What makes the SW99 ugly?

[gbelleh]

It has been said many times that the SW99 is an ugly gun, while the Walther P99 is good looking.

The two look pretty similar to me except for a few differences in the grip, front slide serrations on the SW99, differently shaped trigger guard. Other than that, they're pretty similar.

I can see why the SW99 Compact is ugly, but what makes the full size so hideous? Is fit and finish that much different?

So, politics aside, what makes the SW99 so much uglier?

Not trying to start a S&W bashing thread or anything, just curious what you have to say.

 

[modifiedbrowning]

For me it is the rounded trigger guard and the look of the slide. I much prefer the P99's clean slide without the front serrations. I am also a big Walther fan so a SW99 just wouldn't cut it.

 

[David S]

well MB, you stole the words from me.............besides that , the SW99 is just a knockoff attempt at the P99...........accept no substitutes

 

[WhoKnowsWho]

I had a poll about this a while back, many chose the Walther for looks wise, and most who didn't, didn't really see any difference. I see a difference, I like the Walther's shape and just about every detail about it. Even the bumps on the S&W version looks ugly to me.

 

[Snowdog]

To go against the grain, I don't think either is particularly ugly.

 

[Spackler]

I don't think the SW99 is ugly.

 

[Tamara]

I don't think it's so much "ugly" as it is "not as attractive as the Walther".

They made some cosmetic changes (I think) mostly to distinguish it from the parent gun, more than for any real functional reasons. None of those changes really helped things from an aesthetic standpoint, IMHO.

 

[benewton]

Somebody forgot to mention the "S&W" logo on the slide....

 

[Boats]

I happen to think that both are ugly, but in the looks department, they are both dream pistols compared with the Steyrs and Glocks out there.

 

[Handy]

I think the SW99 has a slightly more functional look of the two. The P99 trigger guard is a little old-school, these days.

What's ugly about the SW is its reputation compared to the P99. Even the Taurus 92 doesn't suffer as much in comparisons to its parent Beretta.

How can a gun with such a large majority of its parts made by Walther fail to work like the Walther? (Or does it?)

 

[Spackler]

I think the SW99's reputation has suffered at least in part because of morons who think that anything that has the S&W logo on the slide must be a piece of crap. The pistol is essentially identical to the P99, which of course is hailed as some amazing feat of German engineering, while the S&W version is regarded as some sort of bastard step-child.

I like them both.

 

[DougB]

I believe I read that the SW99's cosmetic differences from the P99 were to appeal more to the U.S. market. Maybe I'm an "average U.S. consumer" because I find the SW99 slightly more asthetically appealing than the P99. I own an SW99 and will probably buy a P99 one of these days (I've been slowly broken down by all the treads praising the original P99), but I must admit that when I look at them, I like the more streamlined, rounded look of the SW99, and the wider grooves in the slide - it just looks a little better to me. I believe it is common for people to pay extra to have pistols "melted" - I think S&W did more or less the same thing to the Walther to get the SW99.

As for quality and function, I haven't been able to detect any difference, and I also like knowing that under its very durable finish, the SW99 is stainless steel (unlike the Walther).

Now, regarding the SW99 compact - that was an idea that appealed to me until I saw a photo. I was hoping for something more similar to the P22, but it just looks like an SW99 with the barrel and grip chopped off (like the Glock compacts).

Doug