Are people hung-up on "beauty queens"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Consider me guilty as charged, as I love a handsome gun.

The sleek curves and clean lines of the classics are very pleasing to my eye; the tactile sensation of checkered walnut and polished steel excites me; the unique grain of even the most mundane piece of wood is interesting to me; and precision machining and fitment puts me over the edge. Think about a woman who needs no makeup, jewelry, or tattoos to make her attractive ... that is what a gun should be.

When I speak to my friends and family about "the art of the gun," they patronize me and speak to each other in subdued voices. They don't understand. But surely my friends at The High Road do ... right?
 
I wanted a .223/5.56 carbine, and I am not into the whole tactical world of AR's. The mini-14 just seemed to be the best fit what I was looking for, and less to do with the aesthetics of the design.
 
Re: Beauty queens ...

We all like different types of firearms and that is part of our freedom. I like AKs and SKSs. Love Mausers too. Glocks , Sigs and smith revolvers. they all have to do one thing and that is work reliable and hit as good as I can. I also have beautiful wood stocked bolt guns and a couple with synthetics. they are all beautiful in their own way. We all like different things in women and the same applies in firearms and cars and trucks and whatever. just have fun and this is one way that diversity is a good thing.
 
Guns for me are very aesthetic, I don't have a preference of looks between any models of gun. If I think one is a "beauty queen" it is because something crazy in my mind goes "my god I love that". If it works and I like it, I'll use it.
My last buy was a cheap Titan .25acp, it had slide damage but 20 mins of file work and it's up n runnin. Can't say why I love this gun so much, just do.
BTW the Mosin Nagant is one of the most beautiful rifles ever made, but only if the bayonet is attached.
 
SleazyRider: I'm guilty too.
Being a late-starter with guns, having first noticed the SKS about three years ago, looks were a factor, to be quite frank.

As my first gun purchase, when the bolt somehow got stuck after 200 rds. (Jammed Solid) in my cute little brand-new (Oct. '07)
"Auto-Ord." M-1 Carbine, I decided to open my mind a bit. This led to the SKS, but don't care for the AK's ergonomics.

The Enfields built before the #4 still don't look quite right to me and don't have aperture sights, but am glad that so many people are turned off by the looks or idea (age?) of the later Enfield #4, maybe even the #5 "Jungle Carbine".

I always enjoy reading the perspective of you experienced guys and would rather ask a dumb or silly question, just to be better informed.
The purpose is to get you folks to compare guns and expose your well-seasoned experience, and are never meant to be satire or step on toes.
 
Last edited:
Mini 14 - you watched a lot of A-Team

AK - you own Red Dawn on VCR and DVD

AR - you own tactical underwear.

Honestly, plastic and phospate scratches don't bother me the way scratches in wood and blue steel do. Wood rifles 'look more traditional.' They all work for what they do.
 
I find it funny that some cherish a finish and material guaranteed to deteriorate. Apparently the obvious strategy of obsolescence is lost on them. They may do the same with cars, many did in the day, bought new every three years, spent more on cars in their life than they did on housing.

It seems we really only cherish the semi durable. Stuff made to actually last is given short shrift.
 
Ignition Override said:
Are people hung-up on "beauty queens"? This is a frequently-mentioned factor between the Garand, Mini 30/14 versus AK/SKS and maybe a few others, i.e. VZ-58, Lee-Enfields etc.
Click to expand...

I must be very confused then. I have a Mini-14 and M1A but no desire to own a Garand. I also have a Vz.58 and Lee-Enfield No4 Mk2 with no desire to own an AK/SKS.
 
If I had unlimited financial resources I could really get hung up on a few beauty queens, mainly finely engraved double rifles. Those big babies are beautiful.
 
I own guns that are a bit on the utilitarian side.

I do appreciate the fit, finish and beauty of some. I just don't have to own them. I can look at them and then leave and recall just how awesome a firearm it was. If I handled it or shot it all the better.

One my true pleasures of owning a Garand is giving someone the experience of shooting one for the first time. Same goes for a .22 pistol an AR15 or whatever.

For me it is about sharing and appreciating something. That goes for what the other guys like, own or bring to the range. I would never have shot high power matches if someone hadn't shared what they had with me. Our whole gun culture thrives on sharing knowledge.
 
Last edited:
aka108,
If funds were no issue I think a 'Must Have' would be a German Drilling Gun, specifically one from a Luftwaffe Pilot. (WWII of course)
 
Pretty guns, like pretty women, don't function any better than ugly ones and sometimes not as well. But there is a much greater sense of pride in ownership of pretty things! There is nothing pretty about black AR rifles or gritty/grubby AK/SKS rifles, etc.
 
"I find it funny that some cherish a finish and material guaranteed to deteriorate. Apparently the obvious strategy of obsolescence is lost on them."

Spoken like someone who doesn't know how to take care of his guns. Look at all of the 100- and 200-year-old guns that are still around and still working.
 
You can have both you know...

http://www.ar15woodstocks.com/

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14DE/models.html

Long ago I decided what I really wanted in a hunting rifle that I was taking out 'in the woods' in November in Colorado would be plastic and stainless. Wood is prettier, yes but I can't guarantee I won't fall down and gouge the %$#! out of a circassian walnut stock. Every time I scratch a new wooden stocked rifle I cringe. It's part of the danger/joy of owning wood. Never worried about that with my Colt AR, though it was one of the most expensive rifles I've ever purchased, I bought it with the intention of 'using it hard' in 3 gun/tac matches etc.
 
A lot of shooters these days get their introduction to firearms via military service. The fact that the US military uses (or used) a type of firearm either currently or in the past exerts a somewhat understandable emotional pull on a lot of shooters.
 
An M-1 is not just a beauty queen. It is also a 1000 yard man-killer, and has the best iron sights ever devised for a battle rife.

Don't get me wrong... I have some Kalashikovs, and I like them, but I consider a $500 CMP M-1 to be 10 times the rifle for only about a hundred bucks more. An AK has reliability, but an M-1 has it all... accuracy, reliability, power, range... OK, and some pretty good looks, too!
 
I think it has more to with the psyche that the 'bad guys' guns were designed by communists and terrorists who typically didn't or don't use the same ones we do. :)

Oh and btw, black guns / synthetic furniture look (s) a lot prettier than drab wooden ones :)
 
just me talking

IMHO i think that it has to do with trigger time my first self purchased firearm was on a fixed budget it was a mosin 91/30 with an origional scope its all i could afford at the time it didnt mean much to me 9 years later its one of my favorite guns to shoot after adding a rock solid ind. mount and nikon scope she shoots great i still love my ar just as much i guess i just think that even an ugly gun can be a beauty queen after you grow to love each other ;)
 
An M-1 is not just a beauty queen. It is also a 1000 yard man-killer, and has the best iron sights ever devised for a battle rife.
Click to expand...

Actual battlefield data from guys armed with M1 rifles is where the US military learned that there was essentially no effective rifle fire past 300, maybe 400, meters, and that in all truthfulness, the vast majority of successful engagements with individual rifles occurred within 100 meters.

As for the best iron sights for a battle rifle -- nope. The Garand has great sights for target shooting in good illumination. Try running a reactive fire course at night under 50% illumination or running for time against bigger aperture, sloppier sights against targets inside 100 meters (again, where gunfighting really happens) and the results would suggest the Garand iron sights are over engineered for how people in armchairs thought fighting happened and not well designed at all for what really goes on when people set out to kill their fellow man on two way rifle ranges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top