A guy with two swords would survive longer in a zombie apocalypse than a guy with two guns, no matter what kind, assuming both a considered experts in their killing methods, amirite?
Yeah. That would be my choice medium and close range weapon. Ideally, I'd have two long (more than 1m, not sure if they make them) katanas, a SAR 21 rifle and that.
yeah but using one sword is usually more effective than duel wielding anyway, same goes for the gun. duel wielding with most weapons is very awkward and difficult unless if you are ambidextrous.
One of the given factors is that the guy is a dual sword master. Either way, in the case of zombies, which are usually depicted as slow, numerous and rotting, you don't need much strength to dismember one, but you'd need two weapons to deal with being surrounded.
I think you are greatly underestimating just how difficult it is to cut through the human body with a sword. your sword is not going to cut a path through a horde of zombies nor will it prevent them from getting a hold of you. if you were to try such you would surely die.
I dunno... The zombies are rotting flesh and their bones aren't all that strong. If a sword master can handle several real humans at once dual wielding, I'm pretty sure he could handle a horde of zombies. Only maybe four can attack at any one point, and their slowness helps a lot.
you cannot just chop your way through a wall of murderous flesh no matter how decomposed. in order to kill a zombie you must destroy the brain anyway, so even if you could chop through their bodies they would still be grabbing and biting as they fall to the ground and crawl towards you.
a severed head can still bite. and people come in all shapes and sizes if your cutting down a horde as you claim to be possible your not gonna just be taking of a line of heads, you will hit in a different spot on each zombie you attack. and even if they were all the same height sword combat is not based around techniques that would train you to decapitate large groups at once. the only such strikes that could accomplish such a thing are high horizontal attacks which are very weak and awkward strikes in comparison to others. you wouldn't get through too many heads or necks as each time your sword impacts with any surface it is slowed and the swing weakens. after a couple your sword will stop against a hard surface most likely bone and you will be forced to pull your sword back towards you instead of your strike moving fully through to were you can strike again. and even with a high horizontal strike being as weak as it is, it's only weakened further because you are using your sword one handed instead of two.
in the case of dealing with zombies if you are ever in a position were you have been surrounded having two weapons won't help you much. you would do much better to concentrate on getting to a safer position and getting away from the horde rather than trying to fight it off.
Depends on the type of zombie apocalypse. The guy with the swords would undoubtedly get blood all over himself and so if it's spread by some sort of disease the sword guy would become a zombie very quickly. Personally I'd go with a crossbow, the bolts are reusable and the damage ranged.
But there's no guarantee you'll kill it in one shot. A good sword can separate any body part from the zombie. I'd also sleep easier with a sword. If a zombie get close to you with a crossbow, you're pretty much screwed, but a sword can have a range from 0-4 or so feet, which is pretty reasonable.
You'd also be screwed if you shot a zombie, and a few more arrived, forcing you to run and leave a bolt behind. Eventually you'll run out.
Overall, the best weapon in a zombie apocalypse is an invincible safehouse. If you stay inside long enough, they'll all go away.
yeah but as soon as you get a cut or get it your eyes you're done. I would go for the running method, hide out in a large forest, taking out the occasional zombie that enters but generally running and avoiding hordes, it's certainly not perfect but that's what i would choose.
Well my strategy would be to camp out in a deserted area hundreds of kilometers from any settlements, zombies could never find me, not in large numbers. I'd keep a large knife as a backup weapon and also to finish off any zombies that didn't quite die from a bolt. If i was to run out of bolts it wouldn't be too difficult to create some makeshift bolts out branches until i can track down the bolts I lost.
I agree with the safe house but unfortunately my stock of invincible houses are in short supply.
To kill a zombie you have to destroy the brain. Swords going through skulls over and over takes a lot of physical strength. They would also have to be really high quality swords. Guns can run out of ammo and take more maintenance, but swords can break. And you can only really attack one at a time and they have to be close range. It's also easier to find gun ammo than new swords. But this is assuming you want to kill the zombies. If you simply want to escape cutting off a leg will be more effective than a shot in the chest. Also much easier. And typically a swordsman can manoeuvre more quickly so that's always useful. It really just depends on the situation.
I really hope i'm not the only one who thought of these kinds of guns: http://ctrlv.in/105370
And I would be an anime swordsman. Because they can pwn just by pure awesomeness
It's not a legitimate argument. I just wanted to show people a compromise
Yeah. That would be my choice medium and close range weapon. Ideally, I'd have two long (more than 1m, not sure if they make them) katanas, a SAR 21 rifle and that.
Today I was reading an article about weapons in a zombie apocalypse and it addressed how katanas work.
Short Answer:
Those aren't pure guns. They have 'swords' attached to them. When comparing two categories, you don't use the overlap bit of the Venn diagram.
and a guy with one gun and one sword would probably last longer than either of them.
But eventually he'd be like a guy with one sword and a fancy rock.
yeah but using one sword is usually more effective than duel wielding anyway, same goes for the gun. duel wielding with most weapons is very awkward and difficult unless if you are ambidextrous.
One of the given factors is that the guy is a dual sword master. Either way, in the case of zombies, which are usually depicted as slow, numerous and rotting, you don't need much strength to dismember one, but you'd need two weapons to deal with being surrounded.
Exactly. One sword to cut a path and the other to defend from the sides and back. Alternatively, spin like a ballerina with both arms extended.
I think you are greatly underestimating just how difficult it is to cut through the human body with a sword. your sword is not going to cut a path through a horde of zombies nor will it prevent them from getting a hold of you. if you were to try such you would surely die.
I dunno... The zombies are rotting flesh and their bones aren't all that strong. If a sword master can handle several real humans at once dual wielding, I'm pretty sure he could handle a horde of zombies. Only maybe four can attack at any one point, and their slowness helps a lot.
you cannot just chop your way through a wall of murderous flesh no matter how decomposed. in order to kill a zombie you must destroy the brain anyway, so even if you could chop through their bodies they would still be grabbing and biting as they fall to the ground and crawl towards you.
The neck is one of the weakest parts. You don't need to destroy the brain, just separate it's connection with the moving parts.
a severed head can still bite. and people come in all shapes and sizes if your cutting down a horde as you claim to be possible your not gonna just be taking of a line of heads, you will hit in a different spot on each zombie you attack. and even if they were all the same height sword combat is not based around techniques that would train you to decapitate large groups at once. the only such strikes that could accomplish such a thing are high horizontal attacks which are very weak and awkward strikes in comparison to others. you wouldn't get through too many heads or necks as each time your sword impacts with any surface it is slowed and the swing weakens. after a couple your sword will stop against a hard surface most likely bone and you will be forced to pull your sword back towards you instead of your strike moving fully through to were you can strike again. and even with a high horizontal strike being as weak as it is, it's only weakened further because you are using your sword one handed instead of two.
in the case of dealing with zombies if you are ever in a position were you have been surrounded having two weapons won't help you much. you would do much better to concentrate on getting to a safer position and getting away from the horde rather than trying to fight it off.
Depends on the type of zombie apocalypse. The guy with the swords would undoubtedly get blood all over himself and so if it's spread by some sort of disease the sword guy would become a zombie very quickly. Personally I'd go with a crossbow, the bolts are reusable and the damage ranged.
But there's no guarantee you'll kill it in one shot. A good sword can separate any body part from the zombie. I'd also sleep easier with a sword. If a zombie get close to you with a crossbow, you're pretty much screwed, but a sword can have a range from 0-4 or so feet, which is pretty reasonable.
You'd also be screwed if you shot a zombie, and a few more arrived, forcing you to run and leave a bolt behind. Eventually you'll run out.
Overall, the best weapon in a zombie apocalypse is an invincible safehouse. If you stay inside long enough, they'll all go away.
But if there's a horde you die. Plus, you don't absorb stuff through your skin, so a mask would suffice.
yeah but as soon as you get a cut or get it your eyes you're done. I would go for the running method, hide out in a large forest, taking out the occasional zombie that enters but generally running and avoiding hordes, it's certainly not perfect but that's what i would choose.
Well my strategy would be to camp out in a deserted area hundreds of kilometers from any settlements, zombies could never find me, not in large numbers. I'd keep a large knife as a backup weapon and also to finish off any zombies that didn't quite die from a bolt. If i was to run out of bolts it wouldn't be too difficult to create some makeshift bolts out branches until i can track down the bolts I lost.
I agree with the safe house but unfortunately my stock of invincible houses are in short supply.
To kill a zombie you have to destroy the brain. Swords going through skulls over and over takes a lot of physical strength. They would also have to be really high quality swords. Guns can run out of ammo and take more maintenance, but swords can break. And you can only really attack one at a time and they have to be close range. It's also easier to find gun ammo than new swords. But this is assuming you want to kill the zombies. If you simply want to escape cutting off a leg will be more effective than a shot in the chest. Also much easier. And typically a swordsman can manoeuvre more quickly so that's always useful. It really just depends on the situation.