guns ? what would u have

oger333 · Unread post by **oger333** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:05 am

I've been thinking would you want an assault rifles or a sub machine gun , a pistol and a shot gun is a given but a 5.56mm or a 9mm or .45 sub machine gun . and ok for those others 7.62x39

azazel1024 · Unread post by **azazel1024** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:28 pm

Keep in mind your method of travel. On foot you are not going to be able to carry much if you also need to worry about food, water and survival/backpacking gear.

If I had a vehicle, well as much as I could pack in around my supplies. If I was on foot, I'd try to go with a Ruger mini-14 in 5.56/.223 with a collapsable stock and a 4x38mm telescopic sight. I'd try to carry about 8 mags of 20rnds a piece and some reloads.

I'd also go with a 9mm semi-auto of some sort with at least 4 mags and some reloads. Flashlight slung under both weapons for night time and in building operations.

As another possibility I'd go with a 12 gauge pump with at least a 5 round capacity (preferably 7 or 8 round) instead of the mini ruger, a bandolier with a >30 round capacity for ready ammo access and at least a couple of boxes (IE 40+rnds) of shells in my pack. I'd stick mostly with 00 buck, but I'd accept slug as well.

That is if I was going with civilian weapons.

If I could access military gear, I'd go in on an MP5 or UMP (in 9mm) with 8-10 mags and some reloads along with the side arm probably in .40S&W as that has gotten to be a pretty common calibre now.

You need to keep it as light as you can. At a minimum if you want to survive most weather "out in the open" you are going to need at least 20lbs of gear, supposing you can get some ultralight backpacker survival gear, not including food and water. Since you aren't going to be able to scavenging dehydrated meals very often, with regular food you are looking at about 3lbs of food per day if on the move and you are going to want at least 10lbs of water per day as well depending on climate. Water, if you have purification techniques you don't really need more than maybe a days worth on you at any given time, unless you are in a very arid climate. Food, I'd assume you'd want at least a couple of days worth in case you strike out scavenging stuff, fishing, hunting or foraging local berries and stuff.

So that is another maybe 15lbs of food and water on top of your 20lbs. You are now up to 35lbs. That is fine for just about anyone in even modest shape to carry on their back 8-10 miles a day. Now add in a long gun, anything from 6-15lbs. A side arm, 1-2lbs and you are up to 42-52lbs depending on the weapon systems. That is at the limit or beyond the limit for most people in modest shape. Now you are talking needing to be in pretty good shape to be able to hike on paved roads or at least smooth and fairly level dirt paths for more than 8-10 miles in a day.

Ammo isn't a free ride either. a 30rnd palstic mag of 5.56 is around pound IIRC (like .8-.9lbs). Weapons that use or you only commonly find metal magazines tend to weigh about twice as much. An AK47 using metal magazines weighs about 2lbs for a single magazine of 7.62x39mm.

So you need to focus on a single light weight "long gun" and a single side arm and keep the ammo for both minimal. 8 20rnd mags of 5.56 is going to weigh around 4-5lbs. 4 mags of 9mm for something like a Barreta 92 is going to be about another 2lbs, the berreta about 2lbs as well and the mini ruger 14 about 6lbs. So weapons as a whole you've got 15lbs of ammo and guns.

Also you probably want a "melee" weapon, but keep it light like a good machete (about 1-1.5lb for a decent one).

So 20lbs of basic survival gear, 15lbs of food/water and 15 or so lbs of weapons and ammo and you are up to 50lbs. Personally, and I do A LOT of backpacking, that is about my limit and still be able to cover a resonable distance on fairly level ground day in day out. As a comparison I carried in about 40lbs hiking the grand canyon. About 9.5 miles down and 9.5 miles out in 105F heat down at the bottom of the canyon this past August (about 5,000ft down and 5,000 vertical feet up). One day down one day out. After I hiked out I was just about worthless the entire rest of the next day and pretty sore for a couple of days after that.

Typically on the AT (appalachian trail) I'll do around 12-16 miles in a day with about 45lbs on my back day in and day out with maybe 2,000ft of vertical change in a day.

Again, I am very fit and I do this alot. If I had to go with 50lbs of gear I'd probably want to cut 1-2 miles off per day. If I had to go with 55lbs of gear I'd probably cut it down to no more than 10 miles per day. 60lbs maybe 7-8 miles and honestly I don't think I could/would attempt it with more than 60lbs of gear and plan on any kind of repeatable distance every day. A lot of 5-10 mile days with a day or so of rest between. The furthest/most I ever managed was with about 40lbs of gear I managed 32 miles in a single day and again I was worthless for about 2-3 days afterwards. The most repeatable distance I have covered is around that 16 mile mark with roughly 40-45lbs on my back.

You could potentially reduce the amount of food/water you carried to "free up weight". But then you'd be in the crap position if you couldn't find food or water. Food is less of a concern, because you can always binge when you do come across a bounty and just keep a day's worth of food on you leaving the binge spot and just hope you find sufficient food to caloricly catch up within a few days. More than about a day without food though and your energy level is going to plumet putting you at risk, even if you could go 5-6 days without food and pretty heavy exertion (though what defines heavy exertion is going to drop every day. By the last day or two pretty heavy exertion might be carrying 40lbs on your back 2-3 miles in a day on level ground). Water you are more pwned by.

My can go maybe a day without water before you severly impair yourself. Dehydration is going to reduce your ability to exert yourself within 24hrs especially if you are exerting hard. You might live one more day if exerting hard. At rest you might be able to go 24-36hrs without drinking without it being a serious issue (other than being really thirsty), but after that you'll start getting reduced energy levels, headaches, dizziness, nausea and impaired mental ability. You might last 2 more days before dying after that if you aren't exerting yourself.

Just some thoughts on the whole "what would you arm yourself with". As above, that would be my basic kit and the ammo I'd try to schlep EVERYWHERE. If I had a vehicle, even just a bike I'd try to carry more.

Zamion138 · Unread post by **Zamion138** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:29 pm

If I was on foot, an m4 if I can get one, with an acog on top and side mounted iron sights at the 3ocloack postion as back up, for a handgun id take a 9mm either an XDm-9mm or a 92FS, perferably with a silencer option.
If I had a car or base or even a cart I used Id carry an AK-47 due to its rugged build and less likely to brake status. it is alot heavier though than the AR's so only if I wasnt cross country on foot. Id sujest one chinese style drum and 8 to 10 30round mags.
For a shot gun that new Kel-tec shotgun with the two tubes is pretty swank and bull pup design is cool. one tube buckshot one tube slug. if I was on foot I wouldnt take the shot gun the m4 or ar would be enough, The wieght of the shotgun Id just carry more ammo

Id probaly cary a ruger mk3 with sub sonics or a 10-22 if I got great at head shots , way quiter and lighter and more accurate than most guns, and subsonic rounds are hugely plentifull for .22lr, Id also a gen3 or higher night vision scope on any rifle I could as it would make night time feel less scary and all.

The .22lr is a great bullet for survival and works for defense in a pinch, your usaly able to get a string of 3 bullets on target and have a large magazine to try again if you miss. its ultra light and you can cary 500 rounds for the weight of 1 loaded AK mag. great for small game and not as threatening to possible human guards of citys and outposts as well as roving bands of looters might not want to jack you for your gun as much as a .mil rifle with all the gizmos hanging off of it.
If I got my way all of my ammo would be subsonic and silenced to make fewer zombies come when I shoot. since thats a tough thing to get Id perfer soft point ammo for the rifle and hollow points for the pistols.

Palladium zombies being so "armored" Id take AP ammo , for all other zombie settings I wouldnt want it.

Grell · Unread post by **Grell** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:33 pm

I agree with your thoughts on the .22LR full heartedly.

Ranger · Unread post by **Ranger** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:47 pm

I would like the UDP in .45 and an FNP .45, would like to also have 10 mags (30 rounds)for the UDP and 4 (15 rounds) for the pistol. Since both use .45, I can interchange the bullets between them. As for a back up, would like a Glock (9mm) with 2 mags. Need to have a melee weapon (machette or katana).

Like the idea of keeping a 22 rifle around for hunting.

For survival gear, agree with the above.

Severus Snape · Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:30 am

For a pistol, I'll take a pair of 9mm's. You can get the rail flashlight (under mount on the barrel for most models), and most of those lights come with the laser pointer. Makes hitting a target all that more easy. Not to mention that 9mm ammo is really common and easy to come by.

As my backup weapon, assuming I need one, I'll take a desert AR-15. Light enough to carry for extended periods, and fires the 7.62mm shell. Again, common round which can be found everywhere.

batlchip · Unread post by **batlchip** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:06 am

I'd go with a 30-06 hunting rifle and my 1911 colt.The shotgun would be a Mossberg 500 with a mix of regular slug,buck or custom slug and ball rounds.If I could have a military weapon and not the hunting rifle than it would be the M14.

Zamion138 · Unread post by **Zamion138** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:36 pm

Severus Snape wrote:For a pistol, I'll take a pair of 9mm's. You can get the rail flashlight (under mount on the barrel for most models), and most of those lights come with the laser pointer. Makes hitting a target all that more easy. Not to mention that 9mm ammo is really common and easy to come by.

As my backup weapon, assuming I need one, I'll take a desert AR-15. Light enough to carry for extended periods, and fires the 7.62mm shell. Again, common round which can be found everywhere.

You must be a heck of a shot if the rifle is your back up weapon hehehe
You use a pistol to fight to your way to a rifle.

Severus Snape · Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:31 am

Zamion138 wrote:
Severus Snape wrote:For a pistol, I'll take a pair of 9mm's. You can get the rail flashlight (under mount on the barrel for most models), and most of those lights come with the laser pointer. Makes hitting a target all that more easy. Not to mention that 9mm ammo is really common and easy to come by.

As my backup weapon, assuming I need one, I'll take a desert AR-15. Light enough to carry for extended periods, and fires the 7.62mm shell. Again, common round which can be found everywhere.

You must be a heck of a shot if the rifle is your back up weapon hehehe
You use a pistol to fight to your way to a rifle.

I consider myself a decent shot, but I'm not all navy seal over here either.

The AR-15 is my backup weapon because I'm not stupid enough to put myself in a situation where I'm surrounded by zombies, thereby only really needing the 9s. I'm not gonna be Shane and Otis (even if it means someone dies), I'm not gonna go traipsing through a major city for supplies, and I'm not going anywhere alone. The 9s should do it, assuming that whoever I'm with also has firepower.

See - fight smarter, not harder.

azazel1024 · Unread post by **azazel1024** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:51 am

If it wasn't such an ammo issue, I'd go with a FN P90 plus FN five-seven pistol to back it up. Ammo is nice and light, it has execellent range, very flat trajectories and excellent penetration and the P90 by most accounts is pretty accurate as well.

Downside is 5.7mm ammo is pretty damned uncommon.

Tearstone · Unread post by **Tearstone** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:03 pm

Snape, my friend, one big problem with the Shane/Otis situation is that they were going to essentially Ground Zero. The school was set up as a disaster relief center. As would be most schools, stadiums, arenas, civic centers, and so on. The Walkers tend to stay in the area that they reanimated in. So, that being said, they would still be very dense in the area, and wouldn't have migrated away.

Something like a warehouse in the middle of a warehouse district... Most people don't go there much at all, much less if the entire world is turning up sick,and there's madness in the streets. Some warehouse is likely not on anyone's mind except the guys and girls that work there, and maybe the owners. That's it. Much lower population if any.

Most places like that are zoned away from residential areas and other businesses. A lot of them have access to business interstate accesses, rather than main interstate access. The business interstates are less traveled by motorists, but you will find semi's and big-rigs out there more. Those can be goldmines in and of themselves when it comes to supplies. However, to get at them you might have to go through a graveyard.

Even a graveyard can be a goldmine. However, dealing with one can be a nightmare. There -are- ways to handle them though.

In a private game going on that I'm largely DMing, the characters have holed up in the upper Colorado area, in the mountains. Its isolated and remote, but lots of game and such for hunting, a strong survivalist community in the area, and lots of places to raid for supplies.

The area has a number of vehicle graveyards to deal with and often the survivors at the local safehaven will take a day now and again to go and focus on clearing one of them out. And they do so systematically. I think I'm going to write up their proceedures in a seperate thread.

Zamion138 · Unread post by **Zamion138** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:08 pm

Severus Snape wrote:
Zamion138 wrote:
Severus Snape wrote:For a pistol, I'll take a pair of 9mm's. You can get the rail flashlight (under mount on the barrel for most models), and most of those lights come with the laser pointer. Makes hitting a target all that more easy. Not to mention that 9mm ammo is really common and easy to come by.

As my backup weapon, assuming I need one, I'll take a desert AR-15. Light enough to carry for extended periods, and fires the 7.62mm shell. Again, common round which can be found everywhere.

You must be a heck of a shot if the rifle is your back up weapon hehehe
You use a pistol to fight to your way to a rifle.

I consider myself a decent shot, but I'm not all navy seal over here either.

The AR-15 is my backup weapon because I'm not stupid enough to put myself in a situation where I'm surrounded by zombies, thereby only really needing the 9s. I'm not gonna be Shane and Otis (even if it means someone dies), I'm not gonna go traipsing through a major city for supplies, and I'm not going anywhere alone. The 9s should do it, assuming that whoever I'm with also has firepower.

See - fight smarter, not harder.

A rifle will always be more acurate than a pistol and amlost always have more stoping power, when it comes to a Rilfe vs pistol, Ill almost always choose the rifle. higher capacity, better range and all that. A pistols best thing is that you can cary it on you with out the world knowning but in a world where people look at you wierd if your un-armed that is alot less of a factor.
Also you think your smart enough but hunger has a way of making you do crazy things. Like say well I suppose we could go check that truck for a meal it might be carrying something good. Try hunting a deer or rabit with a 9mm its alot easier with a rifle or shotgun, by alot I mean 10x easier.....I dont know not saying your automaticly zed food but a rifle in my mind always wins against a pistol when being hidden isnt a factor.

azazel1024 · Unread post by **azazel1024** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:03 am

With a rifle it is also a lot easier to beat a zombie about the head with at a distance such that it isn't as likely to make you its brethern.

I would not relish attempting to bash in a zombies head with a pistol.

Severus Snape · Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:31 am

If I'm attempting to bash in the skull of a zombie with the butt of a pistol or rifle, then things are already so bad that either weapon is going to be useless to me even WITH ammo.

The AR-15 is my backup weapon because it's easier to carry and use the 9s. That doesn't mean I'm not going to use it - I just prefer to use the 9s. I'm not going to go hunting with a handgun, and to imply that I would is just idiocy. Sorry, Zam, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Where on earth did you get that I'd hunt with a handgun out of my post stating that the AR-15 was my backup weapon? I stated plainly that I prefer the 9s, with the 15 as my backup. I mean, hunting is a no-brainer - use a rifle. I'm not gonna shoot at a deer with a 9. :rolleyes:

I still stick with my original post in saying that I prefer the 9s. Common ammo, easier to carry, easier to use. I'm not gonna put myself in a situation where I'm totally screwed over. I would not go into the school (or any other location that was being used as an evac/crisis center due to the large number of zombies that are going to be present there.

Trooper Jim · Unread post by **Trooper Jim** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:33 am

DPMS M4gery with EOTech and backup irons. A Glock 22 with TLR1. Or even a Beretta92FS.

Torval · Unread post by **Torval** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:23 am

Since there was no specification as to what role the firearm would be used for I am going to list mine with their intended roles. I am also going to restrict this only to firearms which I only own for the first list.

Handgun (Make; Model; Caliber):Glock; 17; 9mm
Shotgun (Make; Model; Gauge): Remington; 870; 12 ga
Hunting Rifle (Make; Model; Caliber): Remington; 700 ADL; .270
Defensive Rifle (Make; Model; Caliber): Remington; 700 ADL; .270
Miscellaneous Firearm (Make; Model; Caliber): Glenfield(Marlin); 60; .22lr

Truth be told, I would try to use the Glenfield for hunting most of my game unless I felt the animal was too large to ensure a kill with a it. As you can see, I listed the same rifle as both my hunting rifle and my defensive rifle. Truth be told, I have other rifles which I had use as a defensive rifle but for the sake of trying to keep gear at a minimum, I decided to allow that rifle to fill both roles.

For this second list, I will allow myself to include firearms which I do not own but could purchase in my local area without problems.

Handgun (Make; Model; Caliber): Glock; 17; 9mm
Shotgun (Make; Model; Gauge): Browning; A5; 12ga
Hunting Rifle (Make; Model; Caliber): PSA 20" AR-15; 6.8spc
Defensive Rifle (Make; Model; Caliber): PSA 20" AR-15; 6.8spc
Miscellaneous Firearm (Make; Model; Caliber): Glenfield(Marlin); 60; .22lr

I have plenty of experience with all of these firearms, minus the AR-15. I have never shot an AR-15 but have had my mind set that I would like to purchase or build one at some point. Again, I chose to make my hunting rifle the same as my defensive rifle and would still opt to use the .22 as much as possible in the hunting role.

Edit: This is assuming that I have a decent stockpile of ammunition to start. Obviously 6.8spc is more of a niche ammo although it does seem to be turning more mainstream.

kaneman19 · Unread post by **kaneman19** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:35 pm

remington 700 bolt action chambered for 300win mag with a good scope
mossberg pump shotgun 12ga
hoyt trubo hawk compound bow 70 pound pull back 310fps
hand gun what ever i can find

Pepsi Jedi · Unread post by **Pepsi Jedi** » Mon May 14, 2012 1:12 am

1: Pistol: Springfield XDM .40S&W, 15+1 capacity. http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp- ... -slide.gif
2: Shotgun: KelTec KSG, 12 Guage, 7+7+1 Capacity. (( yes it'll hold 15 shotgun shells, and is only 26 inches long.)) http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm20 ... G_4650.jpg
3: Rifle: AR15 5.56MM (( there are so many kinds and different customizations that this one could be almost anything.
4: Knife: Ka-bar Famine, http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Ka-Bar-ZK-Famine ... ~~60_3.JPG
5: Pocket knife: Gerber Skeleton http://www.southwestgerberknives.com/co ... b79eb5.gif
6: Crowbar: Stanly Fubar ((long one)) http://img.hgtvpro.com/HPRO/2008/07/29/ ... 3_w609.jpg.
7: Tactical tomahawk: M48 Ranger hawk. http://www.passionepericoltelli.com/images/P1070137.JPG

batlchip · Unread post by **batlchip** » Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 am

azazel1024 wrote:If it wasn't such an ammo issue, I'd go with a FN P90 plus FN five-seven pistol to back it up. Ammo is nice and light, it has execellent range, very flat trajectories and excellent penetration and the P90 by most accounts is pretty accurate as well.

Downside is 5.7mm ammo is pretty damned uncommon.

I like the FN P90 as well, I am wondering what melee weapon would you use?

Talmonis · Unread post by **Talmonis** » Mon May 14, 2012 8:32 am

Mossburg pump-action shotgun, crossbow, 9mm pistol. Machete for close encounters. Ice pick or two in the chest bandolier for even closer encounters.

Though if I'm defending my encampment, I'd prefer a night scoped .308 Weatherby Vanguard and a load of ammunition. Shotgun for getting to the evac vehicles in one piece, and a .45 for myself and the children if it's all over.

azazel1024 · Unread post by **azazel1024** » Mon May 14, 2012 9:29 am

batlchip wrote:
azazel1024 wrote:If it wasn't such an ammo issue, I'd go with a FN P90 plus FN five-seven pistol to back it up. Ammo is nice and light, it has execellent range, very flat trajectories and excellent penetration and the P90 by most accounts is pretty accurate as well.

Downside is 5.7mm ammo is pretty damned uncommon.

I like the FN P90 as well, I am wondering what melee weapon would you use?

I'd probably fashion, or if they make it (too much research for me at the moment) A K-bar style bayonet for the FN P90. Its a short weapon, so you lose a bit of the effectiveness, but never hurts to have a sticker on the end of your rifle/SMG.

That and for a slightly longer reach melee weapon (well, longer reach when not mounted on the rifle), I'd probably go with a nice titanium crowbar with a little bit of pipe wrap around the bottom of it for padding. A good old fashioned hexagonal steel crow bar can certainly work in a pinch, but frankly you don't need all that weight in it. I'd rather have a bit more swing speed and go with a 24 or 30" titanium crowbar.

Alternately I'd go with a 2.5lb fiberglass wood cutting axe. Nice and multipurpose. Bashing in back, chopping in the front and not too heavy.

King Newt · Unread post by **King Newt** » Mon May 14, 2012 3:19 pm

My choice would simply be a .12 gauge pump. I live in farm country and I personally know where 4 12 gauges are. Unfortunately none are in my house. There is a lot of ammo in the area I am sure.

dargo83 · Unread post by **dargo83** » Mon May 14, 2012 7:47 pm

ill take 2 of these please http://www.gods-inc.de/macavity/IsleOfS ... _EA01.html

Pepsi Jedi · Unread post by **Pepsi Jedi** » Mon May 14, 2012 9:13 pm

Eh. Why would you need an avalanche gun? And other than a jeep, how would you move it?

Pepsi Jedi · Unread post by **Pepsi Jedi** » Mon May 14, 2012 9:56 pm

It's just one of those things, like you said, not very practical. You don't need to shoot a zombie at a mile out. Just.. Don't get it's attention. lol And if you do want to kill it. Just get closer. 50 cal ammo is what. $8, $10 a round these days? After the rise, it's going to be impossible to find out side of military and even then, whoo. If the gun is 40 -70lbs it's not like you'll take it out lookin' for water or anything.

A fixed emplacement, defending a settlement, kept on hand, like you said, incase one of the mushed mounds of zombies show up, sure. out side of that... they're REALLY fun to look at, but wildly impractical for use in a zombie rise.

Ice Dragon · Unread post by **Ice Dragon** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:52 am

My choice would be:

- Aussault rifle: AUG - standard 5,56mm NATO (can be found anywhere)
- Pistol: Glock 17 - standard 9x19 Para (can be found anywhere)
- Pistol: HK USP - standard .45ACP (can be found anywhere)
- Sniper/Hunting Rifle: Steyr Tactical Elite - standard .308 Win (can be found anywhere); Ok, it is not a .50 sniper rifle, but why should you kill one range of 1 mile or more
- Saber or machete if I run out of ammo

Deckard1973 · Unread post by **Deckard1973** » Wed May 23, 2012 9:33 am

In Dead Reign setting, you need a suppressed Ruger 10/22, and suppressed Ruger MkII/III pistol. The noise level of un-suppressed weapons will only increase the number of converging zombies and make your life that much more interesting . . . and likely short. Recoil/reacquisition of target is faster. Head shots past 100yrds from the off hand and under stress (e.g. running), even with a optic are unlikely. Take the sure shot. You can carry more ammo for the same weight, and the .22LR is a very common round.

As back up for the non-dead unfriendlies or tough nut walkers, .45ACP (HK USP), and something in 7.62x51NATO.

M16/M4/AR15 = POS. It is the Honda Civic of the long gun world. It is cheap (in both senses of the word), lots of accessories out there. Does not mean it is the best. There is a reason why it breaks down easily in the field . . . requires constant cleaning to ensure reliable functionality. I lugged a M4 around AFG for a year. I hate that thing. It is light, but I would of traded it in for a M14. The 5.56NATO is an anemic round. % of one shot one kill falls off a cliff past 200yrds. (Note: I am making real world references. In PB settings, a lot of these issues can be mitigated by wave of the GMs hand or roll of the die)

Torval · Unread post by **Torval** » Thu May 24, 2012 12:55 pm

Deckard1973 wrote:M16/M4/AR15 = POS. It is the Honda Civic of the long gun world. It is cheap (in both senses of the word), lots of accessories out there. Does not mean it is the best. There is a reason why it breaks down easily in the field . . . requires constant cleaning to ensure reliable functionality.

Not to be a jerk or fuel an argument but out of curiosity, do you have any real world experience to back up these claims? I have not served in the armed forces but have several friends who have retired or are currently serving and they swear by their black rifles. Each of them have told me that the functionality issues are dramatically overstated on the internet.

For my own bit of information from my personal experience with the multitude of firearms that I do own...I greatly appreciate a firearm that offers ease of dis-assembly and maintenance. Just because something is easier to take care of does not make it junk.

For instance, I love my Glock 17. It is incredibly easy to break down and clean if necessary and still functions flawlessly every single time. I could make the argument that the glock is the honda civic of the auto-loading pistol world but does that actually have any bearing on functionality or quality? No.

I apologize in advance if you have real world experience to back up your claims about the AR; however, I see a lot of people who pretty consistently just repeat information that they have read online over and over as if it is some prophetic message from the heavens. More often than not, those people haven't even held an AR-15, much less fired one.

Edit: I reread your original post and see that you stated you lugged an M4 around Afghanistan so that would substantiate your claims to why you dislike the platform(how the hell did I miss that the first time through). You can ignore what I said about the real world experience on your end but my opinion about ease of care still stands and I think my example of the G17 is still a great example.

Torval · Unread post by **Torval** » Thu May 24, 2012 1:09 pm

Deckard1973 wrote: The 5.56NATO is an anemic round. % of one shot one kill falls off a cliff past 200yrds. (Note: I am making real world references. In PB settings, a lot of these issues can be mitigated by wave of the GMs hand or roll of the die)

This is just an after thought that I had. I can understand your displeasure for the 5.56 and have seen plenty of ballistic evidence to back up what you say; however, my concern is why you're worried about engaging zombies from 200+ yards of distance. I can agree that there would be some situations where that would be beneficial but I think they would be very few and far between.

Pepsi Jedi · Unread post by **Pepsi Jedi** » Thu May 24, 2012 1:17 pm

Torval wrote:
Deckard1973 wrote: The 5.56NATO is an anemic round. % of one shot one kill falls off a cliff past 200yrds. (Note: I am making real world references. In PB settings, a lot of these issues can be mitigated by wave of the GMs hand or roll of the die)

This is just an after thought that I had. I can understand your displeasure for the 5.56 and have seen plenty of ballistic evidence to back up what you say; however, my concern is why you're worried about engaging zombies from 200+ yards of distance. I can agree that there would be some situations where that would be beneficial but I think they would be very few and far between.

I was actually thinking that too. at 200+Yards, sneak and evade, don't call down the swarm/wave on you.

Where it MIGHT come into play, would be defending a fortified position against an oncoming wave of undead. You'll want to take them out as far out as you can to prevent them from Ramping up your walls or something, but yeah. I'd say 98%+ usages for an AR15 is going to be under 200yards, most will be under 100 yards, MOST will be under 50.

Wooly · Unread post by **Wooly** » Thu May 24, 2012 6:01 pm

SCAR-H Standard 16 inch barrel (Mk 17 Mod 0) 7.62 x 51mm NATO with 40mm Enhanced Grenade Launching Module (EGLM).

Surefire FA762K sound suppressor

ELCAN SpecterDR 1.5-6x Dual Role Sight

The AN/PEQ-15 Advanced Target Pointer Illuminator Aiming Light (ATPIAL)

Deckard1973 · Unread post by **Deckard1973** » Fri May 25, 2012 9:05 am

Torval wrote:
Deckard1973 wrote:M16/M4/AR15 = POS. It is the Honda Civic of the long gun world. It is cheap (in both senses of the word), lots of accessories out there. Does not mean it is the best. There is a reason why it breaks down easily in the field . . . requires constant cleaning to ensure reliable functionality.

Not to be a jerk or fuel an argument but out of curiosity, do you have any real world experience to back up these claims? I have not served in the armed forces but have several friends who have retired or are currently serving and they swear by their black rifles. Each of them have told me that the functionality issues are dramatically overstated on the internet.

For my own bit of information from my personal experience with the multitude of firearms that I do own...I greatly appreciate a firearm that offers ease of dis-assembly and maintenance. Just because something is easier to take care of does not make it junk.

For instance, I love my Glock 17. It is incredibly easy to break down and clean if necessary and still functions flawlessly every single time. I could make the argument that the glock is the honda civic of the auto-loading pistol world but does that actually have any bearing on functionality or quality? No.

I apologize in advance if you have real world experience to back up your claims about the AR; however, I see a lot of people who pretty consistently just repeat information that they have read online over and over as if it is some prophetic message from the heavens. More often than not, those people haven't even held an AR-15, much less fired one.

Edit: I reread your original post and see that you stated you lugged an M4 around Afghanistan so that would substantiate your claims to why you dislike the platform(how the hell did I miss that the first time through). You can ignore what I said about the real world experience on your end but my opinion about ease of care still stands and I think my example of the G17 is still a great example.

No worries, I'd ask the same
6 years USMC (Expert rating with the M16), competed NRA High Power Rifle with a Springfield Armory NM M1A, been reloading my own ammo for over 10 years, certified gunsmith.

Deckard1973 · Unread post by **Deckard1973** » Fri May 25, 2012 9:28 am

Torval wrote:
Deckard1973 wrote: The 5.56NATO is an anemic round. % of one shot one kill falls off a cliff past 200yrds. (Note: I am making real world references. In PB settings, a lot of these issues can be mitigated by wave of the GMs hand or roll of the die)

This is just an after thought that I had. I can understand your displeasure for the 5.56 and have seen plenty of ballistic evidence to back up what you say; however, my concern is why you're worried about engaging zombies from 200+ yards of distance. I can agree that there would be some situations where that would be beneficial but I think they would be very few and far between.

Right you are! Hence my initial comment concerning weapons in the Dead Reign setting, a suppressed 10/22 would be more practical then arming up with (insert name of weapon here). The head shot puts zombies down. Taking a head shot past 100yrds and your chance of a sure hit really drops off. Even a slow shuffling zombie a head shot at distance is difficult even under the best situations, never mind while on the move carrying a ruck.

The additional comment about the % of one shot one kill past 200yrds is more for non-dead unfriendlies. Heck the DoD had to come up with the new Enhanced Performance round in 5.56 to over come its short comings!

Deckard1973 · Unread post by **Deckard1973** » Fri May 25, 2012 9:34 am

. . . . going to be under 200yards, most will be under 100 yards, MOST will be under 50.

Agreed. The suppressed 10/22 at 100yrds or less is more than adequate and the suppression helps mitigate convergence issues.

Deckard1973 · Unread post by **Deckard1973** » Fri May 25, 2012 9:55 am

frogboy wrote:
Torval wrote:
Deckard1973 wrote:M16/M4/AR15 = POS. It is the Honda Civic of the long gun world. It is cheap (in both senses of the word), lots of accessories out there. Does not mean it is the best. There is a reason why it breaks down easily in the field . . . requires constant cleaning to ensure reliable functionality.

Not to be a jerk or fuel an argument but out of curiosity, do you have any real world experience to back up these claims? I have not served in the armed forces but have several friends who have retired or are currently serving and they swear by their black rifles. Each of them have told me that the functionality issues are dramatically overstated on the internet.

For my own bit of information from my personal experience with the multitude of firearms that I do own...I greatly appreciate a firearm that offers ease of dis-assembly and maintenance. Just because something is easier to take care of does not make it junk.

For instance, I love my Glock 17. It is incredibly easy to break down and clean if necessary and still functions flawlessly every single time. I could make the argument that the glock is the honda civic of the auto-loading pistol world but does that actually have any bearing on functionality or quality? No.

I apologize in advance if you have real world experience to back up your claims about the AR; however, I see a lot of people who pretty consistently just repeat information that they have read online over and over as if it is some prophetic message from the heavens. More often than not, those people haven't even held an AR-15, much less fired one.

Edit: I reread your original post and see that you stated you lugged an M4 around Afghanistan so that would substantiate your claims to why you dislike the platform(how the hell did I miss that the first time through). You can ignore what I said about the real world experience on your end but my opinion about ease of care still stands and I think my example of the G17 is still a great example.

It is greatly overstated. The AR-15/M-16 is among the most versatile weapon platforms on the planet. It can be had in just about any caliber you can think of as well as being converted to a crossbow. The reliability issues stem from the times when they were first issued. Troops were told that the weapon did not need to be cleaned. There were glitches, but they were straightened out and since then, it has come to be known as an extremely tough weapon. If it was so bad, it would not be used by so many country's, and in so many conflicts in the hands of this country's soldiers. We have used it in Vietnam, Granada, Gulf war 1, Somalia, Operation Deny Flight, Operation Joint Endeavor, the Iraq war, and Afghanistan, not to mention all the little bitty conflicts in between, and most likely the killing of Osama Bin Laden. From a lower and an upper receiver and a de-milled M-16 parts set you can assemble a rifle with very basic hand tools unlike an AK-47. I have 12 years of experience with this weapon (1994-2006) as a combat engineer in the U.S. Navy as a Sea Bee, and have built two on my kitchen table. So yeah, the reliability issues are myths or sloppy maintenance.

No. Really, it is a POS. Any weapon system that injects hot carbon fouling directly into the receiver is fundamentally flawed. The brilliance of the DI system is not performance but production (economics). It is that much cheaper to use a gas tube than a piston and the associated linkage. Notice the recent emergence of gas piston driven actions (FN SCAR, HK G36, HK 416), correcting the Stoner action flaw. They dont get nearly as hot as the DI action either. Fire an M4 on 3rd burst for a full magazine and you will understand. Talk about a PITA cleaning afterwards too.

Deckard1973 · Unread post by **Deckard1973** » Fri May 25, 2012 11:21 am

frogboy wrote:
Deckard1973 wrote:
frogboy wrote:
Torval wrote:
Deckard1973 wrote:M16/M4/AR15 = POS. It is the Honda Civic of the long gun world. It is cheap (in both senses of the word), lots of accessories out there. Does not mean it is the best. There is a reason why it breaks down easily in the field . . . requires constant cleaning to ensure reliable functionality.

Not to be a jerk or fuel an argument but out of curiosity, do you have any real world experience to back up these claims? I have not served in the armed forces but have several friends who have retired or are currently serving and they swear by their black rifles. Each of them have told me that the functionality issues are dramatically overstated on the internet.

For my own bit of information from my personal experience with the multitude of firearms that I do own...I greatly appreciate a firearm that offers ease of dis-assembly and maintenance. Just because something is easier to take care of does not make it junk.

For instance, I love my Glock 17. It is incredibly easy to break down and clean if necessary and still functions flawlessly every single time. I could make the argument that the glock is the honda civic of the auto-loading pistol world but does that actually have any bearing on functionality or quality? No.

I apologize in advance if you have real world experience to back up your claims about the AR; however, I see a lot of people who pretty consistently just repeat information that they have read online over and over as if it is some prophetic message from the heavens. More often than not, those people haven't even held an AR-15, much less fired one.

Edit: I reread your original post and see that you stated you lugged an M4 around Afghanistan so that would substantiate your claims to why you dislike the platform(how the hell did I miss that the first time through). You can ignore what I said about the real world experience on your end but my opinion about ease of care still stands and I think my example of the G17 is still a great example.

It is greatly overstated. The AR-15/M-16 is among the most versatile weapon platforms on the planet. It can be had in just about any caliber you can think of as well as being converted to a crossbow. The reliability issues stem from the times when they were first issued. Troops were told that the weapon did not need to be cleaned. There were glitches, but they were straightened out and since then, it has come to be known as an extremely tough weapon. If it was so bad, it would not be used by so many country's, and in so many conflicts in the hands of this country's soldiers. We have used it in Vietnam, Granada, Gulf war 1, Somalia, Operation Deny Flight, Operation Joint Endeavor, the Iraq war, and Afghanistan, not to mention all the little bitty conflicts in between, and most likely the killing of Osama Bin Laden. From a lower and an upper receiver and a de-milled M-16 parts set you can assemble a rifle with very basic hand tools unlike an AK-47. I have 12 years of experience with this weapon (1994-2006) as a combat engineer in the U.S. Navy as a Sea Bee, and have built two on my kitchen table. So yeah, the reliability issues are myths or sloppy maintenance.

No. Really, it is a POS. Any weapon system that injects hot carbon fouling directly into the receiver is fundamentally flawed. The brilliance of the DI system is not performance but production (economics). It is that much cheaper to use a gas tube than a piston and the associated linkage. Notice the recent emergence of gas piston driven actions (FN SCAR, HK G36, HK 416), correcting the Stoner action flaw. They dont get nearly as hot as the DI action either. Fire an M4 on 3rd burst for a full magazine and you will understand. Talk about a PITA cleaning afterwards too.

I have done both with nothing in the way of cleaning except for a 3 second blast of rem grit through the ejection port and it go's. Heat is a real pain with thees rifles, but that go's for anything that puts that much led down range that fast. It also leads to tons of fowling, but its not hard to clean at all. Cheap production of battle rifles is not a bad thing at all, and does not mean poor quality. As for the round, after 40+ years in production there are bad guys all around the world who would disagree with the comments about its ineffectiveness. Its not a sniping bullet, its meant to go down range in high volume at high velocity. In that regard, it works just fine. Again, if it was so crappy, it would not still be in use as the longest serving battle rifle in this country, or in the hands of soldiers of other nations, not to mention the fact that just about every police department will have a patrol unit hauling the thing around in a car. If it was such garbage, and so hard to maintain that just would not be the case.

Well, I dont know what level you Sea Bees were held to, but squeeze trigger once, minimum of 1.5 hours cleaning before I could turn it into a USMC armory.

I own a FNAR. I can shoot it all day long, and the one part I have to really scrub is the gas plug. The rest of the parts only need a wipe down with a clean cloth. The bolt will have a little carbon on its face, but taken care with 3 or 4 q-tips.
M16, carbon fouling inside the upper receiver, lower receiver, all over the bolt, bolt face, bolt carrier group, firing pin etc. No easy wiping the carbon off the bolt with a rag. Bust out the cleaning kit, the brass brush and start scrubbing!

The M16 is a product of the Defense Acquisition Cycle: The candidate that met the most requirements at the cheapest cost wins the bidding contract. Not the best candidate. And the M16 feels cheap. The DoD bought millions of them. It is not economically feasible for them to replace the M16 which is the reason why it has not been replaced. But now after Iraq and AFG the DoD is looking to replace the M16 and its short comings (FNH winning the SCAR contract, the other candidates were piston driven, except Colts submission, but it had the highest failures).
The 5.56 is a failed round. Hence the SOF community requested a better round early in the initial fighting in AFG. The 6.8SPC was the result of that effort. There are several 6.5s out there that could be contenders for a new round, but the DoD, facing a draw down, elected not to switch to a new round, but rather introduce the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round to overcome the shortcomings of the 5.56NATO.
I worked side by side with Coalition Partners in AFG. None of them had the M16. G36s, G3s, AKs were more common.

azazel1024 · Unread post by **azazel1024** » Tue May 29, 2012 12:41 pm

I think one thing you are both missing too is weight of lead. You can carry a fair amount more ammo in 5.56x45 than you can in 7.62x51. At least if you are comparing the two NATO standards for rifles and light/GP machineguns. That was one of the other reasons why we switch back early on in Vietnam from the M14 to the M16 (well, that and the M14 is significantly heavier itself).

I certainly won't disagree that there are better weapons platforms and better bullets, but at the same time, the 5.56 itself has advantages over heavier/other calibers. Disadvantages too, but advantages none the less.

Ignoring the weapons platform, if you are speaking of use against zombies, since you are going to have to go for headshots, unless using something so heavy it is going to tear them apart with hits), caliber has relatively little meaning. I haven't personally witnessed a headshot from a 5.56, but from some range and target shooting (my only experience with guns), it certainly looks like it would have the energy and ballistic performance to "take out" a zombie pretty reliably well beyond 200yds with a headshot. It might not have the ballistic performance to headshot at 1,000yds, but at what I would consider resonable ranges of 0-400yds, it certainly SEEMS like it would have the performance to reliably kill a zombie if you got a headshot (and probably accurate enough within that range with a proper platform).

You also can carry a lot more rounds for the same weight and the round is extremely common between Law Enforcement use, paramilitary orgnization use, US military, NATO use, some allied country use, civilian .223 use, etc that a .223 or 5.56 should be relatively common in a lot of the world to find ammo as well.

Just my personal thoughts on the 5.56 itself at least.

dargo83 · Unread post by **dargo83** » Tue May 29, 2012 2:06 pm

azazel1024 wrote:I think one thing you are both missing too is weight of lead. You can carry a fair amount more ammo in 5.56x45 than you can in 7.62x51. At least if you are comparing the two NATO standards for rifles and light/GP machineguns. That was one of the other reasons why we switch back early on in Vietnam from the M14 to the M16 (well, that and the M14 is significantly heavier itself).

I certainly won't disagree that there are better weapons platforms and better bullets, but at the same time, the 5.56 itself has advantages over heavier/other calibers. Disadvantages too, but advantages none the less.

Ignoring the weapons platform, if you are speaking of use against zombies, since you are going to have to go for headshots, unless using something so heavy it is going to tear them apart with hits), caliber has relatively little meaning. I haven't personally witnessed a headshot from a 5.56, but from some range and target shooting (my only experience with guns), it certainly looks like it would have the energy and ballistic performance to "take out" a zombie pretty reliably well beyond 200yds with a headshot. It might not have the ballistic performance to headshot at 1,000yds, but at what I would consider resonable ranges of 0-400yds, it certainly SEEMS like it would have the performance to reliably kill a zombie if you got a headshot (and probably accurate enough within that range with a proper platform).

You also can carry a lot more rounds for the same weight and the round is extremely common between Law Enforcement use, paramilitary orgnization use, US military, NATO use, some allied country use, civilian .223 use, etc that a .223 or 5.56 should be relatively common in a lot of the world to find ammo as well.

Just my personal thoughts on the 5.56 itself at least.

when i was in the Army there was a case where there was an investigation about troops exicuting al qida (or how ever its spelled) with head shots. the invetigation turned out that the only part of the targets they would se from 200 yards was there heads. so a ar-15, m4, or m16 could kill a zed from 200+yards is a real possibility.

dargo83 · Unread post by **dargo83** » Tue May 29, 2012 2:09 pm

i would take the ar15, m4, or m16 as a primary weapon any day along with several of the converion kits for it like the .410 or the .50cal one for the larger dead heads.

Wooly · Unread post by **Wooly** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:48 am

I can make "head shots" all day out to 300 yards on a stationary target from a prone supported position with a 4 x optic (ACOG) and an AR-15. It isn't some amazing feat of marksmanship.

1 MOA at 300 yards is 3 inches. That means even a 2 or maybe 3 MOA rifle should be able to make head shots. Any dedicated sniper rifles shoots sub MOA generally speaking.

azazel1024 · Unread post by **azazel1024** » Wed May 30, 2012 1:53 pm

Which is a bit of my point, that a 5.56 in the context of an anti-zombie rifle has a number of things to recommend it over a heavier calibre. Unless you need extreme long range, or someone is putting armor/combat helmets on the zombies (and at that, I'd imagine a 5.56 still has the energy to punch through a Class III helmet at a couple of hundred yards still).

You have the ability to carry more ammo for the same weight and a round that is pretty common through out a lot of the world.

Now if you also need protection against human bandits or DO plan to snipe zombies from extreme distances, a 5.56 might not be the IDEAL round, but should still be pretty good.

Wooly · Unread post by **Wooly** » Wed May 30, 2012 4:57 pm

azazel1024 wrote:Which is a bit of my point, that a 5.56 in the context of an anti-zombie rifle has a number of things to recommend it over a heavier calibre. Unless you need extreme long range, or someone is putting armor/combat helmets on the zombies (and at that, I'd imagine a 5.56 still has the energy to punch through a Class III helmet at a couple of hundred yards still).

You have the ability to carry more ammo for the same weight and a round that is pretty common through out a lot of the world.

Now if you also need protection against human bandits or DO plan to snipe zombies from extreme distances, a 5.56 might not be the IDEAL round, but should still be pretty good.

Dedicated anti zombie rifle I would go with a SPR with a 3.5–10×40 mm Leupold LR M3.

The world of Dead Reign there are plenty of human bad guys that do things like hide behind cover, wear body armor, drive vehicles and can be killed/maimed with shots other than head shots. Those factors not to mention the increased range and more hunting utility is why I chose 7.62 x 51mm NATO rifle over a 5.56 x 45mm NATO weapon.

Most characters will end up with a vehicle of some sorts. Protracted firefights are going to bring the zombie horde. So I don't know how much the increased payload of 5.56mm would be an advantage.

Don't get me wrong there is plenty of uses for a 5.56 rifle it is hard to pick a general "do all" rifle. Different tools for the tool box and all that. But if I am forced to choose just one it is going to be a battle rifle in 7.62 NATO.

I carried an M16A4 on two tours in Iraq as an Infantryman. I have no issues with the M16 family of weapons or the 5.56mm round. But I also was primarly employing it in a urban environment with engagement ranges under 300 yards.

Pepsi Jedi · Unread post by **Pepsi Jedi** » Wed May 30, 2012 6:09 pm

Wooly wrote:
azazel1024 wrote:Which is a bit of my point, that a 5.56 in the context of an anti-zombie rifle has a number of things to recommend it over a heavier calibre. Unless you need extreme long range, or someone is putting armor/combat helmets on the zombies (and at that, I'd imagine a 5.56 still has the energy to punch through a Class III helmet at a couple of hundred yards still).

You have the ability to carry more ammo for the same weight and a round that is pretty common through out a lot of the world.

Now if you also need protection against human bandits or DO plan to snipe zombies from extreme distances, a 5.56 might not be the IDEAL round, but should still be pretty good.

Dedicated anti zombie rifle I would go with a SPR with a 3.5–10×40 mm Leupold LR M3.

The world of Dead Reign there are plenty of human bad guys that do things like hide behind cover, wear body armor, drive vehicles and can be killed/maimed with shots other than head shots. Those factors not to mention the increased range and more hunting utility is why I chose 7.62 x 51mm NATO rifle over a 5.56 x 45mm NATO weapon.

Most characters will end up with a vehicle of some sorts. Protracted firefights are going to bring the zombie horde. So I don't know how much the increased payload of 5.56mm would be an advantage.

Don't get me wrong there is plenty of uses for a 5.56 rifle it is hard to pick a general "do all" rifle. Different tools for the tool box and all that. But if I am forced to choose just one it is going to be a battle rifle in 7.62 NATO.

I carried an M16A4 on two tours in Iraq as an Infantryman. I have no issues with the M16 family of weapons or the 5.56mm round. But I also was primarly employing it in a urban environment with engagement ranges under 300 yards.

Would that be your primary environment in a Zombie rise? Or are you heading out to the country? Aren't 99% of all gun battles under 300 yards? Snipers being the exception?

Gamer · Unread post by **Gamer** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Urban yes.
Afghanistan had average ranges in excess of 300.
Had no problem engaging at that range with the M4 or m249.
300m+ mellon popping isn't newsworthy it's pretty average and in Iraq it was really common under 300m.
It was very rare to see a weapon without a scope, even the m249 and m240s had them.

Investigation on head shots against al qaeda?
That's a first, must have been CQ hits.
Head shots were predominate due to the over penetration and lack of dropping targets, head shots dropped them every time and people were getting proficient real fast, even with the SAW.

People in DR running around in full armor? not unless they have some experience with it.
I can't see people who have little to no experience with it running around wearing it.
On those family days when you bring friends and family to see the fun you have, stick one of them in full armor and have them do a 30 yard dash and back and listen to them complain and that is just the armor and not any extra kit.

Deckard1973 · Unread post by **Deckard1973** » Wed May 30, 2012 9:21 pm

azazel1024 wrote:I think one thing you are both missing too is weight of lead. You can carry a fair amount more ammo in 5.56x45 than you can in 7.62x51. At least if you are comparing the two NATO standards for rifles and light/GP machineguns. That was one of the other reasons why we switch back early on in Vietnam from the M14 to the M16 (well, that and the M14 is significantly heavier itself).

I certainly won't disagree that there are better weapons platforms and better bullets, but at the same time, the 5.56 itself has advantages over heavier/other calibers. Disadvantages too, but advantages none the less.

Ignoring the weapons platform, if you are speaking of use against zombies, since you are going to have to go for headshots, unless using something so heavy it is going to tear them apart with hits), caliber has relatively little meaning. I haven't personally witnessed a headshot from a 5.56, but from some range and target shooting (my only experience with guns), it certainly looks like it would have the energy and ballistic performance to "take out" a zombie pretty reliably well beyond 200yds with a headshot. It might not have the ballistic performance to headshot at 1,000yds, but at what I would consider resonable ranges of 0-400yds, it certainly SEEMS like it would have the performance to reliably kill a zombie if you got a headshot (and probably accurate enough within that range with a proper platform).

You also can carry a lot more rounds for the same weight and the round is extremely common between Law Enforcement use, paramilitary orgnization use, US military, NATO use, some allied country use, civilian .223 use, etc that a .223 or 5.56 should be relatively common in a lot of the world to find ammo as well.

Just my personal thoughts on the 5.56 itself at least.

Ah, yes. The infamous weight vs round count argument.
Guess who knew the 5.56NATO 62grn green tip was sub-sonic and tumbling from a M16 (read: 20inch barrel) at 500 yrds and would attack from the elevated position, using PKM, and RPGs (even AK-47 could range us in harassing fire at that range) from 500m. If you said, Aghani Insurgents, CORRECT!!!! Not zombies!
So is it better to have a more rounds that are useless at range or fewer rounds that can get me in the fight?
Distance is your friend.

Carrying weight: have you carried 50lbs of ballistic plate, 2lbs of water, 7lbs of ammo, 7lbs of Kevlar head gear, ran for 500yrds and taken a head shot past 200yrds?

Deckard1973 · Unread post by **Deckard1973** » Wed May 30, 2012 9:34 pm

dargo83 wrote:
azazel1024 wrote:I think one thing you are both missing too is weight of lead. You can carry a fair amount more ammo in 5.56x45 than you can in 7.62x51. At least if you are comparing the two NATO standards for rifles and light/GP machineguns. That was one of the other reasons why we switch back early on in Vietnam from the M14 to the M16 (well, that and the M14 is significantly heavier itself).

I certainly won't disagree that there are better weapons platforms and better bullets, but at the same time, the 5.56 itself has advantages over heavier/other calibers. Disadvantages too, but advantages none the less.

Ignoring the weapons platform, if you are speaking of use against zombies, since you are going to have to go for headshots, unless using something so heavy it is going to tear them apart with hits), caliber has relatively little meaning. I haven't personally witnessed a headshot from a 5.56, but from some range and target shooting (my only experience with guns), it certainly looks like it would have the energy and ballistic performance to "take out" a zombie pretty reliably well beyond 200yds with a headshot. It might not have the ballistic performance to headshot at 1,000yds, but at what I would consider resonable ranges of 0-400yds, it certainly SEEMS like it would have the performance to reliably kill a zombie if you got a headshot (and probably accurate enough within that range with a proper platform).

You also can carry a lot more rounds for the same weight and the round is extremely common between Law Enforcement use, paramilitary orgnization use, US military, NATO use, some allied country use, civilian .223 use, etc that a .223 or 5.56 should be relatively common in a lot of the world to find ammo as well.

Just my personal thoughts on the 5.56 itself at least.

when i was in the Army there was a case where there was an investigation about troops exicuting al qida (or how ever its spelled) with head shots. the invetigation turned out that the only part of the targets they would se from 200 yards was there heads. so a ar-15, m4, or m16 could kill a zed from 200+yards is a real possibility.

The army cannot shoot past 300yrds.

Deckard1973 · Unread post by **Deckard1973** » Wed May 30, 2012 9:40 pm

Wooly wrote:I can make "head shots" all day out to 300 yards on a stationary target from a prone supported position with a 4 x optic (ACOG) and an AR-15. It isn't some amazing feat of marksmanship.

1 MOA at 300 yards is 3 inches. That means even a 2 or maybe 3 MOA rifle should be able to make head shots. Any dedicated sniper rifles shoots sub MOA generally speaking.

Yeah, no kidding. I can make human sized stationary target shots all out to 600m from the prone all day long. I always out shot my Major at the 600m line with a NM Springfield M1A 168grn BTHP vs his Rock River AR15 80grn VLD (could only be single round loaded).

Try running 3miles under 22min and taking a head shot from the unsupported standing off hand. A more realistic zombie shot.

Deckard1973 · Unread post by **Deckard1973** » Wed May 30, 2012 9:44 pm

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Wooly wrote:
azazel1024 wrote:Aren't 99% of all gun battles under 300 yards? Snipers being the exception?

I know some AFG insurgents who would beg to differ.

Wooly · Unread post by **Wooly** » Wed May 30, 2012 10:01 pm

Deckard1973 wrote:
dargo83 wrote:
azazel1024 wrote:I think one thing you are both missing too is weight of lead. You can carry a fair amount more ammo in 5.56x45 than you can in 7.62x51. At least if you are comparing the two NATO standards for rifles and light/GP machineguns. That was one of the other reasons why we switch back early on in Vietnam from the M14 to the M16 (well, that and the M14 is significantly heavier itself).

I certainly won't disagree that there are better weapons platforms and better bullets, but at the same time, the 5.56 itself has advantages over heavier/other calibers. Disadvantages too, but advantages none the less.

Ignoring the weapons platform, if you are speaking of use against zombies, since you are going to have to go for headshots, unless using something so heavy it is going to tear them apart with hits), caliber has relatively little meaning. I haven't personally witnessed a headshot from a 5.56, but from some range and target shooting (my only experience with guns), it certainly looks like it would have the energy and ballistic performance to "take out" a zombie pretty reliably well beyond 200yds with a headshot. It might not have the ballistic performance to headshot at 1,000yds, but at what I would consider resonable ranges of 0-400yds, it certainly SEEMS like it would have the performance to reliably kill a zombie if you got a headshot (and probably accurate enough within that range with a proper platform).

You also can carry a lot more rounds for the same weight and the round is extremely common between Law Enforcement use, paramilitary orgnization use, US military, NATO use, some allied country use, civilian .223 use, etc that a .223 or 5.56 should be relatively common in a lot of the world to find ammo as well.

Just my personal thoughts on the 5.56 itself at least.

when i was in the Army there was a case where there was an investigation about troops exicuting al qida (or how ever its spelled) with head shots. the invetigation turned out that the only part of the targets they would se from 200 yards was there heads. so a ar-15, m4, or m16 could kill a zed from 200+yards is a real possibility.

The army cannot shoot past 300yrds.

Training issue. When you shoot for qual on pop up ranges exclusively you don't learn the fundamentals of marksmanship.

Marines train and quals on KD courses as well as pop up courses of fire.

Not trying to start a inner service rivalry pissing match just my observations.

Wooly · Unread post by **Wooly** » Wed May 30, 2012 10:03 pm

Deckard1973 wrote:
Wooly wrote:I can make "head shots" all day out to 300 yards on a stationary target from a prone supported position with a 4 x optic (ACOG) and an AR-15. It isn't some amazing feat of marksmanship.

1 MOA at 300 yards is 3 inches. That means even a 2 or maybe 3 MOA rifle should be able to make head shots. Any dedicated sniper rifles shoots sub MOA generally speaking.

Yeah, no kidding. I can make human sized stationary target shots all out to 600m from the prone all day long. I always out shot my Major at the 600m line with a NM Springfield M1A 168grn BTHP vs his Rock River AR15 80grn VLD (could only be single round loaded).

Try running 3miles under 22min and taking a head shot from the unsupported standing off hand. A more realistic zombie shot.

If I am facing zombie hordes running is my last resort plan. Note this would also make for a very boring adventure/game. Defense in depth with accurate, scoped, suppressed weapons engaging at range and only when absolutely necessary. Better yet hide and don't shoot at all. I guess the question is how long can your food, water and other consumables last.