TexasCHLforum.com

How important is the look of a firearm to you? I won't buy a handgun that does not appeal to me in its appearance. A weapon should feel good in hand as far as fit, but it has to look good to me as well.

On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the highest value, where are looks in your initial considerations?

For me....it depends. It depends on what I'm going to use it for. If it's a carry or a problem arises gun then I could care less what it looks like as I'm concerned with reliability and function (i.e. Glock). Otherwise, I'm extremely picky with appearance.

For a CCW the only factor is that when I pull the trigger it goes BANG! If I am purchasing a BBQ gun, then yes, looks are important. Is there any such thing as an ugly gun? They are all pretty in my eyes. The only UGLY gun is one that doesn't work when/how, it is supposed to.

cougartex wrote:On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the highest value, where are looks in your initial considerations?

For my purposes right now, looks ranks 0 on a 1-5 scale for handguns. I couldn't care less (thus I own a lot of Glocks ). The gun must be concealed anyway, so who cares what it looks like, as long as it is 1. Reliable. 2. Reliable. 3. Reliable 4. Shoots well 5. Reliable. At this point, I have no need whatsoever for a "Barbecue gun" because I wouldn't be able to show it off at a barbecue anyway.

Now, if we ever get Open Carry rights in this state, then certainly a gorgeous shiny 1911 would be a likely purchase, with an equally stunning Tucker Gunleather holster/belt rig. I'd wear it to weddings and big events with my black suit, cowboy boots, and a big belt buckle.

Until then, no one knows just how ugly my Glocks are because they're concealed anyway. So who cares what it looks like?

i dont care how great or whatever it is. if its ugly forget it.

My wife says looks are important...I plead the 5th

Ignoring that the primary is a beautiful Kimber that I am Gollumlike in protectiveness, looks are not relevant to me. Functionality is. I know its heresy but absent the usual 911/double stack 9mm difference, most pistols look relatively similar to me (yea thats why I occasionally open up the Sig Sauer site to drool over the X-Five...)

To me a beautiful gun is a work of art, so I certainly strive to have a few in the collection. The gun I carry with me everyday in my waistband or truck is a tool and it needs to function reliably above all else. I am one of those who will actually hesitate to use a really beautiful gun for CC. I don't like the idea of all the wear and tear on the finish. I am currently carrying an H&K USP .40 and while it has it's own beauty, is obviously is not a BBQ gun. For me an H&K or a Glock is a good carry piece. Haul it around with you 24/7 and after a few years when you start to see some holster wear, it is no big deal cuz it wasn't that pretty to begin with
(sorta like me come to think of it )

I don't buy any firearm to just look at and not use. Therefore reliability is my main concern. That is why I carry my Kimber Ecllipse Pro Target II with Raasco grips. It will get wear marks on it but that does not hurt its function in any way. I carry a $2200 rifle in the truck and it definitely has wear marks and dings but they don't hurt its functionality. I am not looking for resale value, I just want reliability. Come to think of it those Glocks are a little ugly.

For a carry gun, zero.
But I have a lot of safe queens that are pleasurable to cast an eye upon

To me it depends on it's primary use. I love a beautiful 1911 but if it's a dedicated CCW weapon, I'll take function over looks any day.

My primary carry is a Kimber Pro CDP that looks really nice but mostly is very accurate and has never jammed. I have lots of pretty, shiny 1911's but some of them are not reliable enough for me to carry. If I have to go to bad parts of town at night (work related) I do carry a Kimber BP Ten hicap .45. It is ugly but reliable and twice the firepower. I would rate looks second to reliability but wont carry an ugly (to me) gun (Glocks, HiPoint, revolver to name a few).

It's a female thing.

cougartex wrote:How important is the look of a firearm to you? I won't buy a handgun that does not appeal to me in its appearance. A weapon should feel good in hand as far as fit, but it has to look good to me as well.

On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the highest value, where are looks in your initial considerations?

A well designed and built firearm has a certain inherent beauty.

My carry guns are tools. They also appeal to me on some level other than purely as a tool. Therefore, I care how they look. But I don't need a gun to have fancy engraving and exotic wood grips and stuff like that. I can understand the attractiveness of those things to others, but they just don't matter to me. My personal tastes tend toward the "tacticool" because I like things that look like they will do what they were intended for... ...sort of a form=function thing. For instance, I recently added a set of MAGRIPS to my 5" Springfield, and they look pretty cool, but they also add to the pistol's functionality by adding a mag-well, a checkered mainspring housing, grippier grip panels, and making it easier to accommodate 8 round magazines with base pads rather than the flat bottomed 7 round mags that came with the pistol.

The flip side of that is that I despise things that are gussied up to look like something they have no hope of being — like rice rocket cars with all the ground effects body panels and a loud exhaust can, but no motor or suspension to back it up with. I like the look of a heavy barreled bolt rifle, but if it won't shoot, then it's as useless as... well, something useless. I would rather have a light barreled rifle that shoots sub .5 MOA than a heavy barreled rifle that shoots 1.25 MOA.

Like WildBill said:

A well designed and built firearm has a certain inherent beauty.