The idea of going in a range and shooting with pistols does not intrigue me,for various reasons.Since I have a pretty big backyard and I think I can shoot Airsoft/Airrifles without too much noise I think it can be a fun way to meditate and practise concentration in a way.Does anyone shoot airsoft ? How replicable is it to real shooting ? I want something that shoots like a gun( in terms of accuracy) and not some random shooter toy that I can play rambo with.Cost is not a HUGE factor but preferably something under 120 and again preferably a pistol , rifles are a different game and I don’t really like them.So Merican Gun lovers please don’t be offended by my lack of authentic real gun enthusiasm, I just want something to have fun with.
Buy a ruger 10/22
Airsoft are basically BB guns and not useful.
The ruger 10/22 is a great (cheap) small carbine that shoots .22 caliber. Very quiet with no recoil (less than a pistol on both accounts and not significantly different from a pellet gun). It’s a nice little plinker and way more accurate than a pistol. That being said, you’d need a large backyard to be shooting a firearm of any kind.
Best advice would be to buy a pool table. Same idea, way more useful.
Build a crossbow.
I got into using a compound bow. Lot’s of fun and it’s definitely a skill that requires finesse. Recurve bows are something to look into but I find them kind of lame (too nerdy)
Getting a crossbow would be fun too.
I suggest you get the I-Tac version of the 10/22 (pictured below). Make sure you have a nice tan and scream “Allahu Akbar” a lot while shooting in your yard.
I actually think a compound bow would probably be your best bet if you actually want something that involves focus with a meditative aspect in a smaller back yard. Just don’t hurt yourself.
agreed… be sure to have a slight bend in your elbow of the arm holding the bow or your meditative state will come to an abrupt end as the string will strike your forearm… this does not feel good whatsoever.
Crossbow/compound bow > Airsoft. Especially if there is a zombie apocalypse. Then they may even be superior to a rifle/shotgun (though less than a blunderbuss).
ammo is always a problem so being able to reuse an arrow is a plus too
Yes, that’s exactly the #1 reason why bows are preferable. They are also silent, allowing you to take down an animal for food without drawing the attention of further zombies or other humans desperate to steal your dinner. The blunderbuss is a good compromise as you can use nails, rocks, whatever you find as ammo, but you still need a good reserve of dry powder. So perhaps the bow reigns supreme. Now, is a compound bow or xbow more effective against zombies? Difficult to say.
It does not seem like bows would be effective against zombies. Arrows would neither crush the brain nor sever the limbs of the undead. I have thought about this in some detail, and I wonder why spears are not more frequently employed in zombie scenarios. The spear user would impale the zombie and hold it at length while a second person could dispatch the zombie using a variety of means.
I have a personal fondness for the pilum. BSDs carry two.
all depends on how fast you can reload. theres this guy named Lars Andersen. His level of skill is insane
If you buy a 2,000 round case of ammo you’d lose or break all of your arrows long before you run out of ammo. You could also buy a reloader and reload casings or pillage for spares.
A .22 or silenced gun would carry the same sound as a crossbow or compound bow and provide equal or greater damage. A weak to mid level compound bow will actually bounce its arrows off of even a plastic soda bottle (done it myself). Unlike the movies, crossbows and compound bows actually make a very loud crack when they’re fired. A common problem with bow hunting is that deer up to a 100 yards away will hear the crack of the bow fire and reflexibly drop their stance in preparation to run causing the arrow to sail past. So it’s definitely not silent.
Guns have far greater range (up to a mile for some rifles versus about a hundred yards maximum for a very very highly skilled bowman. Your average person will only have an accurate range of less than 50 yards for a bow but more than 100 yards for a rifle. Then there’s reloading times (advantage rifle with clip) and the fact that it’s hard to carry more than 20 arrows but easy to carry hundreds of rounds of ammo. In an actual conflict you’d be far more likely to run out of arrows long before you would ammo.
Beyond that, in a rugged environment a compound bow (which requires far more regular maintenance than a rifle) would be far more likely to break completely than a rifle would. A rifle can also double as a club in close quarters.
A 13 year old with a hunting license can routinely drop a deer 100 yards (I did my first year) with a rifle. I’ve seen very experienced bowman wound deer at 50 years, to the point that most private land owners in our area won’t let others bow hunt on their property because they’re always pulling the old wound and release.
I’ve seen Lars.
For every one Lars there’s 6 billion people on the face of the earth I could give a carbine to that could match that level of performance with a month’s worth of training.
I like it when at about 3:25, he is sitting at a table, then suddenly draws a bow, shoots 2 dummies in the face, and calmly replaces the bow under the table. It’s as if he thought about this and envisioned a scenario in which this move would become necessary.
no spear because it’s only really effective in a 1v1 scenario, and the tip can get stuck which is problematic. Not to mention it’s not easy to hit a smaller moving target with a precision jab. A poleaxe might be a better compromise.
Indeed. For hand-to-hand combat, I’d have to go with a Valyrian Steel greatsword though.
In fact, the strategy I outlined above requires two humans per zombie. But as you will see, I considered a variety of different strategies and still found this to be optimal. A poleaxe, for instance, would be unsuitable for weak modern office people, let alone women or adolescents, who find themselves in a zombie scenario. Swinging a heavy poleaxe would quickly become tiring, thus reducing effectiveness and mobility as time goes on. What good would it be to kill a couple of zombies, only to be too tired to jog away from the next few? The spear strategy, in contrast, minimizes risk and energy usage, and would require the least amount of skill for each user.
Moreover, assuming the zombies are the stumbling sort and not the running zombies like in 28 Days Later, humans will be able to take advantage of their superior mobility to isolate straggling zombies and pick them off from a pack. Since the spear strategy requires little endurance, it can be repeated many times to eliminate many zombies in succession. Consider also that the two people can rotate between roles, thus further conserving stamina. Surviving a zombie apocalypse after all, depends on endurance, not necessarily maximum lethality.
Humans would hopefully travel in groups of four or more anyway. So, it would be a loss to not rely on a strategy that is driven by teamwork.