www.ditl.org

I'd still go with the USP, but the same basic premise.

Just a tick...

A Webley Mk IV? While there's no denying the big hitting power of the .455 Webley, you're talking about a DA revolver. Capacity and reload time are obviously inferior to a semi-auto handgun, even with it being a top-break style; and further, using a DA revolver makes it far harder to put the first round on target and to keep subsequent rounds on target. The Webley in particular is known to have an absolute bear of a trigger pull, even considered so among experienced shooters.

It will, however, ensure that anything that gets hit stays hit, and I did mention the M1911 as an alternative.

Captain Seafort wrote:It will, however, ensure that anything that gets hit stays hit, and I did mention the M1911 as an alternative.

Like I said, there's no question about the .455's ability to put shit down for good. I'm just saying why I think the M1911 is a better alternative. And in fact, though I mentioned the USP (or other .45 Super handgun,) if we're dealing with infected-human types then something like a Glock 32C might be preferable. Easier to handle for an amateur shooter, ballistics comparable to a .357 Magnum, and the compensator means you almost have to try to fail to get a second round on the same target as the first. It doesn't have the "sit down, shut up" power of the .455 or the .45ACP, but it is a supersonic load and hits a lot bigger than, say, a 9mm Para - certainly hard enough to put down a human.

The nice thing about .45 ACP, .357 Mag, 9mm, 5.56 and 7.62 NATO is they're also very common calibers which will make securing ammo much simpler.

Tyyr wrote:The nice thing about .45 ACP, .357 Mag, 9mm, 5.56 and 7.62 NATO is they're also very common calibers which will make securing ammo much simpler.

Fair point against the .45 Super, but the Glock 32C uses a round that;s increasingly more common, and is at least as readily available as 10mm Federal.

Without reading the whole topic, but are we on the run living like nomads or are we defending a position? That is why I suggested .50 cal. Hell go for the GAU-15(I think) gatling gun too. Those can be mounted on back of SUVs or trucks easily enough.

Seeing how the mass of Zombies would force everyone to stay on the move or be bogged down and starved, I'm thinking the "on the run" is your best bet.

Remember this, anything you can't carry... is something you can't carry. Sounds silly to say it but its rather important to remember when trying to survive in combat.

Being bogged down would happen where there is a large population density like cities.

Population has nothing to do with being bogged down. Roads, or tunnels would/could be slowed by vehicle traffic but the ability to walk or run would remain the easiest of options. Which only reminds the problem of trying to carry/use a .50cal rifle or MG.

So you are saying that during a zombie attack, the human population of the mid-west US would have just as much difficulty as cities? Wow, I didn't know those farms had so many people and cars out there.

Try reading the comment, then respond. You'll look like a lot less of an idiot but just to help out I'll even repost it for you.

Deepcrush wrote:Population has nothing to do with being bogged down. Roads, or tunnels would/could be slowed by vehicle traffic but the ability to walk or run would remain the easiest of options. Which only reminds the problem of trying to carry/use a .50cal rifle or MG.

To get bogged down is to have something in your way that stops your movement. A one road farm town in the midwest with a few thousand people or NYC with a few hundred roads and a few million people. Regardless if you can drive or not, you can still move. Horse, bike or on foot. Your movement isn't stopped in anyway by the traffic.

Incorrect. Try reading what I am saying before you call anyone an idiot.

Low population areas will have less zombies than a city. It makes it easier to stay in one place than 3 million zombies in a city.

McAvoy wrote:Incorrect. Try reading what I am saying before you call anyone an idiot.

Read it, you're still an idiot.

McAvoy wrote:Low population areas will have less zombies than a city. It makes it easier to stay in one place than 3 million zombies in a city.

You questioned traffic, more zombies = less traffic. So either there are masses of zombies OR masses of traffic. Pick one.

Deepcrush wrote:

McAvoy wrote:Incorrect. Try reading what I am saying before you call anyone an idiot.

Read it, you're still an idiot.

McAvoy wrote:Low population areas will have less zombies than a city. It makes it easier to stay in one place than 3 million zombies in a city.

You questioned traffic, more zombies = less traffic. So either there are masses of zombies OR masses of traffic. Pick one.

Now you are the one looking like an idiot. Show me where I said anything about traffic. I said nothing about it, you did.