dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
I loved mine, but she was turning into a safe queen... so I gave her to a good home. No regrets, either.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
The question must be asked...
- Thread starter Moderator
- Start date
I loved mine, but she was turning into a safe queen... so I gave her to a good home. No regrets, either.
W
wolf223
+1 the 1911 is a sexy platform IMO.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
"Does this gun make me look fat?"
That said, I have to agree, there are a lot of ugly guns out there... I think its the market searching for the next 1911, 92, Sig, Desert eagle, etc...
They are always trying to appeal to people beyond the basic function and specs because well, people are idiots and they like to look cool when the quick draw on the mirror
this is why I like Glocks. SimpleStupid... no-frills design. it's a gun, NOT a purse.
but the M&P looks better to me and maintains the "all business" appeal. I wish I didn't live in MA though.
Aside from my P90 I'd say that my S+W 22A is kind of ugly. I have the base model and there really isn't anything spectacular looking about it but the thing performs like a champ and hasn't let me down yet. I do like my P90 quite a bit too as I consider it a very shootable gun.
I think that the ugly look of the modern gun comes (IMHO) from the lack of wooden grips. Even when I see the new S&W 1911's with plastic/rubber grip panels, I think they look ugly. There is something about the look of wood and polished steel melding together that gives me the warm fuzzies. I also think that firearms in general have become very box (think Volvo) looking, and are beginning to all look alike. It is not necessarily a bad thing as long as the classic look is still out there for those who are looking for it.
Also IMHO the most classic looking firearm for me is the S&W model 29 with either a 6 or 8 inch barrel in blued steel with wood grips.
In the immortal words of Wayne Campbell, "Oh yes, it will be mine"
Also IMHO the most classic looking firearm for me is the S&W model 29 with either a 6 or 8 inch barrel in blued steel with wood grips.
In the immortal words of Wayne Campbell, "Oh yes, it will be mine"
It's very simple.
You care correct.
Most new designs are ass-ugly
You care correct.
Most new designs are ass-ugly
I voted yes, I think they're getting uglier, but I also find them appealing, haha. I love the classic looks of my 1911, but I also <3 the lines of my G22 and M&P40.
Design seems to be catering more toward function than form, which in the case of a potential life saving device, I think is a good thing; and I've always found beauty in well thought out and executed function.
Design seems to be catering more toward function than form, which in the case of a potential life saving device, I think is a good thing; and I've always found beauty in well thought out and executed function.
I like the lines of the new Ruger as well as the P345. My favorites in terms of appearance are the S&W39 and the Browning Hi-Power and all the 3rd Gen S&W's.
I agree guns are getting uglier.
Mark L.
I agree guns are getting uglier.
Mark L.
I know we probably wont see it anytime soon, but the M9's need an update.. maybe to an M&P9
I think the american military would have been better served if it just stayed with the .45 but a upgraded model to stay with the changing times. The M-9 is an ok pistol. Mine always worked when I was over seas. Only draw back we had was the Army giving us non Itailian mags the springs sucked in those things. I personally like a 9MM high cap, accurate, low recoil for a fast follow up. But its just not a good round when using ball ammo thats all.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
I agree. The 1911, Luger, PPK, S&W 50's-70's revolvers, S&W "classic" auto pistols, Colt .380, Ruger MKII, all are nice looking. The Bauser Broomhandle, Nagant are some of the old ugly ones. Most new plastic guns are not so attractive, which is surprising, because they are easier to mold. The Ruger 345 isn't bad, nor is the Kahr, Rohrbach, and even NAA Guardians.
Let's not forget rifles. The Remington 742 with basket weave, white line and black cap, nice finish can't be beat. Except by the Mausers, the CZ's. The Thompson Classic .22 is a REAL nice looking rifle. The Marlin lever actions aren't bad, though Marlin bolt action .22's look cheap. With some nicer finishing, the very rough NEF/H&R's could look real nice, but it would add to the price. Heck, with a $100 more in detail work at the factory, these things could really crank it up a notch and undercut the Ruger No. 1, which is ANOTHER good looking gun I forgot about.
I think of some of the new "light weight" plastic guns, then think of the old heavy steel ones, and wonder why they don't strike a balance and use alloy, allowing for a thinner gun at the same time.
Edit: Is that Ruger Hunter the MkII or the MkIII.
Another edit to add this photo from January acquistions thread (not mine):
Let's not forget rifles. The Remington 742 with basket weave, white line and black cap, nice finish can't be beat. Except by the Mausers, the CZ's. The Thompson Classic .22 is a REAL nice looking rifle. The Marlin lever actions aren't bad, though Marlin bolt action .22's look cheap. With some nicer finishing, the very rough NEF/H&R's could look real nice, but it would add to the price. Heck, with a $100 more in detail work at the factory, these things could really crank it up a notch and undercut the Ruger No. 1, which is ANOTHER good looking gun I forgot about.
I think of some of the new "light weight" plastic guns, then think of the old heavy steel ones, and wonder why they don't strike a balance and use alloy, allowing for a thinner gun at the same time.
Edit: Is that Ruger Hunter the MkII or the MkIII.
Another edit to add this photo from January acquistions thread (not mine):
Last edited:
Cost. Alloys are expensive
EDIT: meaning not only for the raw material but for the machining etc. Plastic you just mold. Bigger investment up front but once you've done that your labor costs go way down.
If you're referring to the picture I posted, it's a 22/45 Hunter. I *think* that makes it a Mk III by default but sometimes Ruger doesn't refer to them that way. Regardless, it's a current model.
I think this is the only one I would prefer over my Anniversary model.
The original MkI was real nice looking, but the improvements made since make it not as desirable. I think the Anniversary model was the closest they could get with the modern stuff included. I think the /45 designation just changes the grip angle and magazine and magazine release with internal parts and functions remaining the same. I like the sights and the stainless and the fluted barrel.
I think this is the only one I would prefer over my Anniversary model.
The original MkI was real nice looking, but the improvements made since make it not as desirable. I think the Anniversary model was the closest they could get with the modern stuff included. I think the /45 designation just changes the grip angle and magazine and magazine release with internal parts and functions remaining the same. I like the sights and the stainless and the fluted barrel.
The 22/45, as you say, is really just a different grip frame which is supposed to approximate the angle and control layout of a 1911. I think you can interchange the upper/barrel and bolt with a regular MkIII but I'm not positive of that.
I bought it because I thought it looked cool.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
