I owned an SMC-380
I think it's a fine gun for the money. It's considerably smaller than a Mak, which I've never been able to see as a pocket pistol.
Like most blowbacks, the SMC was capable of being pretty accurate. The sights were not especially great, but were completely serviceable. My E.German Mak had a much better trigger than my SMC. The SMC's trigger face was grooved, too - an absurd thing for a combat trigger with a reasonably heavy pull.
SMCs come in two flavors: alloy-framed and steel-framed. I know because I ordered mine thinking it would be alloy-framed (as everything I'd read about it indicated), and was shocked to receive a 21-ounce all-steel gun. (Kinda drags the pocket down more than I was looking for.) The finish also varies: some alloy-framed SMCs have a decently-blued slide. My all-steel one was parkerized all around; not unattractive, but I'd rather have the blue.
Despite the weight and the low-powered cartridge, the SMC recoiled a fair amount - it is, after all, a blowback. (I would think the locked breech Kel-Tec might prove superior here, if you can get a sufficient hold on its teensy gripframe.) They Hungarians were intelligent enough to long ago add the improved tang that S&W is just now adding to their PPK/S-Americans, so "Walther bite" was not a problem for me.
That said, I'm surprised to hear that the appearance of the finish of a pocket pistol is causing you to change your mind about it. I have yet to hear of an instance where finish made a bit of difference in a pocket gun's performance, but you certainly have the right to make up your own mind as to what you consider to be important. That said, I've noticed that Kel-Tec guns generally look pretty rough (they're at the low end of the market, and they're not prettied up), but some are worse than others. Perhaps you might shop around for one that suits you.
You're just not going to find a pretty pocket gun for cheap, though.