{
"post": {
"title": "Why is the gun advice in the zombie survival guide so stupid?",
"selftext": "Let me preface this by saying, I understand I am criticizing a book that is filed in the \"humor\" section of bookstores.\n\nBut my Max Brooks zombie survival guide has so many notes added in light pencil, it is insane.\n\nAssuming you have to use guns against zombies, your firearm choices is going to be based on the following criteria:\n\n**Reliability**: Obviously you don't want your gun jamming in the middle of a zombie fight. Max Brooks argues that bolt actions have this advantage. In fact, it is probably the only advantage that they have.\n\n\n**Ammunition Availability**: Unless you plan on stockpiling all the ammo you'll ever need, you'll probably have to scavenge some at some point. Therefore you will want a gun that uses a cartridge that is somewhat common.\n\n**Ammunition Weight**: Should be fairly straightforward.\n\n**Rate of Fire**: Once you start shooting, the undead start closing in. You are going to want to be able to take down all of them before they get to you. Sure, you can move and shoot; but this will make you less accurate, and there is always the risk of moving into uncleared territory where you can get caught by surprise.\n\n**Magazine Capacity**: Reloading slows down your rate of fire. This doesn't mean you want a big heavy M249. But a 5-round clip for a Kar-98?\n\nSo assuming these points, I say that bolt-actions are far from the ideal zombie gun. In fact, a 9mm carbine or an AR chambered in 5.56 or 7.62 NATO, is far better. A .22 rifle is also acceptable, but has the disadvantage of not being a particularly viable combat round, so its usefulness is limited to zombies.\n\nAll three of these cartridges are very common, the firearms that use them generally accept fairly standard magazines, and most are fairly reliable.\n\nMax Brooks argues for bolt actions, which may be adequate, but have many flaws:\n\n* Small magazine size. Most hold 5 or 10 rounds.\n\n* Ammunition availability and weight. These rifles generally use more powerful rounds, which are good against humans but vastly overkill for zombies.\n\n* Very substandard in a firefight against other humans. \n\nMax Brooks vastly underestimates the ability of training to instill discipline and wants a shooter to be forced to conserve ammunition with a substandard gun. He also vastly overvalues reliability. A bolt-action user might not waste much ammunition, or have many jams to clear; but the sheer lack of volume of fire will mean he is constantly on the run.\n\nBolt actions may be adequate for an avoidance strategy, which is perhaps the best survival strategy for SHTF situations, but if you plan on killing zombies in any numbers, an AR-15 or 9mm carbine is probably your best bet. ",
"url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/zombies/comments/4tay00/why_is_the_gun_advice_in_the_zombie_survival/"
},
"comments": [
{
"body": "I had a lot of problems with Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide when it came out... And so many people regarded it as the Zombie apocalypse Bible. Any bad things said about it were immediately buried. \n\nJust a few ridiculous things from memory...\n* The use of a bolt action rifle.\n* The use of a crowbar as \"the perfect melee weapon\".\n* The use of something called a \"Shaolin Spade\".\n* Moving to freezing climates to freeze zombies. \n\nAnd tactics such as...\n* Moving upstairs and destroying the staircase.\n* Luring zombies into traps.\n* Not wearing any kind of armor to stay light weight.\n* Etc...\n\nI think his heart was in the right place, I just don't think he did much research or anything. It was supposed to be a comedy book, but zombie fans took it and ran with it, big time. \n\n*There are much better rifles out there than bolt action rifles. You can have an AR15 with a 30 round clip, equipped with a suppressor, ACOG sights, a flashlight, laser sight, and still use it on semiautomatic... And it'd be much safer than a bolt action rifle. \n* A crowbar makes a HORRIBLE weapon. Just hit something with one and you'll see. \n* I dare you to find a Shaolin Spade.\n* People who aren't Alaskan mountain men who are trained and used to living in freezing climates would freeze to death quicker than the zombies. \n* Destroy the staircase? I'd like to see you try. And if you could, you'd be trapped upstairs.\n* Luring zombies is just plain dangerous.\n* A little bit of armor can mean life or death when a zombie gets close enough to bite. \n\nI've thought about writing my own apocalypse survival guide, but idk if the world would even care anymore. And I doubt anyone would have cared about that one if he hadn't have been Mel Brooks' kid. \n",
"replies": [
{
"body": "An AR-15 only shoots in semiautomatic",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Also, not to be too nitpicky but it's magazine not clip.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Rustles my jimmies every time."
},
{
"body": "True, but clip vs magazine is less damaging than the full auto assaultrifle misconception."
},
{
"body": "Rooty tooty point and shooty bang bang box. "
}
]
},
{
"body": "In the survival guide, Brooks makes no mention of the \"semi auto assault rifle\" \"modern sporting rifle\" \"defensive carbine\" of any of the other terms that refer to a semi auto version of a rifle that was originally designed to be select fire. \n\nProbably because he didn't know they exist. A lot of people genuinely think that any gun that looks like a full auto rifle actually has full auto or select fire capabilities. Not everyone knows about guns. By now I'm sure that someone has set him straight on that point. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I was more referring to the comment I replied to saying you could just shoot the AR-15 in semiautomatic as if automatic was an option.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Ah. Fair enough. \n\nI wouldn't worry too much about the semantics. If you want to be very technical, an M16 is still an AR-15 pattern rifle, even though these days \"AR-15\" is usually used to distinguish the semi-auto versions only. \n\nThe point of his comment, that select fire isn't really a disadvantage, remains a valid one. "
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "> if he hadn't have been Mel Brooks' kid.\n\nI actually did not know that. Wow."
},
{
"body": "It is not difficult to destroy a staircase. In fact, you could do it in an hour with that crowbar you didn't bring with you ;)\n\nIf you were to remove a staircase, you are hardly trapped upstairs forever.... If the coast is clear you can fairly easily lower yourself down to the level below just by hanging and dropping. It's only a single level, so safe to say it would be about 10ft.... That's not very high up. If the coast isn't ever clear, then you're stuck... But it gives you some time to formulate a plan and is better than being eaten in your sleep. \n\nMoving north isn't as bad as you make it for one big reason. Those places won't have been as affected by the outbreak so the people that live there will still be alive, mostly. You don't have to move to an uninhabited Arctic wasteland... Just find a town that exists and is too cold for zombies. The people who live there will know how to live there. \n\nAnyway, that's my two cents. \n\n",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Well... I don't know if you've ever done any construction or demolition, but it's a lot of ***LOUD*** work to destroy something like a staircase. In a zombie apocalypse, that's gonna gather a lot of attention. And once they know you're up there... They're not going anywhere. That's their thing. \n\nAnd who's to say that zombies freeze up in colder weather, or that they don't occur as much up north? There are a shit load of people that live in the north, and people are zombies in a zombie apocalypse. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "This is all theoretical. We don't know what the zombies would be like.\n\n* **If the zombies are re-animated humans:** The first good freeze is likely going to permanently immobilize any zombies. Zombies in warmer climates are going to rot *really* quickly. I haven't studied human body decomposition, but judging from other animals, I'd say a zombie won't last more than a couple of weeks in a Florida-like heat in the Summer months.\n\n* **If the Zombies are live humans:** They would be susceptible to all the things that kill humans, including starvation and dehydration. So, they won't last long.\n\nIf people could hunker down in a safe place for a month, the whole apocalypse could be over. People are idiotic enough when they're not scared, but when they're scared many are more likely to behave in an idiotic way. So, it could go on for longer, but I would estimate that a zombie apocalypse would not last beyond a year. Now, what would be left after could be a total mess.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "But you see... The thing about zombies is that they don't follow your normal scientific examples of a normal human corpse... As in, they get up and walk around trying to find someone that's living to eat their flesh. \n\nCorpse don't get up and walk around... So your argument about their decomposing rate doesn't matter. They don't give a shit about your science. \n\nAnd modeling them after normal humans doesn't even make sense because normal humans don't walk around in search of other humans living flesh for sustainance. \n\nSo, since they're mythical creatures that don't follow any scientific explanation, who's to say that when introduced to freezing weather they don't just keep on trudging through... Or become white walkers?",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Because we are, or at least I am, talking about possible tactics in a real-life situation. If we were ever to experience something zombie-like that takes over a human body in some form (e.g., virus, fungus, etc.), it will be susceptible to the same things that most life on Earth are susceptible to.\n\nIf you want to talk fantasy, I have this device with a button. When I press the button, it makes staircases disappear and reappear *silently*. See how that kind of talk is not all that fun?",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Now you're just being silly. \n\nWe aren't talking about humans that are infected with something. We are talking about people who die, and then unexplainedly come back to \"life\", although still maintaining a corpse-like body, who crave the flesh of the Living. Now on one end of the spectrum of these types of zombies, you've got the O'Bannon \"living Dead\" zombies that are dead as fuck and 100% Unkillable. And in the other end of the spectrum you've got the zombies from Warm Bodies, who can return to being human given the spark of \"love\". But since they're all ***mythical creatures***, it's hard to say exactly what they'd do under any circumstances. \n\nIn this case, were talking about Max Brooks' zombies from his books. Which are humans that have been infected with some sort of parasitic virus (that doesn't exist outside his books), which cause them to \"come back\" from being dead, with more of a purpose of *spreading the virus*, than actually eating human flesh. \n\nBut in ALL these scenarios, the aspect of the \"fantasy\" is... How would we react and hopefully survive this given that everything else in this alternative universe is the same as ours, just now there's zombies. The occurrence of zombies does not allow the occurrence of any other fantasy items such as magic buttons, although in the Walking Dead series, Rick has a magical pistol that never needs to be reloaded against zombies, Daryl has a magical crossbow that returns his bolts and Michonne has a magical sword. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Of course I was being silly. I was taking it to the extreme to make a point.\n\nI didn't read Max Brooks' book, but the thing that bothers me most about most zombie books, movies, shows, and games is that decay is very skewed. In many cases the decay starts *very* quickly, but it stops at some point. Yes, zombies are mythical, but we're talking about how to deal with them in a practical way. In this case, I was focusing on decay. I did preface my supposition comments with \"if the zombies are.\" If you want to discuss zombies that don't decay, you don't have to reply to my comments. To quote the character Ishmael from the book series, A Series of Unfortunate Events, \"I won't force you.\"",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Well, in that case... The popular fantasy of a zombie apocalypse in general is pretty much *fighting zombies* and *looting*. \n\nSo... I wouldn't put too much into the \"fantasy\" aspect of finding a nice cold place to hunker down for a few years until all the zombies go away. \n\nThis is why in most Post Nuclear Apocalypse scenarios our hero is out in the wastland, fighting off mutant bikers for a bit of gasoline, rather than holed up in a secure bomb shelter for years on in eating spam and reading old magazines. \n\nThe fucking eagles could have flown Bagging to Mordor but then we wouldn't have had three novels/movies worth of adventures now... Had we?\n\nUnderstand?"
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "You have a good point with the noise... I wasn't thinking about the noise. I've removed a few steps with just a crowbar and hammer, and it was pretty loud. \n\nThe frozen part though, zombies are made of the same stuff as people. They don't have anti-freeze running through them. They also don't produce any body heat, because they are dead. So, once it's freezing outside, it would be freezing inside them and their soft tissue and liquids would freeze. They move around, so it would need to be a bit colder to account for that. Once you get to 15 degrees or below, it's zombie Popsicle. It has to be. \n\nUnless of course you are considering the zombies as a type of magic, and throw science out the window. In which case, best bet to just go out in the street and scream... Then let the magic zombies eat you. There isn't any escape from magic. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Well, not necessarily magic... But the zombie is already a mythical creature, which I think, is something that a lot of people somehow forget. They already go against everything we know about science and sense when it comes to dead people. This is why they are the \"Living Dead\". I don't even think they're ever called \"zombies\" in any of Romero's movies. \n\nRomero coined the term \"living dead\" for the original movie, but the \"living\" part of the moniker got dropped due to a legal battle between him and Dan O'Bannon, who went on the make the \"Return of the *Living Dead*\" movies. \n\nO'Bannon had very different ideas as to how zombies worked. \n\nNow... If we're talking about O'Bannon \"Living Dead\" zombies... Then there's literally almost *nothing* you can do to stop them. Not only are they entirely unkillable, but they're smart and can talk. Oh and they're pretty fast and the toxin that creates them can even reanimate corpses that have been buried for quite some time. These are the zombies that make everyone think that zombies crave brains, because in the O'Bannon zombie universe, *\"eating living brains is what makes the pain if being dead go away\"*... Now thats some magical shit. \n\n Nobody ever talks about O'Bannon zombie apocalypse scenarios because there's literally no surviving one. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Not only is there no surviving, but there is really no point in surviving as a species. I mean, those guys are smart, and never die.... So they are superior to us. After the initial panic is over, they will almost certainly organize and round us up as livestock to harvest our brains long term. \n\nFrankly, the only way to survive that type of zombie plague is to become one. If I saw the smart, fast, zombies walking around, I would immediately infect myself and my family. If you can't beat them, join them. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "But being dead hurts... \n\n\n...trust me. "
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "I agree with all of your criticisms, and have made many of those criticisms myself. \n\nAlthough he actually recommends semi-autos rather than bolt actions. Yes, he mentions the logic that bolt actions can force you to pick your shots more carefully. He's wrong, but he's not the only one that's been wrong in that way. People have been saying that since the days of the Winchester repeating rifle. It's been pretty much disproven these days in military circles, but it's not crazy that he would at least have that idea. \n\nI also think the jury is still out on armor. It might work, but not without trade offs. I think if you haven't trained with it extensively and worked all the bugs out it could potentially do more harm than help. Worth exploring down the line, but not on Z-Day. Stick with what you know. \n\n\nBut I'm getting off topic. \n\nThat's not what you buy the book for. The Survival Guide isn't great because it gets all the recommendations right. It's great because it gets the reader to actually start thinking about zombies in a serious manner. Even people who have never given zombies a second thought start going \"what would I do\" after reading that book. That's why it's so popular, and that's why it's such a great book. \n\nBrooks is an armchair zombie hunter without a lot of practical experience in the things he's talking about. But he was an armchair zombie hunter back before everyone started doing it. Like most armchair zombie hunters, he got a lot of things wrong but he got us all thinking. He turned us all into armchair zombie hunters, and in many cases got us interested enough to do our own research. \n\nHippocrates was wrong about a lot of things too, but he changed the way people thought about he topic of medicine. A lot of his treatments wouldn't be recommended today, but the very idea of treating a disease rather than slaughtering a cow and hoping for the best was in itself a radical contribution. \n\nI'm not saying Max Brooks is as important as Hippocrates. I'm just saying he has made important contributions to zombie nerdom. \n\nAnd for the record, I don't think it had anything to do with being Mel Brooks kid. I didn't even find that out until years after the book came out. It was already popular on its own. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "When I say \"armor\", I'm not talking about medieval style suits of armor... But a leather motorcycle jacket (maybe with some plastic forearm guards sewn on) would provide a lot of protection. \n\nWatching zombie shows like The Walking Dead, or all the different zombie movies I've seen all my life, it always seems crazy to me that almost everyone who gets bit, gets bitten on the forearm or the neck. Maybe the ankle ever so often. \n\nA thick leather jacket with a collar up and a pair of high motorcycle boots might save your life multiple times. A human being (zombie) isn't gonna bite through thick leather. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "No, but it's possible that it would target the more exposed areas. We don't know. \n\nAlso, those would be a bitch to wear all the time, especially in the summer. It's heavy, hot, uncomfortable, and gets in the way. And that's the good armor. Poorly made armor, or poorly fitting armor... It's hell. I have some personal experience there. Heat stroke is a big issue. \n\nNot to mention biting isn't the only issue. If you get swarmed, the armor won't help. \n\nNow, as I've said, I'm not opposed to armor. It's the sort of thing that would need testing though. It's not something I would want to just throw on as I run for my life. That's how you get yourself killed. "
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "There was also the suggestion of using a Katana as the perfect melee weapon and everyone I talk to agrees. What gets left out about the katana or any bladed weapon is that you really have to know how to use it to be effective. Even if you know how to use it, they dont cut through bone like butter despite what movies and anime shows. Blades would require constant maintenance especially a katana. You also wont find one easy in the US or any where outside of japan. I really dont know what would be a good melee weapon other than maybe a good solid bat or hammer but even then you can fuck up your hands with a bat and the hammer can get stuck in a skull.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Stanley makes a demolition hammer called the [FUBAR II](http://i.imgur.com/hFTOVPU.jpg)... It would be perfect for not only smashing zombie skulls, but it has a crowbar with a nail puller on the end of the handle and that space at the top is for prying loose 2x4's. \n\nYou can find a hammer holster in the same isle you'd find it at just about any hardware store. So, theoretically you could bash some zombie skulls, pry open the door of a building... then use it to pry loose a few 2X4's and nails and then hammer the wood to the inside of the door, effectively barricading yourself inside. \n\nJust a though. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I have one of those. I also have a gerber tomahawk that is kinda like that. I would hate to have to use either up close on a zombie or human",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Yeah, I mean, something like that should be like, an emergency weapon. That's why I like the FUBAR II because it can serve a few other purposes such as I exampled above. \n\nA good spear would be an ideal melee weapon. The spear is one of the easiest weapons to use, that's why it's mankind's oldest and most used. You can stand at a distance and just jab the zombie ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "This has been discussed a bunch recently, but spears are great against people in open battle, shit against zombies or in close quarters. No spears. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "How the fuck would a spear be shit against a zombie? The zombie is most likely not even gonna try to defend itself... You just jab it in the head at a safe distance. Aim for the eyes. \n\nAnd sure, a spear might not be the best choice in an elevator, but it'd work great in a hallway. Especially if you had several people using them in a Hoplite defense, such as the Spartans did. (Think 300)\n\nWith just a little bit of training, some modern day riot shields and some sharpened poles I think it would be quite effective. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "There is a whole thread going on all about spears. The debate is already raging, so rather than start all over again I will refer you there. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Where?",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Same sub. \"Effectiveness of spears.\" Warning you now, it's a shit show. "
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "I mean a sharp katana will definitely chop through most bones pretty easily but it's gonna duck the blade up big time and as you say it's not easy to maintain or use one unless you know what you're doing. Plus I think you're far more likely to injure yourself with a katana than almost any other weapon. "
},
{
"body": "I'm a fan of the hatchet. It's designed for chopping through hard wood, over and over, with the minimum use of energy. It is also designed to get unstuck easily, since that is a normal part of chopping wood. It can be used one or two handed, which gives you both control and versatility, can be carried easily on a belt when not in use, and they're virtually indestructible. "
}
]
},
{
"body": "Ugh... Suppressor, ACOG, laser sight? So much wrong here."
},
{
"body": ">30 round clip\n\n>and still use it on semiautomatic\n\ncome on man."
}
]
},
{
"body": "Where you put a round is far more important than how powerful it is, a .22 should be plenty for people and zombies.\nPopulation density is also a big player here, I won't argue that people living in big population centers will need to be able to put out more fire than somebody in rural areas; but for me a bolt action .22 with a 3x scope would be ideal. I can rack the bolt faster than all hell and find my target again quite easily, but that's just me. Also the sound of a .22 is not very loud at all, if you're in a place where you need to worry about it because of how close zombies are; the noise will send them in different directions (i.e. In a city) due to sound bouncing off of a ton of different buildings.\nThe final big issue for me is how much it would damage your hearing and a .22 would be fine, but an AR has a lot of powder behind it and is loud as fuck (btw suppressor are far less common and reliable than people think, good luck finding one, let alone a good one)",
"replies": [
{
"body": "A bolt action limits your magazine capacity though. Id take a 10/22 any day with a solid red dot and a bx-25 magazine. Mine has been super reliable and you can find parts everywhere if something were to break. Plus red dots are easier to pick up at night. Its also easier to see hits and misses with a more open sight.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "There are bolt action rifles that don't have fixed magazines. \n\nHere are some bolt action rifles that accept that bx-25 magazine. \n\nhttp://www.ruger.com/products/americanRimfire/overview.html\n",
"replies": [
{
"body": "A bolt action Ruger is no more accurate than a 10/22.",
"replies": [
{
"body": ">A bolt action limits your magazine capacity though.\n\nI was specifically replying to this.\n"
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "That's fair, a 10 .22 would be my second choice since I already have one and red dots kick ass but I'd stick with basic sights so I don't have to worry about batteries",
"replies": [
{
"body": "A good red dot has 50,000 hours of battery life. That's about 5 years life."
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "He actually advocated for a \"lightweight semi-automatic rifle\" more than anything, but he didn't do too much research on it. \n\nThe M1 Carbine is a handy little rifle, but .30 Carbine rounds (and its magazines) aren't available everywhere and the Mini-14 is essentially the same form factor scaled up to 5.56 NATO, which is a more capable round. \n\n.30 Carbine isn't anything to sneeze at, but we replaced it for a reason. \n\nThe book was intended to be a half-satirical jab at survivalism (which was popular to bash on at that time) and half-comedy book about strategies you might use in a hypothetical zombie apocalypse, but as Dr. Death said, people just ran with it because no one had ever done a Zombie Survival Guide in a mainstream way before. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "That makes sense. Like I said, I probably took it far more seriously than it was meant to be taken. And I'm sure SCUBA experts will rag on every inaccuracy in his underwater zombie combat section, just like I am ragging on his gun advice (though I'm not really any gun expert myself)."
}
]
},
{
"body": "I agree with most of what you've said, but this part \"Max Brooks vastly underestimates the ability of training to instill discipline and wants a shooter to be forced to conserve ammunition...\" Isn't what the US Army had done with the M16A2/A4? They are semi-auto and burst only and this was due to the realization that not only was automatic fire less practical it also wasted ammo faster. Now I know that the M4's that have replaced many A4's in combat roles do support automatic fire but as far as I'm aware, maybe I'm wrong, but they don't train for automatic fire as a standard course of action ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "While he still recommends semi-auto rifles, Brooks also implies at one point that Bolt actions have advantages because they force the shooter to slow down. Which is not true. I think that was the criticism there. \n\nIn terms of semi auto vs full auto, you are correct that there are very few situations where full auto is useful in a military context, and virtually non in a survival situation. In that Brooks is correct. "
},
{
"body": "No professional military worth considering does. They all train to use controlled and accurately placed semi-auto shots unless there is an immediate point-blank need to piss lead downrange.\n\nKeep in mind that even if you're carrying 10-12 magazines (which is quite heavy), that's only (\"only\") 360 rounds. The cyclic rate is around 700 rounds per minute. If you really wanted to, you could piss away that entire extended patrol load in less than five minutes. \n\nThen your weapon is a paperweight. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Are you NATOMarksman from the NMRiH community?",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Indeed I am. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I'm Maxx of nmrih ;)"
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "> but they don't train for automatic fire as a standard course of action\n\nI think they decided to start doing that instead of forcing it with limited fire modes. I mean, someone can just shoot a ton of rounds off on burst-fire and waste just as much ammo. The army doesn't even use full-auto for room-clearing anymore, apparently, so i don't know why they don't just buy a ton of AR-15s /s\n\nBut yes, you are correct. You'll notice they didn't start handing out M24s to all of their soldiers to force \"ammo conservation\", though. And they still expect a soldier to run through seven 30-round mags in 2 minutes of combat [citation needed]. So there's a balance."
}
]
},
{
"body": "I would disagree with the AR and instead suggest an AK based on the fact that in an apocalyptic scenario you likely won't have the opportunity to break down and clean your rifle often. The AK isn't as accurate, but that is in-part due to the looser tolerances in the build. This is a benefit insofar that it allows for much more grime to build up before malfunction. So, it is a good middle ground between availability, utility, and reliability.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "ARs are plenty reliable. there was only issues with people using to much wet lube in the desert. The US isn't the same climate as the mid east so extremely sandy conditions are not really an issue. the .223 round is more common than the 7.62x39 or the 5.45. Also the .223 weights less. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "A couple of added bonuses to ARs - you can carry a .22lr conversion bolt and magazine and it'll work in your 5.56/.223 rifle. Won't be fantastically accurate but if all you can find is .22lr then at least you have the choice. As for reliability, you can get a gas piston system that's not too tricky to install if you're familiar with AR building. Cuts down a lot of cleaning and maintenance. Finally, you can get loads of different finishes (such as Nib-X) for your bolt that makes cleaning it insanely easy. Just watch all the black dust wipe away. I sound like an infomercial, I know."
}
]
},
{
"body": "The unreliability of ARs is *vastly* overrated by Max Brooks. I'm a huge fan of AK rifles of all varieties, but the newer AR models almost leave the AK in the dust in a lot of ways. It's still a great rifle, and honestly wouldn't make that much of a different. \n\nIn the US I would go with an AR just because of ammo availability. 7.62x39mm is heavier but also has a bit more punch (though the 5.56 \"fracture\" effect apparently made up for that... I am not an expert on ballistics though).\n\n",
"replies": [
{
"body": "[deleted]",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I am by no means an expert marksman ( i can hit the black of a target at 25ft or so with a pistol) but wouldn't multiple head shots against multiple targets that are trying to eat you be a bit of a challenge, even for an expert?",
"replies": [
{
"body": "With .22 LR at 10-15 feet, it would be pretty simple. Your main problem would be running out of ammo, as most .22 LR magazines only hold 10 rounds. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "The ruger 10/22 has hundred round drum mags.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "> most\n\nThere are large capacity magazines available for the 10/22, but they would be bulky and heavy. I could carry one 10/22 drum magazine, or I could carry 120 rounds (30x4) of 5.56 in roughly the same space. Drum magazines also tend to have FTFs, which would only make the rimfire reliability problem worse. \n\nA more reasonable (and significantly more reliable) option would be a BX-25 magazine, but even that has a space-wasting banana configuration. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "That's true but it doesn't mean a 10/22 with a drum mag wouldn't be useful in some other situation. Put 2 guys with them in the back of a pickup truck with several extra magazines and 2 guys reloading them as they empty you could lead a horde away until you run low on zombies ammo or gas.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I don't know if you've ever tried reloading a drum magazine, but you aren't going to be doing it in the field while on a moving platform. \n\nBX-25 magazines would still make more sense in that situation. "
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "I'm skeptical of the .22LR's ability to effectively destroy the brain. I'm not even 100% convinced that any pistol caliber round would be able to do it consistently. \n\nThe issue with the .22LR is that they don't get good penetration, and they don't make a big hole. Zombies don't bleed out so unless you struck the exact right petition of he brain it's not going to be a kill. They also don't actually bounce around the skull in the way that Brooks describes. They can bounce around, but not like that. \n\nThey are also much more likely to glance off. This can happen with any round, especially pistol rounds, but it's very common with the .22. \n\nPlus rim fire rounds are less reliable than center fire rounds. There's a good chance the round won't even go off. \n\nAnd of course there are human threats to consider. A .22 can kill, but not fast enough to stop him from killing you. "
},
{
"body": "Was mak8ng sure no one else made this point first before me. Congrats. A .22 is the perfect zombie round. It will enter the skull then bounce around the inside obliterating the brain.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "If it doesn't bounce off the skull first. \n\nI know a woman that was shot in the head, point blank with a .38 and the bullet bounced off her forehead because the teenager pulling the trigger didn't have the barrel at a 45 degree angle when he shit her. \n\nThe bullet bounced off her skull. Knocked her the fuck out. She was in the hospital with a concussion, but not dead. And a .38 is a lot more powerful than a .22. \n\nI knew a kin in highschool that got shot in the leg with a .22 pistol and the bullet didn't even penetrate his jeans. \n\n.22's are good for target practice, but I wouldn't want one in a zombie apocalypse. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Not to be contrite but your anecdotes are bullshit. People hunt alligators with .22lr. 22 can punch holes in sheet metal and and cast iron grills. 22 were used in the 80s by Cia in single shot pistols with large suppressors to quietly off people by putting that round in their skulls. Same way with gators, put the gun to their heads and let loose. People have dropped deer with 22.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "A human skull is a lot thicker and tougher than an alligators skull. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Is it? I don't know much about alligators but I would have assumed the opposite. \n\nThe bigger issue is that zombies don't bleed. Alligators do. "
}
]
},
{
"body": "No, his anecdotes are correct. So are yours.\n\nThe problem with .22 LR is that shot placement has to be precise in more ways than one. It has to hit square with its target, at close range, in a structurally weak spot. \n\nIf it does not hit square with its target, it's likely to deflect, and will do so readily because it's only 33 grains of relatively compact lead going barely over supersonic. \n\nKilling a gator with a contact shot (read: muzzle KE/velocity, 100% square to target, structurally weak portion of rear of skull) is different from hitting a human at not-contact range while at an angle to the target (like, say, if you were panicked, or if they decided to stumble at the wrong time, or any number of things). \n\nPeople have dropped deer with .22, from an ambush position of strength, at their discretion, square to the target and at a structurally weaker portion of the skull. \n\nPolice don't carry .22 LR because .22 LR can't be relied upon to penetrate sufficiently (like, say, if you aren't square to the target, or if they have their arms/hand/etc blocking the vitals) or consistently. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I agree, however with a .22 we will not be sniping the zombies. A .22LR from a compact used as a ccw put right against that skull will have the desired effect of penetration with one or two deflection around the interior of the skull effectively blending the contents into soup.",
"replies": [
{
"body": ".22 bouncing around isn't a thing. It defies fluid dynamics.\n\nIf a .22 does manage to penetrate the skull, the fluid drag (and air to fluid transition) will rapidly deplete its momentum, and it will stop somewhere in the middle of the brain. If it's going to reach the other side and hit the skull (but not penetrate), it's just going to stop there, because then its momentum is truly spent after hitting bone. \n\nAlso if you're going to use a gun primarily as a contact weapon, you're going to have a bad time."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "It depends a lot on the load. \n\nPeople also bleed to death. A small hole in your brain is usually fatal to a human, but not always right away. There are plenty of examples of people walking into an emergency room, cool as a cucumber, and then dying later. \n\nA zombie doesn't have those issues. It doesn't need blood. You have to directly hit the parts of the brain that it uses. A .22 won't necessarily do that reliably. I'm not even sure any pistol round will do that reliably, but a 9mm or above probably has a decent chance. \n\nAnd while low velocity rounds can bounce inside the skull, they don't do so in a way that would matter to a zombie. When they bounce they tend to skim around the outside rather than penetrate the deeper parts of the brain. \n\nIt might work. I would certainly want to test it. But it would not be my first choice. "
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "Just think about it. When you throw a pebble into water, what happens? \n\nIt doesn't bounce up and around after striking the water. It rapidly loses momentum/velocity from fluid drag and slows to a stop, at which point gravity pulls it down. \n\nThe same thing will happen to a .22 that does not penetrate fully. It will enter the skull (assuming that it was not deflected by bone or anything), enter the brain, and be rapidly slowed by the time it reaches the other side of the skull (if it does get there at all). "
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "I have a piston AR and it's super reliable. Barely have to clean it and the bolt stays cool to the touch. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "The problem is that if you ever do break something on that rifle, it would be hard to fix it or find parts.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "As it would with any rifle unless you're a gunsmith with a truck load of spare parts and a mobile workbench. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "You don't need to be a gunsmith to replace a gas tube or BCG on a standard AR. Or for that matter, replace a piston or carrier on a piston AR.\n\nHowever, piston ARs are proprietary, meaning that the parts are OEM-only and expensive. \n\nDirect impingment ARs have an open standard, meaning that parts are cheap, widely available (and used by the US Armed Forces, as well as the Canadian military and special forces in other nations), and offered by many manufacturers. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Ok, good to know. See I'm not a modern gun guy, nor am I a gunsmith or a military guy. When I commented about the AR15, I was on my cell and I didn't do my proper research, which is the problem I felt Brooks had in his book. Ironically...\n\nBut my point is still valid. You can have a modern semiautomatic assault rifle and use it properly to defend yourself against zombies. \n\nYou could do it with a bolt action as well... But, you better have a cool head and a backup. \n\nMy knowledge of guns is more specific to the Wild West era, because that's my point if interest. I own a single action .357 Ruger Vaquero and several .30-30 lever action rifles and a couple of older hunting shotguns. I could probably break them down and clean them in the field in a pinch, but their simplicity is a testament to their reliability. \n\nIn the heat of battle, if you tossed me an AR15 and it broke down on me... I'd be swinging it like a baseball bat... If I didn't have a Bowie on me ;-) .\n\nI really only used the AR15 because I believe i remembered Max Brooks using it as an example in his ZSG book, and it's been years since I read that thing. That and I'd say it's probably one of the most popular \"assault\" tyoe rifle own by Americans for \"home defense\".\n\nIt all depends on what you're used to realistically.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "It's sort of interesting how complex lever-actions are in terms of the actual elevator mechanism and all that (more complex than many semi-autos, actually, and not very user-serviceable with many small springs and detents to keep track of), yet they're plenty reliable. \n\nFor what it's worth, a Winchester 1892 .357 Magnum lever-action holds 15+1, which is absolutely bananas for a tube-fed lever-action. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "And if you are truly concerned about reliability over function, speed or ammo capacity, then a good old Double Barrel shotgun can't be beat. \n\nLike I said, it's all relative. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Double barrel? Forgot all that barrel regulation nonsense, gimme a single-barrel break action or falling block. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Spear and shield. "
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "Reload speed is fairly slow compared to a removable magazine but I agree. I also love a good lever gun. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "The trick is to keep it topped off, just like a shotgun. If you aren't shooting you need to be reloading. \n\nNot my first choice either, but they are cool. If it ever got to the point where we have to go back to black powder, lever actions would make a comeback. "
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "All you need to assemble and ar-15 is a screw driver, vise grip and hammer. If you don't believe me, try putting one together. The parts are normal pins, screws and springs. The rest might be hard, but not impossible."
}
]
},
{
"body": "That wouldn't really be a problem. Where you find gun parts you'll find guns. You aren't likely to find a bunch of AR parts lying around by themselves. More likely you would steal them from a different AR. Worst case scenario, swap uppers or swap the entire rifle. \n\nOdds are you will run out of ammo long before you have to worry about long term wear and tear. "
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "One advantage of a bolt action rifle is the slower rate of fire forces you to be more particular when choosing your shots rather than wasting ammo",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Except when you need volume of fire, then you're fucked. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Switch weapons.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Or, you know, just carry one and have some discipline.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "It would be helpful to have a few different weapons during an apocalyptic situation, if for nothing else, to have different calibers for scavenging. So, what's wrong with switching? Certainly, an AR-style semiauto weapon is going to have wide utility, but what you have and what you can get your hands on may be different from what you want.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Have you ever tried carrying more than one long arm and just transitioning to the other? \n\nIt's pretty cumbersome. Much less having to ruck it 50+ miles. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I think people who have these ideas are basing their carrying capacity to the video games they've played. \n\nAfter hunting in the woods for several hours with just a lever/bolt action rifle, you're gonna start wishing you didn't have to lug that thing around. Now add a backpack full of stuff, extra ammo, a sidearm, a melee weapon, etc.. "
},
{
"body": "Yeah the only additional firearm that's wise to carry is a sidearm, but there's limited range."
},
{
"body": "I'm not saying that it is optimal. I doubt you would carry another firearm besides a sidearm, as /u/IsolateWolf suggested, but it's not impossible and may be necessary if you have to leave wherever you have been staying without transport. I'm not claiming to be an expert at survival or tactical situations. However, I think I'm fairly smart and have *a little* tactical experience, have fired many different firearms, and have been making some informal plans for what to do during an apocalyptic situation.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "It is possible to carry ONE additional long arm with you, if it is a relatively lightweight takedown model, but you will not have it on your person. It would be stowed in your pack and not available until you get wherever you needed to go. Even then I would question the value of taking up all that space and weight. \n\nUnless you're a Navy SEAL that has trained for 1000+ hours transitioning and carrying two long arms, you're not going to be able to reasonably carry nor transition between two fully functional long arms over the indefinite duration of a zombie apocalypse with limited food/water. It's just not going to happen. \n\nEven a Navy SEAL would prefer to use only one long arm. "
},
{
"body": "Carry, maybe. Fight with? Not going to happen. You could strap it to your pack but that's not going to do you any good in a fight. "
}
]
},
{
"body": "One alone is bad enough! A day of hunting will wear your arms and shoulders out."
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "[deleted]",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I agree 100% on that, but when the adrenaline hits it is easy to mag dump even with a battle rifle if you aren't careful and prepared mentally for the situation ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "You can mag dump with semi-auto all the same. If you are untrained, any ammo is going to be wasted. \n\nI'm pretty damn sure that you would stop mag dumping with a select-fire .308 battle rifle, because even in a drunken, sleep-deprived, adrenaline pumped stupor, you WILL notice .308 on full-auto. "
},
{
"body": "I've seen people mag dump with a bolt action rifle before. It's just a really slow mag dump. \n\nBolt actions slow you down but you spend that time loading, not aiming. "
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "People have been making that argument since the Civil War, when the union army decided to stick with muzzle loaders rather than repeating rifles because the were afraid that soldiers would waste ammo. In fact, that line of thought continued to influence gun design up until WWII, after which the army really examined the issue scientifically and thoroughly debunked it. \n\nThere are a lot of reasons why semi-auto is better, most of which were more about winning than logistics, but they also found that wasting ammo wasn't a big issue. \n\nWhat happens under pressure is that if you miss the first shot, because people aren't used to the adrenaline dump, then people start to panic because they feel like they need to \"catch up.\" So they rush the next shot, and are more likely to miss. Then it really starts to mess with their head. \n\nSo while you would think that it would force the shooter to slow down and take their time, what it actually does is make them speed up their shooting to compensate for how slow the gun is. \n\nIt's a little counterintuitive, but the military has done plenty of studies. Fight or flight does some pretty crazy things to the body that you wouldn't necessarily expect. \n\nAnecdotally, I do some completion shooting and I see this sort of thing all the time. Once someone feels like they're running behind, their shooting gets progressively worse and they are likely to make other mistakes as well. And that's just with the artificial pressure of a time clock. If there were zombies walking toward you this would be magnified. \n\n"
}
]
},
{
"body": "I'm writing a zombie series right now, and the most important component according to my character is silencers. Silencers on all guns.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I hope you're also doing your research on silencers...they're nothing like what the movies and video games make them out to be.\n\nIt would likely still help with the not attracting every zombie around, but you're not gonna stealth kill a zombie in the hall without the others hearing it",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Thanks for the advice! I know they're louder than tv, but they're better than nothing. Bows and crossbows will become the primary weapons as the story unfolds though. There will be lots of commentary regarding zombie standards that make no sense, such as few people considering bikes, or silencers, or armor when facing the undead. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "The proper term is 'suppressor', they don't \"silence\" the shot. The little \"pewt pewt\" noise you hear Hollywood guns making is science fiction. [Suppressed fire M16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM8xvE5B4yk&t=6m40s). Earlier in the video you can hear non-suppressed on the same weapon.\n\n",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Silencer is an acceptable term.\n\nhttp://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/maximsilcover.jpg"
}
]
},
{
"body": "Bows suck for anything but hunting. \n\nCrossbows are a little better, but are not ideal for headshots. They don't pack enough kinetic energy. Fine for soft tissue on an animal that will bleed out, but zombies don't. Even if you get them in the head it's unlikely that you would be able to penetrate, and even if you penetrate the head it's unlikely that you would be able to destroy the parts of the brain that matter. \n\nSorry. I know I'm a buzz kill. If stealth is a major portion of your story, then they are going to have to go up close and personal. Even then, fighting is pretty loud. Sorry. There are not a lot of good options in the stealth department. "
},
{
"body": "I'd love to see people using long Spears. You can jab a zombie in the head at 10 feet and keep going. "
}
]
},
{
"body": "Silencer + subsonic ammo is pretty quiet.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Good luck getting subsonic ammo reliably after Z-Day. You'll be shooting whatever you've got. There might be a few people holed up who still have the ability to reload, but that won't be most people. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Not arguing that fact, just stating a fact in contrast to his “they're nothing like what the movies and video games make them out to be\" line.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Yeah, if you use the right gun and the right ammo and the right suppressor and you run the suppressor wet... It's possible. But that's not how they are generally used, nor would that be feasible in most situations. \n\nEdit:\nAnd to further clarify, I've played video games where you could fire a suppressed hunting rifle at a zombie from about 50ft and the zombie wouldn't look up if you missed. In that sense, he's absolutely right that suppressors don't work like that. \n\nIn the movies and games they tend to just magically make the gun quiet. I think we can all agree they don't work like that. "
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "Why is it that movies/TV get it so wrong?",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Because audiences don't really want 'right'. Action movies aren't documentaries, a silencer that removes all noise is beneficial to the movie and so it's what the movie goes with."
},
{
"body": "It's not common knowledge. Unless you're really into guns, most people have never seen or shot a suppressed weapon. Even most casual gun owners don't know much about suppressors. That's starting to change a bit, since manufacturers and the Internet are starting to get the word out, but most people can't tell a glock from a Smith and Wesson. \n\nThat probably goes double for anyone living in Hollywood where they have very strict gun laws. "
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "For fun, include a group of survivors that got completely eaten alive because they followed advice from a comedy book.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I just might :)"
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "Imho the best weapon would be a auto (AA-12/Saiga 12) or pump action shot gun. Ammo is easy to find and make and does quite a bit of damage with next to no skill needed, disadvantage is its freakin loud but I suppose you can make a suppressor for it. \n\nBonus points if you can fund slugs and dragon shells for it, a shotty is just very versatile if you know how to use one",
"replies": [
{
"body": "12g is bulky and heavy, and 12g box/drum magazines aren't very space efficient. "
},
{
"body": "An AA-12 weighs 16 lbs loaded and would be impossible to find. You can make kill shots with the right load and choke out to 50 yards, and a pump is fairly reliable until you get to freezing conditions."
},
{
"body": "How about a minigun while you're at it?"
}
]
},
{
"body": "Bolt gun with a .223 wylde chamber that accepts AR15 magazines.\n\nNEXT",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Those exist, but a semi auto is still going to be faster and easier to shoot in a combat situation. \n\nBolt actions only have an advantage if you only need to shoot one thing at a time. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "http://blogs.r.ftdata.co.uk/beyond-brics/files/2012/09/goalposts.jpg",
"replies": [
{
"body": "What's your point?",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I think he thinks he can ignore the other impracticalities because he only intended to address capacity as an issue."
},
{
"body": "Sorry m8, thought I was replying to a different comment thread where a dude said that a \"bolt action limits magazine capacity\". I didn't check context, I just replied from the inbox.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Fair enough. You're right that bolt action does not necessarily limit mag capacity, though in practice most models do tend to have a fixed mag with a low capacity. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Yeah, a lot of good boltguns do have fixed magazines, keeps them compliant as hunting rifles in a lot of states where anything black with a detachable mag is the scariest thing ever. I just like proving people wrong on the internet with very specific counter-arguments because I'm an asshole.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I'm pretty sure every Internet thread has to have at least one pendant. "
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "I think the zombie survival guide mostly worries about possible human threats in the firearm section just based on the fact that you will want to move without drawing attention, thus close combat with blunt or bladed weapons against walkers. I do understand what you mean but small calibers such as .223 (5.56) and 7.62 are very readily available bolt action rifle rounds as well, and a .22 has enough power to kill any human at a range close to 200 yards. The only problem with the 22 at that range is basically having to be a marksman to hit accurately at that range, but the quiet of the round, and the fact that the ammo comes in bricks of 500 would be far more important than the stopping power at distance.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "No, it doesn't have enough stopping power. It might kill them eventually, but not fast enough to keep them from killing you, which is your actual goal. \n\nAnd even if you are a marksman, that doesn't mean much with a .22. The parts of the body that are going to put someone down, the major organs and blood vessels, are buried. Once a round hits the body it doesn't keep going straight, it deflects unpredictably. With a .22 you won't get enough penetration to reach the vital organs except maybe by dumb luck. \n\nAnd that's at any distance. It's not designed to kill people. Great for small game hunting or target practice, but not much else. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I would like to take this opportunity to point you towards iraqveteran8888's channel on YouTube for the \"how far is a .22lr lethal video showing complete penetration on a 3/4\" peice of plywood at 400 yds which is used in equivalence of a human skull, please research before you speak ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "That's only if you hit he skull, which is much harder in combat than at the range. That target is going to be shooting back at you, probably with more than a .22. \n\nA piece of wood is also balistically very different than a skull. It's flat, for starters. \n\nThe vast majority of the people who are shot with a .22 survive, and many of the people who die don't die quickly. One bro science range expedient doesn't change that. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "My only point us regardless it will still immobilize or give more of a chance than nothing, if it can go through skull it can go through almost anything else on our body. Incapacitation would be enough to stop most engagements. For use on zombies the light weight of it and accessible ammo would make it more than viable to pull it's weight in any bug out kit ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "That is just not how bullets work. Just because it can hypothetically go through a skull doesn't mean it will in a combat situation. It also doesn't mean that it will be able to penetrate deep enough to hit anything vital. \n\nAnd if it doesn't get the vital organs, it's not going to be able to stop your attacker. That's how this shit works. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "It doesn't have to get something vital to take someone out of the fight, the few seconds even that it slows them down would be enough to give you the edge to get to close quarters or a heavier weapon, it doesnt take much to make someone combat ineffective \n\nBut I suppose you'd rather go into the fight with nothing rather than a firearm that even though not ideal could save your life ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Not if they are a determined attacker. Once the adrenaline hits you can absolutely keep fighting even with a gunshot wound. Regan got shot with a .22 and didn't even know it. \n\nIn fact, that's one of the most basic things they teach you in any level of combat training. \n\nI never said that I wouldn't take a .22 if that was the only weapon available to me. What I said was that it's the wrong tool for the job. Don't put words in my mouth. "
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "[deleted]",
"replies": [
{
"body": "In a zombie apocalypse, I'd likely just use a suppressed .22 rifle or pistol. I can carry 500 round bulk pack with ease so a few more boxes won't be an issue. Compare that weight to 9mm or 5.56 which were my runner up choices.\n\nMy Ruger 22/45 is quiet suppressed with subsonic ammo and I can use my thumb to stop the action which is louder that the report of the shot. It's the one of the few suppressed firearms I've shot that is actually hearing safe."
},
{
"body": "A 9mm is more *reliably* deadly, because it's not nearly as easily deflected and doesn't rely on rimfire primers, but yes, shot placement is key. "
},
{
"body": "That's not even remotely true. Also, deadly isn't the important factor for a defensive round. It doesn't matter whether the bad guy dies. It matters whether he kills you. ",
"replies": [
{
"body": "You're only getting downvoted because these guys don't understand what shoot to stop means.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Whatever. Apparently the rest of the world is going to be running around with .22s and spears. "
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
}