Most of the square looking autos have double stack magazines. The magazine is thicker making the handle need to be more square to fit the mag. A 1911 isn't square looking. Most single stack magazine guns are not square looking.
I think the point 240 Coastal is making here is that compared to the prewar pistols which had curves and inlets pleasing to the eye, the current generation of pistols (call it those designed in 1990 or later) are designed with a blocky look to them. Their slides are rectangular blocks with square cutouts; their corners are not rounded. The frames don't appear ergonomic, even when they are ergonomically designed. The grips are not elegant, nor do they look like they are meant to be used by humans; they look like something a Skynet factory would produce to be used by a Cyberdyne T-101 where comfortable fit is not a consideration. The finishes tend to be flat instead of glossy or satined.
It may not make sense to you, but to me it's as if the advent of computer-controlled machinery has taken the soul out of firearms. Even the M1911A1, aka "Old Slabsides,", has rounded edges and curves to the back of the grip and the slide cutaway where the slide meets the frame. The hammer is serrated, but it's curved so when your thumb meets the hammer to pull it to full cock or to let it down, the metal and flesh blend together. The beavertail nestles into the web of your hand. The grips all have rounded edges, no matter the material and no matter the finish on them. The trigger face is scooped to fit the pad of your index finger. The front of the trigger guard is curved and smooth, not straight and checkered (which admittedly makes for a less secure two-hand grip). If you look at the .45 from the front, the shape is an oval, not a square.
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.
Gun is for shooting...I don't care if it's fugly or not as long as it does it's primary function. I appreciate pretty guns, but I would (and have) trade a pretty gun that is inaccurate for a fugly gun that shoots where I want it.
__________________ I'm here for a good time, to h*ll with the red wine, pour me some moonshine!
While they are certainly nowhere near as pleasing to the eye, as a quality 1911, square pistols have their place, especially as a CCW.
For something that's gonna hang on my hip every day, it doesn't need to be a thing of beauty, it simply needs to fire each time the trigger is pulled.
So while I wouldn't keep a Glock or XD in a showcase, I have my full confidence in them as "working guns".
Having said that, nothing comes close to a 1911 in terms of elegance, and class, it is simply one of the most endearing weapon designs in human history, and is the one by which all other semi auto handguns are judged.
__________________
NRA Life Member
God Bless the United States Military
Gun is for shooting...I don't care if it's fugly or not as long as it does it's primary function. I appreciate pretty guns, but I would (and have) trade a pretty gun that is inaccurate for a fugly gun that shoots where I want it.
+ 1 I'd rather be the living man with the ugly gun than have the best looking gun in the entire morgue.
+ 1 I'd rather be the living man with the ugly gun than have the best looking gun in the entire morgue.
When Im putting lead down range into someone whos trying to kill me, Ill care that the gun runs reliably and consistently, My eyes will be focused on my front sight not on the fine lines sexy lines of my pistol.
Function before form, for a fighting gun.
Now that isnt to say that there isnt a place for looks, but on a side note, an XD or glock looks like the tool for the task it was designed for. Defense.
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 regarding the width of the grips due to the double stack clip, it's okay that the grips are wider than the slide. The slide doen't have to be bulked up and boxy to meet the width of the grips. Of course this is just my opinion.
BUT, there may just be a design necessity in regard to the composite materials that requires these designs, if so, I'd like to know. Maybe the design is more economical in the manufacturing process which keeps the price of these pistols down.
AND, maybe I'm old fashioned and just have an eye for the artistry of gunsmithing.
You say potato, I say potahto...
Tom
Last edited by 240 Coastal; 11-18-2009 at 07:29 AM.
The 1911's are proof that you CAN have an aesthetically pleasing handgun that performs flawlessly. The Glocks are proof that a "blocky" chunk of a gun can perform flawlessly. We all have different tastes, and requirements as far as our handguns are considered. Of course, that's why there are different types and oh so many models.
I, like 240 Coastal, can appreciate the fine lines of a firearm from yesteryear.
__________________ I keep tellin ya Doc, I'm in pretty good shape considerin the shape I'm in !!
The newer guns that aren't looking like something out of Buck Rogers films are tending toward the "tactical" look. AR style rifles are far from pretty compared to most traditional sporting rifles (not military ones), but are gaining in popularity as a result of movies/TV/and guys coming out of the service who want something familiar. A spin-off is to have a handgun with the same tactical look to it. Kahr even advertises about "Why have a 'block' when you can have a Kahr?", emphasizing their more ergonomic shape.
The earlier designs, like the 1911, were pretty radical looking in the era when they first hit the market. Compare a 1911 to a revolver, especially an SA revolver, and it looks very angular and different. Look at some of the other early autoloaders compared to the wheelguns of the time.
I'm going to guess that as concealed carry becomes more and more the norm, you are going to see thinner, smoother, rounder guns that will make less of an identifiable lump under clothing. The Taurus Slim is the just the tip of what may be coming in the not too distant future.
Holsters are following the same route. It used to be that a good holster was leather, fitted to the individual model of gun. Now, they're just ballistic nylon with velcro straps and flaps. Artistry is gone in favor of low cost to manufacture, light weight, easy care, and action movie appearances.
__________________ Teach
Taxpayers voting for Obama are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.
LOL it's hard for any SA to match the looks of a revolver anyways...I will say that the 1911 is probably the nicest looking SA out there (as long as they haven't been tacticalized too badly).
__________________ I'm here for a good time, to h*ll with the red wine, pour me some moonshine!
The new Beretta's have those flowing organic lines, without looking like a laser pistol. I also like the look of the FNP guns, classic but also modern.
Don't tell anyone, but I also am partial to the Ruger P944 & P90
__________________
I take my coffee how I take my women: bitter and overbearing.
Got the Pt 709 slim for carrying, It's kinda Glockish looking except they put more angles in it so It's not so square lookin.
Compairing a Slim to a Glock? OUCH!!!!!!! If I were Taurus I would be very offended there. The Taurus is 10 times the gun Glock will ever be in my opinion.
__________________ Inferior Firepower Can Result in Death or Serious Injury.
Teach
