StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Okay, I know this would usually be a testing thread, but due to three factors-
A: it'll have lots of pictures
B: I want it a little longer than 3 days
C:... crap! I should have said two reasons!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I digress-
what makes a gun ugly. I've noticed a lot of people say that a gun is "ugly". What makes the weapon of question ugly? what do you favor in a gun for looks (internaly too, but lets stick with looks for starters)
please include pictures!


thanks!

I couldn't describe it to you, but I know it when I see it.

Durandal wrote:I couldn't describe it to you, but I know it when I see it.

The same could be said about porn.

No, see, that can be described. Especially when there's rather obvious surgery scars.

I don't particularly like a bullpup design. They look unbalanced to me, with too much bulk on the stock (and usually blocky on the stock to).

It's like cars - attractive guns can be blocky or curvy, smooth or have bits sticking out... but some just look rubbish. That ARES folding SMG, for instance. Many Uzi-pattern SMGs look terrible, as they're clearly made of low-quality materials.

This is a question of aesthetics and personal preference, it's not something you can really put your finger on and say "that part makes a gun ugly".

Some people find the curvy guns a little off-putting and lumpen looking, while others think they're very organic and futuristic looking. Likewise some people think that huge, bulky and angular guns convey power and menace, beautiful qualities in a gun. Others think they look old fashioned that way.

What can you say, one mans meat is another mans poison.

I think plastic furniture looks like ass, wood is the way to go on a long gun. Thats why I love the FN Fal as opposed to the M16.

while I can't really describe it, if gun looks like I'd need years of training on it to hit a barn (from the inside) I generally consider it to be ugly.

Usually when I hear someone call a gun "ugly," they're talking about as aspect of the gun that makes it perform worse than another equivalant firearm. I personally don't care what a firearm looks like, as long as the damn thing performs.

Although, I will go off on a tangent for a second: My buddy bought a Kimber Eclipse .45 1911 a few years back. He was always the "Guns are built to fire, not look good" kind of guy. Well, this was a beautiful handgun (clean trigger and action, accurate, well made... and it had a nice finish). He was having some issues getting it apart, and as I've owned a 1911 for some time, he asked me to do it.

When rotating the slide pin back into place, the gun slipped a bit due to the oil, and a small (maybe a cm) scratch was put in the finish. My buddy saw and went ape-shit. Started talking about he just got the gun (a month ago) and how I hurt the resell value years down the road. He said I should pay the shipping to send it back off to Kimber to have it refinished. I told him he could blow it out his ass and not ask me to work on his guns again.

My Beretta 96 would be what I considered an "ugly" gun. Sure, it looks nice (you see them in all the Hollywood movies), but the trigger is weak, the sights are never spot on, and it has too much recoil for a weapon it's size. My Storm (both CX4 and PX4) are works of art. They function perfectly whenever I need them too.

okay. I see.


Now then, I'll contribute.

Wood: looks good occasionally. it looks alright on an AK 47/74, but it would make an m16 and all its sub classes look odd.

Synthetics: again, somtimes alright. I usually like the look.

Futuristic curves: they look good. Sure, I wouldn't want a futuristic pistol that looked like a hand drill, but they look nice on some guns.

Blocky: I like it alot on liittle guns. I prefer the looks of the Mac 10 completly over the Uzi.

things I generally don't like: American civilwar age guns. I don't like those repeaters all that much, and some of those revolvers appeal to me, but many do not. and revolving rifles? yech.


P.S. the point of this thread is to showcase option.

Let me sum it up for you.

Shiny=Good
Clean Lines=Good
Solid Looking Construction=Good
Digital Ammo Readouts!=Good!

Solid Wood anything but the Handle=Bad
Wood overlaying metal=bad
If if looks like you coud bend it in half=Bad
Blinking lights that don't acutaly do anything.

Clean lines and curves are the way to go, the less diffrent materials a gun is made out of the better. Call it four colors or less.

Let's see-
wood: Looks good on a Henry or Winchester. Looks blerg on something even remotely modern. For example the plastic stock/handguard FAL looks far better than the wood one (same goes for the G3, plus it weighs a lot less).
Bullpup: While I generally approve, some of them just look weird (TAR-21, anyone?) The AUG and FA MAS look wicked cool, though.
And where, exactly, does the Ingram M-10/11 look markedly different from the Uzi?

Guns can look good in almost any design if done properly. I love the Beretta 92 series. Very nice looking curves to it while still having an angular aspect. The Glock 22 I have is wonderful and very good looking, and yet its a block. I have a Beretta C4 Storm and I love the curves, and yet I also have an AR15 modeled on a M4 and like the angular evil feel it has.

A good looking gun has to have a good combination of traits. That said, a very functional gun can be good looking merely because its functionality gives it respect.

I love the look of an FN-SCAR. It just looks like it was made to seriously fuck people up.

um, I confess, I don't really know a lot of these guns, so, uh, pictures, please!
heres one I love,

Mauser HSC

Ask and ye shall recieve
Beretta 92
Ingram M-10
Ingram M-11
Aly's Glock 22
The FN FAL (plastic stock/handguard version by the look of it)
The rifle I was actually thinking of when I maligned the TAR-21
The AUG
The FA MAS
Incidentally, that site isn't half bad when you want to find out about firearms.
And what in Valen's name is a FN SCAR?
EDITed to fix typing boo-boo.

It might help if you labeled them, Aly

I need to update the pictures. I have a 4x scope for the AR15 instead of a red dot. I recently swapped out the polymer stock on the Remington 870 for a skeleton side folding pistol grip stock. I also picked up a Beretta Cx4 storm and its a sweet little rifle.

If it's gun porn the kid wants; then, by golly, gun porn he will get.

This encompasses nearly all my gun collection. (Save my old .410 shotgun, which is not pictured namely because tracking down a fifty year old spring and lever in the forearm of the gun is a sonofabitch and a few bits from a hardware store and some cut up bicycle inner-tube worked wonders in fixing the gun . . . but this is gun porn, damnit.)

<Addendum:>
Oh yeah, these are thumbnails. Click to see the real pictures, damnit.
</Addendum>


EXHIBIT A: My Glock-23 (with the goofy Hogue grips removed) and my CZ-75BD, which came with grips. Both are modern handguns. Except one is a blocky polymer pistol as carried by police officers and FBI agents. The other has a more 'classic' semi-automatic look to it, and is issued to police all over the world.



EXHIBIT B: Another modern duty polymer-frame pistol. This one is a Springfield XD-45ACP. Better grip-angle than the Glock and a more ergonomic trigger. And it shoots classic .45 ACP. And it's all black, baby.



EXHIBIT C: Yes, my Glock is in this picture too. My cat, the gun-freak is also in the picture, but she was cropped out. What should be drawing your attention is the stainless-steel Taurus .357 Magnum revolver. It's a veritable monster, but it's also practically a remote-control drill-press. Point the gun somewhere, and put bullets in it. Very precisely. With big BLAMs too.



EXHIBIT D: These are my two rifles. The gray one on the bottom is a polymer stock Remington .22. It came with a 4X scope. It's semi-automatic, and the scope makes indoor range shooting a walk in the park, practically. The one with the wood stock up top is my Marlin 1894CS lever-action carbine. It fires .357 Magnum as well (up to nine in the magazine.) It's got a checkered wood stock, and I added a 3x-9x scope to it. The scope easily comes off if I want to put my aged and decrepit eyes to the test. With an 18.5" barrel, it extracts far more energy out of the .357 Magnum round than any revolver can. Ordinary 158 grain bullets will break 1800 fps. With proper ammunition the .357 Magnum becomes a force to be reckoned with by nasty (and/or tasty) things with both two and four legs.



EXHIBIT E: This is currently my favorite gun. It's an Uberti replica of the classic 1873 Colt Single-Action Army firing .45 Colt. It's got that classic grip which causes the gun to point very naturally. The hammer is contoured in such a way that it's very easy to find and cock with the thumb. That grip also causes the gun to rotate when fired, bringing it into the right position to re-cock the hammer and drop the gun back into firing position. Mind you, it is currently my favorite gun because I've very recently taken up handloading my own ammunition for it. I'll start doing the same thing for my .357 Magnum a little later.

The one and only.

Glocks are some of the ugliest pistols I have ever seen, I am not even kidding. Why they picked a goddamn Glock for the basic pistol in Half-Life is beyond me. (maybe they wanted to motivate the player to get something better?)

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they're technically very good guns, but I just think there's no style at all in a box with a handle and a trigger.

I prefer the Glock look to the Beretta, those are the ugliest looking handguns around. I know some of the stuff from the old Eastern Bloc countries look like badly made bits of plumbing, but the Beretta M92 just looks deliberately bloated and ugly. Now the Desert Eagle, that's a nice looking gun.

What makes a gun ugly? Well, I don't know, but I do know what I like, and I like the C96. It's not a pretty gun, but it's beautiful. And of course it's the DL-44, so it's got the nostalgia value going on as well.