Sign in or 

|
Carnack |
|
|
Akerris |
1. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 2 2009, 4:09 PM EST
The assumption with zombies is that almost all can be killed by severe brain trauma. Very few can be killed by bleeding to death etc. Machetes are great at killing people because we have pesky vital organs and arteries. The warhammer is great at breaking skulls which should be considered the best way to kill a zombie no matter what 'type' one runs into.
|
|
Carnack |
2. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 2 2009, 4:18 PM EST
"The assumption with zombies is that almost all can be killed by severe brain trauma. Very few can be killed by bleeding to death etc. Machetes are great at killing people because we have pesky vital organs and arteries. The warhammer is great at breaking skulls which should be considered the best way to kill a zombie no matter what 'type' one runs into."Actually the majority of machete deaths are from severe trauma to extremeties. The next on the list is severe trauma to the neck. And at the bottom is organ damage. |
|
Akerris |
3. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 3 2009, 7:19 AM EST
"Actually the majority of machete deaths are from severe trauma to extremeties.There are plenty of arteries in the extremities, hence why I mentioned the arteries. Just think about planting one in a human skull. Would you bet your life on it working? |
|
PedroAsani |
4. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 3 2009, 8:22 AM EST
If I might interject, you wouldn't swing a machete at a zombie's skull. You would aim for the neck, going for decapitation. Even if you go with the Max Brooks version that the head will continue to try and bite, it isn't much of a threat once it hits the floor.Limb removal reduces the threat of being grabbed, or of pursuit. If you were to swing at a skull with any kind of force, you are likely to split it. Machetes go through bone all too frequently, sometimes by accident (christmas tree farms have gruesome stories) and the low surface area channels the force into a small area. The brain will suffer massive trauma, almost anywhere you strike. The odds of it getting stuck are slim as well. The blade is thinner and less likely to wedge the same way an axe would. Finally, machetes are infinitely more available than warhammers. |
|
DLOWTHEMAD |
5. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 3 2009, 9:56 AM EST | Post edited: Nov 3 2009, 9:57 AM EST
"If I might interject, you wouldn't swing a machete at a zombie's skull. You would aim for the neck, going for decapitation. Even if you go with the Max Brooks version that the head will continue to try and bite, it isn't much of a threat once it hits the floor.A warhammer will ruin an arm, also reducing the odds of grabs or pursuit. Muscle can't move a limb if the bone is shattered. The odds maybe slim of a stick, but i'd rather go with no chance at all, again like the warhammer. This site is about preparatin, no? Then if a warhammer is a better tool, then one should acquire one now, the same as some of us have stocked up on mres, ammo, freshwater, batteries and firearms. A machete can be used to cut things other than an ememy, yes. What if you don't need to cut, a horsemans hammer(such as described by Akerris) could be used as a hammer to barricade, open doors, the back spike should be thick enough to pry with(a la a crowbar) and is longer than a household hammer. In a package that weighs only marginally more than a framing hammer. |
|
Akerris |
6. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 4 2009, 6:46 AM EST
Has anyone thought of arms getting in the way of decapitation?Even then, has anyone thought of the force it would take to lop someone's head off with a crummy factory made blade? How many swings would all that take versus one overhead swing. In most scenarios zombies don't raise their hands to protect the top of their skull making it by far the easiest place to strike. |
|
Carnack |
7. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 7 2009, 5:05 PM EST
"A warhammer will ruin an arm, also reducing the odds of grabs or pursuit. Muscle can't move a limb if the bone is shattered.Actually if you ruin the muscle they can no longer use it (well) and so you have effectively "severed" the limb. And Akerris it is easier to get a machete and use one. |
|
Akerris |
8. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 8 2009, 7:02 AM EST | Post edited: Nov 8 2009, 7:04 AM EST
"Actually if you ruin the muscle they can no longer use it (well) and so you have effectively "severed" the limb.Really? Most noobs pick up blades and are absolutely laughable. Most idiots can pick up a blunt object and clobber something. Besides for $80-$8000 you can buy a warhammer on the internet, or get one made, before SHTF. Besides, every survivor and their brother is going to grab a machete from a store, so I'm not sure how easy to find they will be. Plan ahead. People on this site will spend thousands on guns they will probably never have to use, but buying a $100 warhammer is out of the question? |
|
Carnack |
9. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 8 2009, 2:33 PM EST
"Really? Most noobs pick up blades and are absolutely laughable. Most idiots can pick up a blunt object and clobber something. Besides for $80-$8000 you can buy a warhammer on the internet, or get one made, before SHTF. Besides, every survivor and their brother is going to grab a machete from a store, so I'm not sure how easy to find they will be.Not much to know about blade use against the sort of Zs where talking about. Aim for the neck. If the arms are being problematic aims for the upper arm to get the muscles out of the way. The machete I have is from Amazon.com and cost $10. The handle was hollow plastic that soon broke but since I had a handle change in mind anyway it didn't matter. The blade isn't the best but it still causes a lot of damage because I put teeth on it. It has been shown to take chunks from bone with good cut. And a gun has more use than a weaponized hammer. That's another way that a machete tops a warhammer in usability. |
|
Akerris |
10. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 9 2009, 6:53 AM EST
"Not much to know about blade use against the sort of Zs where talking about.Why did you serrate your blade?!?!?!? Now it will get stuck in stuff! Haven't you ever read All Quiet on the Western front? We're not talking about guns, besides warhammer =2.5lbs rifle=8 not including ammo. You can spare two pounds for an excellent weapon. Like I said before, if you like the machete take both! As for aiming for the neck, that's a lot more work and swinging than a simple overhead shot to the brain. |
|
Carnack |
11. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 10 2009, 1:59 PM EST
"Why did you serrate your blade?!?!?!? Now it will get stuck in stuff! Haven't you ever read All Quiet on the Western front?I serrated it to see how it would function. I use those sorts of cheapos for that kind of modding. It's all about use. A gun is an attack option (offensive), and a way to get big game (provider). A machete can be used to severely injure a Z (offensive), or build a shelter (provider), or butcher game (provider). A warhammer can kill a Z in one go (offensive). Anything else? And why carry two weapons that would have different functions when I could carry one that that does both? |
|
Akerris |
12. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 10 2009, 3:06 PM EST
"I serrated it to see how it would function. I use those sorts of cheapos for that kind of modding.Because the machete is mediocre at the offensive part. Re-read the article, I've listed several tool functions for the warhammer as well. Besides, two pounds for a one hit kill? Think it over. |
|
Carnack |
13. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 10 2009, 3:18 PM EST
"Because the machete is mediocre at the offensive part. Re-read the article, I've listed several tool functions for the warhammer as well. Besides, two pounds for a one hit kill? Think it over."A POSSIBLE OHK. |
|
Akerris |
14. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 10 2009, 4:02 PM EST
"A POSSIBLE OHK. "Much more possible than with a machete. Like I said, take both. If you have the space in your yard or living area to test one out you can tell me how you feel. I agree that the machete is a very useful tool, but there are few straight up weapons that can out perform the WH in accurate brain bashing. |
|
Carnack |
15. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 17 2009, 2:42 PM EST
"Much more possible than with a machete.But what would be the point of carrying both? |
|
Akerris |
16. RE: Debate Thread
Nov 18 2009, 6:58 AM EST
"But what would be the point of carrying both?"Because they perform different functions at a minimal expense to weight and space. There's no harm in having a lightweight backup weapon or two. |
|
Carnack |