Stupid question - What is a pretty gun?
- Thread starter camslam
- Start date
- Status
Hawk
Member
What makes anything pretty is beyond my understanding although there's no shortage of scholarly work on the subject. It's apparently elusive enough that numerous firms and individuals make a handsome living assisting others to "beautify" their offerings.
Giugiaro worked on the CX Storm. I guess that means Pininfarina will be hired by the competition at some point, perhaps assisted by Frog design.
The observation that Beretta would "outsource" portions of firearms design leads me to conjecture others may follow suit.
In the meantime, the success of the outsourcing may be guessed at by comparing another Giugiaro design (Beretta PX pistol) with any Glock handgun, which didn't benefit from an outside design firm (so far as I know). Is the Beretta "prettier"? I don't know but I'm aesthetically challenged in more than one way.
I do know that showing a typical Glock and PX-4 side-by-side to my spouse results in a runaway aesthetic win for the Giugiaro. I own neither so don't have much of a dog in the fight.
General observation: if my own observations are typical, only those familiar with the process think mundane case color is pretty - in fact, the non-gunnies of my acquaintance generally think case color is some other finish suffering from corrosion. Whether a Doug Turnbull would produce different results from the uninitiated is anybody's guess.
We've generally been educated to appreciate brightwork - a really spectacular piece of lumber is generally considered pretty by non-gunnies. In fact, a former anti that still gets uncomfortable in the presence of a black rifle will cozy right up to a Dakota rifle or D'Italia shotgun.
Engraving and other embellishments work well if tastefully executed. A pity I can't tell "tasteful" if it bit me, but many can.
As to the OP, my best guess is that if one is really curious about design "apples to apples" one could simply parade a PX-4 and a Glock around and see which people think is nicer looking. Good luck finding gunnies that don't already have an opinion - one will probably have to go out of one's way to find those that don't have a dog in the fight. And, to keep it on track, cost and function can't enter into it - they only get to look.
The CX-4 vs the High Point carbine might be easier to predict - I bet even I could guess that outcome - same deal: they would be assumed to function identically and cost the same - we're only judging aesthetics.
Holland & Holland Royal double vs. Baikal Coach is another that seems easy to predict.
Giugiaro worked on the CX Storm. I guess that means Pininfarina will be hired by the competition at some point, perhaps assisted by Frog design.
The observation that Beretta would "outsource" portions of firearms design leads me to conjecture others may follow suit.
In the meantime, the success of the outsourcing may be guessed at by comparing another Giugiaro design (Beretta PX pistol) with any Glock handgun, which didn't benefit from an outside design firm (so far as I know). Is the Beretta "prettier"? I don't know but I'm aesthetically challenged in more than one way.
I do know that showing a typical Glock and PX-4 side-by-side to my spouse results in a runaway aesthetic win for the Giugiaro. I own neither so don't have much of a dog in the fight.
General observation: if my own observations are typical, only those familiar with the process think mundane case color is pretty - in fact, the non-gunnies of my acquaintance generally think case color is some other finish suffering from corrosion. Whether a Doug Turnbull would produce different results from the uninitiated is anybody's guess.
We've generally been educated to appreciate brightwork - a really spectacular piece of lumber is generally considered pretty by non-gunnies. In fact, a former anti that still gets uncomfortable in the presence of a black rifle will cozy right up to a Dakota rifle or D'Italia shotgun.
Engraving and other embellishments work well if tastefully executed. A pity I can't tell "tasteful" if it bit me, but many can.
As to the OP, my best guess is that if one is really curious about design "apples to apples" one could simply parade a PX-4 and a Glock around and see which people think is nicer looking. Good luck finding gunnies that don't already have an opinion - one will probably have to go out of one's way to find those that don't have a dog in the fight. And, to keep it on track, cost and function can't enter into it - they only get to look.
The CX-4 vs the High Point carbine might be easier to predict - I bet even I could guess that outcome - same deal: they would be assumed to function identically and cost the same - we're only judging aesthetics.
Holland & Holland Royal double vs. Baikal Coach is another that seems easy to predict.
Bazooka Joe71
Member
GarandOwner
Member
Pretty guns are , exactly like it sounds, guns that look good. In my opinion, the M1 Garand is a sexy, pretty rifle. I wouldn’t say that glocks are ugly, but that 9mm that it shoots sure is "cute" 
mike101
Member
Bazooka Joe
Those are these.
http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/ArmiCategoria.aspx?CategoriaId=140&lang=en
I've heard them referred to as Schuetzen, or something like that.
Those are these.
http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/ArmiCategoria.aspx?CategoriaId=140&lang=en
I've heard them referred to as Schuetzen, or something like that.
Sistema1927
Member
Beauty is very subjective.
To me, the most beautiful gun ever made is the Browning Hi-Power. However, if a Hi-Point or Raven or RG had saved my life (twice) they would soon become beautiful as well.
To me, the most beautiful gun ever made is the Browning Hi-Power. However, if a Hi-Point or Raven or RG had saved my life (twice) they would soon become beautiful as well.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Proportions
Symetry (balance)
Rhythm
Movement of the lines that shape and define
Materials utilized
Decoration (sometimes)
Aesthetics of the finished product where the combination of all of the above result in a work of art pleasing to the mind's eye, the hands and functions perfectly.
Several designs listed in the above posts qualify.
Going back to the Glock as ugly statement, it may be that the Glock design committee followed the Form follows Function school of thought and as it was designed as part of a Martial competition, it is what it is and there's nothing wrong with that, it simply does not allow my "eye" to willingly soak up the vision of the finished product, compare and catalog that end result as a piece of finely sculpted or shaped metal that alone could be called beautiful or pretty, as it were.
The Glock is Martially brutal looking. Austere, square, boxy, with few flowing lines. Very masculine. You can look at it and know that there were few, if any, Italians on the engineering design committee. It is also a reflection of the time frame the design reflects as well as the method of manufacture.
While "Pretty" is somewhat subjective... some things are timeless, or at least are appreciated over a period of time by more than one generation of man, for the "artful thought" that went into them.
While I do not find Glock's to be pretty, I've heard several females say that the 26 is ... "cute." I prefer the lines of the 34 or 17L to the 19 and the overall shape of the 17 compared to the 20/21/30.
None of them can hold a candle to, say, a 5" charcoal blue N-Frame w/ checkered target or Diamond grips or an ivory stocked case hardened blue, 4-5/8" SAA or a 4" barrelled, french grey Luger w/ light engraving and good straw color.
See?
Subjective.
Symetry (balance)
Rhythm
Movement of the lines that shape and define
Materials utilized
Decoration (sometimes)
Aesthetics of the finished product where the combination of all of the above result in a work of art pleasing to the mind's eye, the hands and functions perfectly.
Several designs listed in the above posts qualify.
Going back to the Glock as ugly statement, it may be that the Glock design committee followed the Form follows Function school of thought and as it was designed as part of a Martial competition, it is what it is and there's nothing wrong with that, it simply does not allow my "eye" to willingly soak up the vision of the finished product, compare and catalog that end result as a piece of finely sculpted or shaped metal that alone could be called beautiful or pretty, as it were.
The Glock is Martially brutal looking. Austere, square, boxy, with few flowing lines. Very masculine. You can look at it and know that there were few, if any, Italians on the engineering design committee. It is also a reflection of the time frame the design reflects as well as the method of manufacture.
While "Pretty" is somewhat subjective... some things are timeless, or at least are appreciated over a period of time by more than one generation of man, for the "artful thought" that went into them.
While I do not find Glock's to be pretty, I've heard several females say that the 26 is ... "cute." I prefer the lines of the 34 or 17L to the 19 and the overall shape of the 17 compared to the 20/21/30.
None of them can hold a candle to, say, a 5" charcoal blue N-Frame w/ checkered target or Diamond grips or an ivory stocked case hardened blue, 4-5/8" SAA or a 4" barrelled, french grey Luger w/ light engraving and good straw color.
See?
Subjective.
heritageguy
Member
"I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I just want to get some sort of baseline for the difference between and ugly gun and a pretty one."
You already know the answer! You see a girl and think she's beautiful. Your friend sees her and thinks she's a dog (of course your friend is an ass!). You see a car and love the way it looks. (Of course it happens to be a muddy Jeep!)
If you think it looks good, it looks good. If you're concerned about what other people think looks good, you're headed in the wrong direction.
To give you the short answer you want pretty is something you like, and ugly is something you don't like.
You already know the answer! You see a girl and think she's beautiful. Your friend sees her and thinks she's a dog (of course your friend is an ass!). You see a car and love the way it looks. (Of course it happens to be a muddy Jeep!)
If you think it looks good, it looks good. If you're concerned about what other people think looks good, you're headed in the wrong direction.
To give you the short answer you want pretty is something you like, and ugly is something you don't like.
JesseL
Member
Beauty is a delicate balance of many qualities.
Some are easy to define and understand, ie the golden ratio.
Others are so subjective and ethereal that no two people in the world may share them, for example, the memories you associate with the gun your grandfather used to save your life.
I like simple, fluid lines. I appreciate mechanical elegance. I demand functionality. I dislike needless complexity. I value pleasant ergonomics.
It's hard to get a single gun to satisfy all those desires, but few guns fail so miserably on all counts like I actively dislike them.
French revolvers really set my teeth on edge though.
Some are easy to define and understand, ie the golden ratio.
Others are so subjective and ethereal that no two people in the world may share them, for example, the memories you associate with the gun your grandfather used to save your life.
I like simple, fluid lines. I appreciate mechanical elegance. I demand functionality. I dislike needless complexity. I value pleasant ergonomics.
It's hard to get a single gun to satisfy all those desires, but few guns fail so miserably on all counts like I actively dislike them.
French revolvers really set my teeth on edge though.
JesseL
Member
Ugly:
Elm Creek Smith
Member
Whatever my wife says is pretty. I can get away with a lot if it draws the "pretty" word from her. She tends to like stainless or nickel-plated revolvers.
ECS
ECS
tasco 74
Member
that's a nice ruger carbine ruger 66 .. i've never seen a williams sight incorporated into a reciever like that.. i have the same sight but it has a base to fit a dovetail on it..
RaferJanders
Member
All guns are pretty, but my guns are sexy!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
