The Firearms Forum banner

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Of course quality, reliability, accuracy, comfortable grip, etc are all very important when choosing a firearm. But how much weight do you put into looks? I have to admit, it's a big factor with me. I've passed on some Ruger and all Glock models because I don't like the way they look. Is that a bad thing? I still go for quality, reliability, accuracy, comfortable grip and have that in my Springfield and Smith and Wesson semiautos. I have to admit looks did factor into my decision. Does it matter to you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,066 Posts
MadTownPrepper:

When buying one of your first guns it often is price that determines the choice. But once I had a couple, the looks was the thing after the quality, fit & finish, expected reliability, and caliber. I have never bought an ugly gun or a pot metal gun or a plastic pistol. A few of my guns might be unusual in appearance but most caught my eye for their good appearance.

My collection of shooters has few repeats in caliber. I have strived to have and shoot a good cross section of all the caliber available so it has been choosing a caliber that started the gun selection process, usually. Then there are guns that just happened along, caught my eye and I bought, like my S&W Model 52 and the new 7/8 scaled Browning 1911 in 22LR as well as my Winchester pump 22 and a refinished Winchester 1892 in 357Mag (made from 32-20 barreled gun some time in the 1950's by a previous owner). Looks are important to me!

LDBennett
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
Prepper,

When the gun bug first bit me years ago it was probably "looks" that was the major determining factor in what I bought. I have always liked "bling". Almost all my "fun" guns I have purchased because their "look" was very pleasing to me. When it comes to carry/defense guns I have changed over the years and now all three of my guns in that category fall into the ugly/plastic group. My Glock 19 is butt ugly but it is light weight and I still say it is the easiest to shoot well pistol I ever picked up, but ugly it is. My Ruger LCR in .38 spl. is again light weight but it sure won't win any beauty contest. I just added a tiny Ruger LCR in .380 acp. and again an ugly/plastic gun.
But if you will look in the safe you will see the beautiful Smith revolvers and semi autos of a few years back when they made very nice looking pistols. I have a Ruger MK III Hunter and I must admit that "looks" was the only reason I got that one. I am a complete sucker when it comes to a nickle plated Smith and Wesson revolver with nice wood grips.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,971 Posts
Looks are good. I look first at cost. what I'm using it for. Than reviews of the weapon from others who bought that type of gun. Besides if I do get into something where I have to turn in my gun for evidence. I rather turn in a $300 gun vice a $1200 gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
I rate aesthetics about third overall, reliability and performance take 1st and 2nd.
My friend had a Weatherby that was simply beautiful, but couldn't hold 3" at 100 yards no matter the load. Worthless.
Kinda like a lovely wife that doesn't like you, can't cook, and is lazy. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,066 Posts
Where I am today (with many, many guns) it seems that only the $1000+ guns are interesting anymore. I seem to recoil at the cheapy guns and just love the finer guns. But I am not into custom guns, engraved, or extremely highly finished guns. The most expensive gun I have ever bought was about $1200 and I have only a couple of those. But many of the guns I bought years ago today would be in that class even though I did not pay near that for them back then. I have upper cost limits, it seems, even though I could afford a couple of the guns in the excess of $2000 class I choose to avoid them and find it hard to see the value in those at that price point and above. But we all get to choose!

LDBennett
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,299 Posts
Life's too short to shoot an ugly gun.

A Rhino, for example. Might be the best thing that has ever happened to guns. But God that thing's ugly. I won't have one.

Plastic guns are ugly. Blocky guns are ugly.

Now, some guns are so ugly they're cute. A Webley, for example. But they are "cugly" - cute ugly.

Rhinos and Glocks and Ruger centerfire semiautos and just about all HKs and ARs and... - they're fugly.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,532 Posts
I'm in the same camp as al45lc. I don't buy anything because it looks good. First thing I do is to determine what I want that caliber for. Then look at the reliability, and performance of the firearm. It does not have to be the most accurate firearm I own, it just has to do it's job when called upon. I have three of the AK style weapons, and not a single one of them will turn in groups under 3", they weren't meant to. But they shoot everytime I pull the trigger, and no malfunctions! My desire one day is to own a S&W in .44spcl, a good used one will cost me $600 - $700, but they are beautiful guns. The old Bull Dog from Charter Arms in .44spcl, that I do own, will do any thing the S&W will do, it's just no where near as purty!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
Life's too short to shoot an ugly gun.

A Rhino, for example. Might be the best thing that has ever happened to guns. But God that thing's ugly. I won't have one.

Plastic guns are ugly. Blocky guns are ugly.

Now, some guns are so ugly they're cute. A Webley, for example. But they are "cugly" - cute ugly.

Rhinos and Glocks and Ruger centerfire semiautos and just about all HKs and ARs and... - they're fugly.

:yeahthat:

Yup, it's pretty bad that my 1911 is less bulky and ugly than a Glock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,963 Posts
I've bought and have rifles, handguns and etc.. I consider price when looking and name brands that have stood the test of time.
Number 1 for me, it has to "feel" right weather it's holding in my hand or shouldered.
And if "it" isnt reasonably accurate from the factory, somethings gottta give weather I make it happen or it wont do the "trick or it's gotta go.

My carry gun, it has to feel spot on and it has to shoot equally as well...aint no exceptions and dont really care what it looks like. (plastic or metal)
Has to fit the "bill" for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,850 Posts
Over the years, I have bought some firearms "because" of their looks. Some just look good hanging on the wall.

But for shooters, I go with fit and function. If it doesn't do what I want it to do, I don't care how good it looks.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,718 Posts
For me it's:

1. Function
2. Need
3. Looks
4. Tactical considerations
5. Price

I care a lot about the looks of a firearm, although I must admit that I cannot really explain why. I suppose I'm just like that. :D But that said, the function it will provide me and the need come first. I don't buy guns "just because" because I've always looked at my guns as tools.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,041 Posts
new guns? i want them to be new looking.

nowthen.. I'ma C&R collector.. and when I'm going after a specific piece.. if the units available are scarce.. you take what you can get.

i will say that I'd prefer an un-refinished piece over one that has worn original finish..e tc. I especially despise noe or non aresenal re-painted metal.. and poly-u on stocks.

I'm also not a fan of defacing a military arm by sporterizing it.


for a shooter.. I like good intat metal and wood. can have some dings.. but i'd rather not have a boat oar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
There are some Guns out there that have that (Skank) beauty to them ,,Nagants,,CZ52s and some that Have that Marilyn Monroe Appeal, Form and Function ,,Model 29s ,,Pythons my S&W 1911,,I think my favorites are the ones I own that needed that trip to the salon to bring out their beauty
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,258 Posts
I've bought several firearms because of their aesthetics as well as function; Ruger .416 Rigby, Whitworth .375 H&H, original series (faux case hardened) Ruger .45 Colt Vaqueros, and so forth, but one of my primary interests is WW1 arms, some of which are simply gawd-awful ugly, but they still look great in their own way - sort of the Shar-Peis (ugly dogs) of the arms world I suppose. In between the ugly and beautiful are the average; WW1 Lugers & Mausers, Mosins, Enfields, Winchesters, Savage 1899s, USGIs, etc. Other firearms have been purchased primarily to fill a specific niche - HBAR, 870 Police Gun, and so forth.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,128 Posts
I own a Hi-Point.


Nuff said
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,258 Posts
:yeahthat:

Yup, it's pretty bad that my 1911 is less bulky and ugly than a Glock.
1911s are things of beauty. We have five nesting in our safe. I know there are folks who love 'em, but to me a Glock kinda looks like it sounds - GLOCK!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,428 Posts
All my guns have to look good AND be excellent with function. I agree that I do not want an ugly gun and I also stay away from polymer pistols - and pot metal. I'm just old fashioned though - I think guns should be made of metal. I don't mind composite stocks on rifles though and I don't even mind plastics on AR's or AK's. I don't consider an AK to be ugly though either. My absolute favorite is my .45 and it always will be. In the long guns I'm going to have a problem choosing between my Marlin lever action 30/30 and the .303 sporterized 1945 Enfield I just bought as my favorite.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,258 Posts
My absolute favorite is my .45 and it always will be. In the long guns I'm going to have a problem choosing between my Marlin lever action 30/30 and the .303 sporterized 1945 Enfield I just bought as my favorite.
As far as handguns go, it's my 1911 - period. My deer rifle's an Enfield .303, and my better half's is a Marlin lever action. She's an Idaho girl, by the way.
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top