Thanks,but I only used the knife weilding example to illustrate the extreme difficulty with attempting to shoot a zombie in an alley. a lot of posters say that they would confirm that the threat is the undead and then kill the zombie, presumably with a firearm. What is absent in such replies is an awarness of how long it takes to recognize the threat, draw and fire with accuracy, VS the small amount of time it would take for the zombie to be on you. The dilema is compounded by the fact that you cant evade lateraly to buy time to draw your weapon or just escape. Retreating straight back while trying to draw your weapon doesnt work. Being in this situation is so much worse than people imagine. Too many people who own and carry a firearm get lulled into a false sense of security. While others who advocate awareness and escape fail to recognize the potential danger posed by common features in their landscape such as corridors and hallways that drasticaly limit their ability to escape and evade. Most people have a deep need to feel secure, to think that their firearm or awareness/escape strategy will see them through any difficulty. It is very hard to convince someone to really look at their favorite strategy in a critical way and challange assumptions. That makes people question their beliefs about being able to remain secure. It makes people feel uncomfortable who are trying to feel comfortable and secure.

I'd also like to know how we know this is a zombie. Has the zombie apocalypse begun? If so, I don't think any sane person would be caught dead without a weapon of some sort, least of which a handgun. I'll even suspend disbelief that you've somehow wandered into an ally alone. But if this is not "case zero" per say, you should be prepared.

Training solves these problems and yes, you can back up and draw quickly.

Ah...NO. Try again.
Here's a hint.



Also curious, as you seem fairly critical of those that advocate shooting the threat, what is your experience with firearms?

If we're talking zombie=metaphor for general badness, to include violent criminals, etc, or a rage "zombie," then you're right--a hostile, non-shambling individual can close a gap pretty quickly. That is one reason why situational awareness is so important--you want to be able to identify a threat before you are within arms reach (farther than that, for sure, but you know what I mean).

Traditional zombies, ie. the slow, shambling type, should most likely identify itself well before you have to worry about grappling with it.

Unless you're sneaking up on zombies in dark alleyways.

I'm gonna go with the "genital defense" as I previously referenced in the "what if you were abducted by aliens?" thread. Just kick the zombie in the hoo-hoo, which will buy you enough time to draw your sidearm and send him to Hades.

How far ahead do you see it? How far off do you get a bad vibe? How far off when your sure?

I have been in many situations where I think I might get jumped... Nothing exactly like this, but close. I have done different things, but the best seems to be, make solid eye contact, judge the danger level, send the right signals, try to read any signals sent.

Weather its a zombie or a thug, if I am armed, and think I may be in danger, I would draw & make sure it is ready, then keep it low till the percieved danger passes or it is needed.

Why would you not draw in such a situation? You are alone, not sure what is behind you, have a bad vibe on a guy in front... Whats the worst that could happen?

Guy is bad, he draws, you have the edge... better than the alternative.
Guy is bad, he sees you are ready & looks for easier pickins, win.
Guy is a cop, you get arrested for whatever, probably light or no charges, as long as you are legal.
Guy is a zed, with your gun out & watching closely, you see he is in plenty of time & pop many caps in his ass/head.
Most likely way it turns out, guy means no harm, sees you with gun, assumes you are a baddie & cowers or runs. He may call cops, but you should be well gone by then.

Seems like as soon as you feel the threat, in a situation like this, you get ready. Of course you may still get smoked, but that is the risk you took going in an alley... going out in public... hell, getting out of bed.


I guess the thug/zed could jump out from close range, without warning... then you gotta James t kirk his ass till he is no threat, or till you get some room & can safely draw and kill. Or depending on where you carry, pull & kill while fighting... might be better than the chance he gets the better of you & gets your shooter from you.

And as far as backing up goes, maybe... but no guarantee zeds/thugs have not got in behind you... This is a pretty common gang tactic. But really, if I turn down some dark alley & see a figure, and am not already pretty close... I would probably turn around and head back out... two figures, and its a certainty I would. But I guess the idea is you are a ways in & not so close to the entrance.

I don't think kicking something that doesn't feel pain in the junk buys you much time, but I guess it depends. Still, I think you're best bet is back up and draw your weapon, then fire, aiming for the head.

No, good training exposes these problems and goes toward dealing with them. Anyone who thinks training solves them is deluding himself. Trying to back up straight back as you would have to do in an alley buys you very little time. An attacker can run faster forward then you can run back.

evil monkey, Ah...NO. AH...what does this link suppose to show?... Ah ... Try again..Heres a hint: Dont use links to make your point, specialy if the link doesnt make it for you. As to your point about being critical of firearms. Not in the least. I am critical of the complacent mindset of people who own a firearm and never practice dynamic deployment under simulated stress. The point I am trying to make about firearms is intended for the people who make simplistic replies such as "I would kill it". The problem is not with the firearm. The problem is with the time it takes to recognize the threat, deploy a holstered weapon under extreme stress, draw and fire and achieve a kill before the attacker, in this scenario, can bite you VS the amount of time it takes for said zombie to close on you and bite you. Substitute HIV infected psychotic with a knife for zombie if you have a thing against zombies. But make sure both the protagonist and the antogonist are in a narrow alley that prevents the protagonist from evading lateraly.

Reading to OP, my first inclination was to reach for the backup in my left hand jacket or vest pocket (I might be holding on to it anyways) and fire once or twice through the fabric. I'm hoping that will give me enough time to get my right hand gun clear.

I've never practiced the posited scenario so I don't know if it will succeed but it will work better than begging.

The genital defense is just about the worse thing you can try for in a fight. Reasons being its easy to defend against, just a slight turn of the legs will prevent the shot from connecting. The fabric of jeans/pants can strectches across the crotch when the legs are apart and reduce the impact of groin kick. Many human men can absorb that pain even if it does connect and continue to fight. Would a hypothetical zombie be less able to cope with pain. Never rely on any technique that depends on an opponent reaction to pain. Also , in a fight you need both feet on the ground. Kicking someone in the groin will compromise your base, have a low possiblity of connecting, may have no other effect if it does connect than to cause pain. Plus it means the opponent is in very close range. At this close range, panic push, draw and fire. Stay on your feet.

Lots of good stuff in this post!

Maybe using the left trigger on the controller for a melee attack would be the best in this situation.

Seriously, the question posed here is in the what would you do section. Many of us have told you what we would do and have been judged to be incorrect. So, as the expert, please tell us what qualifies you to make that call.



I would kill it.

Somehow, I would kill it. With my legal concealed weapon, with a brick, with an unconscious junkie, with the power of my fucking mind, or with the regal duck-billed platypus, I don't care. I would kill it.





This is what I get for ever posting in the wwyd forums.

There have been some good replies here. Yours werent. Yours were simplistic.

Okay, for the illiterate, and those that can not follow links:

(from the link)



Obviously, you and I don't have grenades, but doctrine teaches to assault through the ambush, not to go back the way you came.

Military doctrine, based on experience in war, says to do the exact opposite of what you said in your post.

Seriously, did you even bother reading anything in the link?

Here, I even found a picture for you (from FM 7-8)


Assault through the ambush.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-8/ch4.htm



Let me put this kindly. You don't know us. You don't know what training some individuals on this board have, and some even teach. You come around, with incorrect information, lecturing us on what we don't know, and how you know so much better?


If you're going to try to be a smart ass, at least be smart about it next time.

I'm a simple guy.
What you are talking about is combat against one opponent. Why complicate it?

Have you ever physically fought one or two opponents who badly wanted to do you harm? Trust me when I say, the simplest approach is usually the best.

Simple or not, that shit's funny.

Evil Monkey, pretty quick the with insults huh? Do you think you've adressed survival of a military ambush with those two diagrams? LOL You missed the point of breaking contact. Survival is more likely when a unit breaks contact. The unit executes a pre arranged plan to break contact, such as the Austrailian Peel. This is where point empties mag and boogies 180 degrees from the prior direction with number two doing the same thing and following, number three repeating. The unit leap frogs with as much fire power towards the opposite direction getting out of the fatal funnel as fast as possible with a retrograde movement. Breaking contact with the enemy during ambush is a technique that for example, Recon units employ as they are lightly armed. There are different kinds of ambushes in different environments against different numbers of men. There is near,far,mounted,dismounted,blocked or unblocked. In Vietnam the VC tried to get in close with an L shaped deployment , let the colum get right along side and attack the lenght of colum. In that situation the only way to respond was to overwhelm them with suppresive fire and punch through, because, given those conditions and numbers breaking contact was not an option. By the way I dont lump all the posters here together, I respect the ones who stay polite and offer considered comments. Its the ones like you who are insulting and simplistic that give off a stink.

There is a difference between simple and simplistic. Simple is good.As in keep it simple stupid.Simple techniques work best. Simplistic is bad. Your comments are simplistic. Simplistic means unrealisticaly simplifying a situation that has important complexities. In this case, saying that you would kill the attacker without recognizing the complexities of reaction time, draw, accurate fire and stopping power within a confinded space against an attacker who has the ability to inflict wounds you cant absorb. Another example of your simplistic response is in saying that training solves these issues. Training exposes these issues if training is based in reality and it goes aways to helping but never solving or eliminating them. It is also simplistic to associate simple with simplistic.

You didn't seem interested in reading, so I figured you might get something out of the pictures. Apparently I was wrong.



Good luck doing that in an alleway. Oh yeah, that was your topic, wasn't it?

I noticed you still haven't admitted that you were dead wrong.

Evil Monkey, first off the military ambush was a side track by another poster and picked up on by you because you thought you could score some points with it. Who said anything about applying these tactics to an alley? Now you are trying to change the topic because, contrary to my being dead wrong on the issue of surviving a military ambush, my last post makes it clear that breaking contact and retrograde retreat with covering fire is the first option. You think because you have two diagrams you have encapsulated the issue of military ambushes.This is the simplistic type of comment that to me reeks of ignorance. But you have left out the most important and most survivable scenario and tactics. Those two diagrams are for two possible scenarios when you cant utilize a break contact plan like the one I detailed.

No, I picked up on it because you were dead-ass wrong, while coming in and posting with such a condescending attitude. I also disagree that it was a sidetrack; the original comment was very much on-topic, unless you care to explain how encountering a zombie in an alley as you described it is absolutely nothing at all like an ambush?



You were trying to squirm out of your (false) statement that

I proved that you were wrong, and you're trying to weasel your way out by going on about breaking contact in a long ambush, which doesn't really seem to apply at all to your alleyway scenario. This situation (unless I'm misunderstanding your post) would be more similar to a close ambush than a far ambush, and the majority of responses to your topic have echoed the doctrinally correct, common sense approach: attack. Assault through the ambush.



Again, you're wrong, or you know better than the US Army. If you bothered reading, doctrine states that in a near ambush, you assault through the ambush. Not to mention that you already said:



But you also said:



Which is incorrect.

So which is it?

How will your detailed break contact plan work in a narrow alleyway? How do you justify saying that you can't assault through, but you can't escape laterally or turn back, yet breaking contact is the best option? Or are you just taking your own topic off-topic?

Simply put, your opinion here is nothing but an opinion, one of many. Not to be too insulting, but you really have given me no reason to respect it. Why should I listen to you? What credibility do you have? Frankly, until you prove your credibility, I'll trust military doctrine, common sense, and my own instincts over anything you have to say.

Evil Monkey: As I said in my original reply to the point about military ambushes, the analogy doesnt work because the person in this scenario is not traveling in a platoon. You are now trying to force the issue of military tactics onto the alley scenario. I feel that is absurd. I wont argue that point because there is no corelation in my mind. Just by repeating the phrase "you are dead wrong" doesnt make it true. But I will remember that tactic the next time I run out of ideas in an argument Let me again say I find no appropriate analogy offered in infantry unit tactics that informs us how to respond one on one to a berserk attacker in an alley. The fact that you cant get your head around that breaking contact using a variation of an Australian Peel type drill is more survivable than the tactics standard infantry size units are forced to use reflects your inability to learn rather than my effort to "weasel out of anything". A break contact plan is not bullshit.It is the first and most survivable option if it is available. Ambushes are essentialy not survivable at point where the tactics you advocate are employed, thus units that are agile enough to employ break contact tactics and retreat out of the kill zone survive, Therefore my initial comment. This is not a case of me knoing more than the army, just more than you.