Why Are New Guns Ugly?

Status
Not open for further replies.
mothermopar said:
This newer generation of firearms... they're utilitarian and so is their appearance. Their designs are nuevo European socialist in appearance.

When I was a teen, I wanted to be a ninja and was attracted to the 'black guns' for a short time.

My Colt works just as well as a 'black gun' and with a few 10 round mags, the capacity debate is nixed. Plus, she'll hold her value... and I can hammer a nail into a 2x4 with the Colt and it won't crack (no plastic or cheap metal crap).

My next purchase is a SxS 12 gauge with exposed hammers, a Colt coachgun clone. She'll still lay down a can of whoop arse, and it looks utterly stunning with the case hardened finish and deep wood stocks.
Click to expand...

Dang, I had no idea my my Glock was secretly infiltrating my home with European socialism. I'll definitely be on alert now. :rolleyes:

SOME people who buy 'black guns' want to be ninjas. By that argument, EVERYONE who buys a coachgun wishes he were a cowboy. :neener:

There are lots of good reasons to own a 1911- it's classic, it's customizable, it shoots a very dependable cartridge... but unless you've mastered zero second reloads, the capacity debate being "nixed" is not one of them. And for people who have a tendency to run into random "must hammer nail into 2x4" emergencies, may I suggest carrying a hammer? :D
 
JayDubs said:
And for people who have a tendency to run into random "must hammer nail into 2x4" emergencies, may I suggest carrying a hammer? :D
Click to expand...

LOL ...... I think the point was more on the lines of, if push comes to shove and both sides are out of ammo but the fight is still on, you can beat the BG's skull in with a 911. Try that with your plastic "fighting" pistol. :banghead: LMAO
 
So why isn't there room for both? :confused:

It's not like they don't make both kinds of "handsome" and "utility" this day and age. Just buy what you like:) I really enjoy older guns. I love milsurp because they are relatively inexpensive to collect and tell a story. I also enjoy classic expensive designs, but I can't afford them right now. I certainly can't afford to buy them and only rarely carry them. All of the guns I own are pressed into some form of duty.

What do I carry every day? A Glock 36. It's a bland, soulless, boring pistol. I can't replace the grips with ones that have roses or skulls or horses or Greek on them. I can't modify the hammer or the trigger (in an aesthetically pleasing way). It's not a gun that was carried onto the beaches of WWII. It's vanilla black polymer.

What it IS is dependable, reliable, and tough. I get in and out of work truck several times a day. I find myself in mud and water and sweat frequently. I can afford to buy a very beautiful gun and carry it every day, but I feel that it is selfish and not prudent on my part to put such a nice gun through abuse. I have a very nice engraved watch that my wife gave to me as a wedding gift. I wear it at social engagements. When i go to work I put on a Timex. The Glock is my Timex gun.

I just don't understand this equating of choice and economical value to the country/world going to hell in a hand basket or the degradation of social mores. If you want a very nice heirloom and are willing to pay the price, by all means buy what you like. $1000, $2000, $10,000. That's the American way. Just don't disparage those of us working class folks that only require a reliable and cost effective firearm as mall ninjas because we prefer to carry a tool over a very functional piece of art.

I'm pretty sure that if you got in your time machine and handed JMB a polymer pistol, he'd be more than impressed:evil: Now don't flame me. I'm not saying the 1911 would turn out to be a Glock, but as an innovator, inventor, and business man, Browning would almost certainly see the possibilities.
 
Old
borchardt%20Pistol.JPG


New
01.jpg

Not all old guns are "pretty" and not all new guns are "pretty". Neither are they all ugly. And not everyone agrees what "pretty" or "ugly" are in guns (well, we can all agree that some of them are as ugly as a mud fence in a rain storm).
 
Fastcast said:
LOL ...... I think the point was more on the lines of, if push comes to shove and both sides are out of ammo but the fight is still on, you can beat the BG's skull in with a 911. Try that with your plastic "fighting" pistol. :banghead: LMAO
Click to expand...
Knife maybe? Or just hit them with the slide in this unlikely scenario.
 
My two cents? I'm a college student on a tight budget. I buy guns one at a time and normally have to scrimp and save to get them. I have a Kel Tek PF-9, Sig 229SCT, Sig 226, Mossberg 590A1, and a Smith and Wesson MP-40T with Eotech 556. All are black guns and NONE have aesthetic magnificence. However, this is how I wanted it. I don't buy guns to be the shiny sparkly guy at the range. I buy guns because I want something that's going to be reliable and accurate if it ever comes time to defend myself, my family, or my country. I buy black over stainless because there's less chance that a reflection will give my position away and I have chosen each weapon because it's the most reliable I can afford. In each of those weapons, the only failure I've had was with cheap Wolf ammo in the M&P and that's with thousands of rounds fired through all. Think about that for a second. Five weapons, all affordable, and ONE failure! I'll take that over a stainless steel barrel with a fleur de lis engraved in it ANY day of the week. I spend my money on ugly, indestructible guns and I wouldn't have it any other way.

-Marcos
 
Why is it that people who refuse to buy/own anything other than a flat black firearm believe anything other than that, is somehow unreliable and easily broken? :rolleyes: :confused:
 
And to Jaydubs, agreed. I don't care how fast you can reload your 1911...I'll always be able to pull the trigger on my next round faster than you can release, eject, insert, and load.
 
I generally agree the newer guns are uglier. These days, autoloaders have blocky, squared off slides, but I don't think that looks too bad, although it is less appealing than the more rounded contours of older guns like the 1911 or the Hi Power. I still generally like the looks of the Glock because it's a case of form strictly following function, and I have always preferred plain, no-nonsense, utilitarian designs.

I have never cared at all for extraneous decoration that serves no purpose, which is why, with very few exceptions, I just don't care for engraved guns. I like the beauty of a gun to come from the lines and contours of the weapon itself. Plain, but beautifully blued guns, like my pre-war commercial 1911, or my 1960s-vintage Model 29 are vastly superior in looks to examples of those same weapons covered in engraving, no matter how expertly done, at least as far as I am concerned.

For the same reason, while I like the Glock and the earlier Springfield XD because they are plain, I don't like newer designs like the Beretta Storm, or the S&W M&P, because they have wavy lines and angles molded and milled and stamped into the slide & frame, not for any functional purpose, but simply as styling touches. I think the guns would look vastly better if they'd leave off such attempts.
 
"Why are new guns are ugly?"

One might also ask, "why are those who post here are prone to typos?" :eek:

Sorry . . . couldn't help myself. :evil:
 
hso said:
Old
borchardt%20Pistol.JPG


New
01.jpg

Not all old guns are "pretty" and not all new guns are "pretty". Neither are they all ugly. And not everyone agrees what "pretty" or "ugly" are in guns (well, we can all agree that some of them are as ugly as a mud fence in a rain storm).
Click to expand...

Are they both supposed to be examples of "ugly"? Because if so, I think maybe something is just wrong with me, because I love the look of that second one. What is it?
 
One might also ask why I prefer my rusty, highly generic Subaru wagon to several "nicer" sporty car my friends have, and have every intention of pushing it past the 200k mark unless the thing falls apart from rust. The appeal of something that can be used and abused, and not care about appearances. My parent's have two very nice, couple year old cars, but with both you have to be very careful, as I classify them as "too nice." Heck, I've even pulled the two things that identify the school I go to off the Subie. Bland is good in my book. Beauty in the eye of the beholder indeed. :neener:

That said, I don't have any handguns, and still haven't figured out what I want my first one to be, so I really don't have a horse in the race.

And the bike I'm thinking about buying in a couple of moths isn't exactly "understated", so I will have to watch out.:uhoh:
 
Guns are going plastic because of the inherent advantages of a polymer frame. Honestly, I am a little burnt out on them though. That is why there will always be a market for metal framed guns. To me polymer framed guns lack soul. I appreciate them, and own several, but see them as the souless tools they are.
 
new guns are ugly? some kimbers are so pretty they're almost works of art.

not all new guns are ugly.
 
Magazine capacity has little to do with actually hitting your target. If magazine capacity was SO important, why is it that many major Fed/Sheriff/Police department SWAT/SRT squads are going to 1911s? One hit is better than 15 misses. One 45 hit is better than a 9mm hit, bullet design and shot placement being equal.

This is beyond the scope of the thread (and yes, I kinda started it with my post).

BTW: I do wanna be a cowboy! LOL However, a 1911 isn't a cowboy gun, pardner! LOL

Like I said, 'black guns' are fine, I have no problem using and enjoying them at work. They suit their purpose well. But when I spend my money, I'll buy something that works just as well but looks a hell of alot better, even if it costs more.

I tend to just 'look' and admire my guns when not firing them... there's not alot to 'look' at on a typical 'black gun' that inspires the artistic.
 
I tend to just 'look' and admire my guns when not firing them... there's not alot to 'look' at on a typical 'black gun' that inspires the artistic.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean. It's interesting how beautiful guns can inspire this reaction from other people.

A good example happened to me recently. I work as a police detective, and a local film company that produces a show called "The Bureau" (it's a lot like "The FBI Files," which was also produced around here), and they hire a lot of real local police to play the extra parts. So I got hired to be a detective in one episode, and the scenes were all of me in an office interviewing people. My department issues Glock 17s, but when I'm off duty, I prefer to carry my .40 S&W FN Hi Power, and I wore it that day. The one I have also has their highest grade blued finish, and I put a set of dark rosewood Spegel grips on it. It really is a gorgeous pistol.

So when the time came to film the scene of me interviewing the suspect, I pointed out to the director that cops don't wear their guns while sitting in an interview with a suspect, and explained why. Since he wanted to film the scene accurately, he called over the prop man and I cleared the Hi Power and gave it to him for the duration of the scene.

After filming was over, I retrieved my weapon, and the director, the prop master, and several members of the crew all came up to ask me what kind of gun it was, and all commented on how gorgeous it was. The prop master even said he wanted to get one. They were used to seeing the modern, utilitarian looking Glocks, SIGs, and S&Ws that most of the police around here carry, and had never seen a gun that looked as good as the old Hi Power.
 
mothermopar said:
Magazine capacity has little to do with actually hitting your target. If magazine capacity was SO important, why is it that many major Fed/Sheriff/Police department SWAT/SRT squads are going to 1911s? One hit is better than 15 misses. One 45 hit is better than a 9mm hit, bullet design and shot placement being equal.

This is beyond the scope of the thread (and yes, I kinda started it with my post).

BTW: I do wanna be a cowboy! LOL However, a 1911 isn't a cowboy gun, pardner! LOL

Like I said, 'black guns' are fine, I have no problem using and enjoying them at work. They suit their purpose well. But when I spend my money, I'll buy something that works just as well but looks a hell of alot better, even if it costs more.

I tend to just 'look' and admire my guns when not firing them... there's not alot to 'look' at on a typical 'black gun' that inspires the artistic.
Click to expand...

I didn't say 9mm was better than .45. They're both better at different things. I'm just saying capacity isn't a complete non-issue as you imply (that's why manufacturers designed high-cap 1911 platforms). In any given situation, more rounds in your magazine is better than less rounds in your magazine, all other things being equal. As for "one hit is better than 15 misses," I wasn't aware that having a smaller magazine made a person a better shot. ;)

But yes, this is beyond the scope of the topic.

Also, I didn't say a 1911 was a cowboy gun. I said a coachgun is a cowboy gun. From wikipedia:

"A coach gun is a double-barrel shotgun, generally with barrels approximately 18" in length placed side by side (SxS). The name comes from the use of such shotguns on stagecoaches by shotgun messengers in the American Wild West and during the Colonial period of Australia."

I'll definitely agree that "black guns" are less concerned with aesthetics, and this goes to why new guns aren't as pretty. When the way a gun looks is a non-issue, said gun can be designed to be more efficient (function/cost). Polymer is, and always will be, cheaper than wood and steel. Plus, a huge part of the market for handguns is police departments. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know some of you are cops out there), but PDs would probably be elated to find a duty gun that works fine and costs less, even if it were the most fugly thing in the world. :barf:
 
That is a big +100 Confederate. I truly hate the direction that the firearms industry has been going for some time now. I like my firearms to made of wood and steel not palstic. I bought a traditional S&W M10 about 4 years ago because it looks good with simple elegant lines but yet still very utilitarian. I don't like the fact that it uses MIM parts and has that stupid lock but I couldn't find a nice used one and I didn't know J&G sales existed either. So I was forced to buy new.

I went to the range with it one day and was watching a couple fellas shooting their Glocks at 15yd. They were slinging lead everywhere and there targets looked like they were shooting shot guns. But hey at least they had ubber tactical Glocks. During a lull I posted my targets and unlimbered my M10. I caught a glance of one of them kind of sneering when he seen that ol' six gun. However after I proceeded to punch out the X ring of my target that sneer quickly left his face:)
I think I seen him pick his lower jaw up off the ground but I can't be sure.

My big game rifle is my trusty Marlin 336A 30-30. A fella at work poked fun at my choice in shooting iron to a friend in my absence. He has one of those new fangled Rem .308 700s' with the triangular barrels, and feels the equipment makes the person. My buddy told me that this fella promptly shut up once told that I've shot a buck just about every year he's known me and if not a buck I will get a doe, which is more deer than that dude ever shot. I'll continue to use that rifle every year and laugh to myself enroute to the processors:neener: Or while I buy ammo at the store for only $10:neener:

Now I'm not saying that the above firearms are inaccurate or inferior to my choices. However I think that the common theme among the various manufactureres is our XYZ will make you a much better hunter/shooter. To that I say that is totall B.S. Equipment will never make the individual, only knowledge, proper training, and hard work makes one a better hunter/shooter.

Another problem I've noticed a lot is alloy framed revolvers when compared to steel revolvers, is cracked frames. I've seen more people on the various forums post about how their brand new alloy framed J frames crack just under the barrel after only but a few rounds. I still don't know why people want their guns made of aluminum when steel is so much better. I know I know folks will extoll that they weigh less. To that I say get a proper belt and holster and the weight difference is all but negligible. I haven't had nary a prolem with my SS S&W M60 in a Simply Rugged Silver Dollar Pancake, sometimes I forget it is even on my hip. And what the heck is up with that new S&W Body Guard revolver:barf: I about puked all over my monitor when I seen that FUGLY chunk of fecal matter, same with the Ruger LCR:barf:

Thanks but no thanks I'll just pay a few dollars more for my blued/SS all steel firearms. 50 years from now they will still be working the way they are supposed to and have that added touch of class while doing it.

Y'all stay safe and shoot straight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
what happened to made in USA handguns/guns
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
Youngster
Y
K
  • Locked
S&W 41: why blued carbon steel?
Replies
22
Views
1K
tipoc
tipoc
1
  • Locked
Post some of the funny stuff you've heard on the range.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
125
Views
13K
asahrts
A
Paul R Zartman
  • Locked
UGLY GUNS...
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
178
Views
7K
Mark_Mark
Mark_Mark
N
  • Locked
Old holsters, new guns
Replies
9
Views
2K
huntsman
huntsman
Back
Top