I know we've talked before about pretty vs ugly guns, but I was wondering what the percentages are along the line between and including the extremes.Where are you on the continuum of gun aesthetics ?I don't care what it looks like, if it functions well I don't give a rip how it looksGood guns are like a good wife, pretty is just icing on the cake if she's good to be aroundIf she's not hot, sexy, and racy, I won't even lookYou're asking the wrong guy I can't afford eitherIt's just a tool, the question is irrelevantNone of the above, please splain thyself

As Arnold said... "All".

I chose "Good guns are like a good wife..." b/c let's face it, how many of you guys would feel comfortable if the gun shot the lights out, but looked every inch like a dildo. Just sayin'

Some people consider them tools and treat them as such. I do not. Looks matter to me as much as how they shoot. No reason to compromise when you're spending that much money on something like that.

I voted for the second option, but functionality does seem to carry something of an aesthetic value with it. A good pistol tends to look attractive without even having to try.

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
I chose "Good guns are like a good wife..." b/c let's face it, how many of you guys would feel comfortable if the gun shot the lights out, but looked every inch like a dildo. Just sayin'

I hear what you're saying, but, you know, there's a chack-chack element to the equation. If you were a thug and you'd just broken into someone's house in the middle of the night, would you really want to rush some homeowner who was pointing a loaded dildo at you?

Will not own a long external extractor SIG. Nuff said.

I will not own an external extractor 1911. To me it just does not look right.

I own external extractor Sig 1911's. They function great.

My firearms are not for show and tell. How they function, and their reliability is everything.

I've bought quite a few used. This spring I bought a G35 former police pistol, after following a thread here, and ordered a KKM .357 Sig barrel for it...which just arrived at my house today (and which I won't see for another couple of months...). The pistol is scratched and beaten up; it was someone's daily carry for who-knows-how-long. I went through it, changed the sights, replaced the springs, cleaned it, and it's good. I don't care that it's scratched. I don't care that its got a police logo on the side. I care that it functions.

I'd really hate to have a pretty firearm that didn't function when needed most. My only hope then might be to mesmerize the bad guy and sneak away, or grab an actual functioning firearm, or hope my functional but not pretty knives didn't let me down.

Looks are vanity. Function is life.

It depends on the gun for me.

My Glocks are like a good reliable work truck. As long as it works, I dont care if its scratched up with honest wear.

If I were in the market for a nice 1911, I would want it to look and work good.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
I chose "Good guns are like a good wife..." b/c let's face it, how many of you guys would feel comfortable if the gun shot the lights out, but looked every inch like a dildo. Just sayin'

I hear what you're saying, but, you know, there's a chack-chack element to the equation. If you were a thug and you'd just broken into someone's house in the middle of the night, would you really want to rush some homeowner who was pointing a loaded dildo at you?

Haha, good one!

Notice I said guys though. If a lady was doing the brandishing, the situation might turn out differently

Im old enough to remember when gun makers actuslly tried to make their guns asthetically appealing as well as reliable and accurate.

And while those who constantly yammer about reliability being number one, are correct, life is too short to buy an ugly gun. And thats the reason all my guns were made prior to 2001. Regards 18DAI

Depends. Looks genuinely matter, but I also often have fairly low standards on judging aesthetics if I find some other aspect that clearly outweighs how pretty something looks. Conversely, if a gun is gorgeous but doesn't work worth a damn, then what's the point?

I consider a gun's aesthetics, but in a more of a form fits function kind of way. I want a gun that looks like it will do what it's supposed to do well, and that it is well made. If it looks like it has intentional cosmetic embellishments, it kind of turns me off.

For instance: looks:

I did not like the original Ruger LCP. But really like the LCP II.

The Beretta 2000 looked like a wild, neat pistol, but holy moly, felt terrible gripping it.

To me , however, quality ranks after reliability.


Whoops, my bad, Beretta 9000, not 2000 (shotgun)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sunset_Va, August 17, 2017 06:42 PM

There are so many options out there today that there is no reason to have an ugly gun. That's why I'd say it matters.

For example, if you don't like the looks of a Glock, buy a PPQ, M&P, XD, CZ P07, HK...etc.

If there was some unique gun that was ugly but had no equal, and it fit my needs perfectly, I'd buy it despite being ugly, but that'd be a rare bird.

I like my guns like I like my women:
Experienced.

For me, functionality and ergonomics trump esthetics. That said, I'd sure like to have a Walther P5 compact to fondle and gaze upon…

I like to think mine is a sweet looking pistol, but hey, she has had some work done...

I like pretty guns, sure. But an ugly gun starts looking downright gorgeous for some reason when I find out it just works.

The Beretta APX is a prime example. I was repulsed when I saw the first pictures. Then I handled and shot one and now I can't stop looking at them.

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:
I like to think mine is a sweet looking pistol, but hey, she has had some work done...

And the winner ! Ha !