THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

  • 29 Mar 2024, 03:43
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank  (Read 20525 times)

Dazed

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,338
  • Straight outta Boston
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #100 on: 05 Feb 2009, 20:08 »

I hate fun and kittens.

Really though, why are you trying to suck the fun and goodness out of this thread? We're talking about fucking zombies, why should our ideas be grounded in reality?
Logged
I would probably be getting laid right now if it weren't for the Jews

clockworkjames

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,081
  • Grammar Nazi vs Illiterate Jew
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #101 on: 05 Feb 2009, 20:13 »

You fire a gun and all the zombies hear it and swarm you and eat you and you die, meanwhile I will be over there in my country with not many guns hiding in a police station or something. Stock a prison cell with enough food/water etc. and the entire cell block could serve to keep you and some friends alive and safe for a year or some shit. It's a prison, people cannot get out and you could make it so people could not get in.

Defeat is imminent and you will get turned into a zombie which might be pretty damn awesome, for all you know the zombies might be all like "Hey dude this fucking rocks! let me bite you and it will be awesome! You get to run about all over the place, hang out with us, take whatever you like and it feels sooo good"
« Last Edit: 05 Feb 2009, 20:21 by clockworkjames »
Logged
still new here, didn't wanna piss anyone off

ImRonBurgundy?

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,233
  • "That's all," he added.
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #102 on: 05 Feb 2009, 20:36 »

I, for one, would like to see Ed, Edd, and Eddy fight zombies.
Logged
You just came back to shit in my heart, didn't you Ryan?

Nodaisho

  • Vulcan 3-D Chess Master
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,658
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #103 on: 05 Feb 2009, 20:52 »

The Shrike was mostly vaporware because they chose a poor original location for their factory.  Now that they're down in FL, they've started shipping the carbine uppers for 2500 each and the feed covers (which are currently being shipped to the patient customers who have been waiting 5+ years for the damn things, hence the vaporware comment is not wholly unwarranted, in fact, it is mostly justified) which, once they are caught up with both their pre-orders and the military, will go for another 2500.
Good to know. I was sad to hear that the shrike seemed to not actually exist, because it seems like such a good idea. Maybe I'll get one eventually, assuming no banning.

Quote
It's not so much the lightweight concept as it is the ammo concept.  Beltfeds are voraciously hungry eaters.  You might stop ONE mob with three beltfeds, but the sheer amount of ammunition necessary to have in reserve in order to keep those beltfeds running quickly becomes logistically unsound for an unresupplied location.
The use of the belt-feds would be best reserved for absolute last-ditch situations while bugging out of your current base. If you didn't have to get out immediately, a molotov cocktail might be better. It just means a flaming zombie, but a flaming zombie is a charred skeleton that doesn't know it yet, and if a bunch of other oh-so-flammable zombies are pressing up against it, you could take out a whole mob with just one cocktail.

Quote
As compared to what?  I wouldn't butt-stroke someone with it, if that's what you mean.
Yeah, that's what I meant. I come from the somewhat old school of thought, that says that both ends of your gun should be usable as a weapon. Probably not all that advantageous, in reality, but it is a psychological thing as well.

Quote
If you mean amount of rounds downrange between failures, I've put about 5000 through mine with nary a hitch.  It's a very simple action with a big, heavy bolt and decently heavy recoil spring.  It's a blowback, so no gas system to foul, and the trigger system is STUPID simple.  So from a FIRING standpoint, I'd say yes, it's durable.  From a "Use it as a club" standpoint, I'd say it makes a better wiffle bat.
Still sounds like a good choice ammo compatibility wise. If you find a bunch of 9mm ammo, better to be able to use it in a carbine than a pistol.

Quote
The SU-16 has been the victim of a rumor, the origins of which are a bit obscure, as to mean rounds before failure.  Also, it's been inferred that their barrels are not chrome lined.

When I spoke to George Kellgren a few weeks ago in person, he assured me that ALL SU-16 models are being manufactured with chrome-lined barrels and chambers, not just the SU-16D.  Then he showed me.  I'm a believer.

I still wouldn't buttstroke someone with it;  But that's the tradeoff for the weight, the fold-down bipod, the gas-piston system that doesn't crap where it eats, and a reliable action with many of the GOOD points of the AR-15 without some of the more glaring drawbacks.
I had heard good things about the gun, but the opinion was pretty prevalent that they wouldn't use it in an SHTF situation, partially for lack of replacement parts, and partially for the amount of polymer. It's funny, we all know that polymers can be ridiculously strong, especially for their weight, but some part of us still wants the old-fashioned durability of metal and wood. The folding bipod is good, though I wonder how steady it would be. Could give a decent challenge for lightweight .223 of choice.

Quote
Because suppressors don't exactly work the way people think they do; They'd be of limited utility in a ZPAW, and they make a barrel you're trying to make shorter for handiness, LONGER.  Many modern suppressors do not require cleaning at all;  In fact, at least one AAC model, the factory reps said, "The dirtier it is, the quieter it is."  Others are of a semi-self-cleaning nature.  Suppressor technology has come a long way since the crude drawings of the Anarchist's cookbook.
Very true, at least on the longer and have progressed a lot fronts. Don't know about the cleaning, having not researched them more than making sure they exist for a given caliber, and seeing what decibel reduction you are looking at. With something as short as the 74U, though, longer is a very relative term. At least some designs also mount back on the gun, using some space by the end of the barrel as well as the standard baffles, minimizing the extra space it takes.

Quote
Other than shooting without earmuffs, there are just too few real-world applications for a suppressor for it to be much more than a toy.  But I'll admit that that's my opinion.  And my first suppressed firearm will probably be the converted Ruger 22 pistol with integral AAC suppressor called the Amphibian.  Very nice.  Looks like a long-barrelled Ruger .22 pistol with a bull barrel.
Well, I'm pretty sure that I don't want to be wearing earmuffs when keeping an ear out for zombies. I've heard that some electronic ones actually enhance low volume sounds while dulling the loud ones, but I don't know if that is true, and I would want to try them out first, anyway. For me, the idea would be making sure as few others as possible hear the sounds of gunshots. 27-30 decibels of noise drop is making it one ninth or one tenth the volume. Still going to be decently loud, but better than unsuppressed.

Quote
I wasn't even going to go there.  Instead, I was going from the point of view of the 74 SU's short barrel having a detriment to both muzzle velocity (already an issue with the 5.45x39.5 cartridge) and accuracy (especially the shorter sight radius).  A way to get around the shorter sight radius is to go optical, but then that's one more thing to worry about breaking under heavy duty conditions.

And while the 5.45 is plentiful and cheap RIGHT NOW, it IS an imported round, which can dry up with the stroke of a presidential pen.  If you're going to keep it for ZPAW, then no matter how much ammo you get, it is still finite, which means full auto is wasteful.  If you're not going full auto, you still have the velocity issues cutting down on your effective range with a shorty barrel.
The sights would be an issue, I would probably have some sort of optic on the gun, and have backups if I could. I don't think the velocity would be an issue out to longer ranges than I would expect the gun to be capable of getting reliable headshots, though. You do have a point about ammo availability possibly drying up, if that does happen, I'll have to change plans for my gun.

Quote
In contrast, I'd recommend a full-length 74 (16" barrel) in 5.56;  I've been very impressed with the accuracy of the Romanian SAR-3's, and a little disappointed in their "remix" the WASR-3.  However, their barrels are ALSO chrome-lined, and with decently adjusted sights to a 25/250 BSZ, or a QD scope setup, could be used as effectively as a 16" AR-15, though a bit heavier but definitely an advantage in the reliability department.  Just remember that the 5.56 version of the 74 uses a slightly different hammer geometry.  The correct hammer can be purchased at Red Star Arms, or, I think also from Tapco.
I was thinking a 180B for .223, though I could be biased because of how much I love the looks of that gun. You can get one of the folding stocks from the original 180/18 on there, and a picatinny rail mounted on the strange scope mount armalite put on there. Spare parts could be an issue, admittedly. One thing the various AKs and AR-15s (and CETME/G3s, FALs, and M1As, but those are more than you need for zeds) wouldn't have a problem with. I suppose it would depend on whether I stocked up on spare parts, and had them with me as to whether that would be a good choice.

Quote
I'd also finally like to point out that merely having a gun does not make you armed any more than having a piano makes you a musician;  A tool is useless if you are not able to use it skillfully.

With that, I recommend actual practice with your firearm, a tactical carbine class that includes both technical and psychomotor components, at least one force-on-force class with emphasis on your chosen sidearm, at least THREE bouts in a FATS, and that's just for starters.  Basic Defensive Pistol, Defensive Pistol, and Advanced Defensive Pistol are also excellent courses.
Very true, and bonus points for referencing the late Col. Cooper. I do want to go to Thunder Ranch, which I have heard nothing but good about, but that will come in quite a while. Don't know what an FATS is, though.

Quote
Finally, my statement was "Many of you..." when it came to hollywood and television "training"

And I also mentioned that some of you had the right idea in that same post.  Curious as to WHY you thought I was talking TO you when I talked about hollywood and was NOT talking about you when I talked about the right idea.

But no matter.  I've clarified my positions.  And without near the Great Wall O Text, either.

We can discuss logistics further, if you like.  As I said before, SOME of you (by which I specifically include you, Nodaisho) have the right idea, and some well-thought out options.  Those who fall into this category, I am happy to discuss the finer points and make recommendations.

The REST of you who DON'T fall into that category...the cluephone is ringing...pick it up.

It's up to you to decide who's full of shit and who has been there and done that, not me.  I'm comfortable in my preps, and mine are both FOR REAL, and ALREADY DONE.

S
Well, I knew you were referring to me when you mentioned the belt-feds. I admit that they aren't practical for just about anything you would be dealing with in zombieland (aside from aforementioned battles with unfriendly survivors), but I just get annoyed by the "No automatic period" rule people quote constantly. Not as bad as when people say you want a bolt action, so you don't spray and pray, but still pretty annoying. Wouldn't use an automatic-only gun, though, if I had a choice. I really don't trust my skill to pull off even pairs of shots, much less single shots.

I assumed you weren't referring to me with the hollywood bit, but it still came across pretty arrogant. Apologies if that isn't how you intended it to sound, text-based conversation is a fickle mistress.
Logged
I took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots

Spluff

  • William Gibson's Babydaddy
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,410
  • it is time to party
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #104 on: 05 Feb 2009, 20:55 »

No guys, no.
Logged
[16:27] Ozy:  has joined the room
[16:27] Quietus: porn necklace!
[16:27] Quietus: Shove it up yer vag!
[16:27] Ozy: has left the room

clockworkjames

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,081
  • Grammar Nazi vs Illiterate Jew
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #105 on: 05 Feb 2009, 21:55 »

I, for one, would like to see Ed, Edd, and Eddy fight zombies.
Well from all the monster movies Ed has watched I am sure he would be more capable and educated than anyone in this thread.

I always thought for a gun agains zombies a 7.62 would be better than a 5.56 due to the damage it does on a cadaver, smaller bullet just goes straight through causing less damage but a 7.62 will fuck shit up alot more and depending on location bullits might be easier to come by.

But hey, a machete never runs out of bullits.
« Last Edit: 05 Feb 2009, 22:02 by clockworkjames »
Logged
still new here, didn't wanna piss anyone off

Masterbainter

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 420
  • those times...
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #106 on: 06 Feb 2009, 01:54 »

I've read through this thread, but i'm still confused what type of zombies we are being overrun with here?
Logged
Hey guys let me tell you about my intercourses.

My intercourses, let me tell you about them.

Josefbugman

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,102
  • Are you Sure thats wise sir?
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #107 on: 06 Feb 2009, 03:50 »

Oh sweet mercy you are analysing guns that is so boring I think an accountant just popped into existence, please don't start discussing spread, or weight or gage because, you know something? Its utterly and completly dull.

Also, I thought it was slow zombies considering these appeared and then nothing happened.
Logged
Oddly enough the "oh no boobs!" box in the background of todays comic is my usual reaction.

Masterbainter

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 420
  • those times...
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #108 on: 06 Feb 2009, 05:44 »

Edit: sorry mine isn't based on best scenario for me weapon wise.  But i'm figuring I'd still get by with what I currently have realistically.

Tools:
Shotgun - located under my bed, is preloaded
Extra Ammo - in my duffel bag in the closest(may or may not be accessible depending on the situation)
car (2005 Grand Prix, good for outrunning slow zombies) - always has a half tank of gas which can get me close to 100 miles
18 water bottles and survivial kit - located in trunk of car
fishing poles - located in trunk of car(lots of lil ponds/rivers around here in dire need can use for catching food)

Plan:

I live in the middle of the city but near some major artery streets.  I would hopefully be aware of the Zombie invasion before streets become congested(very very light sleeper). I would speed and get out of town and head towards my hometown which is rougly 180 miles.  Once there I should be good to go as I have plenty of family who love/own guns and has many deep freezers full of food.  They stock up on water as well just because they always go to sam's club when they come visit me and the buy tons of water.  I think there with them is my best chance for survival and also where'd i'd be okay with dying as well.

Note: we're never short on ammo :)

Problems:

Not being aware of zombie attack before I have them coming in through my windows  -  I live garden level so I could forsee this being a huge problem.   

Not being able to get out of the city i'm in with my car -  Sioux Falls is not yet restructured for it's population and can get very congested during rush hours(not as bad as real cities, but not good for zombie invasion either)

Smaller towns already overrun with zombies -  I would need to stop at some point to get gas to make it all the way to my hometown, if the small towns have zombies roaming it may be very difficult to do so.

Family already zombies - Sad but i'd have to dispose of them.  I would still try to strong hold at my grandparents where most of the guns/ammo is located.  I woudln't bank on suriving so much as I'd bank on trying to kill as many zombies in the area as possible.  There is only 3500 in my hometown.. I know there is more than triple that amount of ammo and the closest towns are 10 miles and only a few hundred people.

« Last Edit: 06 Feb 2009, 06:15 by Masterbainter »
Logged
Hey guys let me tell you about my intercourses.

My intercourses, let me tell you about them.

öde

  • Vulcan 3-D Chess Master
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,633
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #109 on: 06 Feb 2009, 07:24 »

What if the zombies are arching their backs?
Logged

Mr. Skawronska

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
  • Well-Dressed Cynic
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #110 on: 06 Feb 2009, 11:00 »

Quote
If you didn't have to get out immediately, a molotov cocktail might be better.

Agreed.  Both logistically and tactically.  Also, it takes a lower level of technology to make molotovs, meaning if you had access to alcohol, or even rudimentary distilling equipment and a way to procure containers (glass blowing might get interesting, but it's easier than trying to make a machine shop from scratch), you could theoretically resupply forever.

This kind of sustainability in a ZPAW will go the farthest.

Quote
I had heard good things about the gun, but the opinion was pretty prevalent that they wouldn't use it in an SHTF situation, partially for lack of replacement parts, and partially for the amount of polymer.

I talked to George about replacement parts.  They're available if anyone wants to buy them.  I told him I'd be making a "repair kit purchase" sometime this year.  He seemed a bit confused as to why I'd want them, considering the guns are lifetime warranteed, and I told him that I thought he'd deliberately designed his rifles for survival purposes considering all the features he put on them, and thus, most survivalist types tend to prefer their own local supply lines.

I don't remember his answer to that.

Quote
It's funny, we all know that polymers can be ridiculously strong, especially for their weight, but some part of us still wants the old-fashioned durability of metal and wood.

Having broken a wooden stock in my time, I can tell you from first hand experience that some woods are more durable than others.  Surprising, actually, which woods and which buttstocks are actually durable and others you'd expect to be...aren't.

Quote
The folding bipod is good, though I wonder how steady it would be.

I like it.  It's steady enough for me to tighten my groupings at 100m.

I forgot to mention that the SU-16 series ALSO has the built in (as in, molded into the receiver itself) scope rail.  And the bipod?  It's actually the handguards, so that's built-in as well.

It really is a well-thought-out firearm, incorporating accessories that most people would want in a rifle as DESIGN features.

And the last thing we all have to consider when considering the logistics is cost.  And you're right, the SU-16 gives pretty much all other .223 rifles a run for their money in that department, even with the price increases across the board.

Quote
At least some designs also mount back on the gun, using some space by the end of the barrel as well as the standard baffles, minimizing the extra space it takes.

Look carefully at the specs on those types of suppressors.  That's all I'm going to say as I am not going to bad-mouth any manufacturers today.

Quote
For me, the idea would be making sure as few others as possible hear the sounds of gunshots. 27-30 decibels of noise drop is making it one ninth or one tenth the volume. Still going to be decently loud, but better than unsuppressed.

A decent point, to which I must counterpoint that most rifle cartridges are supersonic, with the crack of the bullet breaking the sound barrier being almost as loud as the muzzle blast, so suppressing a supersonic round is...well...not particularly effective.  Second, depending upon the suppressor, there will be a change in point of impact of the projectile because of the way the muzzle gases are handled.  The change is directly dependent both upon the design/manufacture of the suppressor itself, and the quality control of that manufacturer and the tolerances thereof.

Just adds another variable as a potential to degrade accuracy, which, in a life-or-death situation, is not generally a good idea.  This is why I stressed "as a toy."

Quote
I don't think the velocity would be an issue out to longer ranges than I would expect the gun to be capable of getting reliable headshots, though.

A general rule of thumb with decently made rifles is "the rifle is more accurate than you are."  So we're talking more about practical accuracy than mechanical, but what good is a rifle that could drive tacks one on top of the other if in a benchrest vise, that can't be duplicated by the rifle's user?

Practical accuracy has to come into factor here.  Velocity affects practical accuracy by the fact that projectiles don't travel straight -- they travel in an arc.  A rifleman is simply a more precise "archer" in that he should know where his projectile is going to hit relative to his sight picture at any given range.  This is what separates a mere marksman from an expert or sniper.  A marksman puts his sight picture on the target, aims dead center, and expects his projectiles to hit where he aims.  If they don't, he adjusts the sights till they do (This is also known as BSZ, or Battle Sight Zero).  An expert does this (for the .223 and the .308) at 25 yards, then verifies zero at 250 yards, as well.  Because at 25 yards the projectile hits to point of aim on the UPWARD part of the arc, and at 250 yards on the DOWNWARD part of the arc, with 100 yards having a point of impact a couple of inches ABOVE point of aim.  Then the expert "dopes" the shot, by which I mean he measures the ambient temperature, wind direction and speed, and other atmospheric factors that CAN (but not necessarily do) affect shot placement, and fires his course of fire.  He does this again, and again, and again, under different conditions each time, until he has a "rifle card" of information he can use to deduce how MUCH those factors affect his points of impact.

Honestly, though.  Most soldiers can't hit Jack past 300 meters.  Headshots at anything past 100 is something that requires practice and/or a benchrest at the very least.  Shooting ain't easy.

But it IS possible.  Just remember that it is ONLY possible if you put the time AND effort in, and THEN keep those skills honed.

Those skills CAN transition to a different platform, but adjustments will have to be made from one to the other in the finer points of the technique (which requires time and bullets downrange when careful analysis can be done, not the heat of combat) so that one can shoot the second platform as well as the first.

Time, and effort.  Determination and self-control.

I know people who can take consistent headshots offhand at 100 meters.  I can count them on one hand, and I know a LOT of people.  I myself am not one who can;  I need a benchrest for consistent headshots at 100m and beyond.

Quote
I was thinking a 180B for .223, though I could be biased because of how much I love the looks of that gun.

Yeah, I had a crush on the AR-18 since the 70's, and in many ways it is a superior design to the AR-15.  I won't go into the history on this now (you all can breathe a sigh of relief), but what I will say is that while I like the AR-18/AR-180/AR-180B, they still all fall into the "toy" category mostly because of parts availability and weight. (Parts availability you did mention, kudos.)

Quote
I suppose it would depend on whether I stocked up on spare parts, and had them with me as to whether that would be a good choice.

Absolutely correct, and along with those spare parts, the ability to replace them correctly.  I do.  I carry a near full set of spare parts for the AR-15 as a matter of course.  In the "Things you may not know about me" thread, I mention that I build rifles as a hobby.  AR-15's to be exact, and I start with a bare receiver.  So not only do I HAVE the spare parts, I know how to install and replace them, becuase it's something I already do.

Glocks are also reasonably simple to work on as far as basic parts replacement.  A single tool is used for almost every armorer's operation.  Another consideration I made when I chose the Glock -- How quickly could I learn how to fix it myself?  Answer:  About three hours with some guidance and two full detail-strips of similar models.

Quote
Very true, and bonus points for referencing the late Col. Cooper.

I was curious if you would catch that.  Good.  We are on the same page, or at least in the same book.

Quote
Don't know what an FATS is, though.

Fire Arms Training Simulator.  Basically, a video-based shoot-don't shoot scenario system, similar to a video game, but using real firearms either with live ammo or simunitions, depending upon the application.  It provides as close to real-world decision-making scenarios as you can get without shooting real people.  It involves proficiency with your equipment (like your holster and magazines), your firearm (how well you shoot) and your ability to percieve what is going on and make good judgment calls with deadly force (your OODA loop, basically).

Absolutely essential if you're planning on saving your butt with a firearm in my opinion.  Against anyONE or anyTHING.

Quote
but I just get annoyed by the "No automatic period" rule people quote constantly.

Sure, I do too, because I can tell they're just parroting what some "expert" told them without knowing the WHY behind it.

We know the why.  So we also know when the "no cyclic fire" rule CAN and SHOULD be broken.

Quote
Not as bad as when people say you want a bolt action, so you don't spray and pray, but still pretty annoying.

Someone who uses that logic is unwittingly indicating his own lack of fire discipline.  The part that's annoying is when they project that lack of discipline to others as justification for making a rule, when every person is different and many folks DO have decent fire discipline and need no arbitrary rules to conduct themselves efficiently in the art of ass-saving through superior firepower.

"Least common denominator" bullshit chafes my ass probably as much as it does you;  Again, I've experienced much of that firsthand in my life.  I am better than a good portion of the population at what I do, both because of the diversity of my skillset and the amount of time, effort, and discipline I've put into them and the knowledge and experience that surrounds it.

Quote
I assumed you weren't referring to me with the hollywood bit, but it still came across pretty arrogant. Apologies if that isn't how you intended it to sound, text-based conversation is a fickle mistress.

Oh, no, I intended it to sound arrogant as hell, because I HAVE put the time and effort into it and do this sort of thing for real, not just talk about it on teh intarweb.

As I said before, I really didn't mean to hijack this thread with my 20+ year experiences with reality, but sometimes the stuff gets so deep ya GOTTA pull it back into some semblance of reason.

And I can see that a good portion of the poor folks reading this thread are getting quickly fed up with all the tech talk -- one of the reasons why I truncated my first post so abruptly.  I apologize for the length and technical depth of this post (and honestly, it ISN'T very deep, and far shallower than I could go if given enough time and sufficient visual aids), but if you're gonna plan for a Zombopocalypse, at LEAST have your facts straight so that when and if you go back and think about stupid stuff you read on the internet that you recall in times of crisis in order to pull a MacGyver type maneuver to save your life...

...I can only hope that one or more of my posts with the straight dope helps you do the right thing.

And now, we return to the regularly scheduled hilarity...because I actually kinda hate talking shop here.  This is my playtime.  I may have mentioned this before.

Quote
I always thought for a gun agains zombies a 7.62 would be better than a 5.56 due to the damage it does on a cadaver, smaller bullet just goes straight through causing less damage but a 7.62 will fuck shit up alot more and depending on location bullits might be easier to come by.

See, it's this kind of half-assed reasoning that makes me pull my hair out.  Trouble is, I can't tell if he's serious or just fucking with me.

Quote
I've read through this thread, but i'm still confused what type of zombies we are being overrun with here?

I'm thinking the sentient, diseased "I am Legend" types, as opposed to the classic shamblers of the "Dawn of the Dead" movies.

Quote
please don't start discussing spread, or weight or gage because, you know something? Its utterly and completly dull.

Not to mention utterly useless unless you need it, at which point it becomes pretty damn important.  But I agree -- most folks do not, nor will they ever, need to know this kind of information.  However, if a situation arises where they DO need to know it, and they don't, their survivability chances plummet.

But you're right.  I'm going to try to stop being dull and go back to being delightfully creepy.

Quote
Not being able to get out of the city i'm in with my car -  Sioux Falls is not yet restructured for it's population and can get very congested during rush hours

You're in the Dakotas?  In many ways I envy you; I know what's up there.

Quote
What if the zombies are arching their backs?

Uhhh...get a necrophile to sneak up behind them and do the nasty with them from behind so you can run away?

*shrug*


End of GREAT WALL O'TEXT.

With apologies.

S
Logged
"Social niceties are for those who can tell the difference between fightin' and fightin' words, son."

mooface

  • Guest
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #111 on: 06 Feb 2009, 11:25 »

oh, hello there WALL OF TEXT.

(protip:  try being more selective in what you choose to respond to, then people might actually start reading the entirity of your posts)
Logged

Mr. Skawronska

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
  • Well-Dressed Cynic
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #112 on: 06 Feb 2009, 11:28 »

Quote
try being more selective in what you choose to respond to, then people might actually start reading the entirity of your posts

Sadly, I WAS being selective.

And, what happens to me if people DON'T read my posts?

S
Logged
"Social niceties are for those who can tell the difference between fightin' and fightin' words, son."

clockworkjames

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,081
  • Grammar Nazi vs Illiterate Jew
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #113 on: 06 Feb 2009, 11:46 »

WORDS

NO.

GTFO of the zombie thread, It's an airborn virus now and you are fucked.

How much gun knowledge does it take to be immune to a virus?
Logged
still new here, didn't wanna piss anyone off

Mr. Skawronska

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
  • Well-Dressed Cynic
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #114 on: 06 Feb 2009, 11:58 »

Quote
How much gun knowledge does it take to be immune to a virus?

None.  Immunity comes from three sources/conditions:

1) Acquired immunity -- either through having the virus and surviving/recovering from it, or being inoculated with a similar or genetically-altered virus that attunes the immune system to respond more aggressively to the virus thus providing sufficient immune response to prevent infection.

2) Hereditary Immunity -- through genetic predisposition to prior generations having had the virus or been vaccinated against it, being passed on to offspring thus creating generations of immune individuals.

3) Herd immunity -- enough individuals in the group are immune through the other two processes that the virus cannot spread, thus protecting the few who are left who are susceptible.

In this particular case, I can see that Acquired Immunity is going to be the option here.  Are you saying you're volunteering to test the first vaccine?

Moreover, since the virus is airborn, your primary defense will be a positive-pressure environment from a fresh air source.  If you've got filtration capabilities good enough (multiple millipore filters? Multiple HEPA?) then you can disinfect already contaminated air.  If you do NOT have filtration capabilities, then you are stuck with a limited supply of breathable air in a tank you've collected before the contamination of the atmosphere.  A third option which is a variation of the breathable air, is to use pure oxygen mixed with your own carbon dioxide, where you monitor your Co2 levels and atmospheric pressure to be able to maintain a breathable atmosphere for longer by just releasing oxygen when the CO2 mixture gets too high, and setting up your exhaust system to be at the level where it is mostly Co2 being bled off.

Come to think of it, setting up an air scrubber to actually actively take the Co2 out of the air and keeping the oxygen also might work, especially in conjunction with an oxygen supply.  In this manner (scrubber plus oxygen) you get as close to a long term non-renewable breathing source as is practicable.

At that point your best bet is to hope the virus dies without hosts before your air runs out.

If you've planned far enough ahead, you can take two people into a Radius Defense CAT-25 (which is designed for a LOT more people than that), bring in, oh, say a couple DOZEN "M" cylinders of O2 (plenty of space) and, though you wouldn't want to use an open flame, set up the scrubber and the CO2 detector and survive in a semi-sealed overpressure breathable atmosphere for many times the "rated" amount of time listed on the Radius Defense website for breathable air supply in a sealed shelter.

http://www.bomb-shelter.net/cat-25-disaster-bomb-shelter


Side view of CAT-25 shelter, with drawing of a person for scale.

I think their filter might actually work against the virus:

Quote
   1.  Contaminated air enters the air intake hole on the elliptical hatch dome. It then travels around under the hatch dome where the air velocity slows allowing rain and heavy particles to fall out.
   2. Contaminated air then travels into the vertical pipe under the hatch dome and past the ball valve.
   3. The contaminated air then travels into the stainless steel micronic washable screen/pre-filter removing more of the heavier particles.
   4. The air then travels into the Gas Agent Test Housing where the air can be tested using the M256A chemical agent test kit. A 4 inch white pipe plug is removed to insert the test kit.
   5. HEPA FILTER SLEEVE: The contaminated air then travels into the core of the HEPA/Carbon filter designed to remove 99.99% of particles that are 0.3 u (microns) and larger. This is where the carriers of biological warfare agents are removed. The photo shows the HEPA/Carbon sleeve.
   6. The air then travels into the activated carbon layer to remove the radioactive iodine gas.
   7. The next layer is made of Whetlerite/TEDA carbon to remove any chemical warfare agents.
   8. Ultraviolet: Bulb Over View Port The air then passes through a filter fabric to remove any carbon fines.
   9. The last stage of filtration after the filter sleeve is the ultraviolet light chamber were viruses and bacteria are exposed to more than 11,000 microwatts seconds/cm2 killing all airborne viruses and bacteria.
  10. The filtered air then enters the air blower centrifugal reverse curve motorized impeller and into the shelter.
  11. As the air blower pumps filtered air into the shelter, the shelter is slightly pressurized. This positive pressure plus the heat generated in the shelter from body heat, cooking, and showering, forces the spent air to the highest point in shelter near the top of the entranceway.
  12. At the top of the entranceway is the air outlet screen where the spent air passes through and up the air pipe and out of the elliptical hatch dome air outlet hole. Some air will pass through and around the hatch cover base because the hatch cover is not intended to be air-tight.
  13. As the air passes around the underside of the hatch dome is equilibrates with the outside air. This results in little or no thermal signature because there is little difference between the spent air and ambient air.

And if not...


Sealed Shelter Atmosphere Table.

Quote
When ground fires are present around the hatch, the air blower should not be turned on to bring in fresh air. During this time, the shelterists must breathe in a sealed shelter atmosphere. The safe duration time is based on a 3% carbon dioxide limit. The time it takes for the shelter atmosphere to reach this limit is a function of the number of shelterists, degree of physical activity of the number of shelterists, and the volume of the shelter above the floor. This duration is shown above for adults performing mild work.

85 hours for two people.  About 165 hours for one person in the relatively cavernous CAT-25, operating under Sealed Shelter Atmosphere conditions.

That's a little under a week. (Week = 168 hrs).

So you have several options in that week to decide how you're going to handle the virus.  If, as I stated before, you add oxygen cylinders, and slightly overpressure your interior atmosphere so that it goes only OUT through the exhaust vents and not IN, you could theoretically increase your "sealed shelter atmosphere" conditions several times over.  Even more if you scrubbed the air of its Co2 component and replenished it with the bottled oxygen (because then no oxygen would be wasted through exhaust.)

You still might be screwed, but this is one of the more practical options.

S
« Last Edit: 06 Feb 2009, 12:12 by Mr. Skawronska »
Logged
"Social niceties are for those who can tell the difference between fightin' and fightin' words, son."

Ozymandias

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,497
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #115 on: 06 Feb 2009, 12:03 »

I hate these threads.

It always turns into nerds jacking off about guns.
Logged
You are 9/11.
You are the terrorist.

Mr. Skawronska

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
  • Well-Dressed Cynic
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #116 on: 06 Feb 2009, 12:16 »

I hate these threads.

It always turns into idiots oversimplifying complex concepts.

Fixed it for you.

S
Logged
"Social niceties are for those who can tell the difference between fightin' and fightin' words, son."

supersheep

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,263
  • you'll have to speak up, i'm a fish and lack ears
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #117 on: 06 Feb 2009, 13:14 »

You fire a gun and all the zombies hear it and swarm you and eat you and you die
This is why I am perfectly happy sitting in my vaguely secured house and not worrying about the fact that I can't get my hands on a gun.
Logged
DJ Weight Problem: if you think semantics isn't that important maybe you should just can dig four banana nine jenkins razor blade dinosaur

clockworkjames

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,081
  • Grammar Nazi vs Illiterate Jew
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #118 on: 06 Feb 2009, 13:16 »

I don't have a gun. To get one I would have to go to a pub in a scummy part of Glasgow and I don't want to do that.
Logged
still new here, didn't wanna piss anyone off

Barmymoo

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,926
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #119 on: 06 Feb 2009, 13:21 »

I think the best way to avoid dying in a zombie attack is to move to Scotland.

There is no one there to get infected, really. You could hide out in one of the abandoned little hamlets for years and live off the land and then when it was all over you could declare yourself Laird and be rich.
Logged
There's this really handy "other thing" I'm going to write as a footnote to my abstract that I can probably explore these issues in. I think I'll call it my "dissertation."

clockworkjames

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,081
  • Grammar Nazi vs Illiterate Jew
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #120 on: 06 Feb 2009, 13:43 »

This is quite true, anyone seen 28 days later? my favourite film ever to be made here.
Logged
still new here, didn't wanna piss anyone off

benji

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,063
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #121 on: 06 Feb 2009, 13:49 »

It's a well known fact that all Scotsmen are immune to the zombie virus.
Logged
This signature is intentionally left blank.

Alex C

  • comeback tour!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,915
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #122 on: 06 Feb 2009, 14:19 »

I hate these threads.

It always turns into nerds jacking off about guns.

Yeah, I hate gun talk. Protip: Anything more involved than "I picked a shotgun because Walmart carries them" will promptly result in eye rolling and gritted teeth.
Logged
the ship has Dr. Pepper but not Mr. Pibb; it's an absolute goddamned travesty

ImRonBurgundy?

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,233
  • "That's all," he added.
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #123 on: 06 Feb 2009, 15:15 »

Jens, social astuteness cannot stand in the face of TRUTH.
Logged
You just came back to shit in my heart, didn't you Ryan?

benji

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,063
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #124 on: 06 Feb 2009, 15:27 »

Seriously though people, just skimming over the last page or so, did we start paying by the word?
Logged
This signature is intentionally left blank.

Scandanavian War Machine

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,159
  • zzzzzzzz
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #125 on: 06 Feb 2009, 16:09 »

so, ignoring the moronic walls of text bearing down upon us all, i'd just like to brag that i've been practicing axe throwing lately and i am getting pretty good at it, if i do say so myself.

it is alot of fun!
Logged
Quote from: KvP
Also I would like to point out that the combination of Sailor Moon and faux-Kerouac / Sonic Youth spelling is perhaps the purest distillation of what this forum is that we have yet been presented with.

Inlander

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,152
  • Hug your local saintly donkey.
    • Instant Life Substitute
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #126 on: 06 Feb 2009, 16:22 »

After reading this thread lately zombies would be a mercy.
Logged

Spluff

  • William Gibson's Babydaddy
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,410
  • it is time to party
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #127 on: 06 Feb 2009, 17:37 »

Hey!

You!

Yes, you!

Get out of my thread, dammit!
Logged
[16:27] Ozy:  has joined the room
[16:27] Quietus: porn necklace!
[16:27] Quietus: Shove it up yer vag!
[16:27] Ozy: has left the room

Mr. Skawronska

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
  • Well-Dressed Cynic
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #128 on: 06 Feb 2009, 21:09 »

Quote
You are doing an excellent job killing this thread by posting giant walls of shit nobody cares about. Feel free to continue but keep in mind that nobody wants you to do this.

Funny, I posted the walls of shit in response to someone, therefore someone must care about it.  The fact that you don't means something to me, but I'm not sure what;  I'll let you know the moment I care, though.

Bottom line, based on first post:

1) Many of us are better prepared for a zombie invasion than others.
2) The zombie invasion could be a euphemism for civil unrest or the result of a disaster.
3) Much of the rage and/or ennui focused at those discussing the finer points of preparation, including firearms choices, could very well be a combination of the lack of entertainment value of such dry material, and the realization of their own inadequacy.

As such, I don't take such things personally anymore;  I understand the psychological aspects of it, after reading the essay "Raging against Self-Defense" written by a psychologist on this very phenomenon.

Zombies are hard to eliminate;  Harder than people, but their elimination can be accomplished, and an effective defense mounted against them, given enough forethought, a decent game plan, and money.

Therefore, the debate of "are you prepared?" ends and "WHY aren't you prepared?" begins.

S
Logged
"Social niceties are for those who can tell the difference between fightin' and fightin' words, son."

clockworkjames

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,081
  • Grammar Nazi vs Illiterate Jew
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #129 on: 06 Feb 2009, 21:41 »

Thought this board had a "No excessive talk about guns because it is creepy" rule?

I just watched 28 weeks later with all the lights turned off at 5AM.

AWESOME.

It told me a few things, but not least that DEFEAT IS IMMINENT as well as your misplaced unwarrented sense of self importance is funny because if a marine gets killed, what chance do you stand really? Enjoy having your brains eaten, If I had a gun I would only need 1 bullet in it as a last resort tbh. Everyone would die.
Logged
still new here, didn't wanna piss anyone off

Mr. Skawronska

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
  • Well-Dressed Cynic
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #130 on: 07 Feb 2009, 07:03 »

Quote
You see, we are just having fun, and nobody actually cares.

Good to know, good to know.  I can not care just as much as the rest of you slackers.

Quote
It told me a few things, but not least that DEFEAT IS IMMINENT as well as your misplaced unwarrented sense of self importance is funny because if a marine gets killed, what chance do you stand really?

Better than average, I'd say.  But as a courtesy to the rest of this thread, I'm going to stop posting Great Walls of Text explaining why.

I'll just say, "I'm so glad you gauge so many things in life based on movies.  It seems to suit you well."

So, how about Dem Zombies...think we could get a Football League going?  The ZFL?

One of the drawbacks I see is their "end zone dance" looking too much like Michael Jackson's "Thriller."

S
Logged
"Social niceties are for those who can tell the difference between fightin' and fightin' words, son."

eddie

  • Furry furrier
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 160
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #131 on: 07 Feb 2009, 07:29 »

I wouldn't need any weapons as my workplace is practically a fortress. Its surrounded by a 25ft high steel fence fitted with barbed metal. To get inside you need to pass through two gates accessed by a fingerprint recognition then a final door that can only be opened by the security guards inside There are then 6 heavy doors operated by a card key to get to the main area. There is plenty of food inside and a backup generator.
Logged

ImRonBurgundy?

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,233
  • "That's all," he added.
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #132 on: 07 Feb 2009, 08:10 »

Zombies are hard to eliminate;  Harder than people, but their elimination can be accomplished, and an effective defense mounted against them, given enough forethought, a decent game plan, and money.

Therefore, the debate of "are you prepared?" ends and "WHY aren't you prepared?" begins.

Because zombies are fictional.

[/debate]
Logged
You just came back to shit in my heart, didn't you Ryan?

clockworkjames

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,081
  • Grammar Nazi vs Illiterate Jew
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #133 on: 07 Feb 2009, 10:51 »


I'll just say, "I'm so glad you gauge so many things in life based on movies.  It seems to suit you well."

Video games, books and the internet too, Where do you get your information about zombies that is OBVIOUSLY a more reliable source? Wikipedia?
Logged
still new here, didn't wanna piss anyone off

mooface

  • Guest
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #134 on: 07 Feb 2009, 12:17 »

conclusion:  you all spend way too much time thinking about zombies.
Logged

Mr. Skawronska

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
  • Well-Dressed Cynic
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #135 on: 07 Feb 2009, 16:51 »

Not news.  I spend way too much time thinking about EVERYTHING.

But hey, whatever.

S
Logged
"Social niceties are for those who can tell the difference between fightin' and fightin' words, son."

Hat

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,536
  • bang bang a suckah MC shot me down
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #136 on: 07 Feb 2009, 19:07 »

Logged
Quote from: Emilio
power metal set in the present is basically crunk

Masterbainter

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 420
  • those times...
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #137 on: 10 Feb 2009, 00:26 »

What if the zombies are arching their backs?

First question:  Is the zombie virus stopped with a trojan.

Second question:  are they lesbian zombies?

Third question:  Do you know a place that sells good muzzles for humanoid type beings?
Logged
Hey guys let me tell you about my intercourses.

My intercourses, let me tell you about them.

Mr. Skawronska

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
  • Well-Dressed Cynic
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #138 on: 10 Feb 2009, 01:34 »

First answer:  Not usually.

Second answer: Hopefully.

Third answer: Yes.

Hope this helps.

S
Logged
"Social niceties are for those who can tell the difference between fightin' and fightin' words, son."

SirJuggles

  • The Tickler
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 955
  • Squalor Victoria
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #139 on: 10 Feb 2009, 02:03 »

Mr S, are you this man? Because this thread is so much better in my head if you are.

On a more serious note, I honestly found the walls of text interesting. Sure it was dry tech stuff, but it was for the most part the practical application of that stuff in the event of a zombie holocaust. That makes it much more ok in my book.

It is intriguing to hear the debate between "hunker down with tons of guns" and "sneak off to somewhere quiet and wait it out". I personally am on the coast, so I've spent the last few days pondering how possible it would be to get to some oil rigs I can see from the beach, and the long-term state thereof.
Logged
Quote from: Jimmy the Squid
I still prefer to think of rugby in a more friendly way: Everyone tries to hug the guy with the ball. The team with the most hugs at the end of the game wins. Extra points for group hugs.

Lummer

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,561
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #140 on: 10 Feb 2009, 03:42 »

I didn't find it boring either, I actually found it quite fascinating, even though I know full well I'll have no chance of surviving and applying these things anyway.

I live in a large city, have no weapons, training or anything, so I'll be breakfeast for the undead.
Logged

Inlander

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,152
  • Hug your local saintly donkey.
    • Instant Life Substitute
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #141 on: 10 Feb 2009, 03:53 »

Oh now, be optimistic. Maybe you'll be brunch!
Logged

David_Dovey

  • Nearly grown up
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,451
  • j'accuse!
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #142 on: 10 Feb 2009, 04:02 »

Zombies fucking love mimosa.
Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

Inlander

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,152
  • Hug your local saintly donkey.
    • Instant Life Substitute
Re: Dire warnings of the apocalypse mistaken for prank
« Reply #143 on: 10 Feb 2009, 04:19 »

And the best bit about brunch is that it's just late enough in the day to start eating the brains of alcoholics.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up