1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Who's in charge of gun design? Form-vs-function...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Rembrandt, Apr 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rembrandt

    Rembrandt Member

    Feb 1, 2003
    Latest trend for firearms manufacturers is the "swoopy" ergonomic designed trigger guards and curvey look.

    Car manufacturers have gone a similar route targeting the female market...but at least the ergonomics have some function and aerodynamic purpose.

    Guess when it comes to firearms, I'm a stuck in the mud design traditionalist. What are yout thoughts?.....Like or dislike?

    Browning Cynergy...
    Beretta Neos...

    Last edited: Apr 27, 2006
  2. esheato

    esheato Member

    Apr 8, 2003
    Very much dislike.

    I have very traditional tastes. Give me classic lines in blued steel and gorgeous wood.

    I don't like to admit it, but I have a few synthetic stocked rifles and shotguns. It really depends on the guns intended use. Hunting rigs tend to wear synthetic.

    BTW, aerodynamic? Why does a gun have to be aerodynamic?

  3. silicon wolverine

    silicon wolverine member

    Apr 9, 2006
    South Dakota
    ergonomic issues have some things to do with it but mostly its the "futuristic design" thats selling. I mean look at the XM-8 that plastic thing made the M-16 look positivly sturdy in comparison. Anothe thing is pistols with geometric shaped slides. Nothing but asthetics but high "cool factor" ie whole walther p series guns

  4. Onmilo

    Onmilo Member

    Jul 26, 2004
    Ergonomic design seems to be the buzz phrase in current layout trends.
    Apparently a convex trigger is more user friendly to a greater range of shooting styles.
  5. BigG

    BigG Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    I think that those type of looks blow chunks, to put it in a modern ergonomic sentence.
  6. Michael Courtney

    Michael Courtney Member

    Apr 20, 2005
    New York
    I lean toward the more traditional aesthetics.

    Michael Courtney
  7. Medusa

    Medusa Member

    Jul 20, 2005
    EE, Europe
    Well. I'm more of the futuristic type of guy (like the space-age guns). Traditional beauty is nice, but traditions do must evolve with time.

    HK XM-8 looks nice, I'd take the XM8 marksman version any time. But it looks a bit like space-marine's gun. By looks I prefer the G36.

    Walther G22 handles nice, but the stock design isn't the best part of it. Though, the bullpup design limits the options somewhat.

    FN P90, as it's bullpup the design can't be traditional. Otherwise I love the design and would take it any time.

    IMHO Beretta Neos sucks.
  8. waterhouse

    waterhouse Member

    Jan 7, 2005
    Round Rock, TX
    I think the Benelli looks interesting, and I personally really like the looks of the Cynergy although I know a lot of people think they are ugly.

    When guns are concerned, I will almost always take function over form. Anything a manufacturer can do to make it fit me better, reduce recoil, make it more reliable, more accurate, whatever . . .do it. I'll worry about the looks later and I'm not much of a traditionalist about it.

    That being said, I don't care much for the rest of the ones you posted. As mentioned, they seem to be trying to look more futuristic without adding much. If they were futristic looking with better ergonomics that would be one thing, but if the manufacturer is just doing it to look cool I can do without.
  9. Zero_DgZ

    Zero_DgZ Member

    Feb 3, 2006
    Wow, I guess I'm in the minority camp. I want both of those shotguns! The G22 I can take or leave. It looks a little unbalanced to me. The P90 is a pretty slick piece of hardware, and the Neos in all its incarnations looks pretty dumb, I think.

    I guess as with many things there's a fine line. I like my space marine tacticool rifles with the rails and knobs all over 'em, but I find that even I have my limits with style and most of them apply to pistols. I don't mind space age lookin' handguns but I'm not a fan of these one color, no shape, no features sort of designs that everybody seems to be big on nowadays. Like Glocks, and lots of the newer HK's and whatnot all look the same - Like Glock knockoffs.

    I like exposed hammers and grips and rails and furbles and whatnot in the design, and if the thing can have a couple of shiny or at least slightly less black parts that's usually a good thing, too.
  10. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Not in my gun safe.
  11. crashm1

    crashm1 Member

    Jan 22, 2006
    Western WI
    I'm a functional traditionalist

    The Browning actually looks like it might have a lot of function built into it's form. The rest are just fugly. I tend to go for function first and worry about the esthetics after whatever it is does what it's supposed to perfectly. I have a problem with synthetics though, my head knows it's better and more stable as a stock material but my heart says "God that's ugly.". For my motorcycles and racecar I'm much crueler, if it doesn't contribute to it's going faster, cornering harder or stopping quicker it comes off.
  12. SomeKid

    SomeKid Member

    Aug 25, 2005
    Cynergy looks pretty nice.

    Whatever that thing at the bottom is, I like the idea, looks odd, but if the trigger area is comfortable, I would go for it.

    Edit: FN P90. Where to buy one, and how much...

    Ok, found out where to buy, and the price. What irks me, is they had to add some barrel on it. They should have had the grip moved forward for comfort.

    Last edited: Apr 28, 2006
  13. raz-0

    raz-0 Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    I actually really like the benelli rifle, and the browning cynergy is nice looking too. Except for maybe the recoil pad, looks a bit out of place on the gun.

    The neos actually isn't bad if you put a red dot on it. If you leave it as is, it's pretty nose heavy, aesthetically I don't mind it.

    The XM-8 jsut strikes me as ungainly and blech as well as not pretty, even in that ugly functional way.

    the p-22 is ugly, but it's a darn handy feeling little carbine. A bit flimsy in some of the plastic bits though, so eh.

    the p-90 is pretty much all ergonomics and form factor over appearance. It carries 50 rounds and is very compact. The grips are designed to actually grip the thing with it shouldered. Which since it is so small, you ahve your hand at that severe angle. The front grip is designed to basically hook your off-hand thumb through and push down to control muzzle rise. It's ugly, but it's all functional ugly, which makes it kind of cool looking.
  14. Low-Sci

    Low-Sci Member

    Dec 14, 2005
    Madison, Wisconsin
    To my way of thinking...

    I think its best to get the function down exactly how you want it, then bring form right up to the line with it.

    I'm not a fan of any of those guns from an aesthetics standpoint, but the P90 is just so ridiculously useful that I have a hard time not liking it.

    I have to admit that the Synergy makes me squirm. Don't like it at all, here's why.

    Its a double-barrel shotgun. As such, its past is defined by absolutely magnificent specimens that are hand-crafted and hand-engraved and really qualify much more as a work of art than a simple duck-whacker. There are some positively magnificent shotguns out there with what is without a doubt the most beautiful metalwork I've ever seen. What does browning contribute with the Synergy? A perfunctory swoosh engraving, a stock that looks like a broken piece of glass, and a design that looks totally dominated by the barrels.

    Not that I could do any better, mind you.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page