Your end of the world/zombie apocalypse weapons

There always seems a risk of injury with the double ended one, the main benefit of pole arms normally is an increased length to do damage with, yet the double ended one hasn't got this.

 

Prohably better with the single option and wield it as a "versatile" weapon. 1d8 rather than 1d6

 

2D10 mate (according to KotOR lore), well worth going for the double to be fair. You've also got the option of just twirling like a madman if you get surrounded.

 

I know this is an old thread but a topic dear to my heart.

I have a Grozer Turkish recurve bow pulls at about 72 # at 30 inches. That is my distance weapon.

Then, a wrist rocket. Very compact and light, fits in a pocket. Ammo is everywhere. Can be used to hunt small game and can penetrate a skull on Zed.

I am trained in a spear and staff. So likely would take my spear. I also like a good staff. I make staffs and Spears with a hickory pole so either way, a good solid weapon.

Would bring one of my swords as well, and then it’s down to kukhri and tomahawks, both are great choices.

And some kind of sheath knife and backup folders.

I would have a hard time selecting an armament that is practical for carrying and functional while carrying everything else. Too many good choices.

 

Well..... Me...because Xue Sheng and Xuefu are just that bloody awesome

 

Fun thread, I'll chime in.
I'll assume "Walking Dead" type zombies--drawn to noise.

1) Firearms would be nice to have, mostly for deterring other humans from robbing or abusing me. I don't have much training in their use, but I have fired pistols and rifles before, and know the basics... I would likely need someone to show me how to clean & maintain them though. Ammo would be a pain to acquire & lug around unless I holed up near an unlooted shop that sells ammo.

2) I am decent with a recurve bow, and it doesn't make much noise. So a recurve bow & arrows would be my main anti-zombie ranged weapon. Decent if I have other people who can hold a line while I try to headshot incoming zeds. (I wouldn't mind a compound bow, but I have no idea how to maintain one.)

3) I don't have training with melee weapons... I'd go for:
- A spear: I've heard one reason spears were so popular throughout history is that, compared to many other weapons, spears are relatively (compared to other weapons) easy to use untrained. Also its nice to not have to get right up in a zombies face to kill it.
- Dagger: If zombies get past the spear, I'd want a dagger for close up work.

4) I would not want to grapple with zombies at all. Unarmed striking would be a last resort: sweeps/leg kicks to knock down zombies, push kicks to gain distance.
Likely spear + push-kicks would be my go-to melee strategy.

 

A well thought out position.

I’ll make a comment regarding firearms. In my opinion, a handgun would be a good tool to keep as an emergency fallback in case you get cornered and cannot fight your way out with your melee weapons. Overall they are to be avoided when dealing with Zed because of the noise factor and attracting more Zed. If you can fit it with a noise suppressor, that would be better, and you make a good point in needing it for the possibility of other hostile living folks. But I would keep it in reserve for use if I am in a truly desperate situation.

A rifle could also be good to have, but again the noise is an issue.

The biggest problem with firearms is the ammunition issue. First, ammo is heavy and the more of it that you carry, the less you can carry of other gear. And to quote Max Brooks, “blades don’t need reloading” so that is something to keep in mind.

Eventually ammunition will become scarce. Once you run out, that pistol is mostly good for throwing at a Zed and a rifle is little more than an heavy and poorly designed club. At that point there are better options. A baseball bat or axe or hatchet or sword or staff or spear would be lighter than a rifle and more useful at that point. Then you need to weigh the likelihood that you might be able to scavenge and find some ammunition that is appropriate for your firearm, and is it worth carrying it with that hope in mind? Perhaps not, time to throw it away or hide it where you might recover it later if you do find some ammo.

Regarding bows, a compound is a lot heavier than a recurve and has the added complexity of the pulleys and cables which could break or need service eventually. A recurve can be plenty powerful enough. For the sake of weight and bulk and simplicity, my vote is definitely with the recurve.

 

Yeah a couple more thoughts:

Agree a handgun with capacity for 10+ rounds would be a good thing to have if cornered by Zed. I don't know that it would be worth carrying around for this if it had < 10 round capacity (it would still be quite helpful, but if you only have, say, 6 shots, the tradeoff in noise & weight & finding ammo may not be worth it to me). There is also the issue of keeping it in good working condition--without appropriate cleaning & maintenance, I imagine there would soon be issues with jamming & whatever else happens with a poorly maintained gun.

Recruve bow is nice in several ways: breaks down into a thin, lightweight staff that is easy to transport, and a string. Could probably replace the string with a scavenged string/whatever in a pinch. Even poorly home-made arrows would probably work decently at short ranges (10-15 meters maybe), so assuming you had a knife, you could make more, even if they were unfletched it is probably ok at 10 meters. I don't imagine finding feathers would be super hard, but finding adhesive to stick them onto the arrows with may be difficult.
Medium ranges (20-40m) would need decent arrows though if you want any sort of accuracy. Maybe poorly made arrows would work at 20m (I wouldn't bet on it though), but 25+, forget about landing headshots.

Ranges 40m+ are fairly hard to hit accurately with a recurve, even with good arrows. At least, in my experience... my recurve bow experience is mostly from when I was a kid/teen. I was a few qualifications short of 'American Archer' when I aged out of the summer camp where I was shooting recurves often. I think the guidelines I found here are roughly what they were a few decades ago when I was working on them: https://www.camparcheryassoc.com/guidelines
I was somewhere in the Silver Bow category (40 yards). I recall 40 yards being fairly difficult to be accurate. I did some 50 yard shooting too, and that was very hard to hit accurately. And this was standing still, shooting a non-moving target, with no adrenaline rush. But < 40 yards I could get significantly higher scores than at 40. (I feel like 40 yards is where you have to really start arcing the arrows instead of mostly-straight aiming.)
Of course, I'm significantly stronger now than I was as a kid/teen, so perhaps with a stronger pull weight it wouldn't be so bad.

In this scenario, I'd not want to try headshotting zombies past 10-15 yards; even if I had decent arrows, the fact the targets are moving and that I'm likely chock full of adrenaline would make accuracy fairly difficult.
Maybe once I got back in practice I'd be willing to try further shots, especially as I learned how to adjust for moving targets.

 

I agree with your comments on the archery, I think head-shots would be difficult beyond a fairly short range. Given that arrows take time and energy to make, if you are even able to make them, then you want to be careful of losing them. Similar to the bullets issue, good arrows may become scarce and one’s ability to make more may vary.

That being said, a bow is much lighter and easier to carry than a rifle and would be easier to justify keeping it while searching for new arrows or materials from which arrows can be made. One thing I like about the Grozer bows is that he has some very compact models (such as his Turkish recurve) that are quite short and yet have a full length draw and can be made with very high power, in the neighborhood of 80#. I’ve got my eye on one of those.