Feb 10th, 2011 at 3:29pm: Rockman wrote on Feb 9th, 2011 at 12:34pm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJvLNkFzblQ After watching the cold steel videos, this looks like a good candidate for zombie killing. Takes nothing to use it unlike a sword. Sweet, Rockman.  I wonder how one gets the job of smashing things at Cold Steel?  I would love that job! Judging by their videos, a pre-requisite is to weight 300 pounds.

and a pissed off look on your face and make loud martial arts type noises when u cut somethin

Does anyone have a cold steel kukri? Seems like a good piece for the 20$ they ask for.

yeah I have a kukri machete from cold steel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3LgwH4dZ_0&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL


As a melee weapon I think this is unbeatable

ilovepancakes wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 2:19pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3LgwH4dZ_0&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL As a melee weapon I think this is unbeatable

I'm dislike the video showing them using the weapon. They're taking just one swing and stepping back a lot, I want to see them try using it the same way when surrounded by zombies. I'm for a katana, hands down.

Woonilsra wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

ilovepancakes wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 2:19pm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3LgwH4dZ_0&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL As a melee weapon I think this is unbeatable I'm dislike the video showing them using the weapon. They're taking just one swing and stepping back a lot, I want to see them try using it the same way when surrounded by zombies. I'm for a katana, hands down.

Why would anyone allow themselves to be surrounded by zombies? When sh!t starts going down get the f**k out of dodge and get to the country or a small island or something.

hey Goku,  try not to have cursing words in posts soo much k?  we try not to talk that way here ;)

Rockman wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

Does anyone have a cold steel kukri? Seems like a good piece for the 20$ they ask for.

I got older LTC 12" kukri, of which the kukri machete is a cheaper model, and a discontinued magnum kukri machete with a 17" blade.  They are both über-cool and solid buildt, and all these things will get you thru all your future zombie problems.

While you wait for the zombies you might want to use your zombie killer kukri for more mundane machete tasks, like as a garden- camping- and other wood-processing tasks.  The cold steel stuff is well up to the task, but I find the forward curve a bit awkward and the handles require glowes for long time exposure.  I honestly prefer a more straight tool for real work, I resort to a Fiskars billhook after a few shops with a kukri.

Somebody should give me a real kukri, so I could experience the real stuff :D
timann

Hmm zombie mell weapon eh ?

Well you can't beat a long handled double headed broad blade axe.

This sort of thing:
http://www.darkknightarmoury.com/images/Product/medium/ED2600.jpg

I suspect the best weapon is the plasma cannon from Doom :-) With infinite ammo of course.

Woonilsra wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

ilovepancakes wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 2:19pm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3LgwH4dZ_0&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL As a melee weapon I think this is unbeatable I'm dislike the video showing them using the weapon. They're taking just one swing and stepping back a lot, I want to see them try using it the same way when surrounded by zombies. I'm for a katana, hands down.

surrounded? nahh quick swings from the wrist. one zombie? *splat*

Goku wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 11:43pm:

Why would anyone allow themselves to be surrounded by zombies? When sh!t starts going down get the f**k out of dodge and get to the country or a small island or something.

You don't "allow" yourself to get surrounded.  It just happens.  Say you have to go through a city. You go down a street, but realize you are blocked by a crowd of zombies, you turn around and another horde of zombies has just come out from a side street that you missed due to fatigue, hunger, and the wear of a constant adrenaline high.  Bam, you are surrounded. Have fun being devoured.

You're in the country, you fall into a ditch and break your leg. Your screams draw an unstoppable mass of the living dead from all directions.  Surrounded again.

You're making your way to a small island.  Your sailboat gets dashed against rocks near shore, you survive, and clamber up the beach, but there is a welcoming party. Om, nom, nom.  

You're not in a sailboat, you say?  Well then, as you putter along the coast, the sound of your engine draws a ragged mob, following along the shore. You run out of gas, so you drop anchor and go to sleep.  Your anchor cable breaks and you are dashed against the rocks.  You make it safely to shore, only to find yourself between a rock and a group of ex-humans who can't wait to to ingest you.

All it takes is one mistake, and suddenly you are a bloody mess of gnawed meat.

Question: what sustains zombies when they run out of people/mammals to eat? If not globally, at least locally.

According to the zombie survival guide, they die off after a few years.

HurlinThom wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 12:40pm:

Question: what sustains zombies when they run out of people/mammals to eat? If not globally, at least locally.

Biodiesel.

Woonilsra wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 9:53pm:

According to the zombie survival guide, they die off after a few years.

This zombie survival guide, is it a survival guide for zombies or regular humans to survive zombies? The title is fairly ambiguous.  :-/

HurlinThom wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

Woonilsra wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 9:53pm: According to the zombie survival guide, they die off after a few years. This zombie survival guide, is it a survival guide for zombies or regular humans to survive zombies? The title is fairly ambiguous.  :-/

It is a guide for humans on how to survive during a zombie apocalypse. It's in the same vein as the book "How to Survive a Robot Uprising."

HurlinThom wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 12:40pm:

Question: what sustains zombies when they run out of people/mammals to eat? If not globally, at least locally.

They don't need food in the first place. A zombie that eats nothing is the same as one who stuffs itself with humans. They eat people because that's what they do, not for nourishment.

Rockman wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:23pm:

HurlinThom wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 12:40pm: Question: what sustains zombies when they run out of people/mammals to eat? If not globally, at least locally. They don't need food in the first place. A zombie that eats nothing is the same as one who stuffs itself with humans. They eat people because that's what they do, not for nourishment.

That violates one or more of the laws of thermodynamics. Motion takes energy. If they don't take on calories they would have to metabolize themselves, not a pretty sight. (Anorexic zombies? Bleagh!)

HurlinThom wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 6:37pm:

Rockman wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:23pm: HurlinThom wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 12:40pm: Question: what sustains zombies when they run out of people/mammals to eat? If not globally, at least locally. They don't need food in the first place. A zombie that eats nothing is the same as one who stuffs itself with humans. They eat people because that's what they do, not for nourishment. That violates one or more of the laws of thermodynamics. Motion takes energy. If they don't take on calories they would have to metabolize themselves, not a pretty sight. (Anorexic zombies? Bleagh!)

The zombies go dormant after a certain amount of time, plus the human bodies are dead and don't metabolize anything. The solanum virus metabolizes parts of the brain, but after that it does little to consume the rest of the body. It has been theorized that the solanum virus colonizes people to reproduce and spread but not to feed.

This makes me wonder how much time was invested by people around the globe in fictional zombie apocalypses instead of creating vaccines and such for saving people.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 6:46pm:

HurlinThom wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 6:37pm: Rockman wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:23pm: HurlinThom wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 12:40pm: Question: what sustains zombies when they run out of people/mammals to eat? If not globally, at least locally. They don't need food in the first place. A zombie that eats nothing is the same as one who stuffs itself with humans. They eat people because that's what they do, not for nourishment. That violates one or more of the laws of thermodynamics. Motion takes energy. If they don't take on calories they would have to metabolize themselves, not a pretty sight. (Anorexic zombies? Bleagh!) The zombies go dormant after a certain amount of time, plus the human bodies are dead and don't metabolize anything. The solanum virus metabolizes parts of the brain, but after that it does little to consume the rest of the body. It has been theorized that the solanum virus colonizes people to reproduce and spread but not to feed.

Assuming that's the type of zombie we're dealing with.

If zombies are anything like humans regarding intellect, were done for.

Woonilsra wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 11:04pm:

If zombies are anything like humans regarding intellect, were done for.

acutally, if they did have some intellect it would sorta help. with a normal stupid zombie they will just keep charging you until you die, or they all die. with intellect they will hopefully understand retreat, know what covering fire does if you stick your head up, and that a large mass of people can't be attacked.

if they have intellect, then they will retreat. That means hiding. That means having to search every nook and cranny in every house looking for surviving zombies. At least when they are all charging at you you know where they are. Chuck a slab of rotting meat at those few round the corner, shoot them in the back of the head while they are feasting. They wont try to dodge your club or bullets. Their lack of survival instinct and general awareness is a major advantage for us.

Imagine zombies with brains. We can only kill them with head shots (and of course handicap them by destroying limbs), AND they feel no pain, have the brains to organize attacks etc. Theres no way in hell we could win against that. Well,there is. Its' just pretty low.

fortification would be the key to surviving that. when it is necessary to venture out it would have to be in large groups of ten or more.

Quote:

Imagine zombies with brains. We can only kill them with head shots (and of course handicap them by destroying limbs), AND they feel no pain, have the brains to organize attacks etc. Theres no way in hell we could win against that. Well,there is. Its' just pretty low.

well... it's kinda silly to assume that the only way to kill them is to destroy the brain.  They are still organic beings. A shot through the heart or lungs would still kill them,the problem is that  they just wont lay down and die until it is cellularly impossible to keep moving.

this really doesn't matter that a bodyshot can kill them. We have all seen what a crackhead or PCP addict can do when they go out of control, when they have no reason and feel no pain. A zombie would be even worse.

The problem with fortification is that we need to eat still, and they can last for a year without eating, so now we have a predicament in our fortress, surrounded by zombies.

Zombies run on magic, anything goes.

I wonder if we could eat zombies?  If you were holed up and starving and dead zombies were all you had, would there be any nutritional value to them?  

Seeing as the virus stops the cells from growing and leaves them a rotting mess, I doubt they're edible.
Magic is going to have to taste my sling/sword/atlatl/bow/shotgun/zombie killing weapon. 8-)

Rat Man wrote on Mar 21^st, 2011 at 6:19pm:

I wonder if we could eat zombies?  If you were holed up and starving and dead zombies were all you had, would there be any nutritional value to them?

I would cook them very thoroughly....

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 5:38am:

Rat Man wrote on Mar 21st, 2011 at 6:19pm: I wonder if we could eat zombies?  If you were holed up and starving and dead zombies were all you had, would there be any nutritional value to them?   I would cook them very thoroughly....

Boiling is said to get rid of around 99% of parasites.  ;)

It's the 1% you would need to worry about  8-)

Zombies work on magic? Send Chuck Norris to Hogwarts. Problem solved.

Cthulhu wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 4:17pm:

no offense meant, but For diseased, I don't think a katana would work to well unless you're strong enough to hack straight through a limb or skull with one solid strike, not to mention whether a skinny blade would actually hold up after repeated use unless it was very well made. It seems like a heavy machete or stout short sword would work better, as long as you could still maneuver quickly with it. Also easier to build from scrap metals.

Really, katanas are both stronger and sharper than you think.  A good katana can slice through a full grown person easily.  The curvature of the blade helps somewhat with this, i think.  Katanas were designed to cut through people.  A katana would be a perfect anti-zombie melée weapon.

Samurismallz wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

Cthulhu wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 4:17pm: no offense meant, but For diseased, I don't think a katana would work to well unless you're strong enough to hack straight through a limb or skull with one solid strike, not to mention whether a skinny blade would actually hold up after repeated use unless it was very well made. It seems like a heavy machete or stout short sword would work better, as long as you could still maneuver quickly with it. Also easier to build from scrap metals. Really, katanas are both stronger and sharper than you think.  A good katana can slice through a full grown person easily.  The curvature of the blade helps somewhat with this, i think.  Katanas were designed to cut through people.  A katana would be a perfect anti-zombie melée weapon.

Not true, unfortunately. Katanas were designed to slice and can easily cut you to the quick, but they cannot just cut through a person except under some very unusual circumstances. And even then, odds are it would damage the edge of the blade some. Katanas are some of the best cutting swords, but there is a reason the French invented to guillotine to replace swords and axes for beheading.

honestly i would just get a machete. i don't know how to fight with a sword, and i probably would be much better off just hacking with a machete. that is if they get past my spear :) i've heard of militia armies during the early middle ages with minimal training being able to use a spear as a group decently.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 10:27pm:

Samurismallz wrote on Mar 24th, 2011 at 10:21pm: Cthulhu wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 4:17pm: no offense meant, but For diseased, I don't think a katana would work to well unless you're strong enough to hack straight through a limb or skull with one solid strike, not to mention whether a skinny blade would actually hold up after repeated use unless it was very well made. It seems like a heavy machete or stout short sword would work better, as long as you could still maneuver quickly with it. Also easier to build from scrap metals. Really, katanas are both stronger and sharper than you think.  A good katana can slice through a full grown person easily.  The curvature of the blade helps somewhat with this, i think.  Katanas were designed to cut through people.  A katana would be a perfect anti-zombie melée weapon. Not true, unfortunately. Katanas were designed to slice and can easily cut you to the quick, but they cannot just cut through a person except under some very unusual circumstances. And even then, odds are it would damage the edge of the blade some. Katanas are some of the best cutting swords, but there is a reason the French invented to guillotine to replace swords and axes for beheading.

Oh, so we're going to have the zombies line up and go throught the guillotine one by one.  I can tell how well that'll work.  A katana would be the best cutting weapon for killing zombies.  It's light enough to be wielded easily, and its design is made for cutting through flesh.  I'd take a katana over pretty much anything.

I didn't say that, I just said that a katana cutting completely through someone is an overestimate of its abilities.

Has anybody looked at some sort of pole ax, such as a halberd or naginata?  You don'y need the 12-18 foot long shaft (4m-6m) as you probably won't see to many zombies riding horses, 6 feet (2m) or so would be long enough to keep them off you, far enough away to avoid most of the splatter and short enough to choke up and use in close quarters, similar to a quarter staff or a rifle with a bayonet.  Bill

With pole arms you would need a lot of strength to be able to swipe to the sides to take off limbs etc. If you're just stabbing with a point on the end, you still need strength to hit the brain, and hope the weapon doesn't get stuck, and that they don't get past the point, since that makes your current weapon worthless.

Did not the Japanese test katanas on prisoners to see cutting ability?

I'm not sure if they did or not.  All I know is that they were designed to cut through a full grown person. Armor might be a problem, but zombies don't wear armor.  I hope.

Woonilsra wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 3:52pm:

Did not the Japanese test katanas on prisoners to see cutting ability?

That they did. *Shudders* Katanas cut very well, but the way they tested them was to cut the stomach which has no bones. now that tatumi mats are the preferred way to test a katana there is a reason that there isn't a wooden pole at the center of the mat. Katanas are made to cut flesh, not bone, so you will damage to blade if you try cutting completely through a zombie unless you are very lucky and miss any bones. A katana (or any type of curved saber) would be the best pure cutting weapon against a zombie but don't expect to cut off the head with one blow and don't expect the sword to last through more than 20 or so zombies like that. (I bet a machete wouldn't even last that long if you tried to cut through bone with it.) A sword going through a fully grown adult human male is Hollywood fiction, but then again so are zombies.

I think you'd use the polearm to hold off the zombie's (imagine a line of pikeman holding back a horde in a narrow alley) while somebody else went and dispatched them.  Still unlikely.

I think for extreme close quarters fighting (I mean so close that you are in danger of being bitten) you would need something one handed and extremely thick, like a kukri or a hatchet.

I've always had a fascination with the nagamaki, so I'd use a short glaive like the 2 handed cold steel panga machete. But I'd have one of their kukri machetes or their new gladius machete as close in weapon. 8-) Brand loyalty.

I never thought of using polearms. Something like a glaive or Japanese naginata would probably be best. They are basically spears, but they have a curved 18" blade at the end, instead of a normal spearpoint.  The blade is pretty thick, so it would last longer, and the pole would help keep zombies at a distance.

You also have to remember that that long shaft is a lever and increases the force of the blow.  Think the difference between a hatchet and an ax.    

Mas, your panga is a short handled bush ax with a smaller blade.  Bill

Bill Skinner wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 8:52pm:

You also have to remember that that long shaft is a lever and increases the force of the blow.  Think the difference between a hatchet and an ax.

That's exactly what I was thinking of.  The longer reach would put the zombies - or anyone who fights you in hand to hand combat, for that matter - at a severe disadvantage.  Theoretically, someone with a 7 foot naginata and a 3 foot reach would be able to cover 314 square feet, and keep attackers at about 10 feet. Blood splatter wouldnt reach you, and neither would your enemies. Put a spiked metal cap on the other end, and it's even deadlier.

Bill Skinner wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 8:52pm:

Mas, your panga is a short handled bush ax with a smaller blade.  Bill

It is, but it's sharpened on what would be the spine of a brush axe so it doesn't have a sharp hook to get caught on things. It can also be used to stab with, unlike a typical brush axe. While I think having a longer handle is an advantage I prefer the mobility that a nagamaki or a 2 handed machete gives me when compared to a full sized glaive like the naginata.

It's true, I wouldnt take a naginata into a cramped area, but a strong shortsword would possibly work well.  Out in an open area, though, I would take the naginata. I'm a small guy, so the more (controllable) reach I can get, the better.  Also, being small rules out any kind of heavy armor or shields. I would go with leather armor and a leather buckler, and simply avoid as many attacks as possible.

Samurismallz wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 9:28pm:

It's true, I wouldnt take a naginata into a cramped area, but a strong shortsword would possibly work well.

I was referring to carrying something that big around with me. If it weren't for weight I'd carry an entire arsenal with me including armor, but sadly I'm not Adonis. :-/ I've always been a fast kinda guy, so I'd just wear nonrestrictive clothing with some good boots and shooting gloves. If a zombie gets close enough to me that the leather body armor would hinder it I would already be a goner, but I would want to protect my fingers from getting bitten.

Maybe something like a battle axe(to chop or hack someones limbs)

Hello, Dilyan Ganev;
  I imagine a battle axe would be a very effective weapon against zombies.  Even if you didn't "kill" them outright, chopping off limbs would certainly greatly reduce the zombie's overall ability to harm you.
  For obvious reasons I'd go for a double edged axe like the one below:

---

Eh...that sort of axe(like to call them "Conan the Barbarian" type) to aren't the best choise. First of all they're heavy thus cumbersome and slow to use(actually depending on the weight). I like to rely on history to provide me most efficient weapon for melee weapon. The "best" weapon should live up to a few expectations: to be easy to use and obtain, to require minimum maintenance and etc.A dane axe or small bearded axe(they are typical for my country) would be fine multi tool

In that case, a spear or crossbow would be best. They were used so much because they were fast and easy to learn to use. Plus, a crossbow had the ability to shoot through plate armor, and both allowed you to defeat your enemies from a farther distance.

May be the CS Special forces shovel would be less cumbersome and faster if I had a dozen+ zombies coming after me I wouldn't want anything slow. Plus it would have lots of other uses and pretty close to just as effective a normal battle axe.

I'm for the axe on this too for in close work, something fast  and which still leaves one hand free, like a bearded axe or tomahawk, not the fantasy double header. Other simple but effective weapons would include the machete, groß messer or falchion. Slash and stab. Crossbows, meh.  Not too many zombies wear plate and there's the issue of reloading. It takes time. Even with a modern multi shot you are limited to about six shots before reloading. I would treat zombies like regular humans on drink or drugs except for the infective bit. In other words keep them as far away from me as possible and use weapons that are simple to use, easy to maintain and above all are practical.  Wading willy-nilly into any melee situation and expecting to be able to blithely lay out death and destruction without getting hurt is plain silly. Cutting pole weapons are good strategically but ideally as a group strategy because there's the danger of being flanked. After all it's a knife on a stick, once part that and it's time to whip out the other stuff. Combine naginata like weapons with viking round or norman kite shields and you could move relatively safely as a group. You might have some luck on your own for a while but as the old saying goes, there's safety in numbers.

snowcelt wrote on Apr 9^th, 2011 at 7:09am:

Combine naginata like weapons with viking round or norman kite shields and you could move relatively safely as a group. You might have some luck on your own for a while but as the old saying goes, there's safety in numbers.

That's exactly what I was thinking of. The naginata can chop, not just stab like a normal spear, and its lighter than a halberd.  Numbers would be good, too. You could probably corner some zombies, wipe them out, and have others watching their backs.  Maybe have some people with bows or slings shooting down on the zombies.  They could give extra warning about more zombies coming, and be more accurate in the numbers, too.

With all the talk about the naginata, you have to realize that the Japanese relegated it to use by women, prefering the spear (yari). Since they did a lot of research on the effect various weapons, sword strokes, etc, have they most likely had a good reason for that.  As used by samurai the spear wasn't limited to a straight overhand thrust. It was used two-handed and could deliver cuts as well as thrusts. Shields? We don't need no stinkin' shields.

HurlinThom wrote on Apr 9^th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

With all the talk about the naginata, you have to realize that the Japanese relegated it to use by women, prefering the spear (yari).

I thought the naginata was a samurai weapon and the yari was a commoners weapon :-?. I'm also pretty sure that the association between women and naginatado is only as old as naginatado is. Naginatajutsu was stunningly effective against mounted cavalry. In Europe the glaive once had the reputation of being the most effective kind of hand to hand weapon, though I'd still rather have a nagamaki or odachi.

My vote is a 6-8 ft halberd or poleax.  The primary reason being if the shaft is too long it is harder to recover.  Using the dague (butt-end) is slower with a longer weapon.  You don't have to worry about them getting past the point as much with a shorter weapon.  A properly made one is not that heavy (4.3 lbs).

http://armor.com/pole217.html

The longer pole weapons are pikes.  Pikes are bad weapons unless used en masse.  Also, if you are interested in how to use a halberd, check out http://www.thehaca.com/spotlight/NotesLEJEUDELAHACHE.htm or buy "The Art of Combat" by Joachim Meyer (published in 1570) translated by Dr Forgeng.  'The Art of Combat' also has longsword, dagger, rappier, and dussack.  Good stuff.

Hurlin thom I have also heard that the naginata was a woman's weapon however some of the samurai used it as well but prefersd the yari cause it was more effective at piercing (betweeen) samurai armor. And although the naginata can stab it was more usefula as a cutting tool and was too broad to squeze between samurai (chest) armor.

Longer spears (pikes) were the weapons of the ashigaru, foot soldiers. In later periods mass infantry formations were used, so that the chopping action of naginatas was limited, where spears were more effective. Also the use of cavalry became less important, so the anit-horse use of the naginata was less important. As an aside, longer swords used from horseback were commonly shortened for use on foot. (I learned that from Anitques Roadshow, where the expert removed the handle from a sword to show how it had been cut down. More a point of authenticity than something that reduced value, he said.)

In some historical dramas you see someone take a spear from its hooks over the doorway, shake off the sheath covering the blade, and go out to take care of business.

Nothing wrong with the naginata, but conditions changed. Anti-zombie? I'll take the Illudium Q36 Space Modulator. Next time I see a zombie.

HurlinThom wrote on Apr 9^th, 2011 at 10:48pm:

Anti-zombie? I'll take the Illudium Q36 Space Modulator. Next time I see a zombie.

What if the zombie sticks his finger in the barrel?! Kablooey!

Masiakasaurus wrote on Apr 9^th, 2011 at 11:06pm:

HurlinThom wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 10:48pm: Anti-zombie? I'll take the Illudium Q36 Space Modulator. Next time I see a zombie. What if the zombie sticks his finger in the barrel?! Kablooey!

If the zombies are that close, I'm thinking that's gona be a tincy bit irrelevant and not one of your major concerns.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Apr 9^th, 2011 at 11:06pm:

HurlinThom wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 10:48pm: Anti-zombie? I'll take the Illudium Q36 Space Modulator. Next time I see a zombie. What if the zombie sticks his finger in the barrel?! Kablooey!

At that point you pull out your oversized mallet and get down to business! :D

Thunder Chief wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 6:36pm:

Masiakasaurus wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 11:06pm: HurlinThom wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 10:48pm: Anti-zombie? I'll take the Illudium Q36 Space Modulator. Next time I see a zombie. What if the zombie sticks his finger in the barrel?! Kablooey! At that point you pull out your oversized mallet and get down to business! :D

I'd just water my freeze dried henchmen seeds and let them take care of the zombies. ;D

Masiakasaurus wrote on Apr 9^th, 2011 at 11:06pm:

HurlinThom wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 10:48pm: Anti-zombie? I'll take the Illudium Q36 Space Modulator. Next time I see a zombie. What if the zombie sticks his finger in the barrel?! Kablooey!

Love that word, kablooey, made me smile and think of Calvin and Hobbs! ;D

Hamster Louie and the Gooey Kablooey!

Calvin and Hobbes were the best.

HurlinThom wrote on Apr 9^th, 2011 at 10:48pm:

Nothing wrong with the naginata, but conditions changed. Anti-zombie? I'll take the Illudium Q36 Space Modulator. Next time I see a zombie.

Just a reminder, the topic of this discussion is Ultimalte Zombie Melee Weapon. Note - Melee. Not ranged. Otherwise we could have a whole discussion about which gun from which movie.

Samurismallz wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 3:06pm:

HurlinThom wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 10:48pm: Nothing wrong with the naginata, but conditions changed. Anti-zombie? I'll take the Illudium Q36 Space Modulator. Next time I see a zombie. Just a reminder, the topic of this discussion is Ultimalte Zombie Melee Weapon. Note - Melee. Not ranged. Otherwise we could have a whole discussion about which gun from which movie.

A handgun-type weapon is devastating at arm's reach, even closer than a pole-arm's effective range. A melee isn't confined to stabbing and hacking.

Hm....For a renger weapon a crossbow(but not commercial ones). Оne of my friends(a blacksmith) made a crossbow that pierced a concrete block like this one http://www.beodom.com/assets/images/education/sajam-gradjevine-2008/xella-ytong-wall.jpg from 20 meters with aluminium arrow(which was trashed after the shot). Definitely a good weapon for killing from range.

The US developed anti-zombie ray projection devices back in the late 1950s. I still have mine and have been very satisfied with the performance.
Activation of the device (not really a "gun") will produce a radial broadcast in 360 degrees from the device's antena for an effective radius of 21 yards although it's supposed to be good for 25 yards.
The difference in effectivity is due to a reduced amplitude of electrical output that took place in the early 1960s. IE: we went to a 108 volt current system that was called 110 volts.
Anyone have HD TV that won't behave? Yup, low voltage. Thanks government.

Anyway, get one and set the receiver to 115 m-hrtz for civil defence self-activation.
Any zombie that enters the "cone of death" (aren't they already dead?) is liquified in about 120 seconds.
After some experimentation, I've found that AMWAY Driveway Cleaner is the only stuff that will remove the zombie sludge stains. Yes, Amway. It's actually good for something.

Proof of zombie sighting attached below.

ChuckRocks

---

ChuckRocks wrote on Apr 14^th, 2011 at 5:32pm:

The US developed anti-zombie ray projection devices back in the late 1950s. I still have mine and have been very satisfied with the performance. Activation of the device (not really a "gun") will produce a radial broadcast in 360 degrees from the device's antena for an effective radius of 21 yards although it's supposed to be good for 25 yards. The difference in effectivity is due to a reduced amplitude of electrical output that took place in the early 1960s. IE: we went to a 108 volt current system that was called 110 volts. Anyone have HD TV that won't behave? Yup, low voltage. Thanks government. Anyway, get one and set the receiver to 115 m-hrtz for civil defence self-activation. Any zombie that enters the "cone of death" (aren't they already dead?) is liquified in about 120 seconds. After some experimentation, I've found that AMWAY Driveway Cleaner is the only stuff that will remove the zombie sludge stains. Yes, Amway. It's actually good for something. Proof of zombie sighting attached below. ChuckRocks

What on Earth are you talking about? Liquefied zombies?! :o

That's not exactly melee. It's more of a protective bubble around your house so you dont have to fight.

I'm going to have to go with a katana.  This sword is designed to slice and chop (as in cut through flesh) which is what you want in a zombie melee weapon.  I use sledgehammers and axes often, as I live on a farm,  and using a melee weapon like those would wear you out pretty quickly.  The crushing action of a hammer or mace would do the trick, but you would only be good for a dozen hits or so.  An axe would just get stuck in the zombie, forcing you to abandon your weapon.  An english or medieval-esque sword wouldn't do either, as these are mainly based on stabbing, which wouldn't work well on zombies either.  The katana is ideal in that it delivers the most damage for the least energy.  In a survival situation, energy expenditure is everything.

A good spear would wouldn't be bad, either.  I also favor the chakrum (chakra?), as long as you had one that was easily retrievable.

That's exactly the point I was making earlier! I kept telling people that katanas are meant for cutting, but everyone said that it wouldn't work! If something is designed for a specific task, and it's been tried and tested and tweaked to near perfection, I think it better do that one task exceptionally well, don't you?

I don't think anyone would argue with your claim that a katana or similar would not be a devastating weapon but i would disagree that it was designed to 'cut people in half' or indeed that there is no equivalent in cutting swords from the medieval or renaissance period. That is simply a ridiculous statement. Swords from all around the world have variously been designed to cut stab or slash. Some were primarily thrust others to cut. There is loads of information freely available on the net on this topic. As superb as the samurai and their weapons panoply were, please realise they were not unique. Whether wakizashi or jian, messer or bastard sword, they are tools to do a job and their effectiveness will ultimately depend on the skill of the user.  

I didn't mean that they were designed to cut people in half, but rather to cut or slice.  Katanas were intended to inflict deep. slashing wounds to the chest and midsection.  There are documented cases, though, of skilled users (Samurai, mainly) cutting off limbs and decapitating foes with a katana.

Sons of benjamin wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 6:36am:

I didn't mean that they were designed to cut people in half, but rather to cut or slice.  Katanas were intended to inflict deep. slashing wounds to the chest and midsection.  There are documented cases, though, of skilled users (Samurai, mainly) cutting off limbs and decapitating foes with a katana.

Yeah, but what's it going to do to the blade? How many humeruses, or in this case necks, can a blade deal with before failure? I'd really rather not find that out. And, how long does it take to become skilled? I just think there are better tools out there.

i would take a bola.  and a nice titanium knife would be handy

Titaniums strong and light, but it's relatively soft. I would choose steel over titanium for a melee weapon any day. Titanium has been glorified past it's actual use. A titanium coated blade, on the other hand, would be very nice to have.  The titanium would allow for a sharper, slightly more durable edge, and it would stave off rust.

As for weapon of choice, I would choose a long-bladed spear, such as the Japanese yari or the european glaive.  They have the slashing capacity of a sword, but a range that allows for safer combat.  After that, I would choose a katana or a shortsword.  Both are light and easier to wield than a broadsword, so I wouldn't have much of a problem.

Remember that tactics can and most certainly will play an important role in eradicating any zombie threat.  You could use a pinchpoint with archers/slingers above, and maybe a few ambushes and rear attacks, too. Use traps, and bait the traps, then destroy all zombies.

I know this is a primitive weapons forum, but I can't understand the fascination with primitive weaponry for zombie eradication.  Most people would have enough trouble lining up a zed with iron sights, to say nothing of the dead reckoning that is required for bows, atlatls, etc.  I understand carrying a sling, it's versatile and light, but I just don't understand why you would want to fight the undead menace with an atlatl.  Not only must you be supremely skilled to score a hit, a hit does not necessarily mean a kill, even with a rifle, but with a rifle follow up shots are a viable option.  Plus you can carry a hundred times more ammunition for a firearm than an atlatl, or even a bow, and much more conveniently, too.

Paracordslinger, could you put a "g" into ranged into the poll, please? It's kind of bugging me.

Whats' the question for the poll?  Bill

how would you rather fight a zombie, or would you give up?

Ah, did not get the give up aspect.  I was imagining running into a horde of zeds loaded down with lots of things that go boom. :P  Eats shoots and leaves, I guess.

Yes, but a rifle isn't melee.  You usually don't take a rifle into close quarters, especially not against zombies.  Sure, it can be used as a club, but a retractable bayonet would make it a lot better.  You don't have to completely run somebody throught, all you have to do is get to their heart, or stab them through the throat.

I meant explosives...

quarter, half, and full sticks of TNT  ;D

Explosives would be fun. Plus, if you Were trapped, you could go kamikaze and blow you and everything around you to smithereens.

Samurismallz wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:57am:

Plus, if you Were trapped, you could go kamikaze and blow you and everything around you to smithereens.

That's what he meant about going boom. He was referring to the choice "suicide" in the poll. ;)

I wouldn't mind going melee, but if there are more than a dozen or so I would definitley prefer a ranged weapon and go all Mitchel Paige on them.  :)

Samurismallz wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

As for weapon of choice, I would choose a long-bladed spear, such as the Japanese yari or the european glaive.  They have the slashing capacity of a sword, but a range that allows for safer combat.  After that, I would choose a katana or a shortsword.  Both are light and easier to wield than a broadsword, so I wouldn't have much of a problem.

I'm with you on this one, plus I have a lot of practice with long bladed spears. A nice tungsten coating on it would also make sure it stays sharp, and if the shaft is a relatively light wood then this thing is going to be lightning fast, even by sword standards.

I would prefer ranged, wait until they are about 30 yards away and start shooting, semi auto, large capicity mag.  They are not shooting back, I can take my time and do headshots.  Bill

Bill, that's not exactly melee.

Knaight, good thinking. I never thought of tungsten. They use it in tank armor to make it more resistant, so why not coat/alloy a blade with it? You're definitely right about wood choice, too. It would have to be something solid, yet light. Maybe ash, because it's often used for staves?

Samurismallz wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 8:06pm:

Knaight, good thinking. I never thought of tungsten. They use it in tank armor to make it more resistant, so why not coat/alloy a blade with it?

I think they use pure Tungsten Carbide ceramics and not a tungsten coating for armor, but don't quote me on that. I use Molybdenum Phosphate surface infusion for corrosion resistance, slipperiness, and hardness. I don't know how it compares to tungsten carbide, but it's hard and it won't come off of the blade like a coating will.

Samurismallz wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 8:06pm:

You're definitely right about wood choice, too. It would have to be something solid, yet light. Maybe ash, because it's often used for staves?

Wax wood. It's practically perfect for bo staves and spears. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Wax wood? Never heard of it before. Remember, the wood must be cost effective and strong. Ash or oak might be the easiest to get, depending on region. I know for a fact that I would not use pine. Its way too soft.

Wax Wood is probably the most used wood in making bo staves and even non-rattan eskrima sticks. You can't get it at Lowes, but most flooring specialists have it for laying hardwood flooring, and every martial arts supplier has bo or gun staves made from it that can be turned into spears or glaives pretty easily with a socketed head. Wax wood is one of the more common woods behind oak, pine, and hickory. Waxwood is hard yet flexible, very light, and it won't splinter or split under stress which makes it less dangerous for you if it breaks.

I'd probably use Ash, or maybe Rattan.

Well then, I guess wax wood appears to be a great selection to make such a weapon out of.  Of course, I can always buy one online, but it might not have the right kind of wood in the shaft, and that's important.  I would have to switch the wood out, which could take a bit of time to get it right.

If civilization collaspes due to zombie outbreak, no Internet, no credit cards, no mail and no wax wood, which is an Asian wood.  Ash was used to make lances, halberds shafts and longbows.  If the virus is so contagious, how come the heros in these movies didn't spend the whole movie in a gas mask and a MOPP suit?  Otherwise they would just catch it and turn into zombies.  

And the best melee weapon is your brain, use it and avoid getting into one.  Bill

You have a good point here. I was wondering how far civilization had crashed during this time, so I didn't know what was up and running. If it was down to that, I could make it from ash. My dad has some in his workshop that I could use.

Bill Skinner wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:20am:

If civilization collaspes due to zombie outbreak, no Internet, no credit cards, no mail and no wax wood, which is an Asian wood.  Ash was used to make lances, halberds shafts and longbows.  If the virus is so contagious, how come the heros in these movies didn't spend the whole movie in a gas mask and a MOPP suit?  Otherwise they would just catch it and turn into zombies.   And the best melee weapon is your brain, use it and avoid getting into one.  Bill

In movies, the virus often isn't airborne.

Thunder Chief wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 5:03pm:

Bill Skinner wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 11:20am: If civilization collaspes due to zombie outbreak, no Internet, no credit cards, no mail and no wax wood, which is an Asian wood.  Ash was used to make lances, halberds shafts and longbows.  If the virus is so contagious, how come the heros in these movies didn't spend the whole movie in a gas mask and a MOPP suit?  Otherwise they would just catch it and turn into zombies.   And the best melee weapon is your brain, use it and avoid getting into one.  Bill In movies, the virus often isn't airborne.

BUT, If this was a real world scenario, the only way a deadly virus would be able to spread without being contained is through an airborne strain.

Or possibly passed by mosquitoes, water, or person to person. All it takes is one person to slip through quarantine before the virus takes effect and PRESTO! you've got yourself a zombie infestation.

Wayfarer wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 8:43pm:

Thunder Chief wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 5:03pm: Bill Skinner wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 11:20am: If civilization collaspes due to zombie outbreak, no Internet, no credit cards, no mail and no wax wood, which is an Asian wood.  Ash was used to make lances, halberds shafts and longbows.  If the virus is so contagious, how come the heros in these movies didn't spend the whole movie in a gas mask and a MOPP suit?  Otherwise they would just catch it and turn into zombies.   And the best melee weapon is your brain, use it and avoid getting into one.  Bill In movies, the virus often isn't airborne. BUT, If this was a real world scenario, the only way a deadly virus would be able to spread without being contained is through an airborne strain.

HIV and Coxsackie virus are both spreading pretty rapidly without being airborne. Add in a lengthy incubation cycle (shingles), a lot of vectors and carriers to catch it from who aren't sick themselves (Herpes), and rapid mutation (Influenza) and you have a likely virus for the zombie plague.

Now that we've determined how the virus is going to spread, why don't we go back to the weapons?

Samurismallz wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 4:59pm:

Now that we've determined how the virus is going to spread, why don't we go back to the weapons?

;D It's not a sin to get a little off topic.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that the weapons interest me a little more than the theory. I'm interested in what people think would work best against a horde of zombies. We could create a general topic about zombies, if anyone wants it.

Samurismallz wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 5:01pm:

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that the weapons interest me a little more than the theory. I'm interested in what people think would work best against a horde of zombies. We could create a general topic about zombies, if anyone wants it.

Umm. Being a bit pedantic here but this entire topic is pure theory.

True, but wat I'm saying is that the solution interests me a lot more than the problem.

If I wanted to stop a horde of charging zombies, I would use a belt fed machine gun, such as the M60, (not the E3 mod), a 240G, a MG3 or something similar.  It would have to be 7.62 and not 5.56 because the larger round does a lot more tissue damage.  It can't be .50 or 12.7 because they are too heavy for one person to carry.  And contrary to popular belief, a rifle, especially if you have a bayonet on it, makes a great melee weapon, much better than a katana.  There were a great many katanas taken home after WWII, not too many M1's.  Bill  

To create a working solution, you must understand the problem.

Bill, what kind of zeds are you you killing? Headshot zombies?  And realistically, how much 7.62 ammo could you carry all by yourself? Likely not enough for any kind of protracted conflict.  Plus, your gun's gonna call undesirables from miles around.

Anyway, I think the reason more M1s than katanas were taken home is because nobody wants an m1, and everyone wants a katana.

I want an M1...

Then I guess you're nobody.

I carried 600 rounds on my bod and another 100 on the gun.  I also had a helmet, flak, .45 auto and 7 mags for it, 4 quarts of water, some C's, a couple of grenades, some socks, and two cartons of Marlboros.

A burst of 7.62, can you say "traumatic amputation"?  At the very least, I will destroy their mobility.  

Who says they can hear?  DOTLD was visual, if they couldn't see something moving, they wandered off.  Bill  

Samurismallz wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:27pm:

Then I guess you're nobody.

Well, since nobody's perfect...  ;D

Bill, if I may ask, when was this?
We must be thinking of different types of zombies.  Which, come to think of it, is a real problem when it comes to planning for Z-Day.  Nobody'll be prepared for the same thing!

I was on active duty in the US Marines for 22 years.  

In the origional Dawn of the Dead, they were slow moving and were attracted to movement, the heroine was able to escape by dodging them to get away.  Ditto with the next couple in the series, they all reacted to movement.  They were the result of a mutation caused by radiation.

Now, if you go for the ones with Milla Jovovich, these are a virus that killed most of the brain and shuts down the nervous system, sort of like the ultimate PCP/meth/crackhead on steriods, only wants to feed and can't feel pain but can move quickly.  They seem to be able to see and hear.

A burst of 7.62 does a remarkable amount of damage to a human target, it also does not really slow down, it will take out several more behind the one you are shooting at.

The idea that you can stop a horde of zombies with a muscle powered weapon is not very practicle, you must smash the skull, which means they have to get in grabbing distance.  If you don't hit them hard enough each time and every time, they will grab you, and the rest will swarm you.  You may kill a bunch, but you only get to screw up once and you're breakfast.  Bill
 

Well, thanks for your service. We really appreciate you guys.

Bill Skinner wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 10:12am:

And contrary to popular belief, a rifle, especially if you have a bayonet on it, makes a great melee weapon, much better than a katana.  There were a great many katanas taken home after WWII, not too many M1's.  Bill

Your position is that a weapon intended for use at range, deliberately designed to kill people hundreds of meters away is better in close combat than a weapon designed specifically for close combat. Your data consists entirely on the perceived quantity of arms taken home after a particular war, where the arms were viewed in a completely different manner, made for a different purpose, and used by cultures that varied in perceptions of war and warriors. So many variables are different as to render the data useless, and for a position as extreme as yours something more is necessary.

A military rifle is designed to be effective from several hundred meters to touching distance.  It is designed to be used in hand to hand combat and still function afterwards.  You actually don't need a bayonet, a thrust with just the muzzel will break bones and rupture organs, a butt stroke will easily crush a skull.  It can also be used to block and parry.

A katana is a sabre that was designed to used from horse back, where the motion of the horse adds force to the slash.  

When the Japenese overran an Allied position, the sword weilding Japenese swung at someone with a rifle, the man with the rifle blocked and butt stroked him.  That is, of course, if the guy with the rifle didn't shoot him when he was 5 meters away.  

And why are we getting into a p***ing contest over a fantasy?
Bill

Katana vs rifle isn't fantasy.

Katanas were actually very usable on foot. The technique was different, but the power was the same. They used long curving strokes instead of short chopping strokes. Also, the blade on the sword was different than that of a European sword.  The blade was designed to push the material being cut to the side, whereas a European sword has the blade pushing through the material.

If you got a katana with good enough steel and a classic Japanese edge, you may be able to shear the barrel off of a rifle. I'm not saying that you will every time, but I am saying that it's possible.  Even if you don't shear through the barrel, you can put a dent in it, thus rendering it useless as anything than an unwieldy club.  Personally, I would take the katana over rifle any day for a melee weapon, but I would take a rifle over a katana for a ranged weapon. ;D

Bill Skinner wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 9:34pm:

When the Japenese overran an Allied position, the sword weilding Japenese swung at someone with a rifle, the man with the rifle blocked and butt stroked him.  That is, of course, if the guy with the rifle didn't shoot him when he was 5 meters away.

This still involves massive differences in training regimens, one side having an advantage due to defending a position, and a myriad of other factors. The only one that pertains to the weapons is the capacity of rifles to shoot someone five meters away, and do so very easily, where the katana wasn't getting past a meter and a half even with lunging.

Samurismallz wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 10:05pm:

If you got a katana with good enough steel and a classic Japanese edge, you may be able to shear the barrel off of a rifle. I'm not saying that you will every time, but I am saying that it's possible.  Even if you don't shear through the barrel, you can put a dent in it, thus rendering it useless as anything than an unwieldy club.  Personally, I would take the katana over rifle any day for a melee weapon, but I would take a rifle over a katana for a ranged weapon. ;D

The mythbuster debunked that one.  I think it'd be pretty tough to seriously dent a barrel, even.

Knaight, I think Bill's got you beat on this one.  He's got pretty extensive experience.

experience with rifles, yes, but not as much with katanas, I bet.  Now, i haven't really handled many katanas, either, but I have done a lot of research, especially because I am thinking of buying one.  Also, I don't know how much experience Bill has with rifle vs. katana combat.

Having held and fired an 1897 Argentinian Mauser with its bayonet I'm with Bill. Rifles are designed to be a long range weapon, but military rifles have special adaptations (in addition to the bayonet) that make them excel at close combat too.

Having studied Yoshukai Karate for several years (and breaking several bones in a sword fight) I can tell you that katanas aren't any better than comparable sabers from any other part of the world. They've been romanticized in Samurai movies to the point that some pretty outrageous claims are now being taken as fact. Someone once told me that a katana will cut so cleanly that if you put the 2 halves of a tatami mat back together you'll have a hard time telling where the cut was with your naked eye. ::) Although for the record, katanas were designed to be used unmounted. If you were riding a horse you'd use an tachi, odachi, zanbato(?), or nagamaki depending on the time period.

The reach advantage of using a bayonet as a spear plus being able to strike with any part of the gun means that I'd still rather have a gun than a sword in a fight even if I have no bullets.

Thunder Chief wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 6:17pm:

Samurismallz wrote on May 9th, 2011 at 10:05pm: If you got a katana with good enough steel and a classic Japanese edge, you may be able to shear the barrel off of a rifle. I'm not saying that you will every time, but I am saying that it's possible.  Even if you don't shear through the barrel, you can put a dent in it, thus rendering it useless as anything than an unwieldy club.  Personally, I would take the katana over rifle any day for a melee weapon, but I would take a rifle over a katana for a ranged weapon. ;D The mythbuster debunked that one.  I think it'd be pretty tough to seriously dent a barrel, even.

Well, yeah. Building fragile guns would be really, really stupid, and outside of WWI Canadian suppliers guns are better made than that. However, the general form of a sword is superior to the general form of a gun once in extremely close combat, and the only reason the gun would have an advantage is if you could still shoot someone with it, once you are using it as a club you are at a disadvantage. With a bayonet it is a little more even, though still inferior to a real spear.

Masi, as a fencer I have to say that once you get really close the katana beats the sabre. If you compare kendo bouts to Western-style fencing you should immediately notice that the distance in kendo is much closer. You just have no power making a cut at close range with a sabre. It's a matter of the leverage you can apply with two hands somewhat separated versus one hand. No contest, really.

Don't believe me? Try it with a yardstick at 2-foot separation from the "opponent".

A side point about katanas. They seem short today, but the guys that used them were tiny, too. They disinterred one famous figure (Date Masamune, IIRC) and his skeleton indicated he was maybe 4'8". Those cavalry swords might be more in proportion to the modern Japanese population.

HurlinThom wrote on May 13^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

Masi, as a fencer I have to say that once you get really close the katana beats the sabre. If you compare kendo bouts to Western-style fencing you should immediately notice that the distance in kendo is much closer. You just have no power making a cut at close range with a sabre. It's a matter of the leverage you can apply with two hands somewhat separated versus one hand. No contest, really.

Of course, there is the matter of the versatility in both body movements and strike angles that one hand gives, as well as the reach advantage for comparably long blades, not to mention whatever is in the other. That said, if you've got a guy using a relatively short weapon against you with no shield they are just asking to be stabbed with a spear. In two hands, the spear is fast, has a very forceful stab, and assuming a half decent blade every bit as versatile as a sword.

HurlinThom wrote on May 13^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

Masi, as a fencer I have to say that once you get really close the katana beats the sabre.

Modern fencing sabers have changed to become less effective as a weapon. I was using saber to mean any curved backsword like Polish szablas, Persian shamshirs, and Indian tulwars. Fencing sabers have been sporterized and adulterated by generations of high society to be more pretty and lightweight than useful, but their 2 handed predecessors the Swiss Saber and Gross Messer were both weapons to be feared.

Masiakasaurus wrote on May 13^th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

HurlinThom wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 1:03pm: Masi, as a fencer I have to say that once you get really close the katana beats the sabre. Modern fencing sabers have changed to become less effective as a weapon. I was using saber to mean any curved backsword like Polish szablas, Persian shamshirs, and Indian tulwars. Fencing sabers have been sporterized and adulterated by generations of high society to be more pretty and lightweight than useful, but their 2 handed predecessors the Swiss Saber and Gross Messer were both weapons to be feared.

"Fencer" is a wide enough term to encompass those*, I assume that is what HurlinThom was referring to.

*Technically, all it means is one who fights with arms.

I'm well aware that a fencing sabre is not the same as the cavalry weapon. My point is that either is near useless as a cutting weapon at close quarters. You need some space to get a head of steam up so that you can deliver an effective cut. The proper grip on a katana with two hands well separated allows you to get a decent amount of force behind your cut.

At close range your most effective sabre move would be "pummeling", bashing the opponent with the pommel. Literally. That's where the term originated. Not in sport fencing, of course, but in a fight for your life. Or maybe shortening up, grabbing the blade midway with the free hand, and thrusting. Not cutting.

Yes. This is just the sort of thing that makes me cringe. You are comparing a medieval weapon against a modern sport weapon and concluding that the inefficiency of the latter is a reflection of its predecessor's. Wrong. Most european treatises on fencing cite a longer weapon as having a distinct advantage over shorter ones. Consider bastard swords or rapiers. Also if you are using a shinai as a kendoka or indeed a hema exponent using a wooden/plastic/steel simulator as a longsword training tool and talk about bashing using a lever action then this is imo a limited understanding of how to use a sword. A cut will only work to best effect if the edge is pushed or pulled across a surface. Otherwise you might just as well have a baseball bat. Also with a longsword you can thrust, cut with both edges, bash with the pommel and grasp the sword half way along the blade with your left hand while holding the hilt in your right. This is half swording and was developed for fighting in armour to allow accurate thrusts to the face neck and armpits.  The ends of the cross guard could also be sharpened to allow the user to punch with these spikes at very close range. All of the japanese weapons are superb tools for what they were intended. Don't forget that the offhand can also be used to wrap lock and disarm as well as other wrestling techniques at close range. There are also kicks and trips. This dogged insistence that the katana etc. were superior to anything else the rest of the world has produced, bolstered by untruths and a lot of silliness gets on my tits.   

Yep, lots of bollocks (sorry, mystique) surrrounding the katana. But it seems just the tool for certain situations. My only point was that a long sword used one-handed is at a disadvantage when you're close enough to your opponent to smell the onions he ate for lunch. You might try the effectiveness of your bastard-and-a-half one versus two handed close-up.

Those grappling techniques adjunct to sword use seem to have fallen out of the public consciousness, doubtless along with the serious use of swords.

And don't sneer at a ball bat. Blunt force trauma to the head can spoil your whole day.

HurlinThom wrote on May 13^th, 2011 at 10:18pm:

My only point was that a long sword used one-handed is at a disadvantage when you're close enough to your opponent to smell the onions he ate for lunch. You might try the effectiveness of your bastard-and-a-half one versus two handed close-up.

I was trying to point out the same thing, but I was saying it in a different way. Both the Swiss Saber and the Gross Messer were 2 handed, slightly curved, long backswords with crossguards. Later swords had shorter hilts and were hand-and-a-half, but these were made for 2 handed, wide grip, no shield fighting much like a tachi with a wider crossguard. They just fell out of favor a couple centuries too early to be directly compared to the tachi or katana, which laster longer (though katanas had more variations in shape and style.) Cavalry sabers are closer to chisa-katana in length, though the 2 handed grip of a chisa-katana gives it an advantage.

I'd never sneer at a baseball bat :-) then again i wouldn't try to wield it like a sword or vice versa. The techniques mentioned above were developed precisely so that you could still use the longsword in one hand and get in close to be able to bash and grapple and disarm when close enough to smell their breath. The ability to deal with an opponent who wants to rush you requires such skills, which feature a lot in italian longsword. I'm not sure i'd want to let a zombie that close though, which is why i chose the shield wall combined with cutting spears. In the case of very long swords like the landsknecht two hander the handling technique is different. The sword is kept moving constantly and shortened for use like a spear at closer range.   I've handled a modern replica of  a kriegs messer (Albion arms). It's a terrifying weapon and although it looks like a sword, as the name suggests, it's actually a knife.

A cutting spear would be excellent. It gives you distance from your opponent and you have more leverage than a sword, so greater cutting power.  They are lighter than a halberd, so pulling it back isn't as difficult, so you won't have as much of a delay.  You can use them as normal spears, then catch the enemy unawares when they are unprepared.  I'm not saying that the edge or the steel is superior, as everyone seems to think, but I am instead advertising the advantages of using a bladed spear such as a naginata or glaive.  Darknightarmory has a good selection of spears and spearheads.  They have a couple good hewing spearheads that would work well. Just google "dark knight spears", and it should be the first link.

Quote:

Someone once told me that a katana will cut so cleanly that if you put the 2 halves of a tatami mat back together you'll have a hard time telling where the cut was with your naked eye.

well yes - but that would also be true for any really sharp blade. A knife cuts, no material is removed so placed back together there would be no obvious split. Now if you used a saw - there would be material missing.

So that's one 'fact' that is definitely true mas :-)

As for cutting rifle barrels. If the sword's edge was significantly harder than the gun barrel. And If the stroke was perfect. Theoretically it is possibly.
But - the harder and thinnera sword edge is the more brittle it is and it would have to be a perfect vertical stroke with absolutely no deviation from the verticle to do the job. The slightest degree of veer and the edge of the blade would simply break.

I've seen martial artists do some pretty incredible things, so I'm not saying it's impossible - just highly improbable

And in a zombie melee - axe everytime for your close up weapon :-)
But I'd much rather take them down from a distance and avois the risk of contamination.

Ranged of course. The farther from a zombie you can stay the better.  If it does come down to melee however, I would always prefer a double edged weapon.  It's just naturally more effecient.

---

Efficient compared to what? Axes are heavier and more unwieldy than swords.  If you use a polearm, it may be just as unwieldy, but it's unwieldy at a distance.  I wouldn't take an axe into battle.  I dint see the real advantage unless you're strong enough to swing it around quickly.  Swords are lighter and easier to use, and spears are even easier to use.  A bladed spear would be the best combination of spear and sword, and would be my choice.

Samurismallz wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 9:08pm:

Efficient compared to what? Axes are heavier and more unwieldy than swords.  If you use a polearm, it may be just as unwieldy, but it's unwieldy at a distance.  I wouldn't take an axe into battle.  I dint see the real advantage unless you're strong enough to swing it around quickly.  Swords are lighter and easier to use, and spears are even easier to use.  A bladed spear would be the best combination of spear and sword, and would be my choice.

Axes aren't actually all that heavy, and are not much slower than swords. Now, if you had something shaped like what Ratman put up, then yes, you have a bunch of excess weight, but axes were deliberately made to be fast enough to actually fight with, which meant a relatively small single head.

ok, that's a lot better.  I was thinking of the same thing he had.  It looks great, but it isn't much use.  I had a friend who had a good battleaxe with about a two foot handle.  i picked it up, and nearly dropped it, it was that light!  A good axe needs to be balanced, probably single head, am I right?

Samurismallz wrote on May 16^th, 2011 at 3:10pm:

ok, that's a lot better.  I was thinking of the same thing he had.  It looks great, but it isn't much use.  I had a friend who had a good battleaxe with about a two foot handle.  i picked it up, and nearly dropped it, it was that light!  A good axe needs to be balanced, probably single head, am I right?

Any melee weapon needs to be light and balanced enough to move fast enough to deal with a mobile target armed with another melee weapon. The axe is no exception, and as such historical axes had a single, smaller head, unless they were a specific type of axe that wasn't intended for combat. In general, axes intended for combat are much lighter than those intended for anything else, if chopping wood you need an axe with enough force to actually chop wood, which is somewhat tougher than skin, muscle, organs, etc. and it can't dodge so you don't really need that much speed.

True. Some people's ideas of a cool battle-ax are something that it would take three men to lift, let alone swing, with a head so oversized that it would do better as a shield.  I still prefer swords to axes, but I wouldn't mind an axe.  And I still think a bladed spear would trump an ax any day.

Samurismallz wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 4:41pm:

True. Some people's ideas of a cool battle-ax are something that it would take three men to lift, let alone swing, with a head so oversized that it would do better as a shield.  I still prefer swords to axes, but I wouldn't mind an axe.  And I still think a bladed spear would trump an ax any day.

I'd say that depends on the wielder. I personally would prefer a bladed spear, but then whenever I'm doing armed sparring -with blunted arms, which are a bit different- I gravitate towards lightweight polearms which can both cut and thrust well. The bladed spear (sword staff is arguable a more accurate term) is one of these, the partisan another. Other people I know are much better off with an ax and a shield, and some of them can use fairly heavy arms. Said people are pushing two meters in height, but even then they favor a slightly different balance than I do. It comes down to personal preference.

pasma cutter, a the way. can you imagine what woud happen to someone bing seared by a pam acutter fron 1 foot away
:o

What melee weapons do you own, right now, not plan to get, have in your house right now?  How well can you use it?  How much training have you had?  I don't mean copy what you see in a movie or off Youtube, I mean formal or informal training from an instructor who knows what he or she is doing and can instruct someone in one of the proper forms?

It takes a great deal of energy to fight in a melee, one of the most important things a proper form does is let you use the minimum amount of energy to dispatch your opponet quickly.  If you don't have training, you tend to flail around and exhaust yourself in a couple of minutes, then you get killed while you are gasping and wheezing or in the case of zombies, eaten alive.  Bill  

Bill Skinner wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:04am:

What melee weapons do you own, right now, not plan to get, have in your house right now?  How well can you use it?  How much training have you had?

I have a machete that I use almost every day and I am very familiar with. Depending on the type of zombie it may be effective or it could be a hindrance.  I also have one of those Cold Steel Irish Walking Sticks, going for head shots on a shambler it would be fine, rage or other virus zombie it wouldn't be of much use.

Flamethrower, end of story. 8-)

Which one, the M3 or the M8?  What type of fuel, light or heavy?  And what are you going to do when your 30 seconds of fuel is gone?  I trained on those, we were happy to see them go.  When you carry one of those, nobody wants to hang out with you anymore.  Bill  

As far as ultimate melee weapons, I have a tractor and a bush hog.  Bill

paracordslinger wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 8:44pm:

pasma cutter, a the way. can you imagine what woud happen to someone bing seared by a pam acutter fron 1 foot away :o

I do beilive there is something wrong with your keyboard.

Personally, anything that uses readily available ammo, or none at all, is the best, like a sling, guns use bullets, cant find those just lying around, and they have a shelf-life. so then theres the bow and the atlatl, they need arrows, which can be incredibly effective, but youd have to retrive them, or keep making more. then theres the sword(katana or longsword in this case), it dosent need reloading, but it means that you have to get closer, but lets say we use a short-sword or a knife, the rule I use is, "stabbing distance is biting distance." but to each his own.

S.Venetor wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 2:20pm:

the rule I use is, "stabbing distance is biting distance." but to each his own.

Hence the whole spear discussion. A spear tip will be kept way out of biting distance, and if one assumes shambling zombies they basically cannot close up.

Curious Aardvark wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

if you watch the program (can't remember what the series is called) - shaolin monk versus maori warrior. He has one. Hilarious program. Every time the monk uses a non-fatal weapon the maori guy says: 'yeah, but while you've broke my arm, I've got close enough to rip yer bloody head off mate'. The green stone knife/axe looked seriously nasty.

Thats us kiwis for ya ;D  

S.Venetor wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 2:20pm:

Personally, anything that uses readily available ammo, or none at all, is the best, like a sling, guns use bullets, cant find those just lying around, and they have a shelf-life. so then theres the bow and the atlatl, they need arrows, which can be incredibly effective, but youd have to retrive them, or keep making more. then theres the sword(katana or longsword in this case), it dosent need reloading, but it means that you have to get closer, but lets say we use a short-sword or a knife, the rule I use is, "stabbing distance is biting distance." but to each his own.

The solution to this is to have a giant stash of ammo, as many avid shooters do. Ammo may eventualy expire but it takes a long time, and I would use bullets over blades any time untill the very end. Melee may be necessary but only if you had thousands of zombies and poor marksmanship or if you just had a couple and you wanted to stay quiet.

Who picked suicide?

Wayfarer wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

paracordslinger wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 8:44pm: pasma cutter, a the way. can you imagine what woud happen to someone bing seared by a pam acutter fron 1 foot away :o I do beilive there is something wrong with your keyboard.

the "L" doesnt work very well

Zombies are dead, a slash from a spear won't do anything to them unless you can decapitate them or smash its skull.  If you stab them, they will simply walk up the shaft and grab you.  If you have a cross piece, it will stop that zombie, it will also tie up your weapon so the others get you while you try to pull it back.  If you are going to fight hand to hand, tactics that work on people won't work near as well, they don't feel pain, they don't bleed out, they don't feel fear, they don't get tired, they don,t think about the best way to attack so you can catch your breath, they don't back off when you kill a few, they just attack.  If you are using muscle powered weapons, if there are more than 3 to 5, you are supper.  Oh yes, running away is a viable option.  Bill    

Bill Skinner wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 12:41pm:

Zombies are dead, a slash from a spear won't do anything to them unless you can decapitate them or smash its skull.  If you stab them, they will simply walk up the shaft and grab you.  If you have a cross piece, it will stop that zombie, it will also tie up your weapon so the others get you while you try to pull it back.  If you are going to fight hand to hand, tactics that work on people won't work near as well, they don't feel pain, they don't bleed out, they don't feel fear, they don't get tired, they don,t think about the best way to attack so you can catch your breath, they don't back off when you kill a few, they just attack.  If you are using muscle powered weapons, if there are more than 3 to 5, you are supper.  Oh yes, running away is a viable option.  Bill

Unless they learn to FLY!!!! :o

The ultimate zombie melee weapon is the remote control of your tv (Unless you are in the movie theatre, in that case you´re screwed).

wrote on May 24^th, 2011 at 8:20am:

The ultimate zombie melee weapon is the remote control of your tv (Unless you are in the movie theatre, in that case you´re screwed).

In the theater you can always use the "run away" option.

HurlinThom wrote on May 24^th, 2011 at 10:55am:

wrote on May 24th, 2011 at 8:20am: The ultimate zombie melee weapon is the remote control of your tv (Unless you are in the movie theatre, in that case you´re screwed). In the theater you can always use the "run away" option.

Not if it's 3D, they're already coming for you then.

In my eyes, a partisan or other bladed spear-like weapon would work great.  It would provide reach so you can avoid the zombies, and it has blades that you can use to cut the zombie up.  You don't just have to stab with a spear.  You can slice and cut with it, too, allowing you to do a lot more damage.  Against a normal human, a stab wound would be ideal, yes, because it cuts deep and creates a lot of bleeding.  Against a zombie, you could take the same weapon and slice with it, and possibly cause a decapitation.

The French invented this neat tool to chop off heads because it is pretty difficult to cleanly cut someones' head off.  Or, there is a reason the guy with the hood used an ax.  It usually took several chops to cut someones' head off, they were tied up and on a block.  Zombies will be moving and their upper bodies will give when you hit them.  You would be better off with a hammer head on a 2 meter shaft.  Bill

Bill Skinner wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 9:44pm:

It usually took several chops to cut someones' head off, they were tied up and on a block.

When I was but a wee lad, I went to the tower of London and they told us that sometimes the person would bribe the axman to make it a quick, clean death...or cleaner than normal.

wrote on May 24^th, 2011 at 8:20am:

The ultimate zombie melee weapon is the remote control of your tv (Unless you are in the movie theatre, in that case you´re screwed).

Best answer on this thread so far :) Modern day people are half way to being a zombie,they walk quickly,not saying BRAAAINSS rather than thinking MOOONEEEY.

jlasud wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 3:58am:

Modern day people are half way to being a zombie,they walk quickly,not saying BRAAAINSS rather than thinking MOOONEEEY.

DISCLAIMER! For those of you at this very moment inching your hands toward your favored weapon, that was not an open invitation to begin the cleansing of the undead.

Bill Skinner wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 9:44pm:

The French invented this neat tool to chop off heads because it is pretty difficult to cleanly cut someones' head off.  Or, there is a reason the guy with the hood used an ax.  It usually took several chops to cut someones' head off, they were tied up and on a block.  Zombies will be moving and their upper bodies will give when you hit them.  You would be better off with a hammer head on a 2 meter shaft.  Bill

Exactly my point about trying to behead zombies with a katana.

You shouldn't equate the action of an axe to that of a katana or other sword. One chops, the other slices. The guillotine actually used a slicing action.

"Hey, Zombie, put your head through here for a second, OK?"

I didn't equate the slicing of a katana to an axe, I equated it to the slicing of a guillotine. A guillotine has a long travel and a lot of mass over the blade to build up speed when it falls. It would take a very extraordinary person to come up with the same cutting power with a sword. I'm not saying completely bisecting or decapitating someone with a katana is impossible, but it is very unlikely.

Samurismallz wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:37am:

Spoilsport

Think about it this way, now you're just going to have to prove me wrong. ;)

Thunder Chief wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 3:46am:

jlasud wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:58am: Modern day people are half way to being a zombie,they walk quickly,not saying BRAAAINSS rather than thinking MOOONEEEY. DISCLAIMER! For those of you at this very moment inching your hands toward your favored weapon, that was not an open invitation to begin the cleansing of the undead.

spoilsport

Masiakasaurus wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:47pm:

Samurismallz wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:37am: Spoilsport Think about it this way, now you're just going to have to prove me wrong. ;)

sorry, I was talking about a previous post.  I was not talking about what you said comparing axes to katanas.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:21pm:

I didn't equate the slicing of a katana to an axe, I equated it to the slicing of a guillotine. A guillotine has a long travel and a lot of mass over the blade to build up speed when it falls. It would take a very extraordinary person to come up with the same cutting power with a sword. I'm not saying completely bisecting or decapitating someone with a katana is impossible, but it is very unlikely.

Hmm I guess there is not a huge chance of us ever proving this one way or another but I have to think a really sharp katana could slice a head off at the neck pretty easily if wielded by someone with the required strength and experience. Where are the walking dead when you need them?  ::)

Not sure that they would be more preferable than say...a mace or club though if all you were trying to do is kill something that required destroying it's head to die.

Wait, are we talking about the slow moving, American style "Dawn Of The Dead Zombies" or the super fast, super ruthless "28 Days Later" zombies?

The fighting style for both types differs.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:21pm:

I didn't equate the slicing of a katana to an axe, I equated it to the slicing of a guillotine. A guillotine has a long travel and a lot of mass over the blade to build up speed when it falls. It would take a very extraordinary person to come up with the same cutting power with a sword. I'm not saying completely bisecting or decapitating someone with a katana is impossible, but it is very unlikely.

There have been executions with swords as well as axes and guillotines, some of which have been beheading, and an execution is probably a fairer comparison to what would be done to a zombie than normal battle injuries. One could put a lot more force into the blows used to execute, after all, they don't have to keep moving fast enough to not get killed doing so when their opponent is slow and shambling. That said, tools used for combat and tools used for execution have consistently been very different. Axes used for execution are slow, unwieldy, and generally poorly balanced when looked at in the context of combat, as there was no reason to design them to work in that situation, axes used in combat are completely incapable of beheading in one stroke as a rule simply due to how small the blades actualyl were.

greencheapsk8 wrote on Jun 9^th, 2011 at 3:14am:

Wait, are we talking about the slow moving, American style "Dawn Of The Dead Zombies" or the super fast, super ruthless "28 Days Later" zombies? The fighting style for both types differs.

You have a good point here.  So far we've been talking about the slow moving variety of zombies, but what if a new strain comes along, and the zombies begin to get faster?  We would have to completely rethink strategies and weaponry.  A ranged approach would be the best approach against them, but would arrows and rocks work, or would we have to go modern?  A rock thrown/slung with enough velocity could probably break a few bones, but crushing a skull would require a pretty hard throw.  Also, thinking about it, a crushing weapon would be best, or at least something that could get through the skull one hit.  A mace and chain or a battleaxe with a spike might be the best weapon to use at that point.  But is destroying or removing the head the only way to kill a zombie?

Samurismallz wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2011 at 1:47pm:

You have a good point here.  So far we've been talking about the slow moving variety of zombies, but what if a new strain comes along, and the zombies begin to get faster?  We would have to completely rethink strategies and weaponry.  A ranged approach would be the best approach against them, but would arrows and rocks work, or would we have to go modern?  A rock thrown/slung with enough velocity could probably break a few bones, but crushing a skull would require a pretty hard throw.  Also, thinking about it, a crushing weapon would be best, or at least something that could get through the skull one hit.  A mace and chain or a battleaxe with a spike might be the best weapon to use at that point.  But is destroying or removing the head the only way to kill a zombie?

Can you consistently hit a fast moving 6"x12" target with enough force to crush bone? I think not.  It would be the height of folly to go out facing any threat more serious than a wandering coyote with nothing more than a sling.  I fully support the sling as a secondary weapon, but as a primary offensive weapon platform? No.  Firearms, and in rare cases maybe a heavy crossbow, would be required to ensure post-apocolyptic survival, zombies or not.

I think my remington 700 30-30 and my S&W 38 stub nose would serve me pretty well.  ;)

I hate snub-noses! I can't hit bupkis, well, I can, but I'd rather not. :P Anyway, if I have to use a snub-nose on a zombie, I think I'd rather use something hand-to-hand.

Heck if all it takes is a head shot give me a .22 with a decent scope and a couple bricks of bullets and I'm good to go.

Ah, but that's not exactly melee, is it? As for slinging a large rock at a zombie, I wasn't thinking of individual zombies, but more for large groups. If you sling a rock into a group of zombies, you are guaranteed to hit and possibly break something vital.

Also, to kill a zombie, is it necessary to destroy/remove the head, or do other methods work as well? It's a thought we need to pursue.

It mostly depends on the species of zombie, but with most you just have to ruin the brain (i.e. head shot)  or a good shot with most war clubs, or sever the spinal cord so the brain can't send messages to the rest of the body to fight/eat.

None the less, most people have different preferences due to body structure, most larger guys would prefer longer heaver weapons, more average size guys prefer shorter lighter weapons, and both prefer the fastest most effective option possible (has yet to be decided).

I'm a smaller guy, so I'd prefer a lighter weapon. My problem is that I also want a longer weapon. The only real option that gives me is a long-bladed spear, preferably with a crossguard. Something similar to a boar spear would work. My secondary weapon would probably be a shortsword with a blade of 24" max. The spear would work for more open areas, and for close quarters I could use the sword, maybe with a buckler. The problem with that is that if I'm close enough to use my sword, any zombies are close enough to bite me, so I have to be extra careful. Maybe leather armor, but nothing too heavy.

a big tower and a couple hundred metal 4"x8"x12" steel plates would be sufficient, i think?

Yes, but the only way to attack from there is melee, and how much ammo do you have? Even if you use a sling, how many rocks are going to be in that tower?

i have a giant pine tree and vats of boiling pitch in that tower. and for weapons, a gun that uses magnifing glasses to turn sunlight into a powerful beam, kind of like a plasma gun:)

Well, the tree might work, and the gun if you can focus it enough, bt how much pitch do you have? Again, ammo is a problem. It might be a good idea to build a labyrinth in the tower and fight any zombies that somehow make it through. Youre the bait, but not many zombies will get through the labyrinth, especially not with impassible areas, such as pits with whirling blades and stuff like that.

Samurismallz wrote on Jun 25^th, 2011 at 3:10pm:

Well, the tree might work, and the gun if you can focus it enough, bt how much pitch do you have? Again, ammo is a problem. It might be a good idea to build a labyrinth in the tower and fight any zombies that somehow make it through. Youre the bait, but not many zombies will get through the labyrinth, especially not with impassible areas, such as pits with whirling blades and stuff like that.

Whirling blades? Really?

So when the zombies fall in they get shredded. It means no risk of zombies somehow getting out.

Yeah, but are you really going to spend valuable preparation time building an elaborate maze instead of stockpiling and fortifying a more conventional location?

yep:)

Why? A few bottlenecks and closed courtyards would serve, probably, even better.  I feel that an elaborate maze would a) take up precious time beforehand b) it's a maze, there are bound to be a few zeds left in corners after you've killed most of them and c) get you lost and killed.

Good point. If you have enough allies, you could fight in shifts, so you wouldnt get too tired, if you had your own well and garden there, you could stay almost indefinitely. Plus, if you have a bottleneck that leads to a closed courtyard, you could have all these things with you. Bring in some cots and you've got a good place to stay.

In most zombie stories they have a scouting group so ideally if you were in a tower or heavy fortification you have a "hidden" way out so the scouting team can go and replenish supplies.

I was kinda thinking about that too. The problem is, what happens if they get caught, or the hidden exit is found?

Samurismallz wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 7:14pm:

I was kinda thinking about that too. The problem is, what happens if they get caught, or the hidden exit is found?

Simple! Just protect the hidden exit with a elaborate labrynth , complete with pits, whirling blades and such..... ;D

Very funny. But really, what happens if the scouting party ends up getting caught and killed? How would you know?

They wouldn't come back?  While you are building all this neat stuff, buy a kids'  walkie talkie.  Bill

Would there still be stores running at all? I doubt it. the larger stores could become deathtraps full of zombies, so going in for some walkie-talkies and batteries would be suicide. the smaller stores might be safer, but they're also less likely to have what you're looking for.  the good thing is that you can get all your supplies for free, but you have a limited amount of them.  food will go bad quickly, so you would need to have the scouting team hunt/fish while they're out there. Still, you're on the right track there.  If you can get anything for free, then you could probably go to a small gun shop and take a few guns and the ammo for them, and that would help a little. Maybe that's the first step, is to raid all the stores.  Stockpile your supplies, and defend them.  Split them up, so you're not screwed if one place gets overrun.  make sure that its hard for zombies to get into your stuff in the first place, and make it easily defensible. A large tree fort would probably do the trick, especially one with a rope ladder.  I doubt a zombie would have the coordination to climb a rope ladder.

So the plan is to somehow build a monstrous labyrinth/fortress/deathtrap after the zombie outbreak? Not too likely.

No, not a monstrous fort. Just an easily defendable position that we can improve as we go.

Sounds like we're getting to a Rube Goldberg zombie killing machine. All I want is some sharks with some frikkin laser beams. You guys can do whatever else you will.  ;)

Its not quite to the Rube Goldberg stage yet.  What I'm talking about is something where relatively few zombies reach us so our fighting is minimized. We could place traps around the area if we wanted, though.

Good, we wouldn´t want this tread to become too unrealistic now do we.... ::)

The fact that were talking about a zombie apocalypse makes this unrealistic. Even though scientists have figured out how a zombie could be created with a virus, it's not likely to happen soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH1go9im24M&feature=related

I watched the cold steel videos (yet again) and I think this is my new favorite for zombie killing. At 3:48, he really shows what it can do.

a lawn mower!

mossdog427 wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 9:30am:

a lawn mower!

You'd be better off with something like a combine. It would be high enough to actually chop up the zombies, and fast enough for use as a getaway vehicle.

Samurismallz wrote on Jun 27^th, 2011 at 1:54pm:

Would there still be stores running at all? Still, you're on the right track there.  If you can get anything for free, then you could probably go to a small gun shop and take a few guns and the ammo for them, and that would help a little. Maybe that's the first step, is to raid all the stores.Its not quite to the Rube Goldberg stage yet.  What I'm talking about is something where relatively few zombies reach us so our fighting is minimized. We could place traps around the area if we wanted, though.

I believe that he meant get the walkies before the outbreak, i.e. stockpile.  
So, you plan on being the only one with the idea about the gun store?  Also, as you're looting, beware of the few cops who might still be operating, and every other scared, hostile civilian with a bat or a bolt action rifle.  They all want the same things you do.

What I would do about them is have them join us. Tell them that we are fighting back against the zombies, and ask them if they want to join us. They will survive better, and we will gain an extra pair of hands to help out.

Samurismallz wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 4:23pm:

What I would do about them is have them join us. Tell them that we are fighting back against the zombies, and ask them if they want to join us. They will survive better, and we will gain an extra pair of hands to help out.

I would like to convey how this conversation may go:
"Hi there"
"@#$% off"
"I was wondering if you'd like to join us?"
"I already told you what to do"
"But I thought—"
*clears leather* "I don't care what you thought.  There's no way I'm gonna take orders from a runt like you" [At this point I'm assuming this guy's about 6' 8"]
"But it would be mutually benefic—"
"Oh, listen to you. Aren't you smart? I'll bet you think you're better than me, huh?"
"No, I—"
"GET OUTTA HERE!"
“But I still need to get—”
“It’s all mine, now.  Leave!”
“But—”
BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
At which point, you are laying on the ground bleeding out to a) be finished by the belligerent conversationalist, or b) left and devoured by the first zeds out and about.  Either situation leads to you not getting the chance to survive Z Day.  
The moral of this story: stock up on supplies, weapons, and ammunition before you need it.

I wouldn't use the phrase "mutually beneficial", but instead I would use small words that they could understand. That way he might not kill me before I finished a sentence.

Do you think scared and panicked people are going to acting in a logical manner?  TC has some very good points, all they will be worried about will be themselves and possibly some close friends and relatives, all they will be worried about is what they think they need right now, look at the mobs in New Orleans after Katrina.  Bill

Thunder Chief wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

Samurismallz wrote on Jun 28th, 2011 at 4:23pm: What I would do about them is have them join us. Tell them that we are fighting back against the zombies, and ask them if they want to join us. They will survive better, and we will gain an extra pair of hands to help out. I would like to convey how this conversation may go: "Hi there" "@#$% off" "I was wondering if you'd like to join us?" "I already told you what to do" "But I thought—" *clears leather* "I don't care what you thought.  There's no way I'm gonna take orders from a runt like you" [At this point I'm assuming this guy's about 6' 8"] "But it would be mutually benefic—" "Oh, listen to you. Aren't you smart? I'll bet you think you're better than me, huh?" "No, I—" "GET OUTTA HERE!" “But I still need to get—” “It’s all mine, now.  Leave!” “But—” BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! At which point, you are laying on the ground bleeding out to a) be finished by the belligerent conversationalist, or b) left and devoured by the first zeds out and about.  Either situation leads to you not getting the chance to survive Z Day.   The moral of this story: stock up on supplies, weapons, and ammunition before you need it.

You sure have a better imagination than I do. I was imagining something shorter. More like,
Sam:"Hi th-"
Squatter: "WAAHHHHHHHHGGGGGFFFFFFF?????!!!!!!"
BLAM!
*Empties Sam's pockets*
BLAM!

It's not obvious that I'm reading "The Road," is it? ;)

I realized that people are going to be panicking, but they still might listen to reason, especially if you help them get what they need. If you help someone, they are more likely to listen to your reasons and they might join you. If they are looking afte someone they care for, you can tell them you can help protect them.

shoot, loot, run ;) i would try to become allies with the zeds before tey became undead:)

Ah, but once they become zeds they'll have no thoughts of alliances.

id be like the guy in i am legend, exept i wouldnt blow myself up with a hand greade, id cure every body in the end:)

That's a very good idea. Just get the antidote and put in a gaseous form. Then spray over the world one city at a time.

Morphy wrote on Jun 27^th, 2011 at 5:03pm:

Sounds like we're getting to a Rube Goldberg zombie killing machine. All I want is some sharks with some frikkin laser beams. You guys can do whatever else you will.  ;)

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/06/15/1226075/614115-laser-sharks-.jpg

Check-frikkin-Mate. Zombies 0 LaserSharks 782,235,920

I'm sure thatll work well on zombies near water, but what about zombies on land?

You get sharks with lasers?! I want Aquatic Attack Tigers, then! :P
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/12/18/a9ec6bd4-2e98-46cc-a414-dd19cb0bddf1.jpg
And for the zombies not on water, Flying Bears.
http://whatthecrap.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/flyingbear.jpg?w=780
Winning. 8-)

Ok, the flying bears make me happy.

http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/55389.jpg

Your kung fu is powerful but can it stand up to the PFP Patrol?  

Ok, now things are getting out of control. This is supposed to be about melee weapons and maybe some strategies.

"Hey"
"Um what do you want"
"Nothing much, a better chance of survival"
"Oh okay"
......
"So you raided a supermarket lately?"
"Nah"
"I know one with stuff in it, if we both go we can ransack it easy"
"OK"

Samurismallz wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 11:12pm:

That's a very good idea. Just get the antidote and put in a gaseous form. Then spray over the world one city at a time.

Because you, being the last man for hundreds of miles (in New York City), have access to a crop duster and an unlimited supply of fuel, and the ability to fly a plane, and enough ingredients to make that much antidote, and the facilities to make it an aerosol, and planned safe stop-over points in every city in the world, plus the manpower and weapons to "mop up" between cities. If so, have at it!

"Nuke em from outter space. It's the only way to be sure". 8-)

Thunder Chief wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 3:47am:

Samurismallz wrote on Jun 28th, 2011 at 11:12pm: That's a very good idea. Just get the antidote and put in a gaseous form. Then spray over the world one city at a time. have access to a crop duster and an unlimited supply of fuel, and the ability to fly a plane, and enough ingredients to make that much antidote, and the facilities to make it an aerosol, and planned safe stop-over points in every city in the world, plus the manpower and weapons to "mop up" between cities. !

ido, because my dads frield has an crop duster, i can obviously get enough ingredients, because it will be ethanol based, and isobutane, propane, and air, easy to get!

Well, it seems that the optomists have out-thought the pessimists.

paracordslinger wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 3:10pm:

ido, because my dads frield has an crop duster, i can obviously get enough ingredients, because it will be ethanol based, and isobutane, propane, and air, easy to get!

Can YOU fly it?  Will you have access to it while holed up?  Will it still be flyable after the years it takes to discover the antidote? Do you have the fuel? Can you, YOURSELF, process the grain into alcohol? All the while, beset by Satan's great hordes?  And you didn't answer my question about the stop-over points and the extra manpower.

And that reminds me.  Neville in "I am Legend" was already a scientist.  Do you have the knowledge, skill, and chemical and technical knowhow to run the tests, and eventually produce a cure?  Are you going to have the facilities to do this? A sterile lab? All the computers and equipment? All of the chemicals for the experiments?  And how do you know that the antidote will react favorably with the ethanol?  And once you do spray it on the cities, it's still a city.  The chemical is going to reach a bare minimum of the infected population, with the majority inside buildings, remaining infected and causing massive problems for any repopulation crews that you may send in (regardless, you still do not have the men and women with whom to form them).  And those on the street that are cured will instantly be set upon by those still inside the buildings, more probably leading to human extinction than survival.  Assuming that they are cured and not instantly be devoured, how will you collect them?  By yourself, I see 3 possibilites: a) You go in to get them and are ingested yourself, b) you leave them and they wander around until they are eventually 1) reinfected, or 2) eaten, or c) they are so weak that they collapse, and unable to move, die of 1) zombie jaws, 2) heat stroke or, depending upon the season, hypothermia, or 3) thirst and starvation.

Have fun saving the world!

You really are a big pessimist. Every time we come up with a good idea you shoot it down. The zombie plague would kinda have to spread person to person, or maybe in the water. Once you know that, everyone in the country with a well is safe. They would provide the manpower to resist the zombies.

Samurismallz wrote on Jul 1^st, 2011 at 9:44am:

You really are a big pessimist. Every time we come up with a good idea you shoot it down. The zombie plague would kinda have to spread person to person, or maybe in the water. Once you know that, everyone in the country with a well is safe. They would provide the manpower to resist the zombies.

Sure, I may be a pessimist, but I also like to think I'm rational.  There are ideas in this world that just won't work.  How would you like to be the last man on earth, geared up to execute a foolish, half thought-out, under-engineered plan only to have it blow up in your face, in the process eradicating any hope for humanity?   Anyway, I only rose to the challenge presented.

Okay, say you're right, say the virus is spread person to person and by water.  Heck, say it originates in the deepest darkest regions of Africa.  Eventually, some person carrying the plague, but not yet having presented symptoms will get out and when he does turn, he will be with other people.  Say he infects three people before he dies, and those three infect three.  Panic will ensue, and people are going to flee the area.  The process continues until the continent is near uninhabitable and people will flee to other, perceived safer landmasses.  It's likely that at least one carrier will make it across the ocean and turn on North American soil (and others will likely reach other continents).  Airports and harbors are usually located in or near cities.  So if he turns and infects three city folk before he is destroyed and they infect three, eventually the city will be half-infected and again, people will panic and run.  Most likely more than one carrier will escape.  They will spread to other cities (maybe they were running to relatives in another town or they heard that somewhere else was safe).  They will turn and infect more people, the cycle will continue, and eventually all but the most isolated and defensible locations will be infected and/or overrun.

Say farmer Josephus has a well and a rifle with stockpiled ammunition and supplies to last him until kingdom come.  In the beginning, he will be doing just fine; holed up his farmhouse, picking off the occasional infected who comes his way.  Say he is lucky enough to avoid being in the path of a large horde of beasties, and so he persists, while lesser men are devoured and all of the communities for miles in all directions are infected and zombified.  Once the zeds have exhausted their food elsewhere, they will eventually stumble upon the abode of poor Josephus.  In large numbers they assemble and surround the dwelling, drawn by the ravenous moans of their fellow infected.  Josephus, not being an engineer, never constructed a system of pipes from his outdoor well into his humble residence.  He promptly perishes from lack of water.  Or, if by providence, he had the foresight to stock enough water inside to keep him hydrated until the end of time, eventually, his rifle will prove ineffective against the numbers that face him, and its futile report will serve only to draw more of the sorry stricken to its location.  In due time, the malicious meat puppets will congregate in sufficient numbers to either rend the door from its hinges, or given the proper circumstances, drive our poor agriculturalist out of his tree, resulting in a straight-forward suicide, or a much more interesting and unpredictable chain of events that will lead eventually to an untimely death.  Either way, poor Josephus had himself a well, but still ended up little more than sun-baked road kill himself.

There is no antidote for zombies, they are already dead and powered by magic.

Then we counter with black magic of course! :D

Maybe that's where we're going wrong.  If zombies are creatures of evil to be avoided at all costs, maybe we need holy aid.

Samurismallz wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2011 at 3:29pm:

Maybe that's where we're going wrong.  If zombies are creatures of evil to be avoided at all costs, maybe we need holy aid.

So, we exorcise the demons out of all the zeds?

No, we could pray to Zeus and have him smite all the zombies with his lightning.  Or ask Hades to call his minions back.

Super Soaker full of holy water?  ;)

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, excide, excide, excide! (Hope my Latin isn't too bad.)

HurlinThom wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2011 at 12:05pm:

Super Soaker full of holy water?  ;) In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, excide, excide, excide! (Hope my Latin isn't too bad.)

Absolutely! We'd need traveling priests to keep our supply up.

That would be funny. How about a moat and a pump and hoses? They can only come in one way, and we can blast a lot faster with hoses.

Maybe we could just bless the ocean.

Do Zeds swim?

Wouldn't Zombies just eventually decompose naturally??? :-?

Farmer Joe would go to the barn and hook up the bushcutter, he would then make a couple of passes around the farm, chopped zed.  He would use the front bucket to pick up the lumps and chunks and spread them on the fields, then he would disc them under for fertilizer and plant corn on top of them.  

You guys are thinking about this the wrong way, guns and swords my foot, use modern machinery.  It would not be hard to rig up something like a really large lawn mower.  Bill

i would be us ing a dualie tractor with a huge hay cutter, and then use the hayrake to spread the chunks,then drill in wheat and amarath grain.

Maybe you could use a combine with the right attachment.

Guys, guys, guys. Why do we always suppose thats zombies are slow and dumb!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_qLtpb2jeY

Then we would be f***ed

bigkahuna wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 6:57am:

Wouldn't Zombies just eventually decompose naturally??? :-?

I dunno.  The shoes in the Titanic didn't.  So if zeds are made of shoe leather, then no.

Quote:

Farmer Joe would go to the barn and hook up the bushcutter, he would then make a couple of passes around the farm, chopped zed.  He would use the front bucket to pick up the lumps and chunks and spread them on the fields, then he would disc them under for fertilizer and plant corn on top of them.   You guys are thinking about this the wrong way, guns and swords my foot, use modern machinery. It would not be hard to rig up something like a really large lawn mower.  Bill

Like this?
http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1233108507/150/643150.jpg
15 foot blade with flail attachments.  :o
Amour plate body, needs dual V8 engines to run.
Mostly made from old tank bits, these old guys made it not far from me. :)

Only one way to deal with the Zeddys, piss on 'em as shown in photo below.

---

bigkahuna wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 6:57am:

Wouldn't Zombies just eventually decompose naturally??? :-?

I think you are forgetting that there is nothing "natural" about zombies...

wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:20am:

bigkahuna wrote on Jul 5th, 2011 at 6:57am: Wouldn't Zombies just eventually decompose naturally??? :-? I think you are forgetting that there is nothing "natural" about zombies...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/pictures/110303-zombie-ants-fungus-new-species-fungi-bugs-science-brazil/

ChuckRocks wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 6:37am:

Only one way to deal with the Zeddys, piss on 'em as shown in photo below.

I love the smell of necro'd thread in the morning; smells like...victory.

I definitely approve of your method of hungry corpse disposal. Keep a safe distance and have some fun all at once.
When/where is that photo from?  It looks kinda Vietnamish.

Wouldn't using zombie corpses as fertilizer infect the grains and plants?  even the water sources nearby???

That would be an interesting experiment, Little!  "The Attack of the Zombie Zucchini!"

Jabames wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 3:10pm:

Wouldn't using zombie corpses as fertilizer infect the grains and plants?  even the water sources nearby???

Water sources, yes (regular corpses do that), dunno about the plants.  I feel like you could verify that with a body infected with a current infectious disease.

Thunder Chief wrote on Feb 13^th, 2012 at 4:26pm:

Jabames wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 3:10pm: Wouldn't using zombie corpses as fertilizer infect the grains and plants?  even the water sources nearby??? Water sources, yes (regular corpses do that), dunno about the plants.  I feel like you could verify that with a body infected with a current infectious disease.

E. Coli can be transfered from manure and carrion to nearby crops. Tainted manure is one of the many causes of E. Coli food poisoning.

Then,  theoretically a zombie virus or infection would be even more contagious among things like that, than ecoli

Zombies, Zombies, Zombies.
Real Zombies are the soul-less resurected dead, controlled by their Queen, the Voo Doo witch which brought them back to their un-dead state. They have no will of their own, not even to go around trick-er-treating for brains. That's pure Hollywood and has as much basis in reality as movies with slings. They just can't get it right to save themselves.

Ok, enough of a rant for now.

Movie Zombies must be shattered or decapitated, enlightened (with fire) or emersed ("Baptised") in order to stop them.
Hollywood thinks there is some strange virus that makes the dead walk among us. They could be right, we do have politicians.
Hollywierd also thinks (I use that term loosely) that they are drawn toward the living in order to feed on brains, brains, brains.
A machete will stop them. So will a 12 guage or a Lousiville Slugger. The problem comes when you either run out of ammo or your arms get tired. Or when that stupid blond goes into the basement. DUH!
Fire will also stop a Zombie but it's slower and a burning zombie may still get to you (or that blond). If that does happen you can kick them in the coxic and they will crumble to dust.
The best way to handle Hollywierd Zombies is to call Zombie Hunters, Ltd.

Real Zombies are not a problem. Kill their queen and they stop dead. Or Undead, as the case may be.
Getting to the queen may be a problem but playing any Queen album will help you get through their defences.

I strongly recomend watching this video clip for more data on real zombies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4

Stay safe and keep slingin'

ChuckRocks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 3:53pm:

Zombies, Zombies, Zombies. Real Zombies are the soul-less resurected dead, controlled by their Queen, the Voo Doo witch which brought them back to their un-dead state. They have no will of their own, not even to go around trick-er-treating for brains. That's pure Hollywood and has as much basis in reality as movies with slings. They just can't get it right to save themselves. Ok, enough of a rant for now.

That's a real belief about zombies, sure. Given that real zombies don't actually exist, it's not like it is inherently more valuable than the cinematic portrayal.

To (semi) quote the incredibly profane The Death and Return of Superman,
Dad: "How do you * kill a vampire?"
Son: "Stake through the heart, garlic... Oh, and sunlight!"
Dad: "No, you can kill vampires however the * you want, because vampires don't * exist! You can make up rules for whatever * kind of thing you want!"

Where do zombies come from? I like the Romero radiation comet theory and the newer megadisease theory. I'm not so keen on the "it's a mostly normal virus with new symptoms but these people are curable" bs that they tried to pull in I Am Legend and Zombieland. Not nearly scary enough.

I'm wit the return of the living dead approach,  they don't die easily with headshots,  much more difficult to kill than any other zombies except fast zombies etc.

I'm of the opinion that if zombies ever could happen, they would humans with an extreme fever  (with major dizziness, motor skill loss, etc symptoms) such that they are constantly enraged, most of their brain is connected incorrectly, and have a desire for human flesh. But, being infected human beings that are still living, they also still require human appendages and organs to function. Therefore, anything that will kill a human will probably kill a zombie, or at least badly maim it. While they can't die of shock, a bullet to to the leg is still going to sever muscles and make it difficult for the zombie to move. Therefore, I don't really think headshots matter too much. Headshots are efficient, but how many people can consistently make them under high pressure scenarios and while running away from a hungry zombie mob?

Masiakasaurus wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 9:29pm:

I'm not so keen on the "it's a mostly normal virus with new symptoms but these people are curable" bs that they tried to pull in I Am Legend and Zombieland. Not nearly scary enough.

They didn't explain anything in Zombieland.

Yes they did, during the opening credits they said that it was a mutant strain of mad cow.

Knaight wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 9:03pm:

ChuckRocks wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:53pm: Zombies, Zombies, Zombies. Real Zombies are the soul-less resurected dead, controlled by their Queen, the Voo Doo witch which brought them back to their un-dead state. They have no will of their own, not even to go around trick-er-treating for brains. That's pure Hollywood and has as much basis in reality as movies with slings. They just can't get it right to save themselves. Ok, enough of a rant for now. That's a real belief about zombies, sure. Given that real zombies don't actually exist, it's not like it is inherently more valuable than the cinematic portrayal.

WOW!
You actually came out and said it?
You don't think Zombies exist.
That's just what the Vampires want you to think.
You just keep that belief while they're munching on that pink matter inside your head.
(Living brains are pink, they turn gray from lack of oxygen.)
Mwahahaha!

Two zombies are eating a clown and the one says: "Hey does this taste funny?"

How about this... Zombies are a result of a bio-warfare genetically engineered germ/parasite that is designed to change the habits of normal humans into zombies and is then unleashed on the public. Nature already has parasites and germs that radically change an animals behavior through "mind control" into something both mindless and suicidal. Actually when you think about it, at least theoretically the idea of creating a "Disease" zombie is totally believable.

Truth:
Zombies are the result of a PsyOps experiment conducted by the US Secret Service in order to produce a duplicate for the POTUS who would NOT attempt to take over or actually do anything such as pass new energy bills for drilling our way to independence from foreign oil.
The President? Woodrow Wilson.

Apparently they reproduced the evil nature of Wilson as well.

zombies do exist. my proof walks among us .. I offer as my example .. POTUS.

Steven wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 9:04am:

zombies do exist. my proof walks among us .. I offer as my example .. POTUS.

AMEN!

ChuckRocks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 3:05pm:

Truth: Zombies are the result of a PsyOps experiment conducted by the US Secret Service in order to produce a duplicate for the POTUS who would NOT attempt to take over or actually do anything such as pass new energy bills for drilling our way to independence from foreign oil. The President? Woodrow Wilson. Apparently they reproduced the evil nature of Wilson as well.

The Secret Service? Please. It was obviously the IRS.

I am pretty sure there are a lot of them working down at DMV too.  ;)

Dan wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 10:19pm:

I am pretty sure there are a lot of them working down at DMV too.  ;)

Funniest thing I've seen you post so far Mr. Dan.

Dan wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 10:19pm:

I am pretty sure there are a lot of them working down at DMV too.  ;)

Working and DMV don't often occur in the same sentence.

Thanks.


And yeah those "employed" at the DMV would propably better worded.  ;)

Office of the Bureau of Redundancy and Repetition Bureau Office:
"Fill each form twice in duplicate with carbon copies".

Office of the Bureau of Redundancy and Repetition Bureau Office:
"Fill each form twice in duplicate with carbon copies".

---

A zombie weapon? Melee?

Hows about a solar-rechargeable, AC-adapted electric chainsaw? Nothin' too fancy!

Eventually I'd like to make a mere, but then I'm a fan of simple and effective. Maybe someday when I have time...

I agree with rockman, a mace would be my primary choice for a dedicated melee weapon. For a weapon/tool a tomahawk or machete depending on what environment I'm in.

What are your guys' theories regarding zombies and fire?

A nice-sized medieval-style torch might do the trick.

CHowitzer wrote on Mar 9^th, 2012 at 11:08am:

What are your guys' theories regarding zombies and fire?

I don't advocate getting too close to either one.

I didn't think zombies were bothered by fire...  at least that's what the zombie survey I took told me.

As far as weapons; I'm more of a pick 'em off from a distance, displace and continue moving away from the area. Planning in preventing yourself from coming into close personal contact with zombies would be where I would concentrate most of my efforts. How do you keep from getting bit by a zombie, don't let zombies get close enough to bite you.
However being caught in a close quarters rush I would favor anything that would not stick into a zombie's body. I wouldn't want to lose time extracting blades or spikes; i.e. like if you slammed a hand axe into a zombies head, seems you'd lose time recovering the weapon before being able to strike at another zombie. For me it would have to be light enought to wield with speed while being impactful enough to severely stun or kill with one or two strokes. An Apache war club like this. Light, strong, non-slip, doesn't require orientation like an axe blade or spiked club where the edge must be forward; is long enoug to keep some distance but short enough to use and control in close quarters.

---

ChuckRocks wrote on Apr 14^th, 2011 at 5:32pm:

The US developed anti-zombie ray projection devices back in the late 1950s. I still have mine and have been very satisfied with the performance. Activation of the device (not really a "gun") will produce a radial broadcast in 360 degrees from the device's antena for an effective radius of 21 yards although it's supposed to be good for 25 yards. The difference in effectivity is due to a reduced amplitude of electrical output that took place in the early 1960s. IE: we went to a 108 volt current system that was called 110 volts. Anyone have HD TV that won't behave? Yup, low voltage. Thanks government. Anyway, get one and set the receiver to 115 m-hrtz for civil defence self-activation. Any zombie that enters the "cone of death" (aren't they already dead?) is liquified in about 120 seconds. After some experimentation, I've found that AMWAY Driveway Cleaner is the only stuff that will remove the zombie sludge stains. Yes, Amway. It's actually good for something. Proof of zombie sighting attached below. ChuckRocks

You sir are a bona-fide genius.

I don't understand the desire to fight Zombies.
You can't kill them, they're already dead.
You can stop them but why?
To protect yourself and your loved ones?
Then why not just liquify them like I said earlier?

If you engage them at close quarters you risk being overwhelmed.
They will swarm you and drag you down.

If you consider a range of cantact as fighting, then why not fight them from a little farther away.

Look, here's the thing.
I have a partial box of XX government surplus atomic hand granades.
I have tested a few and found that the kill range is a little farther than I can throw anymore; even with a sling.
Therefore I have hidden in the heart of our great city one of these nasty pieces of military ordinance with a note: "ATTENTION ZOMBIES: DO NOT PULL RING."
They will know it's a trick and do just the opposit, their reasoning powers being somewhat off.

What city? Why do you want to know? You must be one of them.

---

What about a whip with a slicing wire at the tip ?
And some slicing-wire bolas as well ?
A chopped zombie is far less frightening  ;D

I dunno, a shambling corpse with great chunks of flesh hanging off of it, I think, would be scarier than just a standard shambling corpse. :o

Thunder Crap sounds like something poo flinging monkeys would use to increase the effectiveness of their weapon of choice. I like it. Been trying to come up with a task my helper monkey could take on during a zombie apocalypse. I still don't trust him with reloading a firearm after that Cheez-It episode a year or so back.