Just my opinion...

SaxonPig

New member
There is function, and there is beauty. Sometimes they coexist, sometimes they don't.

Beauty is subjective. Each person has his own idea of what is attractive. Some guys love a nickel plated handgun (count me in) while others can't stand the shiny guns. Some shooters love the look of modern tactical pistols made of synthetic materials, but others may gag at the sight of such guns. Some men actually prefer the look of the plain, working man's Model 28 to the more deluxe, high end Model 27. I have never understood such thinking but there you go.

I have very definite tastes in handguns and I admit that perhaps I put too much stock in the aesthetics. I like pretty guns and tend to disdain those that don't visually appeal to me. However, I do appreciate a gun that is functional, that serves a specific purpose, and is designed to accomplish its mission without regards to outward appearances.

For example, I hate the look of stainless. To me, the dull finish on a stainless handgun looks cheap, almost like plastic. But I readily admit to its advantage on a working gun as it resists wear and corrosion much better than do blued or nickel guns. Plastic on a handgun is nearly an abomination in my mind as I find them incredibly ugly. But again, as a service pistol the practicality of a plastic frame is hard to deny.

So, my three most commonly used self-defense handguns are a S&W Model 659, a 2" S&W Model 64 and a Taurus TCP. The fact that both of the S&Ws are ex-cop guns showing a lot of wear from carry and use doesn't improve their looks, any. I confess that at some point I couldn't stand the look of the 659 and the 64 any longer and polished them shiny. Now they almost look nickel plated. The plastic TCP can't be fixed. It is modern, mass produced ugly down to the bone. But since it's my deep concealment piece, I don't have to look at it very often and any other man who sees it will likely be blinded by the muzzle flash and will be unable to get a good look at it.

My pretty guns go to the range, and into the field. My ugly guns go to work...and maybe that makes them beautiful.


standard.jpg



standard.jpg



standard.jpg
 
Not just your opinion!

I agree completely. My pocket gun is an LCP. My IWB gun is a Kahr CW9. And my nightstand gun is the FNS-40. I find none of these to be visually appealing but they serve the purpose. The nightstand gun could and may be a replaced with a pretty gun since it doesn't get exposed to much abuse.
 
S.P. like you I'm not wild about stainless handguns, but they do serve their purpose. Unlike you I like all my revolvers to look their best, but not so nice they are to nice to shoot and carry from time to time.
 
SaxonPig said:
My pretty guns go to the range, and into the field. My ugly guns go to work...and maybe that makes them beautiful.

That Taurus is an ugly little spud. The Smiths look OK to me. Especially the 64 snub.
 
I agree, function and aesthetics are important to me. For example, I think your 659 and 64 are perfectly fine choices and I would love to have either, except the 659 has that horrible hooked trigger guard and the 64 needs a Tyler T grip.
 
I decided to work a "pretty" gun into the carry rotation. It's a Sig P938 SAS, and while it is a mass produced gun, it is still a good looking little bugger. It will share pocket time with a S&W 642 and an LCP and be the better looking gun by far.
 
I despite the T-grips. Tried them on several different Colt and S&W revolvers and hated each worse than the last.

I agree the squared trigger guard is an abomination. Makes me really not care too much if the gun is lost or stolen as a result of being carried.
 
@SaxonPig:

Thank you for your treatise regarding your opinion. All of us here have our own ideas of what constitutes a "good gun" and a "handsome gun." Often times, more often than not, these views are in opposition of someone else's.

I'll not quibble nor argue with yours. Just say thanks for putting your thoughts into words.

Bob Wright
 
Back
Top