Does appearance matter?
- Thread starter arizonaopa
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
larryh1108
New member
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.
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
New member
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.
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.
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
New member
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
New member
Shooter_Libby
Inactive
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
New member
Nothing to do with "affording". When my $500 Glock runs 10 times better than my $1,100 Colt...It's what matters more.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
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?
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.
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
New member
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
New member
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.
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
Inactive
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
New member
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
New member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.