What makes a firearm look "dated"?

[Skans]

I'm sure we can all come up with a few examples of what makes a firearm look dated or actually out-dated. There are guns that were manufactured in the '70's, '80's and even '90's that you might scoff today thinking "yeah, I bought one of those then, but I would never buy one today".

Here are some examples that I can think of:
1. Semi-auto Mac 10 (M10) - I thought these were cool in the '80's because of Miami Vice. I bought one (closed-bolt pistol), kept it for years and finally decided to sell it - I just had no need or desire to have it anymore

2. Tec-9 - They must have sold more of those in the '80's than they sell Hi-Point carbines today.

3. Megastar 45 - you would never see anyone make a 45acp that big today.

Does anyone have other examples? Also, what guns being sold today do you think will look a bit silly and out of fashion 10 years from now?

[zukiphile]

I think "picatinny everywhere" will run its course or become easier to ignore,cover and conceal, like on the new Tavor.

[BarryLee]

I’m not sure if this was a local fad or not, but I remember back in the 80s a lot of folks carrying stainless steel guns in shoulder holsters. Every time I see a similar set up I want to break out my Sonny Crockett outfit.

[lamarw]

Unfortunately these are the firearms I like:

Guns with wood stocks/grips

Guns with all steel construction

Guns with hammers

Guns without elongated beavertails

Guns without skeleton triggers

Blued Guns

Guns without "See Owner's Manual" stamping

Guns without internal locks

The list could go on and on.

[RickB]

Guns with a shiny finish and wood stock/grips look dated.
Shiny finishes and wood stocks are expensive, so we are convinced that "non-reflective", and "inert", and "impervious" are the holy grails.

[44 AMP]

something before "tacticool" might be dated to some people, but its the kind of date I prefer!

Its a matter of opinion, and a sign of the times. A high quality finish was (in an earlier era) the mark of care and craftsmanship. it "showed" you were getting a good product.

Stainless and the dull finishes (and plastics) are more "durable", less maint intensive, and so today are more popular, despite sometimes looking like crap.

[RiponP90]

I agree that wood stocks make a firearm look outdated, then again a lot of high quality firearms still use wood. "Tacticool" for sure, I've written articles on it. It really hard to make predictions about what will become unpopular or look dated. I fear that bullpups, since they haven't really gotten a strong footing, will eventually fade. My poor P90

[Quentin2]

A glorious deep blue finish and quality hardwood make a firearm look like yesterday. But I'll take all I can get from guys who who want to "modernize".

[Erno86]

A gun with a nice worn patina...makes it look old along with plenty of use.

[carguychris]

I don't think wood stocks/grips and blued finish look too dated.

My thoughts on dated features:

• Nickel finish on handguns [I personally like nickel, but gunmakers seem to have almost totally moved away from it]
• Ivory, stag, or particularly mother-of-pearl grips [Double Outdated Points if they're obviously fake and made from cheap plastic]
• Black hard rubber / gutta percha or Bakelite grips
• 4" or longer barrel on a small-frame revolver
• Break-open revolvers generally
• >22" barrel on a .22 rimfire rifle [other than a specialized match rifle]
• Bolt-action rifle with one of more of these features: (a) a tubular magazine, (b) a full stock to the muzzle, (c) a full handguard, (d) iron sights and no provisions whatsoever for a scope, not even dovetail cuts or screw holes for bases
• Full-size auto pistol with one of more of these features: (a) ludicrously tiny sights, (b) no provision whatsoever for sight adjustment, (c) weird grip safety location [e.g. frontstrap, lower backstrap], (d) chambered in .30/.32/7.62/7.63/7.65 anything, (e) chambered for a 9mm cartridge other than 9mm Luger or .357 SIG
• A handgun with a pushbutton or crossbolt thumb safety, or a lever-style thumb safety that must be rotated more than 90°

[kilimanjaro]

Formica grips in Harvest Gold or Avocado definitely appear dated.

Anything in a gun case with a shag interior.

A peace symbol decal on the stock, and a plastic flower in the muzzle.

[Skans]

To me, there's "classic" and then there's "dated". Blued guns with wood stocks/grips seem timeless and classic.

Pearl grips - yeah, probably dated as there isn't any demand for guns with pearl grips. Still, it's not like you can even find them for a 1911 and when you do they seem to be priced at about $500! I have to admit, I like a nice set of pearl grips, but they are dated.

Rails - I think they will evolve, or manufactures will come up with "sleeker" ways of incorporating lights and lasers into pistols.

I think resin grips like those made of Kirinite are trendy and will look dated in a few years. That doesn't mean I haven't seen some I really like! I think the G10 grips may be here to stay.

[osbornk]

I don't want a "dated" gun. What you call "dated", I call "traditional". I seek out new "dated" firearms like my 1911, Ruger 22 pistols (had to buy a Mark), Henry lever action, Marlin 60, Rough Rider, etc. I just want old designs that have proven themselves over many decades and I'm old and like the look of old looking guns.

[Tex44]

I think "picatinny everywhere" will run its course or become easier to ignore,cover and conceal, like on the new Tavor.

I don't think it will ever "run it's course", because it's just too useful and practical. Unless they come up with another system that does the same thing, only better (not likely), picatinny rails are going to be around for a long time. They will probably find some way to make them easier to conceal though.

As for wood stocks making a gun look dated, I don't think they do. I think they make them look more higher end. Of course, most of my guns were made or designed before 1950, so anything newer than that looks high tech by comparison.

[Tex44]

Now if you want to talk about dated...

[Pond, James Pond]

I think the difference between classic and dated is that the latter will be guns that may have tried to tap into a given trend/fashion at that time.

Given that fashions pass, what was de riguer then will therefore look dated now.

[gyvel]

Recurved trigger guards are definitely dated and passé and are probably the most useless thing ever added to a handgun design, besides being ugly.

[buck460XVR]

I remember the days when folks claimed 1911s and SxS shotguns were dated and obsolete. Both have made a huge comeback, especially double trigger SxSs. Model 97 shotties, lever actions and SxSs with outside hammers are dtaed.........but I still use all three. There are some guns that are just butt ugly, regardless of their manufacture date, this includes current production. Folks will never get used to lookin' at 'em.

Dated looking has nuttin' to do with purpose, practicality or effectiveness. Purely cosmetic, like a Peroxide blonde.

[T. O'Heir]

The glorious, rich, deep blue, S&W finish dates a firearm, but doesn't mean it's 'dated'. Know a guy who owns an unfired M1918 BAR, made for the civilian market in the late 20's with that S&W bluing on ALL the metal, mags included. Stock is what would now be the most expensive burly walnut you ever saw. Friggin' thing is a work of art. So is that painting of Mona. Dated it ain't.
"...There are some guns that are just butt ugly, regardless..." Absolutely. Lotta daft useless crap being hung on innocent firearms these days too. snicker.

[us920669]

The details escape me but maybe 10 or 20 years ago, one or more European shotgun makers started putting racing stripes and other horrid decorations on their guns. I though they looked like vacuum cleaners or something. That was an idea that was dated the day it was launched.

[Skans]

I'm really surprised that the Desert Eagle hasn't run its course and become outdated. Other than offering variations on the same theme (tiger stripes, zebra stripes, different colors, and porting), there hasn't been much new there for quite some time - yet, I guess DE's are still selling.

[campingnights]

Guns don't become "dated", it's just children who don't know a quality gun that say that.

[SSA]

Some guns are, literally, dated. 1911 and 1894 come to mind.

[tirod]

The period of manufacturing technology will date the looks of a firearm, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The 1911 stands the test of time. A Beretta Neos maybe not so much - but that specific style keeps cropping up over and over. You'd think the decision makers would get the hint, too. Ray gun looks are exactly a good example.

It's styled beyond necessary for the function of the firearm. It's embellished - to an extent beyond the necessity of machine technology or for a specific ergonomic need. Like the line on the side of the LCP receiver, it does nothing more than break up a large flat area.

As the 1911 shows, you don't necessarily have to do that. Unless there is some other artistic element out of balance - and there you are, making art choices not function choices.

Make even more deliberate art choices means making more aesthetic decisions - which can date things to an even more precise time period. Or worse, a category of taste that is not part of the general gun buyers acceptable range of style. We like our guns to look like guns - but others like them to look like expressions of wealth and status. It can rapidly get out of hand when certain people embellish a firearm with tokens of what they consider to be higher ranking social symbology.

Two examples, a engraved and gold filled Belgian Browning over and under with Circassian walnut stock , or, a gangsta rappers engraved and gold filled Glock with Circassian walnut grips. Having set you up for your inherent mindset about what they would look like, why is one 'better' than another? You haven't seen them yet . . .

The shotgun could be a presentation grade gift to a Nazi party official celebrating the 1000 year Reich, the Glock a simple enhancement done by the most renown and celebrated engraver in America today having won it's own awards for superlative excellence. And all because he figured out how to put walnut grips on it. (Not backing off that.)

The shotgun would certainly be dated by it's artistic content, assuming art even played a hand in the work. The Glock may become a revered example of enhancement entirely due to it's "timeless" appeal. It's just good looking and captures a sense of the gun, not an snapshot of the era it was manufactured.

It might serve in examination to look at firearms we agree don't look dated - they lack that snapshot look of tech or art. 1911? HK P7? Glock? Note the lack of embellishment, the shape and necessary machining defines the looks, not extraneous markings. If the Marketing department insists certain non functional things be done to enhance it, then it's going to look dated. Nothing stays the same. If embellishment is the order of the day, then classic style that is accepted by the majority of the gun public should be the first choice.

That's not to say a Browning Hi Power with some Art Deco engraving couldn't be highly attractive. But - it would be dated. Style is usually a time sensitive issue, and few styles last and become classic.

[Skans]

Guns don't become "dated", it's just children who don't know a quality gun that say that.

Come on, the M10 is dated. Ok, if you don't buy that, then how about the Linda Pistol? http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=557840203