Tactical Jackalope
New member
They all do the same thing. If they do it equally and you get the job done properly, it doesn't matter.
When I out shoot a high dollar 1911 with my Glock 19, does it really matter?
Does appearance matter?
- Thread starter arizonaopa
- Start date
They all do the same thing. If they do it equally and you get the job done properly, it doesn't matter.
When I out shoot a high dollar 1911 with my Glock 19, does it really matter?
Maybe not when you shoot them but that 1911 is a lot nicer to look at than the Glock.
Yes I have a Glock. I finally broke down and bought a Glock about a year ago. It shoots good and is a very functional "tool", that is the only reason I bought it. It fits the bill for a particular type of competition shooting and I do not mind loaning it to the participants I coach. But it would be the first to go if I needed to get rid of something.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
I should carry a Wilson Combat 1911, maybe if I show it to the criminals they'll be stunned by it's beauty and leave me be. lol....
Seriously?
My $.02:
I prefer the good looking guns, and I like all shapes and sizes. Blued guns with wood are my favorite, but there is place for color case hardening, and stainless, and polished stainless, and nickel, and on and on.
However, I love to know and understand everything about these tools. That means I like to take them apart and work on them. So, sometimes I buy an ugly gun on purpose, knowing there is some chance I might screw it up. However, I do this so that I can get to know a piece without any chance of messing up a beauty.
Example: I bought a Kareen Hi-Power so I could get an in-depth, down and dirty knowledge of the high power without ever risking a scratch to an FN made Browning.
Example: bought a cheap and beat Iver Johnson double action revolver just to take apart and get to know the workings of the DA revolver without any risk to a "better" gun. I also thought this one would be good practice for "re-finishing" some time later.
In sum, there is a place for both types at the table in my house.
I prefer the good looking guns, and I like all shapes and sizes. Blued guns with wood are my favorite, but there is place for color case hardening, and stainless, and polished stainless, and nickel, and on and on.
However, I love to know and understand everything about these tools. That means I like to take them apart and work on them. So, sometimes I buy an ugly gun on purpose, knowing there is some chance I might screw it up. However, I do this so that I can get to know a piece without any chance of messing up a beauty.
Example: I bought a Kareen Hi-Power so I could get an in-depth, down and dirty knowledge of the high power without ever risking a scratch to an FN made Browning.
Example: bought a cheap and beat Iver Johnson double action revolver just to take apart and get to know the workings of the DA revolver without any risk to a "better" gun. I also thought this one would be good practice for "re-finishing" some time later.
In sum, there is a place for both types at the table in my house.
In memory of dad
New member
Handgun
Never thought of handguns as being pretty but a tool to defend yourself with but I also think my xd subcompact is ugly so looks are in the eye of the beholder. Long as they go bang I alright I guess
Never thought of handguns as being pretty but a tool to defend yourself with but I also think my xd subcompact is ugly so looks are in the eye of the beholder. Long as they go bang I alright I guess
Tactical Jackalope
New member
See, that's what was already established. That also goes without saying.
A "pretty" gun people are proud and to shoot at the range and carry to "shoot bad guys" as you so eloquently put it.
An "ugly" though, will deter someone from a purchase just because of appearance.
You're taking the defense of tool vs. looks to a whole new level of projecting.
For the sake of humor I won't even touch that. lol.
- Kim Kardashian?
Every gun I have (and, like most of us, I have many 
) looks good-to me, at least (and, because appearance is subjective by definition, that's the only thing that really counts). As others have said, there are way too many guns available that perform well and look good doing so, to settle for one you don't like the looks of.
Though I've always felt that when it comes to firearms, especially when accuracy and reliability are rightly prioritized, form should follow function. But there are some guns that are so ugly to my eyes (and I understand the guy next to me might fawn over the appearance of the very same gun-and neither of us would be right or wrong), that I wouldn't own it no matter how accurate or reliable it might be. If pushed to cite an example, the slightest shove would make me blurt "the Beretta NEO!"
) looks good-to me, at least (and, because appearance is subjective by definition, that's the only thing that really counts). As others have said, there are way too many guns available that perform well and look good doing so, to settle for one you don't like the looks of.Though I've always felt that when it comes to firearms, especially when accuracy and reliability are rightly prioritized, form should follow function. But there are some guns that are so ugly to my eyes (and I understand the guy next to me might fawn over the appearance of the very same gun-and neither of us would be right or wrong), that I wouldn't own it no matter how accurate or reliable it might be. If pushed to cite an example, the slightest shove would make me blurt "the Beretta NEO!"
Dragline45
New member
For those who think guns are only tools and don't care about looks, then you shouldn't care what your car looks like either. For those who use trucks for work, would you drive a pink truck with hello kitty emblems all over it. The truck is a tool, as long as it performs who cares what it looks like.
If guns are tools, so are everything else that serves a specific purpose, so that argument is moot in my opinion. If I am dropping $500-$2000 on an item, I prefer it not only perform well, but look good too.
If guns are tools, so are everything else that serves a specific purpose, so that argument is moot in my opinion. If I am dropping $500-$2000 on an item, I prefer it not only perform well, but look good too.
Last edited:
Big D said it very well.....
" Life is too short:
To shoot ugly guns;
To drink cheap wine;
To date ugly women ();
To drive boring. slow cars;
To put off until tomorrow what joy you can achieve today "
----------------
my primary carry gun is a Wilson Combat, CQB, 5", with black armor Tuff finish on it ...in .45 acp..../ and while its a utilitarian gun...I think it looks pretty good too....
http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=87077&d=1360863612
" Life is too short:
To shoot ugly guns;
To drink cheap wine;
To date ugly women ();
To drive boring. slow cars;
To put off until tomorrow what joy you can achieve today "
----------------
my primary carry gun is a Wilson Combat, CQB, 5", with black armor Tuff finish on it ...in .45 acp..../ and while its a utilitarian gun...I think it looks pretty good too....
http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=87077&d=1360863612
Tactical Jackalope
New member
lol Dragline, huge over dramatizing. But it's comical.
...
Sometimes I wish I felt that way. Then I could be happy with one Glock, XD, or Walther, none of which I personally find very visually appealing, although I believe they are good guns, and have saved a few thousand bucks. BTW, I do like the looks of the Walther PPK. I do have a Ruger LCP that I feel that way about. The weight and small size which make it so easy to conceal are the only things it has going for it, IMO. I don't care for the looks, caliber, or size when it comes to actually shooting it. It is a tool.
If an ugly gun were markedly superior in performance or other quantifiable aspects, then no, appearance wouldn't really matter.
If they are relatively comparable, then I would prefer a more asthetically pleasing design.
Beauty is subjective, of course. I'm OK with Glocks, they certainly aren't beautiful, but I don't find them ugly. More like utilitarian.
On the other hand, if a gun is TOO pretty, I'm more apt to leave it in the safe for fear of marring it.
Lastly, if all I could afford were an ugly (but reliable) gun, then looks would not matter.
If they are relatively comparable, then I would prefer a more asthetically pleasing design.
Beauty is subjective, of course. I'm OK with Glocks, they certainly aren't beautiful, but I don't find them ugly. More like utilitarian.
On the other hand, if a gun is TOO pretty, I'm more apt to leave it in the safe for fear of marring it.
Lastly, if all I could afford were an ugly (but reliable) gun, then looks would not matter.
madmo44mag
New member
I have never been one to care much about appearances just results.
I own some very nice guns and some that look like they went through a meat grinder but they all work perfectly.
With that said I do have a few that are just beautiful and I am very proud of but as my mama use to say “ beauty is only skin deep”
I own some very nice guns and some that look like they went through a meat grinder but they all work perfectly.
With that said I do have a few that are just beautiful and I am very proud of but as my mama use to say “ beauty is only skin deep”
There is something to be said for the idea that the attention given to design is one indicator of the attention given to engineering function. Cheap guns tend to look thrown together, and while not an absolute indicator of shooting quality, cheap guns, as a general rule, seem to be a bit more finicky than more expensive guns.
(and by cheap, I mean $200 or so, which is different than "bargain" Turkish or Phillipine guns which seem to be pretty good deals.)
(and by cheap, I mean $200 or so, which is different than "bargain" Turkish or Phillipine guns which seem to be pretty good deals.)
Yep, you're right, it's function over beauty every time, and to quote Townsend Whelen, "only accurate guns are interesting." But dam those Glocks are fugly...make it blued steel and walnut for me, forever....your tastes may differ! Best Regards, (and yes I do own a Glock too), Rod
Onward Allusion
New member
Appearance only matters if the firearm in question is a collectible. I have a few of those, and even then, appearance does not rate high on my criteria of collectibility.
I consider 95%+ of my guns to be tools of defense and recreation. I don't care about looks. Heck, my favorite gun is a 5946 in blacken stainless. The thing has a lot of holster wear, a few scratches, and has 3M traction tape all over it. If I posted a picture of it here, many of you would laugh. However, I shoot best with it.
The number one factor in a gun for me is reliability. I don't care if it is a 25ACP or 45ACP - when I pull the trigger it better go bang and cycle to the next round.
I consider 95%+ of my guns to be tools of defense and recreation. I don't care about looks. Heck, my favorite gun is a 5946 in blacken stainless. The thing has a lot of holster wear, a few scratches, and has 3M traction tape all over it. If I posted a picture of it here, many of you would laugh. However, I shoot best with it.
The number one factor in a gun for me is reliability. I don't care if it is a 25ACP or 45ACP - when I pull the trigger it better go bang and cycle to the next round.