Aesthetics

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think looks matter to most shooters, more than many will ever admit. As evidenced by the rampant and condescending use of the word "pretty".

Everything matters to me. Looks, materials, craftsmanship, origin, function, capability, accuracy, reliability, practicality, etc., etc. I judge guns like I judge women, I could care less what somebody else thinks and physical beauty is often only skin-deep but it has to be beautiful (to varying degrees) to ME. Judge the whole package.
 
Very important. I won't [strike]own[/strike] buy an ugly gun. Nor will I knowingly buy an inaccurate firearm. Guns have a beauty of their own.
 
pretty simple....people like nice looking things......

with the exception of some hard core target guys who could care less how a gun looks as long as it shoots.....and someone looking for a "beater" utility/truck gun.........people like shiny, pretty, and attractive things......

i know personally, that if two guns are more or less equal......im going to pick the one that is more aesthetically pleasing.....

also, aesthetics and quality kind of go hand in hand......i mean, you dont see many finely engraved, gold inlayed "Saturday night specials".......

....and i know that if im paying big bucks for a custom gun....not only had it better shoot like a dream...but it had better look pretty darn good also.
 
I have a couple that are less than "eye candy". I use them both for CCW. Rock solid reliable so who cares what they look like.....lol
Besides who wants to beat up a really purdy gun?
 
At the end of the day i think it is really just about the comittment of the user to a given system. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and besides, with enough money and a good craftsman, you can make anything look "pretty."
 
I base mine guns on utility no matter the looks if it works for me then that is really all that matters, why should it as long as it work for the owner
 
IMHO I think the Scar 17 is ugly, but it makes such a good case for itself I can get past it. Although I will probably add the Knights SR25 to my collection first because its sexy compared to the FN.


IMHO the 1911 looks perfect, Browning nailed it.
 
How a gun looks to me is pointless.

I only care does it fill a need in my tool box.

If it does, I get it, if it does not then I will not buy it.

I shoot guns because I love to shoot. But I do not collect them to look at. Each one must fill a need, not a want.

John
 
I don't go out with ugly or dumb women, either.

I have learned that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there is more to a gun than the looks.

I have certainly learned that is true of people. :( Must be the Christian in me.
 
Aesthetics are an important factor in my sporting firearms choices. Fortunately, good looks and superior function often go hand in hand. Examples include the Winchester Model 70, the 1911, Smith and Wesson revolvers, the Remington 870, and good double barrel shotguns. For sporting guns, there isn't any excuse for making them ugly.

When we get into polymer frame handguns, aesthetics seem to be hard to define. Some, though, are pretty sorry looking while others are ok. I bought a Keltec .380 when they first came out. There were no competitors and it worked (even though it is ugly). When Ruger came out with what is essentially the same gun internally but looked a whole lot better on the outside, its sales immediately dominated the market. I like my little Keltec, but the thought of "What the hell were they thinking" with their exterior design keeps coming to my mind.
 
Aesthetics are an important factor in my sporting firearms choices. Fortunately, good looks and superior function often go hand in hand. Examples include the Winchester Model 70, the 1911, Smith and Wesson revolvers, the Remington 870, and good double barrel shotguns. For sporting guns, there isn't any excuse for making them ugly.

Well said, bhk. It's not necessary to choose between form and function in today's gun world. You can have both, even if it requires buying used. Looks count for me-though not at the expense of function. For those that claim form means nothing and that the only thing that counts is function, I challenge them to imagine a very accurate and reliable Hi-Point pistol that is adorned with etchings of cartoon characters and is colored hot pink with orange polka dots...I'm sorry, as someone has said, "Life is too short to be stuck with an ugly gun"-and, personally, I really don't care how accurate it is. :eek:
 
Aesthetics, Ergonomics, Functionality, Reliability, and Quality all factor into my decision making procedure.
 
yes they play a role, if they didn't i would have an ak & a glock. i love my sig p226 .40 it has been great but most of their other models have rails or cost $900 for one without a rail so i wont buy a new one. however if a firearm looks nice and is not reliable i will not purchase it.
 
I hate rust and pitted guns. I wouldn't buy one with someone elses money! I use all of my guns quite a bit and have never had one rust. Another thing that bugs me, is seeing a nice wood stock all beat up. No need for it. I've got guns I've hunted with for 45 years that look nearly new. I don't use them to push my way through the brush or as a crutch. Thats what God gave me hands and legs for. I still have the first 22 Stevens singleshot my Pa got me when I was 10 years old (53 years ago) and it still looks great. I know some folks say they are just a tool, but I don't use my rachets as a hammer either. I learned long ago to take good care of my gear and it will take good care of me.
 
but now he just can't get rid of these others.
8,000 bucks!
Um..........I can't figure it out either.

I have to be excited about a gun before I consider buying it.
I went to buy an XDM and it felt wrong for my hand and it was ugly.
So, I went home with a Springfield Micro Loaded instead. That's a fine looking gun.
When the Sig P-238 came out I wouldn't buy one because I thought the grips were ugly.
The day they introduced the Rosewood edition, I ordered one.

Come to think of it, I don't have any ugly guns, okay, the Kahr is kind of homely.
 
Last edited:
Yes, looks are very important to me. Even a small carry gun that will never see the light of day outside my pocket has to look good or else I won't buy it. Statistically, I will probably never have to use any gun I own to defend my life. But I am still gonna have to look at them every day.
 
a nice sleek Dan Wesson revolver with a looong barrel
gets me drooling. It´s plain pretty.
A vintage Lever or SxS with it and it´s perfect.

If in non-pretty surroundings, give me a non pretty
Glock and an AK please. Those guns have Tool-aesthetics.
 
Ugly matters a bit, but not 100%.
Of course, what does get me is when I'm looking at a nice 1911 in the case, and when I get it and flip it over there's a huge company logo all over the side of the slide. I'll ask what's the discount for advertising the company, usually I get a blank stare.
Now my wife does like a more beautiful firearm, and of course the requisite markup in cost.
 
i guess it would depend what you think "ugly" is...
most my friends think i have strange guns, as their into the newer more tactical, futuristic styles and i prefer old, unusual ones. i just prefer the feel and look of a old gun.
a few months ago i traded a beautiful 870 wingmaster for what the guy thought was a weird looking .38, i thought was the coolest gun ive ever seen... and it turned out to be a medusa! (and it shoots quite nicely!!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top