Re: My guns don't need to be pretty, they just need to work
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:30 pm
To me, it depends on the gun. My 6.8 SPC AR? It looks disgusting. The hand guard is just a Hogue tube, not at all rail compatible, the scope looks very out of place, the stock is of a fixed type, the mag is metal only, and the pistol grip looks awkwardly goofy. But it works wonderfully and is incredibly ergonomic. It's my go to intermediate caliber rifle. My 1911? It functions very well. It's problem-free, and it is an amazing tack driver. It didn't come out of the box like that. It came out as a clunky, fugly looking thing that didn't shoot straight (fitment problem). As I tweaked the functionality to my liking, it also happened to start looking better and better (unlike my AR). Now it's both accurate and tactically pretty. Arisaka Type 38? It's gorgeous and has an incredible story to tell. I really don't care if it shoots well or not. That is not at all a concern. Remington Speedmaster 522? Hahaha... it's pretty ugly (it's old and beat up) and shoots a 10 MOA group on a good day, assuming it even cycles. It's not something I'm going to get rid of, though, considering it's been in my family for about 50 years now. I think that covers all the bases.
Essentially, for my intents and purposes, prettiness and functionality are two very different things in my books that may or may not overlap, depending on the purpose the particular item serves in my collection. I think most everyone here would agree on that.
Essentially, for my intents and purposes, prettiness and functionality are two very different things in my books that may or may not overlap, depending on the purpose the particular item serves in my collection. I think most everyone here would agree on that.