The ugliness of the Glock is one of its biggest assets, IMHO. I transitioned from a SIG to Glocks, and the Glock does not need to be babied like the SIG (wiping off prints, avoiding scratches on the pretty gun etc.) With a Glock, you don't care whether it gets scuffed up, and they are so brutally tough that they never get scratched anyway. Carrying and using a "pretty" gun like a SIG makes you more conscious of the looks, and oftentimes you won't carry it the way you should because of concern for its appearance. The boxy Glock is completely utilitarian, and that is a big plus since it removes that concern for optics. You won't even notice scratches on the polymer frame, and you'd need a chisel and hammer to dent the Tenifer finish on the slide.
I for one like the looks of the Glock, but I've always been partial to sparse and boxy looks. Its simplicity and complete disregard for optical appeal makes it beautiful...like a Humvee, an Abrams or an Apache.
[This message has been edited by lendringser (edited March 24, 2000).]