Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Corn-Picker, Oct 10, 2017.
You wouldn't drive this?
Nope. My car is faster and it doesn't look like it was designed by a 12 year old LOL
Looks are subjective, but this 2.0L car does 0-60 in 3.1 with a 190 MPH top speed. The 2017 Corvette ZR1 is a 2.95 second 0-60.
I don't know, there is something about driving an Alfa Romeo 4 cylinder DOHC or a Lotus twin cam engines. I loved racing my '59 Alfa Romeo 1300 Guiletta Veloce back in the day.
Granted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. With the psychological factor, if you like the way a gun looks, you will shoot better regardless of my opinion on the subject.
I have my favorites, you have yours and that's great!
There website says its a 3.0: V6. I get what your saying but compared to my car those are both very slow and uninteresting, and I'm using a smaller motor than that! 2.8L inline 6
Point being that there are some very respectable four and six cylinder powered vehicles that I would not be at all embarrassed to drive. Years ago, I had a Shelby Daytona 2.2 turbo II car that I routinely stomped Camaros & Mustang GTs with. Of course, my soul is soothed by the sound of a big block V8 through Flowmaster 40 series.
As for guns, I go for both aesthetic and functional beauty. I love a glossy 700 BDL as much as I like a well balanced AR, have appreciation for a nice SAA, but also think the Maxim 9 has a beauty all it's own. Of course there are guns I find hideous, and plenty that are just this side of tolerable *cough*Glock*cough*.
Bah car nerds!
Id be happy to caress, i mean test both should some one want to provide them and base my decision after that....
Cars and guns, two things where form and function can be argued over and over. I sided with the Porsche group (dont ask me how we got there) when my buddy was arguing for his heavily suped up(supposedly highest horse power in the state at the time) Civic....my argument was, well, its a porsche....
Kinda the same thing as a 300-500 dollar tube reciever gun vs an 800-1200 dollar highend factory gun.
What's with the cars? I was talking guns and suddenly there are cars.
While they are generally not analogous, they are both machines that can meld fashion and function quite well. They're also the two foremost money pits for many members here
I have some very eye pleasing firearms, real works of art. I bought them because they are pleasing to the eye.
That said they spend a lot of time in a dark, cool, dry place, some have never been fired and I have own them for decades. I have less pretty ones I use as tools but most still look better than the bed of my truck.
The particularly ugly ones I have purchased were acquired because I figured I couldn't make them much less attractive if they showed signs of use or cosmetic damage from being kept handy, they are the ones always there when I need one.
I really don't care to be seen in public with an ugly gun. That's why my AR is for home defense.
I far and away prefer blue steel and walnut in a bolt gun--and even there I'm picky about the design aesthetics. Stock shape and dimensions, barrel length...
It carries over to my scope choice as well. To me, part of the reason I like Leupold scopes is the non-bulky appearance as compared to equal-quality other brands.
It's all kindof subjective, of course. I grin just looking at an HK91.... But it'll never ever have the lines of a Winchester model 88.
I even owned a hi-point and didn't hate it. Ugly as sin, but man it worked with any ammo. Whereas my Mauser HSc is gorgeous to behold and feels so much nicer, but will hiccup on certain JHP profiles.
I do have a soft spot for well used beauties that have their share of honestly earned scratches and dents.
Older women? Younger women? Don't make me choose!
Sorry, but can't own an ugly gun. My friend who owns the LGS had a CZ 452 Euro style 22 on the rack and I was griping about the Roman nosed butt stock, long barrel and bugly front hood. I call it bugly because it was beyond ugly. He pulled a target out of the back room that had four 10 shot groups shot with 4 brands of ammo and you could cover any of them with a dime. I commented that I might be able to live with an ugly gun if it shot like that. Luckily CZ had the common sense to come out with the American 452. I have had 3 and just ordered a 455. No ugly guns in this house.
Aesthetics are certainly part of my calculus: I don't want a pretty gun that can't shoot, nor do I care to own an accurate gun that I find visually unappealing. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder though. I like the lines of Remington 700s and Model 7s, but I won't keep one that won't shoot. On the other hand, I just don't like the way that Savages look and consequently don't own one, even though I know they can be best bang-for-the-buck out-of-the-box accurate.
Nice to have, but not a deal-breaker. My Ruger Americans are butt-ugly, but they are accurate, reliable, and cheap. My 700 in 243 is one of the cheap ones from wal mart that came with the plastic barbie-doll stock, and that cheap parkerized type finish. I put it on one of the black & grey Boyd's laminate stocks and installed a metal trigger guard, and now it looks a lot nicer AND shoots better.
I would drive it, but I wouldn't own it.
Aesthetics are very important to me, but it's only a part of the equation and overall, it's part of a complicated formula that I myself don't always understand
I've heard it said..."life is too short to shoot an ugly gun." Thats fun to say but that gun has to do its job...shoot accurately...or its just a piece of wall art. Nice to look at, but, I buy a gun to shoot.
You wouldn't drive this?
View attachment 765139
Off a cliff.
Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. These days I'm after older firearms of the blued and walnut variety. If they shoot well they stay, if not, off they go and the hunt for another accurate blue on wood gun continues.
Why do people make this assumption that aesthetically pleasing firearms are not made to shoot??? Or believe that accuracy is the only metric? Accuracy ain't worth a damn if the rifle handles like a 2x6 or is uncomfortable to shoot.
Yes...and all sorts of stuff goes in to make a gun shootable, easy to carry, pleasing to look at , have the right feel along with accuracy. So...did I say every thing wrong when I posted? I was only thinking a bit of the various guns I've seen. To MANY, my guns are far too plain to even consider standing in their safe. So...never mind. I'll stop posting....my wife will be glad.
Why so defensive? Nobody said anything about your guns. The point I was trying to make is that people seem to assume that a firearm that is beautiful or "fancy" is somehow not made to shoot. As if your choices are one or the other. It's just not so but I guess the idea that a firearm can be beautiful and completely function triggers some insecurity in some folks. They 'need' to see them as "just pretty".
If I have a choice between two reliable rifles that fulfill the same need and one of them appeals to my eye more than the other, I will always choose the one that looks good to me if the difference in cost is something I can afford. I also prefer the mini 14 (mines in 6.8 SPC) for looks, and it actually seems to fit my frame better.
The vast majority of my rifles are classically good looking - walnut and blue steel affairs. They're M70s, 1886s, an 1892, a CZ 455 and a Ruger 10/22 LVT. I don't feel I've given up any function. I don't hunt in the rain generally, and the bedding is fine - they don't move around. I don't own a single hunting rifle that won't hold 1 MOA off the bench with the hunting load(s) except maybe the 1892 (I really haven't shot it enough). They've all been 100% reliable.
I also own two ARs - big frame and small frame LMT monolithics. There is a certain stark beauty to them and their accessories as well, but when you get right down to it they're tools for fighting wars and killing people. It's well not to appreciate that too much. Better to spend one's days hunting elk or heck, rabbits.
"Classic Good Looks" does not always mean "wood and blue steel". Some of the ugliest rifles to come down the pike are wood and steel. I will take a Classic or Modern Classic rifle with a synthetic stock and made of stainless steel before I'd take a blued steel rifle with a Monte Carlo. A wood finish that's subdued is prettier than one that's glossy. Still, I'm a sucker for bluing that's so deep, you fall into it.
Examples of firearms I think have classic good looks include the Remington 700 Mountain Rifle, Ruger M-77, Browning A-Bolt, Ruger No. 1, Winchester and Marlin lever actions with octagonal barrels and forend caps, Fox-Stevens 20 ga side-by-side, M1 Garand, M14 Steyr StG58, Mauser 98, 03-A3. I don't know if I'd say an AR has classic good looks, but in certain configurations, it looks good to me.
Ugly firearms include the Mosin-Nagant, AK (just about anything Russian, really) Savage bolt actions, H&R single shots, the Carcano, HiPoint, most Glenfield 22s, Iver-Johnson revolvers and Mossberg bolt action shotgun. Neither list is comprehensive.
I have a third list- Bulldog Ugly. Weapons that are as ugly-and lovable- as a Bulldog. This includes the SMLE, the Webley, the P-17 and Enfield revolvers. This list is mostly occupied by British firearms.
I don't mind synthetic stocks with good lines (unless they're made cheaply). Doodads that don't belong on a good firearm include Monte Carlo combs, white line spacers, pressed checkering, skip line checkering, California styling, high gloss wood finish, line engraving and spandex ammo carriers.
Details I like are cheek rests, rounded slim forearm, quality checkering, good recoil pad, ebony forend tip and grip cap, simplicity, 1 1/4" 1907 sling, ventilated ribs on shotguns, quick handling and good balance.
The firearm I have the hots for right now is the Remington Custom Shop 547 Classic, even with it's $1300 price tag. Prettiest 22 bolt action I've seen in a long while.
Like I said, it's complicated and I don't always understand it myself.
Separate names with a comma.