I have a digital copy but have not made time to read it. Working too often. I think I literally only read 2 pages in to it. Is it even really worth reading the first time though?

>>4642

Actually, yes. You really should read it. It brings up a lot of arguments and ideas. It has some 'historical' events that link to the undead, that may or may not be true.

>>4644
Well, sounds like it gets in to conspiracies which I'm not fond of. I've had people try to convince me that zombies were real or based on a real concept but that doesn't interest me. The ideas are more or less why I got it. I'll give it a read eventually.

A few of the chapters in the book bring up really good points. You don't have to read it all, since it's just like your regular, run-of-the-mill survival guide (except Zs). Read the chapters you feel are relevant/interesting, and keep away from the "history" part, which is utter bullshit. :D

>>4660
Will do. I started reading it at work on my break the other day, didn't get too far in yet though.

It's shit. The guy knows nothing at all about firearms, his weapons section is embarrassing to read

>>4714
You can't tell me you didn't stop and seriously consider the value of the Shaolin Spade?! I think that thing would be bad ass for monster hunting, at least in principle.

>>4731
Yeah, but it's quite heavy, requires specialized training to use effectively, and a good quality modern repro is hard to find.

A short/medium spear would work well, IMO, with a short sword as backup.

Anyone think a suppressed .22 would be able to damage a zombie's brain enough to render it "dead"? Don't give me any of that ".22 bounces off the skull and scrambles the brain" BS either.

>>4732
Yea spear/short sword combo would work well I think. And a .22 is...meh IDK. I hold out hope for it, I really do think it could be effective at really close ranges, but who really knows.

>>4752
I mean, there's instances where the angle of the bullet entry led to a headshot being non-lethal, but with zombies, their bones would be weaker from lack of calcium which would be evident in anywhere from a week to a month after the initial outbreak (I'm guessing).

I figure .22lr would be a good siege defense weapon, since you could have thousands and thousands of rounds easily stockpiled at a cheap price. But my main reason for asking is that we all know firearms are damn loud, but a suppressed .22 is on the noise level of a air gun from what I've seen. Would be easy to scrounge for supplies and take out small groups of zombies in your way without attracting a horde. .22 rifles tend to be lighter and more compact (Ruger 10/22 takedown) as well and you could carry hundreds of rounds on your person.

Since you could carry so much ammo, you could loose off several rounds into a head without worrying about running out of ammo (.22lr can be found just about anywhere as well).

Max Brooks wrote that book for the average civilian. That means a person who never did outdoors shit, someone who doesnt know shit about firearms and is new to a world where u have to fend for their selves. The history part is BS of course, its for entertainment purposes. Think about, the weapons most people want to use is military weaponry. I would use a M-14. Its 7.62x51 mm or .308 Winchester, ammo is easy to come by and u can put a bayonet on it. Use sum common sense people.