1KPerDay
Member
Given a choice between a Glock that has a plaid frame and a sky blue slide, and a clock that has a black frame and a black slide, which would you choose? Do you honestly aver that you have no preference?
I find it interesting that people say they don't care at all about aesthetics. Yet given two pistols with equal function and ergonomics and accuracy, one of which is indifferently designed or patently ugly, and one of which isn't, guess which they choose?
First I've heard of the "pig nose".
My 1988 Gen 1 17 has a frame that touches the slide at the front.
Could not care less about that, or any "mismatched" beveling.
Cosmetics only & utterly meaningless.
That's a puzzling view. The point of a carry gun isn't to demonstrate hard-won virtue, it's to survive an (extremely unlikely and unpredictable) event. There is no question that optical dot sights offer a massive performance advantage when it comes to shooting quickly and with adequate accuracy. None. Go watch any practical pistol match, and the huge advantage offered by the dot over iron sights will be very apparent. And I'm talking as between shooters who are each more technically proficient than 95+% of the gun-carrying public, not skill-less n00bs. These are people who all practice somewhere between a fair amount and a ton by conventional shooting standards.
I say this as someone who still has iron sights on all his handguns (for now). But, objectively, I recognize that the dots are better in terms of shooting performance.
Yep.
The same people that will insult others and mock them for caring about cosmetic flaws on a Glock are the same ones that mock and insult others for having FDE or OD frames and call them ugly. Nothing but hypocrites and bullies.