I understand your underlying point, but for most of those 100,000 years we were limited to a range of few dozen yards. That's far too close for comfort to engage something when your priority is to prevent them getting within grappling distance. Moreover, as Deep points out, the type that are vulnerable to standard-issue weapons are also a lot faster than the remove-head type. You will therefore need to engage at much greater range. You also need be able to drop them and make them stay dropped. Given the ability of humans to keep going despite severe, sometimes fatal, injuries when they're running on adrenaline it would be stupid to assume that human-like zombies don't have similar abilities.Tyyr wrote:Use the exact same weapons we've been using to kill each other for the last 100,000 years.
Agreed, which is why I said I understood his basic point. Nonetheless, the point stands that any individual weapon over 100 or so years old is too short ranged or has too slow a RoF to be effectiveMikey wrote:All that's fairly said - but take Tyyr's statement and replace "100,000 years" with "50 or so years."
To a degree, yes. Given, however, the importance of preventing hand to hand combat at all costs I think the older, heavier calibres should be preferred over the modern ones.Look at it now, and you'll see that asking what your weapon preference for use against infected-human type zombies is tantamount to asking what your weapon preference in general is.
Indeed - when I spoke of older, heavier rounds I was speaking of 7.62 NATO and similar. As for hand guns, given how ineffective they are relative to battle rifles I'd go for the likes of the M1911 and Webley Mk VI, precisely because they were introduced to deal with situations where merely killing the other bloke wasn't sufficient.Mikey wrote:I'd still stand by the NATO 7.62mm...
