Does appearance matter? - Page 4

rickmelear · November 21, 2013, 11:21 PM

There are ugly guns that function flawlessly "Glock" and there are works of art that perform flawlessly"BHP". I choose works or art but that is just my opinion.

Glenn E. Meyer · November 22, 2013, 11:51 AM

Just deleted a bunch of silly sexist comments.

Chaz88 · November 22, 2013, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Just deleted a bunch of silly sexist comments.

Thank you. I was expecting the pad lock.

oldcabin · November 22, 2013, 01:10 PM

Pictures of hammers gets everybody all excited..

Tactical Jackalope · November 22, 2013, 10:57 PM

I regret posting that picture with the hammers.

oldcabin · November 22, 2013, 11:06 PM

Constantine, I found the glock tool you were talking about...

shafter · November 23, 2013, 10:16 AM

Appearance is an important consideration for me. Here is how it works for me:

If it looks good but doesn't shoot good I don't want it.

If it shoots good and is ugly as sin I don't want it.

A gun must looks and function. I'll make an exception for certain things but usually this is how it works for me.

PT-92 · November 23, 2013, 12:34 PM

For my carry-gun/s I do not take aesthetics into consideration (the role is simple protection of life and nothing else). My two CCW guns attest to this, one a Glock 26 the other a Kel-Tec P11.

For my modest collection, however, I do indeed take a gun's beauty into consideration as just one variable in the equation before buying.

That said it's all subjective and in the end my Colt Walker 1847 may look old and "ugly" to some whereas to me she's outright Gorgeous.

ETA: After reading through the thread it is quite apparent that peoples tastes regarding firearms are much like they are relative to automobiles--lots of good to great cars/trucks out there in various price ranges whereby the final variable in many consumers purchasing decision is appearance.

larryh1108 · November 23, 2013, 06:40 PM

Some guns are used as tools. They can be ugly or beautiful but are tools to the owner.

Some guns have sentiment. They can be ugly as sin or rusted and beat up but they have a special meaning.

Some guns are collectible and have a history. They can also be ugly or well worn but they are valuable and not shot much, if at all.

Some guns are a thing of beauty. Some shoot theirs and others never put a round thru it. Those are safe queens to some.

To say every gun has to be a tool or can't be a tool is too broad of a statement. Every gun has a purpose to the owner even if it is to look at it and admire it for what it is..... theirs.

Nickel Plated · November 24, 2013, 08:05 PM

I think looks are a big factor in many people's choice of guns. Why don't competition shooters use Hi-Points? They're reliable, and quite accurate. It's because you'd be embarrassed to be seen with that brick.

Why did the military hate the M16 when it was adopted? It was light, reliable, accurate and more combat effective at the time than the M14. Because it didn't look like a proper rifle should to them.

The thing is, reliability and function are nothing special anymore. Pretty much any half-decent manufacturer (and even not so decent ones) make perfectly reliable, functional guns at competitive prices. So the only real deciding factor you have left is which one you think looks nicest to you.

If you want a polymer framed, striker fired, wonder nine. You got Glock, Ruger, S&W, H&K, Springfield, Beretta, and probably another half dozen or so that I can't think of right now. All of them are equally reliable, and get the job done equally well and cost about the same (except H&K). So why do you pick one over the rest? Tell me it's not because it looked better to you.
I'd pick the Glock. Not because it's "better" than the rest, but because as far as polymer semi-autos go, I think it's the nicest looking of the bunch.

BTW my tastes of good looking guns really differ from most. I like the way Glocks look. I like the way a beat to hell AK looks. I like the way cheap stamped steel SMGs look. I like guns that look utilitarian and mechanical.
I don't like modern guns, especially modern shotguns because they look like appliances, not guns. With all the curvy plastic and weird shapes. Too Euro-trash for me. I need my guns to look like machines not iPhones.

Garycw · November 24, 2013, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nickel Plated

I think I need my guns to look like machines not iPhones.

That would be a very handy CCW. Iphone/22mag hybrid. Just don't try to plug your headphones in the barrel.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer the very nice looking ones, but again I've never seen a gun I didn't like

Nickel Plated · November 25, 2013, 12:08 PM

yea, if you didn't have to pay $200 on top of the price, wait a year and have it registered with the ATF

Tactical Jackalope · November 25, 2013, 12:14 PM

Here you go 1911 guys!

Shooter_Libby · November 26, 2013, 10:30 AM

I think it's fairly simple when it comes to aesthetics. Many of us want nice looking guns because we like to show them off. Many of us are collectors, and it's like taking that hot red corvette out for a spin. To some people it doesn't matter if you are driving a corvette or a prius, as long as it gets you where you need to go, and that's fine. However, if you could afford whatever car you wanted, wouldn't you get a nice looking one?

Tactical Jackalope · November 26, 2013, 11:39 AM

Quote:

However, if you could afford whatever car you wanted, wouldn't you get a nice looking one?

Nothing to do with "affording". When my $500 Glock runs 10 times better than my $1,100 Colt...It's what matters more.

dgludwig · November 26, 2013, 11:46 AM

Well, to put it another way for the sake of argument, everything else being equal, "wouldn't you get a nice looking one" (as opposed to an ugly one)?

Tactical Jackalope · November 26, 2013, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Well, to put it another way for the sake of argument, everything else being equal, "wouldn't you get a nice looking one" (as opposed to an ugly one)?

Let's say a dining room table. Sure.

A gun? Doesn't really matter. Too many factors come into play. Feel, grip angle, etc.

Would you rather holster wear on a new Glock 19 or on a SIG P226 Elite Dark?

dayman · November 26, 2013, 12:11 PM

For a carry gun, I really don't think it matters. I see it like any other tool. I don't shop for tools based on what they look like.
I may even be slightly prejudiced against pretty tools. I always find it slightly relieving when they develop a few scuffs and dings. As long as they work when I need them to, I'd just as soon not "notice" them.

For a range/collection gun, I'm more concerned about looks.

Dragline45 · November 26, 2013, 03:17 PM

If gun's are tools, then so is every other item you own that serves a specific purpose. If I can get a good looking gun that performs well, I will get that over an ugly looking gun that performs well, even if I have to pay more for it. Life is too short to own ugly guns when there are so many good looking quality guns out there.

Dragline45 · November 26, 2013, 03:18 PM

If gun's are tools, then so is every other item you own that serves a specific purpose. If I can get a good looking gun that performs well, I will get that over an ugly looking gun that performs well, even if I have to pay more for it. Life is too short to own ugly guns when there are so many good looking quality guns out there.

Gun companies would not put so much time and money into the looks of their guns if appearance didn't matter to the majority of gun buyers out there. I would argue that as much time is spent on the aesthetic aspects of the gun as the engineering. Human being's are visual creatures, to most people, look's do matter, from men and women, to cars, to guns, to clothes, and just about everything else out there.

Shooter_Libby · November 26, 2013, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Nothing to do with "affording". When my $500 Glock runs 10 times better than my $1,100 Colt...It's what matters more.

You aren't understanding the analogy. The assumption is that they both work fine. Let's assume that everything is equal. Everything. If you still, purposefully, choose an ugly gun, then the assumption is that you wanted an ugly gun. *shrug*

larryh1108 · November 26, 2013, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Gun companies would not put so much time and money into the looks of their guns if appearance didn't matter to the majority of gun buyers out there. I would argue that as much time is spent on the aesthetic aspects of the gun as the engineering.

Sounds like Kimber to me. Why do they sell a lot more 1911s than any other 1911 brand out there? Because they look so good (to a larhe majority of people). They didn't invent anything, they just made it look sharp.

Nickel Plated · November 26, 2013, 07:32 PM

Every time you see a forum post about "They don't make them like they used to" it just proves that looks do matter to many gun owners. Look at the Remington 870. Most will tell you to get a used or atleast new Wingmaster over an Express.
better finish, better fit, pretty bluing and polished walnut. Apparently that makes the Wingmaster better in people's eyes despite those all being purely cosmetic. The Express is the exact same shotgun functionally at half the price. Who cares if the stock doesn't fit with the receiver as precisely? As long as it doesn't snap in half, then that's all that matters right? Apparently not.

To many shooters, guns are not just tools. Even everyday utility guns should atlest be pleasing to look at. I mean, statistically you probably look at your guns more than you actually use them so might as well get something that looks nice.

dayman · November 26, 2013, 07:34 PM

Quote:

If gun's are tools, then so is every other item you own that serves a specific purpose.

I agree, and I don't buy many things based on looks.
I spend a lot more time perusing spec sheets than I do ogling pictures.
The only time I consider looks is for things I'm going to spend a lot of time looking at, and even then looks are subsidiary to quality and functionality. I don't spend a lot of time looking at my carry piece, so I really can't say as I care what it looks like.
I suppose if all else were truly equal, I'd go with the more visually pleasing option. But, as of yet, I've never been in that dilemma.

So again, I'd say - for me - looks do not matter for a carry gun.
My carry gun is going to get shoved down my pants, soaked in sweat, and rarely be shown to anyone. Which - now that I think about it - is disturbingly similar to my attitude towards underwear since having kids.

NoirFan · November 27, 2013, 10:46 AM

The probability that I'll ever pull a gun to defend against an attacker – very low, approaching zero

The probability that I'll need to shoot an animal, purely for survival purposes – even lower

The probability that I'll have to look at that gun every single day that I own it – 100%

So we see that for the functions my guns will realistically perform (sitting around looking cool, blasting paper and showing off at the range, very slim chance of "serious" use), looking good is not an option. It's a downright necessity.

November 22, 2013, 11:51 AM	#77
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Just deleted a bunch of silly sexist comments. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

November 22, 2013, 10:57 PM	#80
Tactical Jackalope Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2010 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 6,429	Does appearance matter? I regret posting that picture with the hammers.

November 23, 2013, 12:34 PM	#83
PT-92 Senior Member Join Date: March 20, 2007 Location: "Undisclosed Bunker" Posts: 1,464	For my carry-gun/s I do not take aesthetics into consideration (the role is simple protection of life and nothing else). My two CCW guns attest to this, one a Glock 26 the other a Kel-Tec P11. For my modest collection, however, I do indeed take a gun's beauty into consideration as just one variable in the equation before buying. That said it's all subjective and in the end my Colt Walker 1847 may look old and "ugly" to some whereas to me she's outright Gorgeous. ETA: After reading through the thread it is quite apparent that peoples tastes regarding firearms are much like they are relative to automobiles--lots of good to great cars/trucks out there in various price ranges whereby the final variable in many consumers purchasing decision is appearance. __________________ NRA Life Member “A free people ought...to be armed..." ―George Washington Last edited by PT-92; November 24, 2013 at 08:53 PM.

November 23, 2013, 06:40 PM	#84
larryh1108 Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2008 Location: NC Posts: 813	Some guns are used as tools. They can be ugly or beautiful but are tools to the owner. Some guns have sentiment. They can be ugly as sin or rusted and beat up but they have a special meaning. Some guns are collectible and have a history. They can also be ugly or well worn but they are valuable and not shot much, if at all. Some guns are a thing of beauty. Some shoot theirs and others never put a round thru it. Those are safe queens to some. To say every gun has to be a tool or can't be a tool is too broad of a statement. Every gun has a purpose to the owner even if it is to look at it and admire it for what it is..... theirs. __________________ Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

November 26, 2013, 11:46 AM	#91
dgludwig Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2005 Location: North central Ohio Posts: 7,486	Well, to put it another way for the sake of argument, everything else being equal, "wouldn't you get a nice looking one" (as opposed to an ugly one)? __________________ ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED ...Aristotle NRA Benefactor Life Member

November 21, 2013, 11:21 PM	#76
rickmelear Senior Member Join Date: October 8, 2005 Location: palm beach county, fl Posts: 257	There are ugly guns that function flawlessly "Glock" and there are works of art that perform flawlessly"BHP". I choose works or art but that is just my opinion.

November 22, 2013, 01:10 PM	#79
oldcabin Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2013 Location: st louis Posts: 235	Pictures of hammers gets everybody all excited..

November 23, 2013, 10:16 AM	#82
shafter Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2009 Posts: 1,624	Appearance is an important consideration for me. Here is how it works for me: If it looks good but doesn't shoot good I don't want it. If it shoots good and is ugly as sin I don't want it. A gun must looks and function. I'll make an exception for certain things but usually this is how it works for me.

November 24, 2013, 08:05 PM	#85
Nickel Plated Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2010 Location: Brooklyn, NYC Posts: 610	I think looks are a big factor in many people's choice of guns. Why don't competition shooters use Hi-Points? They're reliable, and quite accurate. It's because you'd be embarrassed to be seen with that brick. Why did the military hate the M16 when it was adopted? It was light, reliable, accurate and more combat effective at the time than the M14. Because it didn't look like a proper rifle should to them. The thing is, reliability and function are nothing special anymore. Pretty much any half-decent manufacturer (and even not so decent ones) make perfectly reliable, functional guns at competitive prices. So the only real deciding factor you have left is which one you think looks nicest to you. If you want a polymer framed, striker fired, wonder nine. You got Glock, Ruger, S&W, H&K, Springfield, Beretta, and probably another half dozen or so that I can't think of right now. All of them are equally reliable, and get the job done equally well and cost about the same (except H&K). So why do you pick one over the rest? Tell me it's not because it looked better to you. I'd pick the Glock. Not because it's "better" than the rest, but because as far as polymer semi-autos go, I think it's the nicest looking of the bunch. BTW my tastes of good looking guns really differ from most. I like the way Glocks look. I like the way a beat to hell AK looks. I like the way cheap stamped steel SMGs look. I like guns that look utilitarian and mechanical. I don't like modern guns, especially modern shotguns because they look like appliances, not guns. With all the curvy plastic and weird shapes. Too Euro-trash for me. I need my guns to look like machines not iPhones.

November 25, 2013, 12:08 PM	#87
Nickel Plated Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2010 Location: Brooklyn, NYC Posts: 610	yea, if you didn't have to pay $200 on top of the price, wait a year and have it registered with the ATF

November 25, 2013, 12:14 PM	#88
Tactical Jackalope Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2010 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 6,429	Here you go 1911 guys!

November 26, 2013, 10:30 AM	#89
Shooter_Libby Junior Member Join Date: August 7, 2013 Location: Kentucky Posts: 10	I think it's fairly simple when it comes to aesthetics. Many of us want nice looking guns because we like to show them off. Many of us are collectors, and it's like taking that hot red corvette out for a spin. To some people it doesn't matter if you are driving a corvette or a prius, as long as it gets you where you need to go, and that's fine. However, if you could afford whatever car you wanted, wouldn't you get a nice looking one?

November 26, 2013, 12:11 PM	#93
dayman Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2011 Location: The Woods Posts: 1,197	For a carry gun, I really don't think it matters. I see it like any other tool. I don't shop for tools based on what they look like. I may even be slightly prejudiced against pretty tools. I always find it slightly relieving when they develop a few scuffs and dings. As long as they work when I need them to, I'd just as soon not "notice" them. For a range/collection gun, I'm more concerned about looks. __________________ si vis pacem para bellum

November 26, 2013, 03:17 PM	#94
Dragline45 Senior Member Join Date: November 30, 2010 Posts: 3,513	If gun's are tools, then so is every other item you own that serves a specific purpose. If I can get a good looking gun that performs well, I will get that over an ugly looking gun that performs well, even if I have to pay more for it. Life is too short to own ugly guns when there are so many good looking quality guns out there.

November 26, 2013, 03:18 PM	#95
Dragline45 Senior Member Join Date: November 30, 2010 Posts: 3,513	If gun's are tools, then so is every other item you own that serves a specific purpose. If I can get a good looking gun that performs well, I will get that over an ugly looking gun that performs well, even if I have to pay more for it. Life is too short to own ugly guns when there are so many good looking quality guns out there. Gun companies would not put so much time and money into the looks of their guns if appearance didn't matter to the majority of gun buyers out there. I would argue that as much time is spent on the aesthetic aspects of the gun as the engineering. Human being's are visual creatures, to most people, look's do matter, from men and women, to cars, to guns, to clothes, and just about everything else out there.

November 26, 2013, 07:32 PM	#98
Nickel Plated Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2010 Location: Brooklyn, NYC Posts: 610	Every time you see a forum post about "They don't make them like they used to" it just proves that looks do matter to many gun owners. Look at the Remington 870. Most will tell you to get a used or atleast new Wingmaster over an Express. better finish, better fit, pretty bluing and polished walnut. Apparently that makes the Wingmaster better in people's eyes despite those all being purely cosmetic. The Express is the exact same shotgun functionally at half the price. Who cares if the stock doesn't fit with the receiver as precisely? As long as it doesn't snap in half, then that's all that matters right? Apparently not. To many shooters, guns are not just tools. Even everyday utility guns should atlest be pleasing to look at. I mean, statistically you probably look at your guns more than you actually use them so might as well get something that looks nice.

November 27, 2013, 10:46 AM	#100
NoirFan Member Join Date: July 25, 2006 Posts: 97	The probability that I'll ever pull a gun to defend against an attacker – very low, approaching zero The probability that I'll need to shoot an animal, purely for survival purposes – even lower The probability that I'll have to look at that gun every single day that I own it – 100% So we see that for the functions my guns will realistically perform (sitting around looking cool, blasting paper and showing off at the range, very slim chance of "serious" use), looking good is not an option. It's a downright necessity.