www.ditl.org

Still got 'im by three days.

Anyhoo, there's another advantage to the HK417 which neither of us mentioned. Aside from the floating barrel, seeming reliability, 4 barrel rails and one upper receiver rail, and 7.62mm NATO chambering, that particular rifle has intuitive design. The controls are simple and recognizable, and the design is supposedly ergonomic.

Just say infected human.

Well that's no fun.

Neither are you.

Awww, u mad?

Seriously though, if you're just dealing with regular rage virus humans what's the point in even asking this question? Use the exact same weapons we've been using to kill each other for the last 100,000 years. Rage virus zombies bring nothing new to the table in terms of how you kill them.

Well, except for the fact that they're usually too enraged to shoot back with the same type of weapon.

Yeah which sort of makes your life all the easier.

Hell, rage zombies are fast and still have similar numbers to undead zombies. To me, the undead are far easier to kill.

Things like explosives and hydrostatic shock still work fine against rage zombies. No need for headshots or many of the other undead issues. Good old 5.56mm will get the job done.

True, but I canget away from undead zombies with a soft jog. The same isn't true of a horde of rage zombies.

Tyyr wrote:Use the exact same weapons we've been using to kill each other for the last 100,000 years.

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.

All that's fairly said - but take Tyyr's statement and replace "100,000 years" with "50 or so years." 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.

Mikey wrote:All that's fairly said - but take Tyyr's statement and replace "100,000 years" with "50 or so 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 effective

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.

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.

Yes, I agree that a knock-down or knock-back capability, along with "one-and-done" capability, is a definite consideration. I'd still stand by the NATO 7.62mm... even considering the prior point, I don't think anything larger than a .308 is necessary... especially considering JHP or stripped bullets (I assume that one may reasonably ignore the Geneva Conventions when defending oneself from a zombie apocalypse.)

In fact, this case makes it easier than the "walking dead" scenario, in that when choosing a handgun one needn't opt for a hunting caliber - a much more manageable caliber will serve as well, and will make SA handguns a possibility.

Mikey wrote:I'd still stand by the NATO 7.62mm...

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.