Boomstick

Sure, guns kill from a distance, but they're noisy and require reloading and maintenance. Melee weapons, on the other hand, are unwieldy and require close contact. Got thoughts either way? Let us know.

Moderator: zombiephile

Boomstick

Postby Ash » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:50 pm

Shotgun all the way, baby - there's nothing better for killing zombies. It doesn't take much to destroy the brain - even a fragment of buckshot in there will do the trick.

Melee weapons are stylish, but when you're facing down uncountable zombies, sometimes you just need the stopping power that a shotgun affords...
"This is my boomstick!"
User avatar
Ash
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:48 pm

Shotguys are a last resort against zombies

Postby stan_hufferman » Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:48 pm

I disagree, Ash - sure, the shotgun is badass, but it's a last resort against zombies - really you don't want them to get close enough to use a shotgun on - if you do, you're probably better off dispatching them by hand.

I say up close, guns aren't much use - a shotgun doesn't hold enough ammo to be a good emergency weapon.
==--==--==--==--==
Stanley Hufferman
User avatar
stan_hufferman
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:41 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Ditto - Shotguns are a bad plan

Postby zombiephile » Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:11 pm

Image
I have to agree with Hufferman - shotguns are not really as good an idea against the undead as they're typically seen in zombie movies. Here's my thinking on them:

1) Shotguns are noisy. There's absolutely nothing you can do about this fact, and they're some of the noisiest guns available to civilians in the United States. Use one and you're guaranteed to have more zombies inbound.

2) Shotguns are hard to use. In zombie movies you always see people pick them up and start using them like pros, but the truth is that shotguns aren't easy to aim - they're useless for sighting and rely on excellent hand-eye coordination on the part of the shooter. Look what happened to Dick Cheney.

3) Shotguns are dangerous. Not only are shotguns dangerous when used against zombies - the splatter style of buckshot has a tendency to send zombie blood airborne, the effects of which are still in debate on this forum - but they're also dangerous to the user, because the kickback can be quite unexpected and can seriously injure an untrained shooter. Indeed, the spread of a shotgun can easily cause you to take out your friends instead of the zombie you were aiming for - never a good thing.

4) Shotgun shells are unwieldy. Anyone who's played a zombie videogame like Resident Evil knows that you can carry a much larger amount of smaller caliber ammunition in the same amount of space as you carry a small amount of shotgun shells - meaning that you literally get more bang for your buck with smaller caliber ammunition.
User avatar
zombiephile
Site Admin
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:26 pm
Location: Boston

Postby Cadaver » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:47 pm

I'm in agreement with zombiephile here. I definitrly love to see someone mow a path with a shotgun in a movie. Nothing quite like the potential for a good one-liner when you're packing a good-ole 12 gauge peacemaker. It makes excellent cinema, and you can eat popcorn to it.

In the reality of the zombie outbreak though, as I have said in another post, I'd rather have my Louisville Slugger and a high calibur, high capacity handgun. Not as stylish perhaps, as the classic shotgun, but for me, a much more effective combination.

I guess on the whole "ranged vs melee" debate, I would say, Yes please. :)

-C
User avatar
Cadaver
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:46 am
Location: Ironton, Ohio

Ranged or Melee?

Postby Wookiejuice » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:28 pm

While I too, have enjoyed using the shotgun in Resident Evil games (man, I love blowing off their undead heads! How satisfying!), I would have to agree with everyone else, Ash. I would definitely still want a ranged weapon over a melee though. The further away you can dispatch your enemies, the less likely you'll get surrounded.

I would go with a rifle I think. You can still pack a lot of ammo for it easily. You can also aim a hellova' lot easier with one, over a hand gun, especially if your rifle is equipped with a scope. Great for those head shots!

:lol:
User avatar
Wookiejuice
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba - Canada

Postby izombie » Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:37 am

If you could only have one weapon I would absolutely get a balanced weapon like a Ak-47. I think maybe a more compact sawed off shotgun would be alright for a last resort. I don't think you want to limit yourself to short or long range, because I have considered sniper rifles too. I was thinking of a .50 sniper rifle but that would be huge and if you were that far you might as well just run because they are no longer really a danger.
izombie
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:30 am

Re: Boomstick

Postby Everlast » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:51 pm

shotgun would be last resort / no other weapon

your bat would be good for a while, but would break sooner or later, better to go with some nice and solid, perhaps a crowbar or machette.


all guns make noise, unless it has a suppressor. So guns would only be used if no other option.

Def go for a nice compact rifle or carbine like an AR-15/ M4 or AK. Can hold a lot of rounds, easy to shoot. Compact enough for indoor use.

Shotguns still need to be aim, they arent hard to aim. But its not like in the movies where you just point in the general direction.

The spread of buckshot is not that much. Its not like as soon as it exits the barrel its a 3 foot wide circle of buck shoot. it take some distance, more than you might think for it to really spread.
Everlast
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:22 pm


Return to Ranged or Melee?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron