Anti-zombie weapons-Ranged.
The ideal weapon to take out a zombie is not what you may think. When choosing a weapon, think of it as sort of economics:Ammunition spent per zombie+ammunition weight+weapon weight+terrain+weapon noise=the ideal weapon.
- Shotgun. The shotgun, despite Hollywood, is not the best weapon for a zombie infestation. The shotgun kills its target by destroying internal organs and form shock. This will not work on a zombie, as the only way to kill a zombie is to destroy the brain, and zombies feel no pain or shock. However, the shotgun may have limited use for its knockdown value-the scattering of the shot acts as a brick wall to advancing zombies. This may be a fairly good weapon to delay advancing zombies with, allowing you to escape.
- Rifle. The rifle is possibly one of the two best primary ranged weapons. It is pretty accurate if you know how to use it. Also, it can kill a zombie from a considerable distance, which is always a good thing. However, you should go for an older military bolt-action rifle, for the simple reason that they were designed in World War I, where knives, bayonets, and bludgeoning with the handle were considered essential. The noise it makes on discharge can be a problem, as the noise of killing one zombie may attract many, many more. Ammunition is easily acquired, as in the US, there are many armories you can get ammunition from.
- Pistol. The pistol may be one of the best choices available for a secondary weapon. It has accuracy at short to medium range. A silencer can be put on it. However, many smaller calibers cannot penetrate a zombie’s skull to kill it. It is easy to reload. The ammunition is not too bulky. The weapon itself is not overly difficult to carry either. It is also easy to draw in an emergency. However, most users cannot land a head shot from much more then 30-40 feet. However, never use this as your primary weapon.
- Crossbow. Another fairly good choice. It needs no silencer. Reloading, however, can be difficult. It is not easy to aim from a long distance. Ammunition, as well as the weapon itself, is bulky. Weight may be an issue.
- Bow and arrow. Not a good choice. While it has good range-200-300 feet is not uncommon-ammunition is bulky. The weapon itself is bulky. It is not common to find a skilled marksman with a bow anymore. Unless you can get considerable pull on it, which is not easy to do while maintaining accuracy, you are not likely to penetrate the zombie’s skull.
- Machine gun of any choice. Quite possibly the worst weapon you could choose. The weapon itself is definitely difficult to carry, no matter what type. Ammunition is a very large problem. Not only that, but the use of ammunition is extremely high. Accuracy is very low. Even on one that can go semi-automatic, most people will have an impulse to flip to full auto and just spray’n'pray. The loud noise will attract more zombies. The theory that you can level a large horde of zombies by firing at head hight will not work, because zombies come from people who are of many different heights.
- M1 Carbine or M1 Garand. These two deserve special mention. Both were designed to withstand one of the greatest conflicts in human history. Both excel at eliminating zombies. Ammunition is not too much of an issue. The weapons have impressive accuracy. They have a fairly spacious firing mechanism, making weapon jams uncommon. If you can resist the urge to go full automatic, maintain calmness, and keep zombies between 30 and 70 feet-eliminate those who enter this zone FIRST, no matter what your “instinct” tells you-then you can eliminate massive zombie hordes. Several people with an M1 of any type can hold off a massive amount of zombies, given enough ammunition. This weapon is improved even more by using it with a tower, or a mobile fortress for hunting zombies. Example:A bus. Get 20 people with this weapon, sit them at the windows, 8 to a side and the remainder at the ends, drive into a zombie infested zone, and proceed to eliminate them. If the spare space is full of ammunition, this tactic can clear large sections of a city quickly.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Hello…I Googled for bolt action rifle, but found your page about Anti-zombie weapons-Ranged….and have to say thanks. nice read.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
A nice, informative read, but I question the accuracy of several of your statements. You made no mention of what part of the world you are in, though several of your comments lead me to suspect the USA.
You state that it is uncommon to find a skilled marksman with the bow and arrow these days. I disagree. Out here in the Pacific NW bow hunting has really risen in popularity in the last 30 years, and just about every hunter I know has at least a base proficiency with the weapon. Regardless, it wouldn’t be my first choice.
You also state that the M1 Garand would be a great choice. Without knocking the M1, I myself, as a veteran and a civilian who owns examples of each, would quickly choose either an AR15 or an M14 (M1A) over the Garand or the M1 Carbine.
The AR15, is the most accurate individual combat weapon in the world today. It’s light weight, and small cartridge size make carrying LOTS of ammo very easy. Reliability has been called into question since it’s inauspicious debute during the Viet Nam war. I’ve shot dozens of these rifles, both in the Marines, and as a civilian, and wouldn’t hesitate to grab mine come judgement day. Keep it clean, and in good repair, and it will work all day with good ammo. With an ACOG 4x scope on it, firing from a rest, headshots can readily be acquired at 200meters or more. Especially against the slow moving, shambling, milling about breed of zombies. Talk about fun! Makes varmint hunting seem passe’.
The M1 Garand on the other hand starts at about twice the weight of an AR15, and only holds 8 rounds per clip. The clips are difficult to reload with more ammo, and are difficult for untrained amateurs to load into the rifle (M1 Thumb).
A better choice, if you don’t trust the AR15, or plan on doing alot of hand-to-hand fighting (I don’t plan on letting them get that close, myself), an M1A (semi-auto M14) is almost exactly the same rifle as the M1 Garand, except it shoots the (these days) more readily availible 7.62×51 Nato (.308 Win) cartridge from a removable 20 round magazine. Fix bayonets with this solid thing and it is a potent weapon even without bullets. Massive brain damage can easily be delivered with a good verticle butt stroke to the head. Though again, I don’t think letting the Zombies get that close is a wise idea. Better to snipe their gourds from 200m.
The M1 Carbine is harder to find ammunition for these days, and doesn’t have the range of either of the other three (it is essentially a pistol cartridge), though it is handy, accurate, and lightweight.
Owning all of these weapons, and many more, and being a student of zombie knowledge for over thirty years, I plan on grabbing my AR15 and a huge sack of loaded magazines when the SHTF.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Mathias -
Yes, southeast USA.
Agreed, the Carbine is not as common in most parts of the world, but then, I live in southeast USA, and in the USA, we have the highest ratio of armories to civilians in the world, and this is more so in the Southeast. The M-14 is a good choice, (although for a powerful sniper, I would personally prefer a Dragunov-why put a hole through the brain when you can effectively disintegrate the entire head!) I dislike the scope for the simple reason that while I aim, I cannot see behind me. I chose the Carbine because in the USA, ammo is readily available if you know where the local armory is, and if a few come behind you, you can smash them in the head, which, as you said, will usually do sufficient damage. I dislike the M16A1 because the stock and barrel are, at least to my knowledge, plastic, unless I confuse it with a different weapon…And if I’m not mistaken the AR-15 is a precursor to AK-47, unless I get it mixed again…But either way, M-16 and AK-47, whichever it is, are extremely uncommon in this area. I also wonder about my own ability to resist the urge to go full auto, and waste all my ammo. But if I had choice of ANY rifle, I would go with a newer one, the name escapes me, but it has a roughly 40-round clip, and semi-auto, test-range accurate at 800 yards, uses the same size shell as a Carbine, and as I said, that is very common in my area, and has high killing power. But as you pointed out, this is for USA Southeast…I cannot recommend weaponry for other areas of the world, or even the country. You live in the Pacific NW, and as you live there, I would follow your advice on weaponry for the area. You probably know the availability of your area very well, and I know mine reasonably well. So yes, you are right. I cannot recommend for other areas.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Disclaimer: I wasn’t invited to this discussion. I’m sorry for being a nosy know-it-all.
I’d actually go for the American 180. It fires .22 LR rounds, which are about as easy to get as anything and are cheap as all get-out. Plus, it has a 200+ round clip. If you’re looking for head shots only, the .22 is just fine. It goes in but not typically back out, which lessens the likelihood of collateral damage — much as we’d like to think otherwise, you’re really unlikely to fire a single round through multiple zombie heads. Better to have a lot of shots between reloads. (I’m not actually sure if this is a semi-auto or full-auto, but semi-auto is better).
If you don’t want to spring for the 180, the Ruger 10-22 is customizable to bejesus and back — I’m talking folding stocks, large-capacity clips (not 200+, but you can get drums of 50 or 100, i believe), flash suppressors, and (i’m not sure, but i think) bayonet holders.
.22’s also have the advantage of being far quieter and less likely to draw attention from other zombies, which function primarily through hearing (depending on the lore you’re using). Another advantage of being quieter is that you won’t be deafened by using it. .223, .308, 30-06, are really really loud, as are most (if not all) centerfire handgun rounds. Unless you’re really used to the amount of noise they make (not to mention the kick) you may drop the guns after the first shot. Which actually brings me to another point: long-term fatigue from shooting.
If you’ve ever been to a gun range and barked off a couple boxes of ammunition, and if you’re a semi-cloistered academic such as myself, you’ll know that your shoulder and hands are typically pretty sore from all the recoil of those mini-explosions in the weapon. If you’re on your feet and running for the better part of a day, plus climbing, forcing entry (or exit), and generally exerting yourself, the last thing you want is to wear yourself out just shooting the weapon. You can shoot .22 all day and have a slight ringing in your ears, maybe some sunburn, but you won’t have a splitting headache and sore muscles from it. I know you can get ported barrels and such for centerfire weapons that reduce recoil, and silencers can eliminate the noise, but a silencer on a .22 is just as effective.
Plus, for practice, you can shoot .22 LR for waaaay cheap. Maybe a penny or two per bullet, or even less if you buy in bulk.
If your urges for destruction aren’t quite met by the basic .22 LR round, you can invest in .22 hollowpoints, which are still relatively cheap (around 10 bucks per 100 rounds), particularly compared with wadcutter centerfire ammo (12-30 bucks per box of 50) or even worse hollowpoint centerfire ammo (similar price for less than half the number of cartridges). Even .22 shotshells are cheaper.
Fact is, why use more force or money than is necessary for the job? The increase in firepower granted by centerfire ammo is simply not that helpful against a zombie horde (knockback is useful, yes, but a kill is even moreso). On the other hand, the disadvantages of centerfire ammo in a zombie survival scenario are numerous.
Centerfire
Disadvantages
Heavy
Expensive
Excessive penetration
Loud
Recoil
Availability of ammo (less)
Advantages
Knockdown
Longer possible range
“Tough Guy” Factor
Better against other uninfected
Can go through multiple targets
Rimfire (.22)
Disadvantages
“underpowered”
Shorter range
“Wimp” Factor (feel less confident when using)
Less effective against aggressive uninfected
Advantages
Light
Cheap
Quiet(er)
Negligible recoil
Sufficient but not excessive penetration
In conclusion, I hope that this at least stimulates some interesting conversation. I like the idea of discussing this, and I want to note that my own home defense firearm is a .357 magnum revolver (possibly the worst anti-zombie weapon), so I’m woefully unprepared.
Despite what I wrote above, everyone is obviously different and will have different comfort zones and preferences. Thanks for reading, and feel free to tell me to go jump in a lake, fellow enthusiasts!
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
joe, are yous ure a .22 can penetrate a human skull? That is my only issue. if i am sure a .22 can get through teh skull, then i like it.
Although, my personal preference-a .50 caliber 2 mile range antitank sniper. Absolutely overpowered, lots of noise…but the fact that you are disentigrating a zombie makes it all worth it if you haev a group with you taht can handle short range.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
The Israeli Mossad used .22 LR for their executions, albeit at rather close range. I’m reasonably sure that it would work. Human skulls are not that thick. At worst, you have a two shots to one kill ratio, because the first would significantly weaken the skull and the second would penetrate. My understanding, though, is that a .22 has enough power to get into but not out of the skull.
a .50 cal is waaaaay too much, unless you’re entrenched on the top of a building that is inaccessible to zombies. It’s too heavy to carry any amount of it any distance, for one thing. For another, if you actually want to hit anything from 2 miles, the better approach is running, hiding, or finding a defensible position and wait for them to come to you.
If you have a group of people, then a .22 is even better. With rapid reloading, plenty of ammo, and cool heads, you can hold off a LOT of zombies for quite some time. A .22 can be fitted with a Daisy Red-Dot sight that makes it easy enough to operate that you could teach someone the basics in a few minutes.
Anyway, I see your points about the .50 cal and such. For sustained fire, though, it’s just not efficient.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Ok, I’m convinced. Although, if I have lots of zombies, then I would rather have an M1 Carbine, or a Garand, because then its a guaranteed kill it it hits. The .22 I might use as a sidearm, though.