Semi-auto handgun aesthetics

[ALR]

I was looking for a 45acp for CCW. Looked at XD and shot my SILs, fine shooter, and like the way it felt...but looked like a block.
I have 2 1911s, too long and heavy, like to shoot too, not CCW.
looked at P220 Sig, $$$.
Found a Ruger P345, not a block, poly frame, thin, decocker, +P and reloads dont void warranty, digests everything without a hiccup, and fits my $.
I got the P345 and shoots like a dream.

[KW Gary M]

Originally Posted by ALR

I was looking for a 45acp for CCW. Looked at XD and shot my SILs, fine shooter, and like the way it felt...but looked like a block.
I have 2 1911s, too long and heavy, like to shoot too, not CCW.
looked at P220 Sig, $$$.
Found a Ruger P345, not a block, poly frame, thin, decocker, +P and reloads dont void warranty, digests everything without a hiccup, and fits my $.
I got the P345 and shoots like a dream.

A great little .45 for CCW is the Kahr PM 45. I rented one in October. I'm making room in my gun case for one. I just bought my slim so it might be a while but one is in my future for sure.

[G. Green]

I gotta admit (handsome is as handsome does aside) I gotta thing for sleek guns, and holy crap we've reached a point where I consider the 1911 sleek. In 50 years our kids and grandkids will be packing guns that look like electric sanders talking about how elegant those old Glocks were.

[TACAV]

Sig P220 Equinox, Blocky, yet aesthetically pleasing. at least in my opinion.

Products & Services

[dwrestle]

Man I have never seen an ugly gun, they all look good to me.

[Mr. 22]

Originally Posted by 240 Coastal

I not buying the "I'd rather have an ugly gun that works than a pretty one that doesn't" argument. A Glock can certainly be redesigned and operate just as flawlessly, it goesn't change the mechanicals. (or maybe it does)

AND, maybe I'm old fashioned and just have an eye for the artistry of gunsmithing.

You say potato, I say potahto...
Tom

Tom -

HERE, HERE! !

Finally, someone that doesn't like the cookie-cutter pistol designers out there!
Now here's what I'm talkin' about:



Don't even get me started on the Ruger Mark's and ESPECIALLY the 10-22 POS's.

You bet... QUALITY is just going to have to make you dig deep into your pocket. You will never regret it. This is practically a daily shooter for me. I, literally have, 10's of thousands of rounds through her.

It's Pretty and it Works (damn Good!)!
Gee... - you can have both!


I have several different examples of guns that hold true to this theory. (Glocks are the anti-Christ!)

[DocAitch]

To increase the agitation further, this is all personal preference.
I personally like the looks of the Taurus 24/7, most the CZ 75 family, the S&W M+P, the Beretta 92, most of the H+Ks, and the Ruger SR 9.
I like the 1911s and the Browning High Powers also but they are a 98 year old design and a 74 year old design, respectively.
I don't care for looks of Glocks (although I enjoy shooting mine), the Springfields XDs, and the Sig Sauers.
BTW Mr 22, that is a beautiful pistol and I am very envious, but it falls into older design category, nobody can afford one when one (rarely) shows up for sale, and I could never figure out the purpose of a wood fore end on a bullseye pistol (except for pure asthetics, perhaps you could enlighten me).
DocAitch

[FortyXDM]

Originally Posted by Twitch2120

my XDm is seksee

^^^^^What this wise feller said. hahaa^^^^^^^
Actually, when I think about aesthetic gun, it is rifles or shotguns, not so much pistols or revolvers. But I do agree that the move toward the block look isn't as pleasing as some of the older slimmer auto's. But being bought for a single purpose, (HD), it really doesn't matter so much as long as it is a totally reliable piece.

(How's that for walkin the middle of the fence?)

[Mr. 22]

I see nowhere in Tom's original post where he mentions HD or CCW.

[srt 10 jimbo]

As Much as I like my Taurus, I would have to say a Glock is probobly a more relible gun. I hate the looks of a Glock and they dont fit my hand all that grat. But they do work . and they work all the time. Something that my Taurus dose too. but they have been known to produce a lemon or too. Im glad they have Improved alot over the last few years. I do have 4 of them and no Glocks. A pt 1911, pt101,pt709 and a judge.

[KW Gary M]

Originally Posted by srt 10 jimbo

As Much as I like my Taurus, I would have to say a Glock is probobly a more relible gun. I hate the looks of a Glock and they dont fit my hand all that grat. But they do work . and they work all the time. Something that my Taurus dose too. but they have been known to produce a lemon or too. Im glad they have Improved alot over the last few years. I do have 4 of them and no Glocks. A pt 1911, pt101,pt709 and a judge.

We all have opinions but I'd take a Taurus over a Glock any day.

[FortyXDM]

Originally Posted by Mr. 22

I see nowhere in Tom's original post where he mentions HD or CCW.

I think that most of the people weighing in here are talking aesthetics as they see it applying to them. Most of the 9mm, 357s, 40s and .45s see double duty for home defense use. And I didn't see anywhere in the original post any mention about .22's.

[240 Coastal]

I started this thread to talk about modern semi-auto aesthetics, not about how it is used, what caliber (beautiful piece Mr. 22), or any other characteristic beyond design.

The "block" design that's all too prevalent these days just leads me to ask "why"??? The squared edges makes the piece print more when concealing and adds bulk, but for what purpose?

Can you imagine what these designers would make a rifle look like... probably a 2x4!

Form-follows-function design always makes sence to the eye. I just don't get the "block" design unless the function is to fire it by laying it on it's side, it would be level!!!

Tom

[DaTeacha]

Pursuing the form follows function as the basis for a design analysis of the Browning Mr.22 was so kind to post a pic of, I have to admire the wood work. I had a Ruger Mark I Target with the thumbrest grip on the left side and a slight swell and finger ledge on the right side. I was doing some semi-serious target shooting at the time and appreciated the fit of the wood as it assured me that I would always have the same part of my index finger on the trigger without even thinking about it.

The grip angle on the Browning is just about perfect, as one would expect given the designer is the same as the 1911, but so is the Ruger, which mimicks the Luger P-08.

I do have to wonder about the Schnabel on the fore-end, though. Do you use a two hand hold with this gun, or it purely for show?

The vented rib looks great, but is the gun subjected to sufficient amount of rapid fire that it is needed to dissipate heat, or is it to save weight over a solid rib, or is the rib, too, just for show?

Likewise the gold plated trigger shoe. Does it serve some function other than looks? Does the plating make the gun work better or does it just help sell more guns?

Understand, I think your Browning is a great looking gun. I would take it off your hands in a minute and proudly show it off to my shooting buddies. I'm just wondering, since Frank Lloyd Wright's philosophy was brought up, which of the above features help it to better perform its intended function, which one presumes is to put the maximum number of bullets in the minimum size group at the center of the target?

My Ruger did that quite well and cost a fraction of what a Browning would have cost me at that time. I thought then and think now, that a Ruger Mark I Target with the 6 7/8" tapered barrel is a nice looking gun, looking far better than the 4 1/2" bull barrel or the standard barrel versions of the same series. When you slam the appearance of the Ruger Mark series .22s, please specify exactly which one you mean. They are not all created equal.

Incidentally, how many think the Luger is a good looking gun? The design certainly has its functional weaknesses, but the appearance and build quality were excellent.

240 Coastal, maybe the squareness allows the guns to be more effectively disguised for passing through X-ray machines and the like -- who in their right mind would think something that looks like that is a real gun?

[dwrestle]

I have never been a big fan of those .22 pistols that look like ugly Lugers, but I love the look of the Browning Buckmark I think thats what it's called, it kinda reminds me more of a P-38 than a Luger.

[big shrek]

Originally Posted by Cyrano

Nature runs to curves, not straight lines. Machinery runs to straight lines. Perhaps that's what 240 Coastal is trying to say. The new pistols work just fine, and some are more capable than their brethren designed and built in earlier years; but you aren't going to find people naming them Old Betsy or Durendal or Deer Slayer or Excalibur or Mjollnir, the way warriors and hunters of earlier generations did their weapons of choice. The new guns just ain't got the same soul the older ones do.

THIS is a Gun worthy of a Name...

Inspector Sledge Hammer's revolver

And if you know the Name of That revolver...you get an Official No-Prize
Or a wedgie...

Hrm...I feel the need to do a Sledge Hammer thread...

[Mr. 22]

Originally Posted by DaTeacha

Pursuing the form follows function as the basis for a design analysis of the Browning Mr.22 was so kind to post a pic of, I have to admire the wood work...

I do have to wonder about the Schnabel on the fore-end, though. Do you use a two hand hold with this gun, or it purely for show?

The vented rib looks great, but is the gun subjected to sufficient amount of rapid fire that it is needed to dissipate heat, or is it to save weight over a solid rib, or is the rib, too, just for show?

Likewise the gold plated trigger shoe. Does it serve some function other than looks? Does the plating make the gun work better or does it just help sell more guns?

Understand, I think your Browning is a great looking gun. I would take it off your hands in a minute and proudly show it off to my shooting buddies. I'm just wondering, since Frank Lloyd Wright's philosophy was brought up, which of the above features help it to better perform its intended function, which one presumes is to put the maximum number of bullets in the minimum size group at the center of the target?

My Ruger did that quite well and cost a fraction of what a Browning would have cost me at that time. I thought then and think now, that a Ruger Mark I Target with the 6 7/8" tapered barrel is a nice looking gun, looking far better than the 4 1/2" bull barrel or the standard barrel versions of the same series. When you slam the appearance of the Ruger Mark series .22s, please specify exactly which one you mean. They are not all created equal....

The Schnabel fore-end is actually for function! It removes to use the weights that can be used for competition shooting under the barrel. When not used it is a perfect solution to an ugly function with out it. And Man, do I think it adds!

The vent rib has a definite function as well for all of the reasons you state plus the looks. Also, that is a straight gold plated trigger... not a cheap trigger shoe. Okay... I'll give you that..., maybe that's a little pimped-up. Are there any Brownings available without a gold trigger? At the price of these originally... I don't think their marketing department was trying to break any sales records with the introduction of these pistols.

I also think the Bull Barrel has a very significant advantage as well, including the looks. That tapered barrel looks well..., gay!

I will also give you the accuracy and I will add, the reliability, of the Ruger Marks for the money. You can look down the line and 98% of the .22's will be Rugers... I just don't want a gun that 98% of the shooters all use. Mine NEVER fails to get compliments, I also have a Ruger and an AMT copy in the Bulls Eye Target Model that I would take over all the Rugers and I always get positive comments on it as well. I know it has one of those 'useless' vented ribs and bull barrels also. Damn!

Oh, also... Has anyone here ever tried to disassemble and put back together a Ruger Mark with any success with out having done it about a BILLION times? Browning - remove one screw under the fore-arm. I think I only had to do it once to get it down pat.

I have NEVER had one comment on my Ruger. Why would I? They're a dime a dozen. Sorry I'll be sure to tell you what a beautiful Ruger you have when I see you at the range, but how will I know it's you? I know... yer good looks.

FYI - For those of you who have never seen the AMT Bulls Eye Target Model...







Personal opinion... I like the AMT also! I know... the Target Stocks are not functional either - just for looks.. Bull (as in Bull Barrel)!

[oldjarhead]

Originally Posted by 240 Coastal

Why is it that so many semi-auto handguns today look like square blocks. What happened to form follows function?

I personally find them visually unpleasing and with limited character.

Thoughts???

Tom

Simple economics...they are easier and cheaper to produce.
Machining costs money and takes time.
As do others, I prefer function over looks.
What's better...a homely hooker or a frigid Barbie?

[DaTeacha]

Mr. 22 - I am correct in presuming you know there are two different tapered barrel Mark I Rugers? I agree the short tapered barrel looks a bit, shall we say, lacking, but the 6 7/8" barrel is a nice balanced design. You have a point about reassembling the things. That's kind of characteristic of all Ruger semi-autos. You need to orient the gun just so to enable gravity to help you align the parts. If you don't do it the way the book says, you'll be working at it for a while. But, that's just a matter of reading the instructions and following them.

Keep in mind the Ruger was originally designed to be mass produced with minimal cost. The first ones retailed for about $48, I believe. My first one cost about $70 in the early '70s if I remember right. I found a NIB example just like it with both boxes about a year ago for $325 that now resides in my safe.

Your Browning is a very nice example of the skills of the craftsmen who assembled it, but the Ruger is an excellent example of brilliant design with modern production methods in mind. The Target series of the Mark I is a variation on the basic design with different barrel, sights, trigger, and grips that improved it for a specific purpose, made it highly competitive with far more costly items like your Browning, and didn't put it into the price category that might keep some folks from getting more involved in shooting. It helps to promote our sport, and viewed from that perspective, it's the most beautiful target gun ever made.

But I'd still take your Browning off your hands if you want to get rid of it.

[Deep13]

While I agree that form must follow function, I still think a Hi-Power or most Sigs look a lot better than many polymer pistols. That has nothing to do with the gun's usefulness, of course, but I still think it's true.