I would have a hand axe and a long knife as my multipurpose weapons, and a steel knobbed mace and a steel buckler as my battle weapons. The hand axe would serve as an initial attack before I engaged into a melee. I would use the buckler to guard against attacks that I can't dodge from. With the steel mace, I should be able to swing from any angle and still make a cracked skull, if I aim at the head. The knife would most likely be used for other tasks, but if need be, I will use it as a last resort. This is if I have to mostly rely on myself for survival; if I have friends I can depend on, I would carry a spear in addition to my other things.

A sword kills zombies faster than a crowbar? Says who? Swords were meant for cutting or stabbing unless you're getting into lengths over 3 feet and going to the heavier end of the scale. I'm a huge fan of the crowbar as a zombie killing tool. Want something truly multipurpose? Try one of these...



It's about 4lbs or so but you'll get through any door, window or wall that stands in your way plus at 30in it'll give you a good distance between you and zombie teeth while not being of ridiculous length that would impede use indoors. The pointy end opposite the sledge face is ideal for penetrating a skull as is the prying end on the other end.

Now, fancy tools aside. Just start thinking primitive. A heavy club works well to destroy a skull. Putting the weight to one end will amplify the force of a swing. Add a point to focus the force of the blow onto a small area for maximum penetration of the skill. Add a haft of appropriate length to increase the leverage of the swing and give you more stand off (every inch is more distance between you and zombification). And make sure the thing is sturdy enough for repeated use. Anything that meets some or all of these criteria will serve you well for killing zombies. I'd say an axe or a crowbar are ideal.

As for guns, I've heard the case that .22 rimfire is the best as it goes in one end of the brain casing and doesn't come out the other. It stays in the skull bouncing around doing damage. It's cheap, plentiful and easy to shoot. I'll personally stick to 5.56 and 7.62 NATO cartridges because of my proximity to an army base. They aren't the 100% solution for zombie killing but a dead zombie is a dead zombie, doesn't matter what you shoot it with.

Oh! And stay away from shotguns. The short range and the splatter is more of a hazard than what video games and movies would have you believe. The best thing to do is to avoid all blood whenever possible. Use it if you have nothing else, but it's not... optimal I'll say.

I'd get a pistol and a short semi auto carbine, preferably ones that use the same rounds. The carbine will have more rounds, and offer a more stable firing platform to hit the kill shots. You don't want something automatic, nor something you have to manually action. One wastes ammo and the other doesn't allow for quick follow ups when you miss or when there are lots of zombies. Shorter is better as you'll be able to manoeuvre it in those tight spaces you'll find yourself in, and long range accuracy isn't really necessary. If they're out past 100m, they aren't much of a threat to you. A pistol is good to have as well. Something to transition to when your carbine runs dry and there's no time to reload. Plus it's one handed in case you're injured or doing something else. Also, it's something to hand off to a fellow survivor you meet to maximize rounds down range.

Well, this thread is focused toward tools... So perhaps it can stand on its own?

Contrary to popular belief the most powerful tool against a zombie is the human brain. Really, stop and think about that for a moment. The mind of the survivor is powerful. His or her body needs no spare parts, it rarely ever jams, and cleaning it is almost more aesthetic than it is functional.

The twenty-two caliber survival rifle, mentioned above, is a dandy. It is a tool that generally performs very well for the job that it was intended. However, it has the same limitation as all fire-arms of its ilk, namely that the bore is too small.

Consider this question, "Why are there so many calibers of fire-arms?" Indeed! Why are there so many different sizes of bullets and lengths of barrels among the world of gun-enthusiasts? The answer, roughly, is because there are so many different sizes of targets. A twenty-two will generally not fell a zombie without certain impromptu circumstances. Ammunition for it would be plentiful, but if a fourty-five caliber round in the chest would not stop a zombie, neither will a twenty-two. Conjecture and theory have identified the possibility that zombies do not feel pain. Consider the police officer trying to defend his or her life from a drug addict who has had a recent fix. They can not feel pain, and documentation of police-related shootings records that nine millimeters is regularly insufficient to easily put down a dopey target.

Perhaps some persons reading this post are very practiced shots. But how many of them are proficient enough to strike a zombie through the eye at one hundred yards? Fifty yards? Twenty-five yards? I could, perhaps, but those who were inexperienced might regret taking the advice about the twenty-two rifle above.


This thread is about tools of the trade so I will introduce any and sundry to...the bicycle. The bicycle is roughly easy to operate, usually simple to maintain, it is very quiet, and would not smell like food to a zombie. A horse might provide such a scent. Not all bicycles would be suitable for this task, but a properly geared one would make excellent transportation for a survivor simply by how little noise it would make.

Incidentally, the fifty caliber Browning machine gun still rules the battle field. Its thirty caliber nephews, such as the Nambu Light, also may rule. I can not imagine that these weapons would be less effective against zombies. The target is still human shaped, human sized, and human weighted. All of the above weapons have a semi-automatic fire option and can be used to great range moreso than a paltry twenty-two rifle.

"Why are there so many calibers," indeed!

...despite the obvious power and beautiful superiority that is the human body compared to the zombie rot, range is a superior advantage. For thousands of years history has recorded that an archery based army, properly led, could destroy most lightly armored infantry armies that they met. Most...common civilians do not have the proper skills to kill a zombie with a melee weapon, let alone a knife, without being wounded in some way. There is some credit to a bladed weapon making an opponent, a zombie, release their hunger-fueling-blood until they fall and do not rise. How many civilians are skilled in such weapons? How many persons reading these words truthfully have the required weapon and understanding to make a human-like target bleed in such a way? Do they have the courage? Perhaps something more simple would be appropriate...


So then we must be introduced also to another tool. The rock. Rocks are everywhere. They can be used in slings or thrown by hand. Properly aimed a rock can damage the nose of a zombie and prevent the use of its olfactory sense. Rocks do not require cleaning or maintenance in any way, the way that blades do. Weight is still a consideration, but ammunition should never be a concern if precaution is taken before moving between certain areas.

Amazing that two simple tools could accomplish so much. This is why the human brain, and a little common sense, is the most dangerous weapon on the battlefield. Use it wisely.

Tea wrote:Perhaps some persons reading this post are very practiced shots. But how many of them are proficient enough to strike a zombie through the eye at one hundred yards? Fifty yards? Twenty-five yards? I could, perhaps, but those who were inexperienced might regret taking the advice about the twenty-two rifle above.

I can teach any Joe or Jane off the street to hit a 6 inch target at 50 yards in an hour or two. After the basics are learned it's down to practise. You may never be the best shot but the purpose of a firearm, like a lot of innovations in weaponry, was to increase the distance between yourself and the target. Which is what you want when facing down zombies. If you can't shoot accurately, make up for it in volume of fire. Even a .22LR will eventually hit something important if you put enough rounds into a target.

Tea wrote:This thread is about tools of the trade so I will introduce any and sundry to...the bicycle...

You know what? I entirely agree. Why aren't there any bicycles in the movies? It's always centred around someone walking vast distances or struggling to get a car going. You could easily outpace any shambling zombie with relatively little energy expenditure and you can still carry a pack along for the ride. Perhaps the best advice is not combat, but avoidance.

Tea wrote:Incidentally, the fifty caliber Browning machine gun still rules the battle field. Its thirty caliber nephews, such as the Nambu Light, also may rule. I can not imagine that these weapons would be less effective against zombies. The target is still human shaped, human sized, and human weighted.

I agree here and disagree. The .50 is a great weapon. you can find them in every countries arsenal. However the human target and the zombie target are distinctly different and the main purpose of a machine gun isn't to actually kill. It's to suppress an enemy with the threat of being killed by saturating an area with high volume of fire. Zombies aren't afraid of being shot. Nor are they phased by being shot in most of their body mass. The kill shot is still the head or destruction of enough body mass that it renders them ineffective. The machine gun is an area weapon, not meant for point targets. If you had a hoard of zombies then yes. Great weapon. However the Browning M2 weighs around 80lbs/40kg. And that's without the tripod you need to actually fire the gun. Add that and you're looking at 125lbs/60kg all tolled. The ammo is also very heavy, the whole weapon kicks something fierce and requires a fair bit of muscle and aggression to even work the charging handle and the bolt alone has something like 12 separate parts to maintain. I don't foresee anyone without specific training on the weapon being able to operate it very effectively.

If you're still looking for a machine gun to bring, stick to the the FN MAG (M240, C6 GPMG). 7.62 does a whole mess of damage, but you can still carry everything you need to fight if you ever need to pick up and move shop. You can carry around 5x more ammunition for half the weight of .50 ammo. The operation and care is simple. The weapon continues to operate under demanding circumstances and a single person can bring everything and fight (albeit a little on the heavy side of manageable)

Tea wrote: There is some credit to a bladed weapon making an opponent, a zombie, release their hunger-fueling-blood until they fall and do not rise. How many civilians are skilled in such weapons? How many persons reading these words truthfully have the required weapon and understanding to make a human-like target bleed in such a way? Do they have the courage? Perhaps something more simple would be appropriate...

The spear has been the poor mans weapon for millennium for just these reasons. The length gives you standoff from both, the sharp end so you don't hurt yourself, the enemy who now can't reach past the length of your weapon and arguably insulates you a little from the psychological impact of killing something. It's simple to make, simple to use and effective against a charging foe like a running zombie.

Concerning any firearm, anything that is accurate and leaves an exit wound larger than the entrance wound is a good choice to destroy the brain. A good broadhead arrow would do the job assuming you are close enough to send the arrow all the way through. Also, a .22 at close range could ricochet in the skull and do some heavy damage.

As for melee style weapons, given the psychological implications of the situation, I'd have to say that most are simply out unless you already have, or plan to devote many years of training to a given weapon. Most people simply don't have the nerves to deal with it. If I had my choice, I'd take a real trench spike. It was a weapon developed for fighting in the trenches of WWI, designed to be able to punch through a helmet and kill an enemy in close quarter combat. But if I had to pick something up to kill a zombie, something unspecialized, I'd choose a bow staff/spearish object. I couldn't deal with the fear I would experience using a hammer, or an ax, or a sledge hammer, so I would pick something long range and defensive, and then rely on my superior speed to escape.

Although, given the situation, I'd rather simply use stealth and avoid fighting all together.

As everyone here will have a differing opinion, I'll state what I would use and why, rather than try to build a case for any particular weapon or item.

The number one thing to remember, is that in this situation of a Zombie Apocalypse, practicality and what's readily available will dictate what's used 100%. I don't care who you are, when faced with life and death, you won't make a special trip to try to find what you're 'trained in.' You'll reach for the nearest, deadliest, and easiest to use tools and weapons when you're facing such an aggressive, primal, and unpredictable enemy as a zombie.
This being said, my melee' weapons would be blunt predominantly. Why? Anyone can swing a bat. You don't gotta be able to make a home run, you just have to hit 'em in the head/neck. Crack the skull, rattle his brain probably more than enough to stun 'em and follow through with another kill whack. Even if the aim's off a bit and you hit the neck area, break the neck and you're probably stopping the chump for good. Even if he's undead, flailing around on the ground with a broken neck, screw him! He was gonna eat your face; no time for pity.
For something longer, I'd honestly be grabbing gardening tools and such. Shovels, hoes, etc. can all be turned into home-brew spears or other long handled/two handed melee weapons. As it's been proven, distance is a great advantage in all fighting, especially hand to hand. If you or your weapon can't beat the reach of your opponent, you're at a major disadvantage. Until you're inside the reach of that weapon, the business end of that stick can give a nice poke.

For firearms, I'd honestly take a .22LR for distance and volume of fire, for the reasons that others have already stated. Light, plentiful, EASY to maintain n take care of. Zombies aren't to be treated as humans; yes they're probably not too sensitive to physical pain, and being undead normal kill shots in the center mass may be only marginally or completely ineffective. The only real kill shot will be a head shot. But you don't need to shoot a zombie in the eye to make it effective. The velocity and penetrating power of the round renders the small size an almost non issue. Accuracy, not firepower, is the admirable quality in making a called shot. Which is exactly what you'll be doing in this situation. And if you don't drop 'em dead with the first shot, so what? As someone above mentioned, ammo would be plentiful enough that really 'what's another (follow-up) shot?' Double tap was the rule I thought anyways... xD
Along with the .22, I'd want to pack a nice magnum too. Probably a .357 or a .44 since I have personal experience in both, but these would be saved for special occasions. Out of ammo/need to reload the rifle, rifle slung over the shoulder/out of reach, using off hand to simultaneously do something else, etc. And hey, if some really big, hungry zombie is baring down on me, only ten or less feet away, fuck the accuracy n head shot talk. You'll want a hand-cannon, something that'll put a big enough hole in the undead baddy that it won't matter if he can't feel pain. Can't really walk with a blown out kneecap or foot, and a shot to the center mass could cause enough damage to stun, kill, or atleast knock down a pursuing zombie.

And yes, at the end of the day, when it's you against a world full of zombies, avoidance is the best policy. You'll run out of ammo, stamina, and strength eventually. And probably quicker than you'd think or like. So when at all possible, ride by on a bike with your breath held ;) xD

Lukisod wrote:You know what? I entirely agree. Why aren't there any bicycles in the movies?[...]Perhaps the best advice is not combat, but avoidance.

I am glad that someone agrees.

The exact reason why using a small caliber fire-arm during the Zombie Apocalypse is a bad idea, is the above reason; avoidance. Range; expert knife fighters, and indeed martial artists of all types, all tell their students that avoidance and range are the key to survival. It is possible to hunt vermin with a twenty-two caliber fire-arm. It is possible to shoot a pain-sensitive human and dissuade them from attacking some one or some thing. It is not wise to, with any fire-arm, be at close range with a zombie. The twenty-two caliber cartridge is one of those which, for a variety of reasons, tempts the user to decrease their range to the target in order to make an effective strike.

Yes, it is true that the twenty-two caliber makes an excellent training weapon and introductory tool into the world of fire-arms.

The truth, if there is any secret truth to fire-arms, is that a bullet which transmits its energy into the target does the most damage. Bullets which leave exit wounds automatically fail this simple aspect of physics. A real gun fight with the real risk of personal death is about unloading the entire magazine or cylinder into the target. There is no double-tap except for the experienced warrior. The untrained, if caught at such unfortunately short range, will almost certainly expend the volume of their entire weapon before thinking to run.

...most combat does not lend itself well to thinking because of the extreme stress implied by the word combat.

Lukisod wrote:The spear has been the poor mans weapon for millennium[...] It's simple to make, simple to use and effective against a charging foe like a running zombie.

Before I extrapolate the true form of my response I will say that I agree in general. However...

Shovels and pitch-forks are common in the modern era, not spears. Sharpened sticks, perhaps, but those require time to make. How many citizens drive around with a spear in their vehicle? They may have a sword or axe at home on some kind of stand or in a display case, but not likely a spear head, let alone a complete spear.

The spear is also heavy. Historical literature teaches us that the best spears were long and heavy. They were also best employed in a phalanx formation with heavy armor, helmets, and shields.

Now, to share my opinion honestly, I think that the spear makes an excellent weapon. It is one of my favorite martial tools. I also happen to think that three spear-men and an axe-wielder make the best way to kill a zombie. Spears are quiet and make no noise like fire-arms. They provide automatic range due to length. With very little training beyond strength and aiming the shaft, the spear is a quick tool to study and understand for basic combat. Spears require cleaning, but few special tools beyond a sharpening stone. The three spear wielders could pin down a zombie and then the axe wielder could remove the head. But...this is not practical nor appropriate to respond to the opening thread with.

I will add one finer point about the spear, however. Tigers, when speared, will drive themselves down the shaft to kill their assailant. A zombie, certainly, would do the same thing if the spear in question did not have an elaborate guard, hilt, or cross-bar. This requires an elaborate spear-head which...is not effective advice for common citizens. A single sharp stick will not suffice in this capacity, though a pitch-fork would.

viper45 wrote:While three spears and an axe may be the best way to kill a zombie, I don't think they would work well against 20 zombies, much less 200[...]

This is the unspoken reason of why one does not A: face zombies alone, B: use a spear, C: use only one weapon, D: go without some kind of marksman as backup, E: approach any number of zombies for any reason. I would have thought that the detail of my posts in this thread would have provided the obvious allusion to what I think of this issue. The spear is not the ideal weapon to use when alone...unless that person is Donnie Yen. It is ludicrous to presume that one group of four people would be enough to remove any more than three zombies at a time. However, a platoon of four- or five-man teams is not such a bad idea when a community has expended their fire-arms ammunition.

The direction of the thread does bring to mind another tool to eliminate zombies, though. It would require some improvisation, but where I live there are quite a number of trees for an agronomist society. It seems to me that a pruning pole might be an interesting way to behead a zombie. As mentioned above, this would not be used alone, without numerical help, et cetera.

It was already established early in this thread that fire-arms could attract more zombies than they would eliminate per round.

Lol, if we could have anything that I suppose I'd prefer a grenade or pipe-bomb. But only because I live in a high density population.

As a main weapon, I'd probably say a Spear would be your best bet. It gives you the range that you need (a sword often does not) and it's light-weight enough while still being fairly effective.

But I suppose a crow-bar would /technically/ be the best thing to have. They're light, portable, useful for other things and very effective. The only issue would be the amount of force you'd have to exert to actually deal a fatal blow. A small hand-gun would be easiest to finish them off at close range.

I liked the point earlier in the thread that we should talk about what we would use and why, rather than tell people why their approach is flawed in some way. Keeps the flaming down.

The first thing is preparation. Everyone should endeavor to have a stockpile of extra food and water in the case of some sort of natural disaster, as well as a "bug out bag" with enough in it to last you 1-3 days in the case of an evacuation being ordered. Various governmental agencies have espoused this philosophy as well as enumerated what should be in one, at least in the United States.

The second thing is avoidance. Never get into a fight if you can help it. There will be competition, not only against the zombies, but competition for resources with other survivors. Look at the widespread looting that happened in the wake of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. People will band together, and the strong will survive and impose their will on the others. (Related: Lone wolves survive far less often than the fictional archetype might suggest. Always use the buddy system if venturing out becomes necessary.)

The third thing is that it's better to stick with what you know. No matter the objective benefits and drawbacks of any particular approach, using methods and equipment that one is comfortable with will reduce the chance of making drastic mistakes that could cost one their life. That being said, I'd probably die fairly soon because I'm simply not that tough or skilled.

The above post is presented by someone who would be using their well equipped human brain as a weapon against a zombie threat. Enjoy the moment.