depends, flat blades are more desinged to be pulled out rather than jagged edges not to say it wont happen but if it did it be rare or take a little more effort to pull out
+Oliver3168Large but what about when cutting wood the axe ends up getting stuck to the wood most of the time. Also they forgot to count collateral head shots
depends on what kind of zombies. friend showed me some animie once where the zombies where deaf and blind and relied on smell and vibrations. so depends on what kind of zombie and since its make belive it can be anything from dumb shamblers to sprinting leaping mean machines
the biggest problem, no one in the top comments is pointing out is, Jamie was stuck because he didn't want to step on the actors back to continue running around in a circle.
Yet the biggest problem with a gun is 1. Availability of ammo and 2. Noise. A silencer doesn't make a gun have no noise, and it would help, but you're bound to attract more if you use a gun. While the ax can get stuck, its a safer bet for the reliability, usage, and sound, in my opinion.
@@thegnomeriseofthepopcornra7315 Not exactly, bone can keep it's integrity for decades after death. Just because the surrounding tissue is rotting, doesn't weaken the skull, which can take quite a beating.
9/10 for accuracy. You cant please people who already have their minds made up. Axes are actually not hard to pull out, so the effect of that would be negligible..
@@jhonklan3794 Id still give it a low accuracy, it was comparing weapons in a very uncontrolled environment with substitutes as actually testing this would be very inhumane, looked fun for them to do though
@@jhonklan3794this test scores low on accuracy for three reasons. First, Adam wasn’t allowed to swing the axe sideways, if he was allowed to he’d have a much higher scores and it’d probably be how most people use an axe as a weapon. Second, they severely limited their movement range by forcing them to stay in that circle, I don’t know about you but I’m sure as heck not going to stay in one spot while a horde tries to eat me. Third, they forced Jamie to only shoot at zombies in the circle, removing the main advantage of a gun.
wood has a grain that binds the wood together with cellulose. Human skulls are made of a hollow material that can fracture; wood and bone will act completely differently. Nothing is holding bones together once they get hit so there is no way an axe is getting stuck in a skull.
A Spear would be a far better melee weapon in this situation...or just attach a bayonet to your rifle...save space for other survival tools.... Spears are so underestimated in the general public...
Amethyst Blade any pole arm really, a poleaxe like this www.bytheswordinc.com/image/popup?imagePath=%2Fimages%2Fproduct%2Flarge%2Fcd-1046_1_.jpg would be your best bet. The versatility of the head, and long reach the pole is likely why is was developed, and used on the battlefield. My guess it would make short work of anything fleshy you put in front of it.
@@minuit7915 Even indoor...you actually don't need much space to thrust forward and recover rapidly...moving? you hold it up vertically like a guard pose...too close? whack someone with it...but yeah, a short sword would be better, dagger is too close...
@@willdouds7436 What? Spear is the King of Battlefield for quite some time...Until guns get good at least...and then there are many types of Bayonets...
@@coreykimbrough3237 Yes, go find not only an AK but also 100s of rounds to use, guns are simply not a reliable option in a zombie scenario for lot's of reasons.
You can walk backwards and retreat while shooting, instead of waiting to get overwhelmed. You can also climb on top of something to become inaccessible to the zombies. When using the axe, you're vulnerable and can't get away. If your foe fights by biting, you want distance between you and them. Distance is safety.
@Random person You probably wouldn't live long enough fighting against a crowd of zombies with an axe for "no ammo limitations" to be a real advantage. With a gun, climb up a pole or something and kill zombies until you run out of ammo. You could kill a group of hundreds of zombies at once. Good luck trying that with an axe. Realistically, there are only so many people who can get infected. Everyone with a gun could get to a safe shooting position like a secure, hard to access rooftop and take out a whole lot of them, thinning the herd to the point of safe travel. Of course, there's no reason to limit yourself to carrying one weapon in a warzone.
Nearly none? Axe are made to not get stuck, skulls is thin, also most likely ultra rotten and under the skull is only water/lubrification to get it out. Most of the time skull would just open up and therefore 0 resistance else it will just slide out as easily as a dick in a well lubrificated vagina
also they did not take into account that Adam STOPPED the axe with his muscle force (is this a thing?). as opposed to a 'real life scenario', where he would just LET the axe hit the zombie. stopping an axe will fatigue you sooner.
Having authored a book with a zombie character, I've given zombies a tremendous amount of thought. My conclusion is that firearms are a REALLY bad idea in a zombie apocalypse, but maybe not for the reason you're thinking or the reason featured in the video. The reason: NOISE From the time you fire your first shot, you'll be summoning every zombie within half a quarter of mile to your exact location. The more you shoot, the more you'll have to shoot. Using a melee weapon, on the other hand, is nearly silent and can only be heard from a few yards away at best. With a melee weapon, you can kill whatever zombies are directly in front of you, then run and hide so you don't have to keep fighting. If you absolutely MUST use a firearm, you don't want to use something extremely powerful. You only need to break the skull and scramble the brain a little. You can do this easily with a .22, possibly even with a shorty, and definitely suppressed. The less noise you make, the fewer zombies you'll attract to your location. A note about firearm suppressors (what most would call silencers): THEY ARE NOT SILENCERS! Suppressors REDUCE noise, but they can't eliminate it entirely. For larger caliber firearms, it's still loud, just not so loud that it will blow out your eardrums. For something like a .22, it will make it sound like a firecracker. The only time it's really really quiet is if you're using a subsonic shorty round, and then you still have the mechanical noise of the gun firing and loading the next round. Something I might suggest would be something along the lines of a .22 caliber air rifle. They're quieter than a traditional firearm and are powerful enough to hunt young pigs by shooting them in the brain ... which is EXACTLY what you'd be doing to the zombies. As far as melee weapons, I've devised a two-weapon system. The first is a short spear, maybe 3-4 feet long. The spear has a loop at the bottom you use to attach it to your belt. The top has about 6 inches of spear-tip, then a cross piece so the zombies can't push themselves down the shaft. It's basically just there to create a buffer of space between you and the zombie so he can't get you in any meaningful way. Once he's speared, use something along the lines of a tomahawk with a spike on the back end to destroy the brain. It's lightweight and focuses the attack onto a very small area so it requires relatively little effort to penetrate the skull. This means you can swing it faster and more often without exhausting yourself. These will be your primary zombie fighting weapons. The only time you would want to use a firearm is if you absolutely need to kill something at range.
Why the two weapon system? It just seems that it adds unnecessary steps and reduces efficiency. Plus that wouldn't work in a scenario where there are multiple zombies, which is almost always the case. It would probably be more effective to just utilize a weapon with a long reach, like a sling blade or a scythe
@@matthewfarmer8510 Like I said, I've given this a tremendous amount of thought :) The two weapon system is just a little more work, but the payoff is a greatly enhanced degree of control over the battlespace, which means it's much safer for the living. I'll explain. In the case that it's just one zombie, remember that the spear is attached to your belt on the back end, so when a zombie walks up on you, he's stuck just out of grabbing/biting distance. This gives you all the time in the world to observe your surroundings before you attack. Without the spear, you're always forced to attack immediately. In the case that there is more than one zombie, once you get your first zombie stuck, DON'T KILL HIM! Instead, pivot around him and use him as a meat shield to block the other zombies. This allows you to engage multiples without having them all on you at the same time.
@@chubbyninja842 But how do you account for time lost in securing a zombie? Like, say several zombies are walking towards you, shoulder to shoulder. By the time you spear the first, wouldn't the others have cleared the range where the first zombie was, thus making the first one ineffective as a meat shield?
@@matthewfarmer8510 "But how do you account for time lost in securing a zombie?" Securing the first zombie is almost a non-issue. He's just going to walk onto the point of your spear, doing your job for you. "Like, say several zombies are walking towards you, shoulder to shoulder." We're not talking about soldiers marching in formation. We're talking about zombies. The likelihood that they'll be walking shoulder to shoulder is going to be negligible. That said, say we run into that one in a million trio of zombies that walk shoulder to shoulder. All you have to do is dart quickly to one side of the other ... and now they're walking single file toward you rather than shoulder to shoulder. Single file is your best possible option. And regardless of all that, simply having the spear option doesn't put you at a disadvantage at any point in all of this. There's no reason NOT to have it. I'm sure we can brainstorm all day and come up with situations in which it becomes less useful, but those are going to be less common situations. Far more often than not you'll be MUCH better off with my system. You can't just throw it out because there MIGHT be a situation in which it's less useful somewhere down the road.
@@chubbyninja842 I think the problem between our schools of thought is this. You see no reason to not have the spear, I see no problem that makes it necessary. That's where we disconnect.
I mean, you have to admit, a short-barreled AR platform with a 30-120 round magazine which can be reloaded in under a second, fired without manual operation like a pump which can be short stroked and shouldered for accurate fire, combined two pistols with 17 rounds each just in case one jams or runs out of ammo would've been far better in this specific test than two pump-action shotguns without a stock and one pistol. It also would've been much more realistic for most of the states in America.
In a situation where you're going kamikaze, then yes, an axe probably would be better. But if you're trying to escape, as Jamie shows, a gun allows you to engage and to stay away for longer. so if there was an escape route, Jamie would be more likely to get out alive. And that's the goal. Success shouldn't be measures by the number of zombies you kill, but if you survive or not.
also to be considered, with both weapons... skin is porous. getting blood on you could be lethal. so stay far away from the undead. though when close the ax might have the advantage of less blood spray.
Depends on the gun. A well maintained M4 can go all day and not jam. In the army we would use just a few of them to run a battery(company) through rifle quals so that there were less weapons to clean so we could go home sooner after getting back from the range. It comes with a standard 31 round magazine. 2 magazines would meet their average with only 1 mag change which only takes 2 seconds.
also rounds can don’t have to hit the head, you can take out legs to make the zombies drop, or necks with an axe it needs to be more direct less room for error
How about a suppressor? Sure the bullet will make a lot of noise but it's less noise than before. Or use a powerful air rifle; demo ranch recently showed a decent air rifle that has good power.
Ah yes, the real zombie apocalypse, the one that last 15 minutes because your far right neighbor has enough arsenal to take on the federal government. Do you know how many guns there are in America?
The derp Potato. Because he didnt swing fast enough. But yeah it may require a fast hit to one shot it but several slightly slower hits will work too. If nkthing ekse it should be knocked to the ground, buying him a few seconds
That and I don't think the foam axe weights the same as a metal one, so he'd score less hits before tiring. (correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be a prior episode)
***** Well, the force required to actually lift the axe before/after each swing then accelerating it to get the next swing started should account for that "help" gravity and weight give, in the best scenario it would be a zero sum and he'd be able to swing it the same amount of times regardless of weight, but the amount of energy you need to lift an object is more than what you get when letting it drop, thus why perpetual movement systems are impossible. But thinking a little more I realized maybe they just covered an actual axe with foam instead of removing the head first or attaching it to an empty handle.
That's why cardio is number 1. Though you aren't giving your legs enough credit, they are designed for the long haul more often than not, and while blood O2 may be low, you can still walk away. How far and at what speed is determined by individual fitness but US Army standard for 20 year olds is a 2 mile in 15 minutes, so a reasonably fit survivor should be able to do something similar. And for those who might say something about starting fresh, this is part of a 3 course PT test, first being 60 Push ups in 2 min, 60 Sit Ups in 2 min, though there is some resting period between each phase depending on the number of people being tested, but if you're one of the last to be tested you only get a minute or two between Sit Ups and the Run. Which for a physically fit person should be more than enough to hydrate and stretch.
+TheSummerWarrior12 and if you wanted a definitive test then there are obviously things you can do to spike the head of the axe to decrease the force needed kill. Also there are many guns that have a drum mag or ammo box on them with high calibre. And those guns can kill around 150 zombies if you take into account all are heads hits and none miss.
And are those guns that can kill around 150 zombies just lying around ready to be pick up or you need to kill some and pray that it will drop some loots?
wrong guns. try it with an ar 15 or some kind of carbine, any gun with a decent stock is so much easier to aim quickly, and use 30 round mags. I guarantee a number in the 100s
+The Knome: Rise of the popcorn rapist actualy shotgun are way worst because you DONT want spray, since zombies need a good chock to the brain to die... A spray all over the place is just plain useless on them
At the range he was shooting at, the pellet spread would be quite minimal. Not entirely sure why shotguns are used so often in zombie flicks. If I had a choice, an AR-15 or AK-47 with a 100 round drum would be a much better choice than a shotgun.
In reality, you could probably use the gun as a sort of club to kill zombies. For obvious reasons they couldn't do that, but if you're out of ammo and don't have anything else, I'm swinging my gun like a baseball bat.
Could also attach bayonette. I think it would be most efficient to use a sword however something like a Katana could decapitate zombies quickly and easily
This is the most inaccurate test ever: A) every swing with the axe needs a minimum amount if force and not just a slight touch B) every time a zombie is killed with the axe a minimum amount of force is also needed to pull the axe out C) sometimes the axe can get stuck so he'll need extra time to get it out Finally (the biggest flaw) D) the gun wasn't allowed to immediately start shooting and instead had to wait for the zombies to come into the zone like the axe. This contradicts/takes away the guns main advantage which is its range and how you can attack from afar without having to get close to them
Isaac Lee Agree with all except your first point. The minimum swing speed was to simulate the amount of force needed to crack the skull. But yeah apart from that i agree. Also an automatic weapon would be far hetter than a shotgun especially at mid to long range. To be honest we could go on all day poking flaws in this like how its unlikely someone will be going solo. After all. When everyone you love is dead any human contact is going to be appreciated. But lets give the advantages for an axe. No ammo. Easier to aquire in most countries. I know in america guns are applenty but in most other countries there not. Quieter. Guns are loud as hell. Your gunna attract a lot more zombies if you arent careful. If their walking dead zombies thats not too big a deal but if their more like wwz zombies then staying silent is essential.
However, the axe was used badly in that the grip was awful. Adam could have held his hands closer toward the base of the axe and generated more torgue, allowing for more force with less effort, which would have tired him out less
i would be running backwards not towards them and go left and right with any melee weapon you have to get close which is why guns will always be better then melee weapons also when his guns jammed he tries to fix it instead of tossing it to the side or on the ground or realistically at the zombies
If we are talking about the zombies everyone knows: 1. Axe can get stuck, or even break. 2. That foam is not simulating the real metal axes weight. 3. Guns make sound. 4. You are not going find any guns lying on the streets. 5. Ammo is a problem 6. Not every random bullet you shoot will kill a person. 7. You cant handle some guns recoil with one hand.
#1. Suppressors are more common now than ever, and only require a $200 tax stamp #2. Each AR platform will carry between 30-120 rounds per magazine reliably. If using the ......NATO standard 55 grain XM193 ammo since there are literally billions of these rounds ......available, a magazine of 120 rounds would less than a 1 lb or only .9428571 lbs. Reloads ......are swift as well #3. At least one pistol should also be carried. A good option would be a Glock which can .......reliably carry 19 rounds of 124 grain 9mm. Each magazine would weigh an awful heavy 0.3365714 lbs. #4 This means that with 1.6159999 pounds worth of ammunition you have 158 bullets before ......having to reload. Assuming you have no more ammo. If ammo is carried, each gun is ......reloaded and chambered in under a second and averaged between 6000-15000 rounds ......before malfunctions in military testing during adverse conditions. A Glock is expected to ......have a service live of 12000-40000 before any breakage, and have been known to go much .....longer. #5.If any police or military were killed, or your average citizen, their weapon would be chamber .....in these calibers. 6.Iron sights are the way of the past, with a reticle on a rifle, even someone without training will never miss a shot within 15 yards. Even on small targets. 7.Recoil- According to the American rifle Association,"A Rem 55-gr. bullet and 7 lb. rifle: Recoil Energy: 3.7 ft. lbs." so 3 and a half lbs of recoil being nudged into your shoulder and with a pistol,"(9x19 124 grain ammunition) 2.0lb pistol=4.4lbs of recoil" directed into your palm. Summary, Jaime took out as many as he did with 3 pump actions, and a pistol, if he had 156 rounds on tap before reloading, which would simulate two of the most commonly owned guns in America the result would have been very, very different. No Malfunctions, more precise aim, more ammo very little weight. I wish you the best, have a great day :)
yeah, but they used pump action shotguns at close quarters, theres a reason soldiers use semi, burt and auto rifles in battle, they have longer range wich is the whole reason youre using a gun, they have more ammo and you dont need to wait 2 second after every bullet.
Why are people expecting a realistic representation of a Zombie apocalypse if we've never had (and never will) have a zombie apocalypse in the first place? How would we know what a zombie's behavior is? Do they go in a straight line? Do they run? Do they use tactics like surrounding the opponent? Do they care who gets the kill? Are they intelligent enough to throw items or use simple weapons? This is how THEY decided to set up the apocalypse and they did an amazing job at it. People saying that they used the wrong gun are also wrong. They can't go around testing dozens of different guns just to see what gives the best result. They decided on the standard shotgun for a reason, and that is because it's the most realistic weapon alongside a handgun. You really aren't going to get a machinegun or a RPG in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, and those weapons sound extremely inconvenient anyway. Good god, if people keep saying that this is half-assed then go make the freaking episodes yourself. Just wake up and realize that a "real" zombie apocalypse is nothing like your Call of Duty or Minecraft game. These people do better research on the subject than you ever will, they present it in a better way than you ever might. There is a reason they are starring the show and not you.
+James Thuy Of course zombies exist. If you think otherwise then you've clearly never been in a supermarket on pension day. Looks like Michael Jackson's Thriller!
just so you know a regular doublestack handgun alone holds 15+ rounds (like one you would find on a cop during an apocalypse) and could go through 3+ heads with +p copper jacketed rounds and reload time is under 1 second and rarely jams unlike it's paintball counterpart and can be reloaded in under a second with a little practice. There is also this thing called bottlenecking where you can aim at the point of breach several meters away and pile up bodies as obstacles. my standoff distance with a handgun alone is about 40 meters but for heads shots make that 20. with loaded magazines I can run through 15 rounds accurately in about 7 seconds at 20 meters and about 4 seconds under 5 meters. that makes about 100 rounds a minute including mag changes. That's why only an idiot would use a tactical pump shotgun with a wide choke and a low round count for multiple offenders in an open area. I carry (that means already have on me) a glock model 22 Gen 4 that shoots .40 s&w also a standard issue weapon for police in my area. Glocks are light hi capacity common handguns that are carried by about 60% of law enforcement around the world. most of the rest are armed with what are xalled glock variants like Springfield xds or xdms or a smith and Wesson m&p. Some of the most reliable guns on the market that rarely jam.
or an automatic, you know the scythe technique is frowned upon but with a beltfeed? never mind that 308 or bigger would if not kill when struck elsewhere than head atleast knock arms/legs of a zombie and make them severly more immobile
Depends on how rotten the zombie is and what kind of ammo you are using. A full metal jacked 308 will just make holes but a soft point Bullet for example will do much worse wounds
To everyone saying this test sucked because the axe would get stuck, THERES NO WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT WITHOUT MURDERING VOLUNTEERS Also they left out the chainsaw part
Jamie could have went for much longer, but he was clearly afraid of trampling over the live people on the ground, which stopped him. Not saying melee weapons are worse, however if you have unlimited ammo then they clearly are better then an axe.
Technically moving through a pile of dead zombies is a death sentence in and of itself because the problem with the "living dead" is that they might not be dead enough even if you give them a "killing blow". There is no specific reason why a gun would perform better then an axe or something in a close range scenario. The advantage of guns is long distance which also keeps you away from infection.
+Das Neko rate of fire verses rate of swing... especially if you get something like an automatic weapon and hundred round mags. or are in the Nazi Zombie universe where melee weapons take forever to kill and even head shots don't one shot kill... and it's all about laying in the hurt as fast as possible.
***** No there are far more things to consider like for example the contamination risk. If you blew a zombies head apart with a shotgun for example then the virus will spread all over the place through its gibblets and particles. Granted this is based on the assumption that it is a virus. Anyway in those cases having a weapon like for example a spear would keep you at a safe distance as well as not being as messy.
@@Utubesuperstar Well, yeah. But it's all about resource management, you know? Lots of balance between the two. You're balancing resources and stuff like noise, with how dangerous it is.
I’d like to point out that one, in the first axe test against a ballistics head, the axe broke the skull and bounced out, so probably not gonna get stuck very often at all, and also, if Jamie only had to accelerate the axe until hit, instead of accelerate to kill speed, and then slow down so he doesn’t hit the volunteer, he would have around twice as many kills
Guns jam, reloading sure, but... how about axe recovery? The axe never actually penetrates any skulls, all simulated. How about prying axe out? How about axe getting slippery because of blood/brain soup? How about over-swing and miss with momentum taking axe-wielder toward instead of away from zombies? How heavy was the foam axe compared to real steel?Let's be fair, this was a no win scenario, 57 or 67 zombies to 1 human that's the only life to be lost. Epic fail. How about continuous retreat scenario where you can use distance to buy time? I know, I know, but I don't like the no-win scenario.
+JonMcWhite foam axe was weighted to be the same as the steel one also there isnt as much work in axe recovery because of the skulls tendency to crack... its nothing like wood... its like hitting an egg with a knife...
+JonMcWhite Well if we're trying to be realistic as possible, life or death situations cause the body to go into overdrive, flooding adrenaline, dopamine, and other hormones into the body making it temporarily faster, stronger, and fight longer. Unless we can imitate that scenario I think true accuracy is difficult.
+quittingcreativity I actually believe that given the nature of this test, biochemically they are quite close. Consider that there would be a real life or death situation for someone to run away, this would be national running competition.
You definitely want an axe. You can do more with it, like cut through doors, cut down trees, etc. It just has more utility, for things besides killing. Also it has less mechanical parts thus less prone to break. In a zombie apocalypse, guns should be use to defend against other humans, not zombies.
#1. Suppressors are more common now than ever, and only require a $200 tax stamp #2. Each AR platform will carry between 30-120 rounds per magazine reliably. If using the ......NATO standard 55 grain XM193 ammo since there are literally billions of these rounds ......available, a magazine of 120 rounds would less than a 1 lb or only .9428571 lbs. Reloads ......are swift as well #3. At least one pistol should also be carried. A good option would be a Glock which can .......reliably carry 19 rounds of 124 grain 9mm. Each magazine would weigh an awful heavy 0.3365714 lbs. #4 This means that with 1.6159999 pounds worth of ammunition you have 158 bullets before ......having to reload. Assuming you have no more ammo. If ammo is carried, each gun is ......reloaded and chambered in under a second and averaged between 6000-15000 rounds ......before malfunctions in military testing during adverse conditions. A Glock is expected to ......have a service live of 12000-40000 before any breakage, and have been known to go much .....longer. #5.If any police or military were killed, or your average citizen, their weapon would be chamber .....in these calibers. 6.Iron sights are the way of the past, with a reticle on a rifle, even someone without training will never miss a shot within 15 yards. Even on small targets. 7.Recoil- According to the American rifle Association,"A Rem 55-gr. bullet and 7 lb. rifle: Recoil Energy: 3.7 ft. lbs." so 3 and a half lbs of recoil being nudged into your shoulder and with a pistol,"(9x19 124 grain ammunition) 2.0lb pistol=4.4lbs of recoil" directed into your palm. Summary, Jaime took out as many as he did with 3 pump actions, and a pistol, if he had 156 rounds on tap before reloading, which would simulate two of the most commonly owned guns in America the result would have been very, very different. No Malfunctions, more precise aim, more ammo very little weight. Gun's are GREAT for Zombies as well :)
Would it matter if Adam changed the direction of the ax swing? Instead of all overheads, what if he did a horizontal swipe or and upward strike? Would that affect his fatigue?
Tips for rapid melee head shots, when you start to get too tired to swing right put a LOT of space and or obstacles between you and your opponents and rebuild you're strength. This is especially effective with slow-moving zombies or zombies with short term memory spans.
@@Lame_Liam The foam axe was extra large to make it about the same weight as the real axe. Also, you forgot the part where we're expecting anything realistic when talking about zombies.
I think both weapons are just situational. As someone who actually uses and tests both weapons for work I can definitely see both weapons going wrong in a bad situation like this. (Like guns get dirty and jam sometimes and wooden axes can get worn and the metal part can straight up just come off completely. ) so I think having something like a glock alongside something like a hatchet would be a smart setup.
But wouldn't it be difficult to pull the axe out of the zombies head? So you wouldn't be swinging a lot less, and would be more fatigued from pulling the axe out?
+Artcade Well in fact most axe hits to a head does not get stuck in the head it breaks the skull and more squash the brain inside than get stuck in it, of course it hit the brain but not deep enough to get stuck.
Axes have the steep bevels for more than just a strong cutting edge. It also means you need less force to remove it once it is stuck. Axes are also more than likely to just cave the skull in, not a clean cleave, as the skull is brittle and not very thick. You'd have to be VERY unlucky for an axe to get stuck in a skull when you swing with the kind of force Adam used on the gel head. Also, if we're talking an axe exactly like Adam is using (assuming a human could effectively swing one made of solid steel or what have you), the bevel is so steep it will crush heads more often than split them.
That axe was not the correct weight... a real one would be heavier, and could possibly cause him to wear out more quickly... though the weight could be an advantage, at least on the down swing.
+TheBraveGallade not to mention the fact that just because the axe was swung at a speed that would allow it to produce a kill, doesnt mean it was accurately placed. Kind of hard to actually test any of this out for real though.
The kind of gun you want in a zombie apocalypse would ideally be a pintle mounted heavy machine gun. It takes the difficulty out of mowing down hoardes of undead.
No you would want a .22lr semi auto plinker. Reason being .22 is easy to obtain and light. You can also easily stockpile them in preparation for an apocalypse scenario.
You would have to drag around thousands of bullets everywhere you travel... Unless you plan on living in a gun manufacturing plant... Those bullets would eventually run out. The zombie apocalypse scenario would take decades to return to normal civilization.
Obviously a gun would be the better weapon but an axe would be useful for quiet takedowns, emergency situations where you might need to break down doors, chop up material, bar a door etc, having a trusty, sturdy reliable long handled axe would probably save you a lot of grief.
A gun would be better for other enemy survivors.... For zombies though, a gun is pretty bad - its loud and attracts more zombies, ammunition runs out - it's game over (unless the person is running around with a giant bag of bullets). In a zombie apocalypse there's thousands of zombies wandering around.
To be real though, they were using paintball guns which jam like hell. A real gun would be a bit more reliable (AK or AR etc). Also since zombies are half decomposed, the bullets could penetrate further through a crowd of targets taking out or disabling a few more zombies. Paintballs break on impact so, no deep penetration there. I'm still pretty sure gun>axe. Besides, what if the axe gets stuck or you miss?
If you miss with an axe you can 'follow up' or spin it so it stays in continual motion thus costing less energy. this is a mace technique and would work well if you use the back of the axe.
Another point to consider in this video that I have not seen anyone else comment yet on really is the swing arc and how much he goes into the strike before stopping which often can be more tiring than going all the way through with it especially with an axe (losing a lot of momentum). Another point that I have seen is using spear tactics additionally to swings for distancing reasons (which is of course more effective with a spear or halberd-type of weapon for range reasons) I don’t really have much experiences with axes and more so swords but this is just what I’ve noticed.
They didnt really need this, as a zombie researcher. Zombie heads are soft, as you’ve seen in the Walking Dead, the bones break easily, which means the skull is decomposing. The weight of the axe could just easily kill them. So basically they didnt really need this. If the skull is still hard, go for the temple bone. Thats where the weakest part of the skull is.
Force=mass x acceleration. they used the mass of the real axe and the force to calculate the acceleration, but then changed the mass of the object to the foam axe which would therefore require higher acceleration. Test is faulty
Well I mean the test is faulty for a numerous amount of reasons.... Semi auto weapons for one hundreds of round per minute with range axe has to be close but is also silent. In a real scenario a axe or any kind of sharp melee weapon would be better less noise = less attention also no need for ammunition although a gun would be beneficial In a horde situation where you only option is to kill everyone of them
Training and optimization is everything! If you get two people who are proficient with firearms or melee weapons, you'd probably get much better results. Instead of pump action shotgun, I think a magazine fed rifle would have been better. Training your cardio and strength training also would have helped with both axe usage and avoiding zombies altogether.
Not how it works. Bone is hard. Horizontal swings would be a good choice, yes, but hitting more than one target with one swing is the realm of cartoonish fiction.
SarSaraneth as someone with advanced combat training and expirience in the blade arts... good luck disproving something i know to work... tatami rolls are as hard as bone.. and there is also a few bone hard materials that could replace bone. besides it don't need to always be able to take off the head but severing the control nerves. lose that connection lose control of the body becoming less of a threat. plus the added bonus of bing some time, and continuing momentum in circular or curving patterns. a large heavy blade can be continued through multiples in rapid succession more fluidly and rapidly without burning energy as much.. however the sensors setup they are using pretty much nullifies being able to test that so..yeah... they shoulda gotten in some armor and done a gauntlet much more useful data that way. having to simulate the strike every time the way he is is ..... cartoony. also i said"possibly" that means it ain't gonna be guarenteed. so though somewhat unlikel for an untrained twit like adam or jamy it is quite possible. there are plenty or blade arts that teach and prractice multiple striking moves. see ultimate warrior eps with the long swords a few of them used actual bone if memory serves to do exactly this... cow bone being much thicker then human and still multi-kills wer recorded. now what do you think will happen with an item specifically designed to chop through hard materials like an axe.
Nicholas Vaters You're talking to a HEMA practitioner, sir. One with some specialization in the Longsword, as a matter of fact, and a solid grounding in the use of an axe. With an axe that size, cutting through more than one target is not going to work. As for Ultimate Warrior, you're not earning credibility by referring to that trash as a source. Lastly, paragraphs. It's not hard to divide your words, so do so.
good for you I am Canadian forces veteran with advanced combat training also experienced with different fighting systems and weapons including axes, long sword, halberd, staff, and bow. and suffice to say multiple hits in one swing is quite possible.... the targets need to be aligned fairly well for multiple targets to be hit wer it counts... but it DOES WORK. and by using angles as i said the momentum can be more quickly switched from target to target then this; up, down up , down. even a glancing blow can give valuable time to take down another threat and come back to the first. part of the reason for rapid fire in gun battles and sweeping fire with machine guns. one shot kills aren't as important as sending out the pain.
When it comes to the axe, I understand it's probably not the weight of a real one but Adam having to stop the axe on every swing instead of letting the momentum transfer to the zombies head seems like it would make him fatigue quicker
sk84life311 Both with guns and axes there are so many factors that it's impossible to know everything about how they will perform. Plus zombies don't exist so that only makes it harder.
+N2 The Mystic and if he was realy swinging a sharp war axe with adrenaline in his veins(which is the hardest part of this situation to replicate.) he would be taking out multiple assailants per swing. well...maybe not adam, but a stout old school man could.
This is too flawed of an experiment and too small of a sample size to be conclusive. Many variables are not accounted for. For example how physically fit you are will affect how well you are able to avoid zombies. How much skill and experience with guns or axes you have is also a factor. How much the axe weighs and how Sharp it is yet another factor. You should have at the very least run the test multiple times with different people and accounted for axe weight.
They also used a wood axe, which is dumb. Wood axes are not weapons. War axes are light and quick, with thin blades less likely to get stuck in flesh or bone.
@Primordial that's not the point. The point is that the distinction between tools and weapons is important. A purpose-built weapon will generally be a better choice for this job.
One good thing about edged weapons-including axes-is that you don't necessarily need to destroy the brain; you can just cut off the zombies' heads. It won't kill them, but it will leave them completely incapacitated.
The advantage with the Zombie Axe (tm) ;) is that the more zombie incursions you survive, the stronger your arms get and the better your aim. The disadvantage for the gun is that the more zombie incursions you survive, the fewer bullets you have and the more likely you are to start looking for a Zombie Axe (tm). ;)
id go for the neck honestly instead of the skull,easier to decapitate or at least damage the spinal cord enough to cause imobility.in a survival situation though your not going for the most kills just whatever is in your way so i think a good ole baseball bat would be better then both in most situations good enough to knock zombies out of your way and wont get stuck.
When you got the gang all you need is an AR-15 with 4 full mags for everyone. 1 bullet can kill a zombie. 30 bullets per mag x4 = 120 bullets. 120x4=480 zombies killed. You can most of the time fit an extra bullet into every mag, bringing our total to 496 killed zombies. Worst case scenario a zombie needs 4 bullets to kill. We can still kill 124 zombies. Plus grenades. A regular fragmentation grenade has a lethal blast area of 15m. That brings our kill-area to 706 square meters. Let's say we can fit 4 zombies in a square meter. That means with a high zombie density we can, in the best possible scenario, kill 2800 zombies without accounting for the fact that the blast and shrapnel will get drastically slowed down by the zombies. Even if we only had a 1.5m blast area we could still kill at least 28 zombies. 10 grenades = 280 zombies. 280x4=1120 dead zombies. That means if you had a four-man team, each armed with 10 grenades, an AR-15 and 4 mags you could kill 1616 zombies. And people still try and tell me the military would fail. Have you forgot they have nukes? A single nuke with the power of 1Mt would severely burn zombies within a radius of 11km. Let's say zombies would be within our density of 4 zombies/square meter. A single 1Mt nuke has a blast area of 380,132,711 square meters. Times 4. That means with a 1Mt nuke we would be able to kill up to 1 billion 520 million 530 thousand 844 zombies. That's 1/5 of the entire worlds population. Zombies would be the single easiest apocalypse to survive. Lure them all to a single location over the course of a few weeks and totally obliterate them all instantaneously.
I like your math my friend, This was my own math replying to someone earlier! #1. Suppressors are more common now than ever, and only require a $200 tax stamp #2. Each AR platform will carry between 30-120 rounds per magazine reliably. If using the ......NATO standard 55 grain XM193 ammo since there are literally billions of these rounds ......available, a magazine of 120 rounds would less than a 1 lb or only .9428571 lbs. Reloads ......are swift as well #3. At least one pistol should also be carried. A good option would be a Glock which can .......reliably carry 19 rounds of 124 grain 9mm. Each magazine would weigh an awful heavy 0.3365714 lbs. #4 This means that with 1.6159999 pounds worth of ammunition you have 158 bullets before ......having to reload. Assuming you have no more ammo. If ammo is carried, each gun is ......reloaded and chambered in under a second and averaged between 6000-15000 rounds ......before malfunctions in military testing during adverse conditions. A Glock is expected to ......have a service live of 12000-40000 before any breakage, and have been known to go much .....longer. #5.If any police or military were killed, or your average citizen, their weapon would be chamber .....in these calibers. 6.Iron sights are the way of the past, with a reticle on a rifle, even someone without training will never miss a shot within 15 yards. Even on small targets. 7.Recoil- According to the American rifle Association,"A Rem 55-gr. bullet and 7 lb. rifle: Recoil Energy: 3.7 ft. lbs." so 3 and a half lbs of recoil being nudged into your shoulder and with a pistol,"(9x19 124 grain ammunition) 2.0lb pistol=4.4lbs of recoil" directed into your palm. Summary, Jaime took out as many as he did with 3 pump actions, and a pistol, if he had 156 rounds on tap before reloading, which would simulate two of the most commonly owned guns in America the result would have been very, very different. No Malfunctions, more precise aim, more ammo very little weight. I wish you the best, have a great day :)
What bull..... the problem of course was two fold and the most glaring was Adam was credited with never missing unlike his 1-3 times he failed during testing. So at best he'd might get 2-3 kills while swinging and the test was flawed because the force would have to be greater on a shorter blow parallel at head height than the one hitting downward at or below chest level. For Jaime it was firing at same distance Adam was swinging and had he gone closer he could of popped the zombies just before clearing the gate one by one plus a double kill with a single bullet hitting a pair nicely lined up like bowling pins. After the fence opened a bit of a retreat was in order since the distance meant reloading would have an advantage and he didn't fire with both hands that would increase the rate of fire. By the way a pair of 3LB hand sledges would be better if only cracking the skull was required and a blow to the side or forehead can be done with two arms like beating on a set of drums......:)
For all the people saying "but axes sometimes get stuck in wood, so the same happen to head" remember heads are not made out of wood and interact with axe blows differently. Remeber it was a military weapon for millenia if it always got stuck in people I imagine it would have been dropped. When in fact An axe head were used by the poor (Halberds) and knights (poleaxes)
Soldiers most of the time wore a helmet. so the likelihood of axe being stuck on your skull was not likely. if anything blunt damage from the axe was the real killer.
I still see a gun as a a better option, when your gun needs reloading, you won't be fatigued from shooting and you will be able to move away and reload. Axe might not need a reload but when your swings weaken, you won't be running too far either. Carrying a combo of each is best though.
Use a gun until it jams or runs out of ammo, have an axe as a back up for when that happens, or there's just a few, and doing so will quietly dispatch them without drawing more. There you go nerds, question answered. Also the best gun is the one that meets these qualifications the best. 1. you have it in your hands and know how to use it, (a gun you don't have or can't use is useless.) 2. It has ammo (a gun without ammo is just an expensive club.) 3. The gun that jams the least you don't want to be clearing a jam when you need your gun working.
They forgot that blood and gore will splash on the axe handle and their hands which will make it slippery especially if they have to adjust the position of their hands from time to time. Plus the axe can sometimes lodge themselves on the target thereby lowering the attack speed
I have to imagine the weight of an actual axe in that design would be much heavier and tire him out faster. this one, aside form the handle, was made of foam. I could be wrong about the weight though, anyone know if they added weights to it to simulate the feel of a real axe? If not then I call b.s. on their findings. He'd have been tired out quicker and taken down. My favorite, versatile, zombie weapon would have to be a crowbar. the titanium one weighs less then 2 pounds, is strong and the design is made so it doesn't bend/warp easy. The rounded end can smash skulls, or if you are in tight quarters turn is around and use in a thrusting motion to stab it in the face/eyes to get the brain. It can also be used to pry open doors and boxes. The weight also leads to less fatigue.
Yea Knifes are better but your too close which is in risk of getting bitten and also you have to think about your axe or knife getting stuck in the victem
They also didnt take into account the force involved for taking out the axe. Also, blood with pathogenic properties could also "turn" you. It really depends on the situation and whether or not the zombies can hear and have the mental capacity to follow sound. Also depends on your supply of weapons, your build and your training with specific weapons or martial arts.
Thats what i was thinking with the force to take out the axe. well depends on what zombies as well, will they be fast, will only bites or physical contact infect you or others
In an ideal scenario, engaging with any kind of firearms in close quarters combat where melee is a better option is always a bad idea due to the gunfires that will attract more of them
I would say if you use a gun a .22 with hollow points would be effective as you can quite th gun down as the bullet travels at subsonic speeds and .22 ammo is plentiful. You could also go a 40 or 45 as I believe both of those are also subsonic speeds meaning you can add silencers to also keep them from attracting unwanted zombies.