Revolver is the worst possible weapon you can have in a zombie apocalypse

You need to reliably pop it, they could potentially survive several .22 shots

The parts that keep the body moving are near the brain stem the back. youd want to put your rounds through their mouth or right below their nose if they are coming at you head on.

I’ll still never be able to figure out why nobody ever used a shield and spear in this show. Combine that with chain mail and you’d be mostly unstoppable.

What about through a chain link fence surrounding, sayyyyy a prison?

You’re not going to be able to convince me a knife is better than a spear, also they should have had people working in 8 hour shifts every single day clearing the fence line, you know, instead of wandering around the tunnel system aimlessly.

>Lemme just use my three inch knife through a chain link fence because I like to get my hand as close to the zombies mouth as possible, get that knife on a long stick out of here!

That was my point exactly. Thanks for making it.

How is another zombie going to scratch you if you can't fit a human hand through the gap of a chain link fence, and common sense and survival instincts would tell you not to risk reaching for the knife if that was a possibility

moron, the only way a zombie can kill you is if it gets close. Your only chance of survival is keeping them as far as possible.

Spears work on humans for the same reason they work on zombies, reach wins fights.

Yeah bite the zombies ears off real smart

that's prob true, a halberd would solve both problems though, giving range, thrust, and slashing

Slashing isn’t particularly effective with zombies though. A war hammer would be better.

Same thing with the sword except that you need to get even closer to the zombies than with the spear before you could even attack them.

>A spear and shield is only effective in a tight formation with other spears and shields
How did you reach that conclusion?
In a one to one, spear vs sword, the spear should win 9/10 times. The reach makes all the difference.
With lumbering, moron zombies it would shine even more.

Goddamn you’re stupid, the spear has killed exponentially more people than the sword in the history of warfare and it’s not even close.

A colony of trained mosquitoes would be way better

Reach doesn't automatically win a fight you moron, your reach is worth frick all of you can't actually land a blow on your opponent, or if a missed strike takes you such a long time to recover from that you're already in serious trouble before you can strike a second time

Reach doesn't win fights, I've already given examples of this in both boxing and battle. And if you miss your strike with a spear it isn't a simple case of pulling your arm back in, your opponent has closed that distance so now they're on the inside where you can't strike, and they can. You either have to move backwards faster than they can move forwards (unlikely), risking tripping over something and dying a stupid death. A spear is completely useless once someone gets inside your range

>Reach doesn't win fights
Yes it does, you fricking Black person. That's the key to fighting. That's why polearms dominated all of history.
>I've already given examples of this in both boxing and battle
You gave a boxing example. Here's a far more relevant and real example: https://youtu.be/uLLv8E2pWdk
>

>Reach doesn't win fights
Yes it does, you fricking Black person. That's the key to fighting. That's why polearms dominated all of history.
>I've already given examples of this in both boxing and battle
You gave a boxing example. Here's a far more relevant and real example: https://youtu.be/uLLv8E2pWdk
>if you miss your strike with a spear it isn't a simple case of pulling your arm back in, your opponent has closed that distance
How? How do they run forward and attack faster than you move your elbows in? That's nonsense.
>A spear is completely useless once someone gets inside your range
Here's a funny thing about a spear: you don't have to hold it at its utmost reach. You can grab whatever part of the haft you want. You can hold it right next to the point if you want, and wield it like a dagger. You have never touched a polearm in your life if you think they're just magically defeated once the range is closed.

Spears are lighter than swords.

How did the Romans conquer the known world then if they had the smallest swords out of anyone? Why didn't the Macedonian Phalanx remain the deadliest formation until the invention of gunpowder?
Reach is an advantage, not a guarantee, and it's an advantage with its own drawbacks that an experienced fighter can leverage against you

Because the Romans invented wartime strategy as we know it to this day.
And they used spears, too.

Because you haven't started pulling back by the time they have started advancing, you know an opponent's strike has missed before the strike is even finished

It takes a fraction of a second to pull back a spear. I don't understand where you've gotten this idea that re-thrusting is some ridiculously slow endeavor.

Sure, if they're already closed in and have a punch charged up. But a swordsman doesn't. He's at the end of the spear, needs to close in and ready his sword, all before the spearman can just re-theust.

Just watch the fricking video I linked. I'm tired of repeating the same back and forth with you. This is all bullshit theory we're discussing anyway. The video shows everything we've discussed, but in actual practice.

>at the ready
At the ready means the swing is pulled back and charged. A spear can do that in the same amount of time or less. But the swordsman needs to CHARGE TO MAKE UP FOR THE REACH DISTANCE. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR FRICKING SKULL. HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO REPEAT IT?
Just watch the fricking video. We can spout words all we want, but it means nothing compared to actual practical research.

Why thrust with a sword when you can thrust with a spear and have total advantage?
>single step inside your range
Maybe in a sword on sword fight. Spears have this thing called "reach". Remember I was telling you about that? It's what makes spears better.

Just watch the video. Swords lose, and it's proven in practice. Your sperging on PrepHole is incomparable to practical evidence.

>DUDE JUST LOOK AT MY NONSENSICAL CARTOON SWORDS WIN
Why do you refuse to watch the video? Are you afraid to look at practical evidence?

>If I'm fighting a spearman, I won't use a sword because spear wins
Got it. Also, see

>the absolute fricking cope
Watch the long version then. And watch the bald dude's multitude of videos on the same subject. And read all the contemporary and modern literature describing the same thing.
Or sperg some more on PrepHole, with zero actual evidence backing up anything you've claimed.

A spear is just a blade on a stick. Have you ever used a broom before?

But it's the same thing with swords. You miss a swing, and your opponent can stab you or rush into you.

If you pull back the spear, you can still slash the opponent.

>the hefty shaft
It's probably less than half the weight of a short sword

Now this is going full moron.
It's not a fricking lance. It's a spear. They're built tough and solid and don't break in one fricking use you absolute moron. It's not as durable as a solid steel sword, but even the most hefty wooden ones are a fraction of the weight

Good thing the haft of a spear isn't made of lava and you can actually grab whatever part of it you want

Because you haven't started pulling back by the time they have started advancing, you know an opponent's strike has missed before the strike is even finished

>the absolute fricking cope
Watch the long version then. And watch the bald dude's multitude of videos on the same subject. And read all the contemporary and modern literature describing the same thing.
Or sperg some more on PrepHole, with zero actual evidence backing up anything you've claimed.

Even if a zombie was a master swordsman in its previous life it’s probably unarmed

Except the one account of a master swordsman vs master spearman (Musashi vs Matabei), the swordsman won all bouts.
Swords reward mastery, spears do not nearly as much
And a spear is shit for zombies anyway, they're only good against numbers when in formation, you'd stab one then get stuck while the rest jump your dumb ass
Plus, a spear will break far sooner than a maintained sword which is also better for followup kills, important when you're probably not just dealing with one zombie at a time

And what is your opponent doing while you're busy missing, recoiling, and re-aiming and re-thrusting? Just standing there? Ever heard of a counter-puncher? It's an entire fighting style built around taking advantage of exactly the fallbacks of your spear, your thrust leaves an opening in your defense, and if you miss it will take you too long to protect yourself and your opponent will punish you

Both are bad. Clubs are the best, swords don’t do enough damage and can get stuck in the body easily, spears don’t do enough damage, can get stuck, and break very easily. Clubs allow for quick, effective attacks on multiple targets. If you’re experienced with using a shield it might be a good idea, but I’d guess it would be more of a hindrance than anything.

The problem with a club is you need a very solid hit to do serious damage. Definitely a good one for STR characters, but if you're in a sticky situation, can't expend too much energy, or don't have the means to pull off a solid, square hit, then the club is useless. Blades/points need far less expended to energy to do their damage.

>Blades rely on blood loss mattering
Not necessarily. Points in particular can easily shatter a skull, just through sheer separation of matter.

How about we meet in the middle.

Swords have points too bro, you can thrust your sword through their brain

Same thing with the sword except that you need to get even closer to the zombies than with the spear before you could even attack them.

Swords let you use the rest of your body as weapon
>stab the first one
>kick the next one over
>elbow the next one in the face
>stab another one
>finish off the rest while they're getting up off the ground
And you have far more angles with a sword
>stab the first one
>quickly swivel around it
>zombies now have to change direction, offsetting their balance and giving you time for another strike

>slice a little of bit
You can slash right through limbs and even torsos with enough practice. A sword can easily disable zombies even without headshots to the point they aren't a threat
You're also moronic with the club bit, you'd just waste energy trying to get perfect headshots, all while having little means to fend off attackers (sword you can always threaten) which you'd have to get far closer up on to do so

>slashing isn't effective
I pointed out that swords can slash through limbs and even torsos with ease, without getting stuck, you just have to be trained for it
Granted you ignored that, I'm guessing you took a club to the head

To kill a zombie they would, you have to bury it in the skull, that ain’t coming out easily.

I didn’t ignore it, I brought that up in my first post, moron.

But the point is that damage is rarely effective. For spears your only hope is to one shot the brain stem, and magically be able to pull it out of the spine quickly and undamaged to go after the next target. Swords for a kill you need to slice through the whole skull (unlikely) or decapitate (not gonna happen). They’re better than spears though in that you can effectively handicap by hacking at limbs. Clubs are much easier to use without training, and require less accuracy.

The point is clubs can also disable limbs, with less risks and less training, like anybody here has any training with swords at all.

This is getting annoying.
>You have to wind up a lot more with a club
Swords require that as well to do useful damage
>get in quite a lot closer
It’s the same range
>and it takes more energy per swing
This is just your winding up argument again.
>And you don't have to decapitate a zombie to DISABLE it
I already addressed this. You have to decapitate or slice through the skull to KILL it
>and the fact you said decapitating it is a 'no' compared with slicing through the skull, lmfao what are you on
Decapitating is extremely difficult, there’s a ton of flesh, gristle, and the spine to get through. Slashing through the skull is one forceful movement similar to a club
>Like hot damn if clubs were all that's needed, you'd think they'd be predominant melee weapons, but they're not moron
>clubs NOT the predominant melee weapons against zombies
Right. Sure.

You’re saying you’ve killed a zombie with a sword? Right. And please explain to me how a sword equal in length to a club has better range.

>Edged weapons get stuck in bone and dense areas of meat, genius.
If you cared to reread my post, that was one of my points. I am arguing in favor of clubs over edged weapons.

It’s ok, fren, and perfect image, much clearer than all my wall of text bullshit

Sorry he got clubbed in the head, don't mind him

Skulls don’t rot that easily to my knowledge.

Chain mail would be waaaay too fricking hot and heavy. You’d die of exhaustion and dehydration, especially in the south.

Shark mail, however, is a tenth of the weight and made from extremely durable aluminum weave. Put some clothes over top so you don’t cook and you’re set

Normal humans can survive quite normally with just one hemisphere, I’d guess the brain stem is what you want to knock out. Blunt force trauma seems to be effective in most lore though, which suggests that they are less durable than you would think. Perhaps the zombie can’t handle the widespread nerve damage associated with a blow to the head.

Who uses a subsonic .22? I thought even standard load .22’s with suppressors are pretty quiet and suprasonic?

lol .22 wishes it was a pencil-sized hole

If something is walking around with rotting skin and missing limbs it doesn’t need internal organs. Something is overriding its need to have non-toxic blood and a proper nervous system.
Its a human body turned into a vehicle and you need to target the driver.

You’re still missing the point god fricking damnit. We aren’t talking about hypotheticals, we’re talking about Rick, the character from the walking dead tv show. He used a colt python, a zombie apocalypse happened, and he continued using it, that’s all. YOU can do whatever you want, but it’s irrelevant because you aren’t Rick, are you?

I guess that means I would be fated to use your mom’s dildo collection for the apocalypse.

>Addressed what?
Keep shifting goal posts all you please. This thread is about revolvers not being ideal, then it shifted to Rick’s choice vs alternatives, then we arrived at user-preference best weapons further down. I addressed both anon IRL arguments and hypotheticals pertaining to the show why best weapon (if inferior) is only a good argument when time or resources are a premium.

They were not a precious commodity in the show, and in real life, shooters that are skilled with inferior platforms should buy better alternatives, practice with those rigorously, and find a new best among them pre-apocalypse or even for self-defense. Simple as. Works for all varieties of fiction or non-fiction arguments in this thread.

Alright, you no guns homosexual. Wipe the blood and cum from your ass once you leave this thread, I raped you repeatedly with that argument twice now.

Seeds the function as caltrops, whatever. What is your proposed method of conveyance, walking? I've ridden a bike hundreds of miles through cities where there is debris everywhere without a flat. I've gotten a bike flat maybe twice with 1000s of riding miles. They are generally very resilient.

It would be a misappropriation of resources however.

No but not starving would be

Not your anon, but assuming you aren’t just trolling, petrifying zombies (turning to mush) only happens very late and usually many years later in any zombie media if at all. They aren’t mush, otherwise all the interiors, limbs, and other biostructure would be mush or close to it. They’re quite strong, can break down shit, run, etc. as evidence against your point.

If they’ve eaten, presumably this halts the process as well or even restores them somewhat. Bullets are perfectly superior to almost all projectiles for what the other anons argued against you.

Not that anon but obviously he meant putrifying, smoothbrain.

You’re right, sorry. Someone did just tell me to clean the cum and blood out of my ass though.