I am at times torn between the two important considerations of balanced weaponry to protect myself. What are these considerations? Ammunition and Range. I hate getting into a bind where I have to pause to reload (like this is a common problem or concern). Especially when I somehow find myself trying to fight a zombie horde in the event of a zombie Apocalypse - I don't want to get caught unable to fight my way away to safety.
Both of these concerns revolve around a basic question of how to defend yourself. Melee weapons have the amazing benefit of never running out of ammunition. A Spear or baseball bat don't jam or run out. But lets face it, using them means you have to close enough to a zombie where the chances are good they may be able to infect you. Not very good in my mind.
The other option is a ranged weapons - the glorious ability to wreak havoc without being near any zombies is powerful - without that infection range that would be a concern with a melee weapon. However ranged weapons are limited when clearing out a city or a building, as your opponent is relatively close. Also, you have to keep track of how much ammo you have and when it is safe to reload. All these decisions and information to be up to date on. A poorly maintained weapon or miscounted ammo stock can be the difference between getting to safety and being on the menu.
All in all I still would prefer to maintain a distance between myself and any zombies. At least a good hundred miles or so. If that isn't possible I would like the world to invent the amazing and beautiful belt-fed combat shotgun. You have a choice between Double-0, Slug, and incendiary shells with the beauty of a near limitless magazine and the close quarters effectiveness of the shotgun.
Let the orders start coming in.
No comments:
Post a Comment