Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Choose Yer Weepons: Zombie Horde Defensive Three Gun

Okay, so I was doing my best to avoid thinking about work today; and, while doing so, I came across a blogger who was writing about his selections for zombie defense which boiled down to a bolt action hunting rifle for long range, a shotgun for mid range and a semi auto pistol for close in defense. This line of posts, naturally, got me to thinking on the subject. One thing glaringly missing from the discussion, in my humble opinion, was a detailed analysis of the hypothetical situation including the behavior of the enemy (zombies and those less prepared) and the anticipated conditions of the environment (anarchy, looting…you know…Walmart the day before Christmas). It is through this prism that we must analyze our choices for the perfect zombie defense weapons.

For purposes of this discussion, I will follow the three gun (or less) rule. The reason for this is simple: three guns is really the most any one person can realistically carry with sufficient ammo to stave off hordes of zombies/liberals and still be mobile enough to run for it if things head into the port-a-potty. If you plan on holing up in a bunker, by all means compile your fantasy list of movie magic. Me? I want the freedom to get out and forage or hunt for food once in a while.

First up, let’s chat about our opponents for a moment. Movie lore seems to indicate two possible incarnations of zombies: a) the mindless, slow moving albeit relentless zombie, or b) the semi aware, fast moving, aggressive, break down doors and chase any living thing for miles zombie. Non-zombies less prepared than you can be lumped into category b since, in my opinion, that’s where they will ultimately wind up. Let’s also assume that any zombies you can see can see you as well (making you into a potential zombie snack). No one has ever really addressed the hearing capabilities of zombies that I recall; however, let’s assume that zombies retain their normal hearing ability as well.

Movie lore is more unanimous on the subject of zombie disposal. Head shots are the key here. No more head/brain. No more zombie. Simple. Straight forward. No fuss. No muss. End of story.

So, one would think that accuracy would be the watch word for zombie firearm selection, right? Maybe. There are several bolt action .22 LR rifles out there considered by some to be the benchmark for accuracy, but I’ve never heard anyone seriously enter one into contention for a zombie gun. Rate of fire has to be taken into consideration…especially if you’re up against the more aggressive “type b” zombies. So, how about a .22 LR semi auto rifle?

Laugh. I dare you. This is a serious discussion (said with a completely serious look on my face I assure you).

There are certainly some distinct advantages to the .22 LR round. Let’s examine some facts for a moment. The ammo is cheap. You can carry a lot of it before you have to resupply. There would probably be enough .22 LR rounds left lying around after the apocalypse to kill every zombie on the planet twice…maybe even three times. Professional hit men have supposedly been using .22 LR successfully for years against non-zombies (at least according to Hollywood). At 100 yards, a 40 grain .22 bullet still carries 93 ft. lbs. of energy which is sufficient energy to penetrate a zombie skull and have energy to spare for bouncing around the inside making Swiss cheese out of the contents of said zombie skull.

Before you naysayers have a hissy fit, let’s consider the drawbacks of the .22 LR round for a moment. It’s small. It might expand up to the size of say…a .25 ACP…if it’s lucky. Your effective range pretty much tops out at 100 yards; and, I don’t know about you, I want a little more cushion between me and the horde.

Think about it for a moment; let’s see how a Ruger 10/22 stacks up in a hypothetical zombie fight. If we assume that that the average semi fat, lazy, office bound claims adjuster turned zombie (that would be someone like me) walks/shuffles/staggers along at a rate of 20 paces per minute (which is actually about 1/5 a normal person's walking pace) covering an average distance of 2 to 3 feet per step. That translates to up to 60 feet per minute or covering 100 yards in right at five minutes. I can easily empty a 50 round magazine for the Ruger 10/22 with aimed fire in about a minute. Let’s assume for the moment that it takes a minimum of 2 rounds per zombie to make a kill. That means a fairly good marksman is capable of dropping a maximum of 25 zombies a minute. If there are more than 125 zombies in your horde (which is highly likely in even the more remote, rural environments), you are screwed unless you move. If your Ruger 10/22 jams (which NEVER happens with cheap, bulk ammo), you’re screwed unless you move. If your zombies run instead of walk, you’d better be running too unless you want to be a zombie (I’m a zombie, she’s a zombie, wouldn’t you like to be a zombie too? apologies to Dr Pepper) which will affect your accuracy. Better remember to add that red dot sight for quicker sight acquisition without the parallax issues. Several enterprising gunsmiths even offer the 10/22 with a suppressor integrated with the barrel. Neat.

So, the Ruger 10/22 is not a bad idea for a zombie gun, but it’s not such a good idea either. It could make the list as a good, back up, mid range gun since it’s light. In fact, I’d argue that it’s a better mid range gun than a shotgun given the fact that most shotguns have an 8 round capacity limitation unless you can find one of the super special versions with a 50 round rotating drum magazine which are not likely to be had at the local gun shop (or anywhere else easily accessible for that matter) anytime soon. Also, accuracy on a shotgun gets dicey out past 50 yards even with slugs and rifle sights. Finally, shotgun ammo is just too stinkin’ bulky and heavy to lug around. For about the same weight, I can carry 500 .22LR rounds in the same amount of space as I can carry 25 shotgun shells. Hmmm…I can kill 25 zombies with one load out versus up to 250 zombies with the other. Decisions. Decisions.

Okay, the mid range gun is pretty much nailed down in my opinion, and we’ve established that we need accuracy, rate of fire (meaning a semi auto) and a bit of “AT&T reach out of touch someone” ability (anything smaller than .30 caliber need not apply) for the long range gun. Let’s not forget that zombies might be able to hear as well as we can. That suggests the need for a suppressor capable rifle. We also can’t forget about ammo availability meaning we can’t go with exotic calibers which would be hard to find after the initial looting of every sporting goods store in America. What does that suggest to you? I’m thinking the caliber of choice for the long range zombie gun would be the .308 (also known as the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO by you military types). It’s got the legs to get out to 1000 yards with enough energy and accuracy to do some damage. Depending on the loading, range and firing platform, it can be fired quietly enough that a zombie won’t be able to hear where the shot came from. Best of all, it’s one of the standard calibers currently in use in the US Military as well as a good chunk of the rest of the world meaning you will be able to find plenty of ammo when the stuffing hits the fan.

The .308 is easily a one shot one kill capable cartridge. So, we want a weapon that can hold 20 to 30 rounds of ammo to eliminate the need to reload every 10 seconds. The two obvious choices in this category would be the AR-15 based AR-10/LR-308 (depending on who's making it) and the venerable Springfield M1A/M14. Another choice would be any of several Heckler & Koch semi auto rifles including the G3 and Model 91. There are probably several other good selections to be had, but I think many of those options would get into issues with parts compatibility that become critical in a post apocalyptic environment where parts aren’t being made anymore. By contrast, the M1A/M14 is still in use in some military units and the AR-10/LR-308 is popular enough to have parts almost literally littered every. The M1A/M14 and AR-10/LR-308 also both come with threaded barrels ready to accept a flash hider, muzzle break or suppressor as the situation warrants. Of the two, I’d probably lean towards to AR-10/LR-308 since it’s not quite as heavy as a M1A/M14. On the flip side, the M1A/M14 makes a much better club if you run out of ammo and have to smash some zombie skulls the old fashioned way. Hard choice.

That leaves us with the close in weapon to choose. Same defining factors apply to this choice as it does to the others. Revolvers are accurate, but are seriously lacking in rate of fire. The most you can hope for out of a pistol for range is 50 yards. Beyond that, your accuracy is much less likely to be good enough to hit the head shot necessary to disable the zombie. As much as I love 1911 .45 semi autos, they just don’t fit the requirements here. A single stack .45 gets you 9 shots (8 in the mag plus 1 in the pipe)…maybe 11 if you go with extended mags. Going to the double stack 1911s only gets you a few more rounds, and they’re heavier than the combat Tupperware 9mms out there.

This brings us, inevitably, to the caliber and manufacturer of choice for a zombie handgun: the Glock G17 9mm. People can joke about 9mm maybe expanding to the size of a .45 but .45s never shrinking to the size of a 9mm. In a zombie outbreak, it doesn’t matter in my opinion. A solid head shot from a 9mm is just as effective as a .45 head shot. 9mm is also the current handgun caliber of choice for the military and a lot of law enforcement meaning you shouldn’t have too much trouble find ammo to feed your needs. Plus, a full size Glock will get you 18 shots of 9mm with the option for 33 round mags if you are so inclined. You can poo poo the Glock name all you want to. I’ve owned one, and they are certainly not without their drawbacks. However, they are reliable, safe, tough, simple and reasonably accurate in the practiced hand. In a fight for your life, they don’t come much more reliable, and you can fit a threaded barrel on them for a suppressor for those times when you need to cap a zombie in a building without alerting his friends.

So, to recap, my three gun choice for the zombie outbreak would be: the Springfield M1A/M14, the Ruger 10/22 and the Glock 17. Argue with me if you will, but I think this selection gives me a better than average chance of survival in a zombie infested world. Your experience may vary.


  1. I've about 60,000 rounds on hand (no not primers, that would be illegal :) Everything from .22 to loads for the Panther Arms Sniper rifle.

    If I run out of that before the zombies are done I'll have to break out the weedeater.

  2. I agree with your choices, though I do love my shotgun and I like the "reach-out-and-touch-ability" of the Remington 700 (still chambered in .308), but the magazine capacity is far too small unless you can set up on a hill somewhere and just snipe the little peckers.

    And, I was going to argue with you about the .22 LR, but you do present a very persuasive arguement and now I have to agree.

    The best thing about a Glock is that if it gets Zombie goo on it, it shouldn't cause any shooting problems.

  3. Brigid, 60,000 rounds will definitely make a dent in the zombie population, but zombies are irresistibly drawn to where the food is. Eventually, you will need to vacate the premises, weed wacker or not, in search of fresh food and ammo. At that point, you've got to make the choices of what to bring versus what to leave behind. Besides, it's kinda hard to carry 60,000 rounds of ammo at a whack.

  4. GunDiva, as you know, I am a fan of the Remington 700 as well; however, in this scenario, accuracy and rate of fire need to be balanced. The ability to stay on target and/or reacquire a target quickly is likely to be key to survival. It's harder to do that with the bolt action.

    I'm glad you came around to my way of thinking on the .22 LR. It's overlooked and under appreciated at times, but many a varmint has fallen to the mighty .22.

  5. All excellent choices for the parameters set forth...

    The .22 was a stroke of genius, (although I am with Gun Diva on my love for the scatter gun.)
    but the .22 is probably the most under rated and over looked caliber in existence today.

    And I am a little biased on the patheticness of the 9mm. I own two 92F's in the 9mm and I love to shoot them, but I am not overly impressed with the whomp they pack...

    But then my argument for ever has been bullet placement over shock and awe.. So the 9 would be fine for this scenario.

    I know that you are not supposed to bring a knife to a gun fight, (but then zombies don't usually pack, do they.) but for really close in, it is hard to beat 3 foot of cold hard, sharpened steel.

    just saying....

  6. Mr. Daddy, don't get me wrong. I love me some scatter guns too. They are excellent tools for the right circumstances. Zombies just aren't one of them in my opinion.

    I too am a little biased about the 9mm being a .45 fan myself, but I just couldn't overlook the capacity issue in this scenario.

    I'm glad you pointed out the blade back up. I had intended to comment about the ability to add a bayonet to the M1A and then promptly forgot about it. Perhaps that's for another post though: what is the best zombie killing blade?

  7. K.,

    I'll take a little different approach
    AC-130H -
    Two 7.62mm mini-guns,
    two 20mm guns,
    two 40mm cannons,
    one 105mm cannon

    AC-130U Spooky --
    One 25mm Gatling gun,
    one 40mm
    one 105mm cannon

    The Spooky variant would meet your 3 gun requirement. I think that many people are thinking too small when it comes to the Zombiepocalypse

  8. Bob, I am impressed. Although, since I wouldn't be too trusting of others during the Zombiecalypse, I might suggest the single seat A-10 instead. Maybe the Apache helicopter.

    You are correct that many people overlook some interesting choices when thinking through their defensive options. To be fair though, several zombie movies end with a nuke wiping out the horde (along with everyone else).

    However, my counter arguments against the AC-130 are: 1) it doesn't fly or fight itself or stay aloft forever which means, 2) you need a crew which means, 3) you will need to land for fuel, food and ammo at some point which means, 4) you will need a personal three gun defensive option for point defense at a minimum during those vulnerable times.

    An 18 wheeler ground based version of the AC-130 might be a practical solution; however, you run up against the same issues when it comes to refuel and resupply. It always seems to boil down to what to use during the times when you have to be exposed.

    Besides, what happens when the zombies overrun the airports and gas stations or the fuel runs out since zombies don't know how to run refineries?

  9. Kevin,

    Something to consider...reloading cartridges post zombie infestation will be a must - kudos to Brigid for bringing it up.

    For long range, I think I'd prefer a Ruger 77/44... .44mags can be loaded to allow for a subsonic velocity, meaning less noise, and less attention.

    That being said, however, I question the necessity for a long range gun in the first place.

    Will you seriously be willing to risk exposure/attraction just for the sake of removing zombies 'not' posing an immediate threat?

    I personally would I'll go with the following...

    Sticking to the 3 gun rule, I'd prefer an additional Glock 17.

    For medium range, I'd use one of the Glock 17s in a Mako KPOS conversion kit... In a pinch, it can be a short range solution as well, and will already be in my closet (assuming this doesn't take place prior to my birthday :)

    Given it's mounting rails, and a decent scope - it's effective range is approximately 300-400feet. Add in a flashlight, and we're in business.

    For short range, I have to go with a shotgun... Cut down... .12ga...automatic.

    When running, or walking fast, I would prefer the ability to quick turn and fire without having to get an accurate bead on the pursuers.

    In my opinion, accuracy in this case is not as important as devastation. I don't have to kill the zombies, I merely have to slow them down.

    I'm relatively certain that even in my current physical condition, I can out-run a one legged zombie.

    I have to second the option for a nice, 36" short sword though... it never runs out of ammo.

    Fun blog entry, reminds me of our old conversations.

  10. Ken, I'm glad you enjoyed it. That was the point (as well as to stimulate serious thought on the subject).

    I've never seen the ballistics on a .44 mag from a rifle barrel; however, I'm not sure it could compete with the .308 for range or downrange energy. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would think the .308 would outperform the .44 beyond 300 yards.

    As to your counter argument question for the long range issue, the answer is: Yes, I would. A properly set up .308 firing from a prepared position could tag zombies out to 1000 yards. At that distance without much likelihood of exposure. Shoot as many as you can from a safe-ish position, and it means fewer you have to deal with in other situations. If they clue in on your position, you've got up to an hour to relocate depending on their speed before they cover the 1000 yards.

    The shotgun still leaves me cold. A cut down 12 gauge is going to have even less accuracy and range. Assuming you use buckshot to maximize your chances and stopping power, you've got maybe a 1 in 12 chance of hitting anything much less taking a limb or a head off. Then there is still the ammo weight and bulk penalty to deal with. Perhaps we need to do a Zombie o' Truth experiment at our next range outing.

    The second G17 mounted in the KPOS rig isn't a bad choice; however, I think we would need to do a Z o' T experiment with it as well to see if it fulfills your range expectations.

    Can't argue with the sword. Not too heavy, good reach, heavy enough to take a head off in one stroke.

  11. Any of you advocates for the shotgun as your midrange choice, read this: Then get back with me.

  12. K - haven't read the link you offered up, but I do have a thought on the shotgun.

    What if you used 1 1/8th slugs rather than buckshot (or in addition to)? You can bag a two-fer or even a three-fer with a slug.

  13. GunDiva, the proof is in the heap o' dead zombies. My buddy Ken and I are planning a trip to the range (mom's place) in the fall when it's not 100+ degrees in the shade to test the shotgun vs. .22 theory for mid range (50 to 100 yards) performance. Since we don't have a ready supply of dead zombies, I'll be looking for a ready supply of late season, rotted melons and gourds to simulate with.

    In the meantime, I would hypothesize that the slug would have the accuracy at 100 yards that buckshot does not; however, you're still dealing with the double weight penalty (i.e. the gun and ammo are both heavier than the .22 making for less of a combat load out). So, to match the kill potential of a load of .22 shells versus the same weight and volume of shotgun slugs, you'd need about a 10:1 kills to shots fired ratio.

  14. Ahhh... the .22 definitely wins out on sheer usefulness, but you gain a multitude of style points from the theatrical magnitude of awesomeness rendered by a slug.

    Can't wait to see the final results of your testing.

  15. GunDiva, if we are talking magnitudes of awesomeness and style points, I would vote for two opposites. On the awesomeness scale, I can't think of anything more awesome than the AC-130 Bob S. suggested. However, in the man portable category, it's hard beat a Barrett .50 BMG rifle for shear testosterone laden zombie smashing awesomeness at any range. I mean how much more awesome can it get than to drop a zombie from over a mile away with a projectile the size of a railroad tie (pardon the creative license...i had to keep it clean). On the style points side, how about an English double rifle called Matilda firing semi incendiary rounds?

  16. No full automatics?! The HK MP5 just seems right for home defense against zombies. What's your total ammo count? Ain't there an inevitable zombie surplus that will exhaust any ammo your can carry or defend?

  17. Lyndell, for the reasons set out in the article, "spray and pray" just doesn't work too well when you need precision shooting. Having shot the H&K MP5, I can tell you it's usefulness as a zombie slayer is nil. In single shot mode, it's no more effective than the .22LR semi-auto rifle for which I argue. In fact, it's probably less accurate at longer ranges than the .22. It's also heavier, and the ammo is bulkier (marginally) than the .22 ammo. In three round burst and full auto fire, the MP5 simply wastes ammo.

    As to my total ammo count, you are correct that there is a limit to how much any one person can carry or defend. That's why I focus on portability. It is conceivably possible to load out a decent sized back pack with well over 20,000 rounds of .22LR and not blow out a disc. I wouldn't want to add more than about a 1000 rounds of 9MM and a couple hundred rounds of .308 on top of that. I'm pretty sure I can fight my way from sporting goods store to gun shop to other known stashes of ammo before running low. Especially in the Dallas area.

  18. Are all AR-15 lower receivers virtually the same?
    AR-15 lower parts


I am not easily offended. Please feel free to express your opinions: good, bad or indifferent. Basically, the "Golden Rule" applies. You get what you give. Treat others like trash here, and your comments will be trashed accordingly. Rudeness and vulgarity will not be tolerated.