Are many people more interested in how their gun looks than how it functions

Yeah, it's best to put things in proper perspective by taking that new, shiny gun and skipping it across a gravel driveway.
Then it's time to get down to the serious stuff.

Then why is Glock so popular ?

Yeah but you see that with every hobby. Look at motorcycles for example. Some people ride because they have a genuine interest in it. Others do it just to look cool. I know some guys who own a Harley mainly as a status symbol and rarely if ever ride it...

Whatever blows your dress up I suppose. Life is short, enjoy it.

Life's too short to shoot ugly guns. With that said, I don't have any pretty guns that don't perform well. If they didn't, they would be gone....I don't know if I look cool when I ride my Harleys or not, but together they have 160k miles on them.

It is a matter of priorities, and I don't think there is anything wrong with either approach. But I'm at the point where I choose function over form every time. But that isn't the same as ugly. I have no desire to ever own another wood stocked rifle or shotgun.

Well, the first time I saw the CZ-75 in bright stainless, I became enamored by what the piece looked like and damn the actual performance ('tho, it being a CZ I was fairly confident in its performance) ...

It's not just new shooters ... I'll admit it: I've bought a gun based solely on its looks ...

But, in answer to the question, I'd say no -- most new shooters I've met, when they started carrying, actually seemed far more concerned with size, weight, capacity, caliber, but mostly the PRICE, rather than appearance. Witness sales of Ruger and Taurus, for example.

I certainly don't think it's "many", and I think the very idea that people buy a gun solely for how it looks regardless of how it works is ludicrous (although I am sure there must be a few). I've probably got more guns than most people (73 including the Ruger No. 1 in 9.3 x74R I bought last week), and will admit I like shiny things, it's human nature. Just because something is ugly doesn't mean it's good.

What I generally see is people with little or no aesthetic sensibility try to beat down people that like flashy guns as knowing nothing about shooting, sort of reverse snobbery if you will. But after they shoot against my Sig X6 Scandic they generally just shut up and walk away.

All of these are pretty to me in some way, and all are excellent shooting irons. I don't mind if someone doesn't like the way something looks because everyone's tastes are different, But to dismiss something because it's not ugly, like a Glock etc., surely doesn't make any sense at all.

I'll admit I bought my Woodmans Colt because it was cute, the only reason I still have the thing is because of it's accuracy.

How many is "many"? 1,000? 1% of new gun buyers? 10%?

How do you measure importance? Time? Money?

If I buy a used Sig, only shoot it once and then throw some really pricey grips on it, does that mean I've chosen looks over functionality?

How many modern "nice/cool" looking guns (that don't work properly) are there? Can you name five? Would "many" agree with your selections?

The question implies that someone *choose*s form over function. In order to make that choice, a new shooter would have to know that whatever they have is crap and *then* decide to make it purdy instead of fixing whatever issue it has. Since someone just now entering into the wonderful world of gun ownership is probably young and knows how to use the internet, it's highly unlikely that they'd purchase a garbage gun; and if they don't know their gun is junk, then by definition they aren't choosing looks over reliability because they don't know any better.

I was just on another forum where someone devoted a thread to polishing his magazines because he wanted them to look pretty

Function over looks. However, if I can have a dependable firearm that also looks good, I'll take it over dependable and ugly.

Considering the current cost to actually shoot them, uh yeah I base it all off looks now.

Performance is everything. Pretty guns are nice but not if they don't run when you need them to.

A buddy of mine went to the last Urban Rifle class held at Thunder Ranch Texas. Clint Smith carried Les Baer Thunder Ranch Special Serial Number One while teaching the class. Full coverage engraved, with about half the high polish blue finish worn off of it from being handled and shot almost every day. My buddy asked Clint about it being a collector's item and all that and Clint said it runs good, guns are tools, and even fancy tools are still tools .

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Different strokes for different folks.

Meaning that not everybody likes the same stuff, or for the same reason.

Yes, there are absolutely some people out there with very little knowledge or skill that bought their guns based on appearance alone. You know that there is.

There are also a lot of folks out there that bought for every other reason you can think of and quite a few you can't think of.

I would bet good money that there's somebody out there that bought a pistol because he thought his CAT would like it.

And, because this is America (Land of the Free and Home of the Brave) That's exactly the way it should be.

I don't have to do things your way, and you don't have to do things my way.

I like it like that.

I didn't really get into guns until my 20's, shot a bit as a kid, but very sporadically and never had anything stronger than an air rifle in the house. I've never really cared too much about the look of my guns as long as they function well I'm happy. This was particularly true when I bought my first gun aesthetics was not a factor.

I’ll only buy a gun that I think will be dependable and accurate. If it’s also pretty, well, that’s just a plus that will out weight dependable and accurate and ugly. I guess that’s why I don’t own a Glock.

It is not necessarily an either/or. Good looking guns can be solid performers.

If you mean plastic-fantastic rifles with crap strewn off of them that total four Gs in rifle, optics, rails, and worthless "tacticool" crap ... yah, that is pretty lame.

Definitely function over form. The gun itself has to be reliable, accurate, ergonomic, and durable. Of course if it looks nice too then that's icing on the cake.

Well, I married a good looking woman but I didn't necessarily put form before function. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder but who's to say you can't have both form and function?

I know people who actually felt Gaddafi's Hi-Power was beautiful. To each his own.

I think a lot of new shooters buy guns because they look good/cool. But I'd say most new shooters assume every new gun is perfectly reliable and no new jam-o-matics are even made.

So they buy them because of looks and then it either works reliably and they're happy with it or it isn't reliable and they move on to another gun.

Then again I could be entirely incorrect, it has happened before......twice.