Pretty much the only time you'd want a pistol or a shotgun rather than a big 100/200 round machine gun would be in extreme close quarters, when the two lighter weapons would enable you to navigate and aim much faster. But a submachine gun (like an MP5) or a compact assault rifle (like a G36C) would probably serve you better.
And I believe the SPAS-12 is only semi-automatic. I believe it's that Korean shotgun, the USAS or something, that has a fully automatic version. Oh yeah, and that Jackhammer thing from Max Payne, but I don't know if anybody actually uses that thing. But why would you NOT want an automatic shotgun? The pump action is worth nothing but lost time, lost aim between shots, and a slightly tired non-trigger arm. And that CS logic that the automatic shotgun is less powerful than the pump shotgun is game balancing.
Sorry that I have to side with Chris on this. But this is pretty simple logic. I don't even know much more than what I just said about this subject.
chriscaffee wrote:Hathock holds the longest kill shot from 2286 meters with an M2 .50 caliber machine gun equipped with an 8x scope.
In real life Dunjohn, a machine gun will serve you better then a pistol or a shotgun. I don't think zombies are any more terrifying then any other "monster" intent on killing you so your psychological argument is not only crap, but it's grasping at straws. Don't try and explain video game armaments with logic. It's tradition alone that the shotty is an anti-Zombie weapon. That said, there are better alternatives to the tube-mag pump gun, but you aren't going to see them, because they break up the tradition and the coolness or whatever.
Dunno what sort of zombies you've been going up against but I'd take a handgun against them anytime. They simply don't react to weapons the same way; a living target will often go down with even only a single slightly-crippling shot. A machine-gun is designed to deliver enough of those to kill. Zombies do not. They don't even acknowledge crippling shots. Spraying a bunch of zombies with machine-gun fire is no more effective than hosing them down with water. Single, focussed shots to the cranium are simply the better option.
Do not underestimate the psychological impact of fighting the living dead. It's there. There are people who would mow through a shopping mall full of innocents but would balk at the idea of being attacked by something dead and mindless. I'm speaking from experience when I say it's a massive leap for most people to make.
Like I said the shotgun is alright but too cumbersome in tight situations. Movie traditions have messed up a lot of other real-life actualities too. Anybody brought up on a diet of action movies will probably expect cars to explode with a bullet to the engine (Broken Arrow is the masterclass here) or shoot two metres into the air if they hit another vehicle in the countryside.
I can't speak for living-to-living gun pros and cons, but they rarely cross over.
The SPAS-12 (Sporting Purpose Automatic Shotgun) is indeed only semi-automatic though it can also be used as a pump gun as well.
The USAS-12, and the new AA-12 shotguns are both fully automatic and are fed from 8 or 10 round box magazines or 20 round drum magazines. Fire rate is somewhere around 300 rounds per minute and full automatic fire is said to be controllable due to delayed recoil.
The advantage to an automatic shotgun is you can follow up successive shots faster. This generally isn't needed but sometimes it takes two shots to a put a man down for good and sometimes you are facing multiple targets. With a semi-auto or full auto shotgun you can engage targets a bit faster then with a pump gun and in combat you generally want every advantage you can get.
That said, there are advantages to pump-guns, though you won't find them in any zombie-slaying game. The reason pump guns are nice is becaue they are more versatile. Normal ammunition is powerful enough to cycle a shotguns's action, but specialist rounds like beanbags or rubber buckshot are not. Therefore you need the manual pump to reliably cycle low-power ammunition. This is why the SPAS-12 and the SPAS-15 are able to operate on both manual pump or semi-automatic.
And pump guns being more powerful? Technically they are, but not by any amount worth mentioning. The technicality comes from the fact that in an autoloader, some of the energy of the shot is used to cycle the action and load the next round. In a manual weapon all of the energy is used by the round. Again, the energy used is inconsequential, but it does technically make a manual weapon "more powerful."
And lastly Dunjohn, you do not seem to understand that machine guns are very accurate weapons. The world record for the longest confirmed kill was done with a scoped machine gun. You are much more likely to get a head shot with a machine gun then with a pistol simply because you have a longer barrel and the weapon itself is being fired from a more stable platform as I have already stated. Not to mention you can fire a burst of say three rounds and there is a greater liklihood of one of those three shots hitting the undead's head then a single shot from a pistol. The machine gun also gives you the capable to attack foes from longer ranges.
A pistol is by far one of the worst choices for self-defense. That is why all these companies are manufacturing PDW submachine guns. Pistols lack stopping power, penetration, accuracy and magazine capacity. These PDWs such as H&Ks MP7A1 give the shooter armor penetration out to 200 meters, as well as 20 to 40 shots (depending on the magazine) in a stocked weapon that, compressed, is little bigger then the SOCOM pistol.
And that brings me to my last point, machine guns can be used in CQB. In fact there are many variants of the current SAW including a paratrooper version with a retractable stock and a shortened barrel. Such a weapon would weigh a bit more then a standard carbine, but wouldn't be nearly as cumbersome as a full-size SAW or a GPMG.
In conclusion, if I had a choice of weapons to defend myself against an army of darkness, I would have to go with commando-style designated automatic weapon. If you're facing zombies, you're going to need lot's of ammunition, and the last thing you want to be doing is fumbling around with loose shotgun shells, or carrying around heavy drum magazines that are only good for twenty kills. Against slow moving zombies, I could easily get a head shot at least 50% of the time so I would have to reload after every 100 kills or so.
And in the Resident Evil: Apocolypse movie the commando dudes use automatic G36s against zombies and they take 'em out pretty easily. Lose the misconceptions Dunjohn because machine guns are more accurate then just about any weapon out there other then sniper rifles. And when they can't be accurate they put out enough lead to cover an area so they don't have to be. And this area is past 400 meters out, not fifty feet as portrayed in most video games.
I'll have to admit that the gun laws in my country are quite tight; I can't simply go into a shop and pick up a couple of new ones from the same shelf as the Mars Bars. As a result, my experience with machine guns in fighting the undead is not extensive, but each and every instance has been a disaster. I'm not talking about highly-trained troops measuring their kill distances. I'm talking about relatively ordinary guys with no formal training. No matter what their experience in taking out the living dead the guys with the handguns have gotten away in greater numbers than the guys without. The instinct to go Rambo is simply too strong in a weapon that makes it so easy, especially when you factor in the zombie psychological advantage. Against a serious horde it goes against every instinct to keep it to the three-burst standard. It simply doesn't come down to facts and figures when you're literally staring death in the face.
Incidently, what movie is that shot from? It looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger vs Freddie Mercury.
Omni Hunter wrote:Commando and yes, Vernon Wells does scarilly look like Freddie Mercury with his dress sense and facial hair.
I always thought so too.
Commando is excellent. Everything you want from an action movie. Hilarious one-liners, stupid action, over-the-top villains with handlebar mustaches, and of course Ah-Nuld.
If you haven't seen it, I strongly suggest getting some friends together, maybe get a little pot, and rent Commando. You have the Official Amazing Grant Guarantee that you'll have a great time.
Amazing Grant wrote:Commando is excellent. Everything you want from an action movie. Hilarious one-liners, stupid action, over-the-top villains with handlebar mustaches, and of course Ah-Nuld.
If you haven't seen it, I strongly suggest getting some friends together, maybe get a little pot, and rent Commando. You have the Official Amazing Grant Guarantee that you'll have a great time.
Well, I don't do drugs... except for caffine, and, once I get old enough, moderate amounts of alcohol. And maybe hand-rolled cigarettes, made from genetically engineered, carcinogen-free tobacco (I'm an amature scientist, and an aspiring multi-zillionaire). But the Official Amazing Grant Guarantee is enough to compel me to see this film, temperence or not.
Well that, and those mustaches. Handlebar mustaches freakin' rule.
And Baba - while I'd quibble about the cannabis, acapella singing and horn sections are cool, indusputably.
