mcdonl
Member
That would be the Catholic
Aesthetics
- Thread starter lizziedog1
- Start date
- Status
That would be the Catholic
JohnBiltz
Member
It doesn't have to be pretty. I don't think I have a pretty gun, maybe the AR depending on taste. That doesn't mean I want garish either. I'm old enough that I remember when the Sigs came to the US as the BDA and everyone said how ugly it was. Somehow by the time the 226 came it was brutally handsome and now people talk about it being beautiful. Lot of shallow people here.
I don't like ugly guns, that is, I don't like firearms that don't appeal to me aesthetically, or don't look right. With few exceptions, firearms that don't look right are poorly designed or have major design flaws.
The AK, for example. They are ugly as sin. They are also uncomfortable, have crappy ergos, difficult to shoot precisely, are not very durable and have crappy sights. Same goes for the SKS.
Moisin-Nagant is also an ugly rifle. It kicks like a mule and has poor ergos. No thanks!
Carcanos are another ugly rifle. It's also unreliable and not much fun to shoot.
High Points. *Shudder*
There are more than a few other Ugly Guns that are simply poor designs in one way or another.
One exception to the Ugly Gun rule is the Glock. I can find nothing aesthetically appealing about these ugly brutes and the only complaint I can make is the double stack versions are a little too big and the grip angle feels off. But I shoot them well and someone I know carries two on duty everyday, shoots both often and has found them to be as reliable as a ball pein hammer.
Unfortunately, the converse isn't always true- that beautiful firearms have no design flaws. One example is the P-08 Luger. Beautiful pistol! But it's undoing is the fragility of it's toggle link action
The AK, for example. They are ugly as sin. They are also uncomfortable, have crappy ergos, difficult to shoot precisely, are not very durable and have crappy sights. Same goes for the SKS.
Moisin-Nagant is also an ugly rifle. It kicks like a mule and has poor ergos. No thanks!
Carcanos are another ugly rifle. It's also unreliable and not much fun to shoot.
High Points. *Shudder*
There are more than a few other Ugly Guns that are simply poor designs in one way or another.
One exception to the Ugly Gun rule is the Glock. I can find nothing aesthetically appealing about these ugly brutes and the only complaint I can make is the double stack versions are a little too big and the grip angle feels off. But I shoot them well and someone I know carries two on duty everyday, shoots both often and has found them to be as reliable as a ball pein hammer.
Unfortunately, the converse isn't always true- that beautiful firearms have no design flaws. One example is the P-08 Luger. Beautiful pistol! But it's undoing is the fragility of it's toggle link action
gun addict
Member
did the poster above me just say said AKs and SKS arnt very durable? 
1911 guy
Member
Depends on the use. For recreational guns, I prefer clean lines and decent finish. The gun doesn't have to be pretty, but it has to be mildly attractive. For a purpose specific gun, like my CCW or a HD long gun, function and ergonomics all the way. Nobody ever accused the AR of being a good looking rifle, but it's my bedside gun.
The Undertaker
Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2009
- Messages
- 47
Form follows function.
None of the weapons I own are considered beautiful - USP40, M590, M590A1, AR-15. They are very utilitarian in looks but their functionality cannot be questioned. Hell, right now I'm finishing up the AR and getting ready to move into Glock territory.
I'm not James Bond, so a "pretty gun" really has no place in my locker. If anything, I prefer the rugged, practical looks of the aforementioned weapons over race guns and engraved shotguns.
Not to say that I don't appreciate a beautiful weapon, especially one with a rich history behind it. They are just not to my personal tastes.
The most I have done in the looks department is to make sure that my AR has matching furniture if possible - stock, grip, foregrip, and rail panels in FDE. But even then there is a function behind it. Why buy components in a myriad of colors when I can get them in one color for the same price that actually suits my environment?
None of the weapons I own are considered beautiful - USP40, M590, M590A1, AR-15. They are very utilitarian in looks but their functionality cannot be questioned. Hell, right now I'm finishing up the AR and getting ready to move into Glock territory.
I'm not James Bond, so a "pretty gun" really has no place in my locker. If anything, I prefer the rugged, practical looks of the aforementioned weapons over race guns and engraved shotguns.
Not to say that I don't appreciate a beautiful weapon, especially one with a rich history behind it. They are just not to my personal tastes.
The most I have done in the looks department is to make sure that my AR has matching furniture if possible - stock, grip, foregrip, and rail panels in FDE. But even then there is a function behind it. Why buy components in a myriad of colors when I can get them in one color for the same price that actually suits my environment?
Caliper_Mi
Member
Because, just like everything else in life, peoples taste in firearms appearance vary greatly.
Personally, I'll take the looks of a Glock over most revolvers designed in the 20th century, especially the hunchbacked DAO models with the covered hammer. Those just look awkward and all out of proportion. The Glock has clean lines and a purposeful look to it. Now, if whatever robot designed Glocks grips could actually get a picture of a human hand to design to, that would be nice!
To the original question, yes aesthetics can keep me from buying a gun. I do not carry one for my job and they aren't exactly cheap so I am going to get one I really like. There are enough different models out there that if one doesn't appeal to me, I can find another that fulfills the same role and I like better.
MovedWest
Member
If I owned a gun that wasn't accurate I'd get rid of it regardless of looks. But as for looks being a deciding factor, they definitely are for me.
I own some 3-screw Super Blackhawks. The craftsmanship and finish Ruger made them with make them artwork to me. I also own a new model SBH. It's very accurate like the others, but the 3-screws are the pride of my collection. Well... them and my new Winchester 1892 in 44mag.
I wouldn't mind picking up a Super Redhawk, but I just don't like the way it looks. Call me shallow, but it's hard to cough up that kind of coin for something that isn't "pretty".
-MW
I own some 3-screw Super Blackhawks. The craftsmanship and finish Ruger made them with make them artwork to me. I also own a new model SBH. It's very accurate like the others, but the 3-screws are the pride of my collection. Well... them and my new Winchester 1892 in 44mag.
I wouldn't mind picking up a Super Redhawk, but I just don't like the way it looks. Call me shallow, but it's hard to cough up that kind of coin for something that isn't "pretty".
-MW
Silvanus
Member
Since I like the looks of most modern military/police service weapons, it's basically a non-issue for me. But I have to admit I would not buy a gun that I find ugly.
- Status
