Posted: 3/21/2007 11:31:10 PM EDT
|
Not that this observation is lost to everybody else, but I have never seen it discussed as its own topic, so I thought I'd bring it up. I think of the 1911 design that is practically 100 years old, but is timeless in terms of aesthetics, or perhaps the sleekness of a Colt Python, which has been around half as long. then I think of the Glock, The XD, the new Walther PPS, and Gaston Glock's new abortion, created for the Saudis IIRC. These pistols all share some common characteristics. Namely, they are modern designs, they are polymer framed, and they work rather well. But the one shared characteristic is that they are uglier and uglier each year. Granted, I believe that form should follow function, but seriously, is it that hard to make a modern pistol that doesn't rival Bea Arthur's dick in ugliness? I mean it's polymer, and can take on any shape they like. Maybe people thought the same of the AR when this radical design came out, but Glocks have been around 20 years, and they haven't gotten less ugly to me (well, maybe by comparison to some of these new creations). Anybody else agree/disagree/have any thoughts on the matter? |
I disagree. Although I don't like Glocks, I think they look badass. I also like the way XD's look. As fas as the polymer pistols looking like a dick, I wouldn't mind having a dick that looked like a gun! I would be sporting some hollow point sperms!  I do agree that the Glock's Saudi (IIRC) pistol is ugly. |
|
I like the clean, rakish lines of the Glock. I wouldn't call them "beautiful", but I would call them "sleek" and "aggressive". The USPs and Walther P99s are quite handsome, IMO, as well. The XD's aren't "pretty", but again, at least with the 5" barrel, they do look "badass". The CZ-75 and clones are "old school 1911 pretty", IMO. |
|
It seems Beretta is the only company that tries to give its ploymer handguns some eye-pleasing lines. Their 9000 is a good case in point. Good looking pistol that proves polymer =\= blocky. The Px4 doesn't look too bad, either. But I am with you. Nothing says bad-ass louder than a 6" S&W Model 29. 
|
|
Yeah, think of a BHP or a PPK and how sleek they look versus most of the newer stuff. The Luger and P1/P38 are classical in appearance too. Most the new stuff looks about the same to me but then again maybe it is just me. I am one of those guys who believes it is the shooter and not the gun that makes the difference and in my opinion an well trained and confident geezer with a old SAA could easily outshoot any urban ninja with the latest highspeed-lowdrag gear. Accordingly I practice alot and use what I like and at the moment my favorites are my BHP for serious carry and my P3AT for constant carry. (I know the P3AT isn't pretty but damn, it is so light and easy to pack everywhere.... ) |
....................
|
From Frank Lloyd Wright: “Form follows function – that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union”. It is the form part you are debating and well, now it's coming down to a personal like or dislike. I believe both styles are fine. I chose poly...It is fine to argue but better to be smart enough to see both sides of the argument. |
|
I can see your point. I have always thought that the 1911 was the most aesthetically pleasing gun ever made and polymer guns looked gross...until: http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/227L.jpg I'm not saying my opinion is more valid than anyone elses, but I am a professional artist who spends all day working on aesthetics of commercial objects, and paintings, and my degree is in fine art; so i dont know much about the engineering or science of firearms but I will say that is is as good as it gets for me as far as looks can go...I had to go buy one after I saw it. That being said im still saving up for a 1911. |
 i have to agree, 1911s are a timeless beauty...glocks are just plain ugly |
| I think the Ruger Super Redhawk is far better looking than any auto pistol, even (gasp) the 1911. But would I carry one because it is the big sexy??? No, I prefer a Glock or XD. Actually the automatic pistol I think is the best looking is the G34/35 platform. Stone cold, all business, bullet hoses. I am not a pimp. Repeat after me, "I am not a pimp." |
Dealers tell me they can't hardly give them away, much less sell them............ 
|
Because if you can have form and function, why not? Function comes first, but I see no reason why both can't be had..... |
Form is in the eye of the beholder even moreso than function. For me, the G34/35 platform is the embodiment of form and with all the function you could ask of a $600 handgun. Comparing it with a 1911 is like comparing a new Corvette with a '55 that has been beautifully restored. Both are nice to look at, but the Corvette is sleeker and leaves little to be desired, FOR ME, in the '55. |
|
Quoted: Made and designed in the past decade: i173.photobucket.com/albums/w66/Mateba_357/Mateba_01.jpg i173.photobucket.com/albums/w66/Mateba_357/Mateba_02.jpg I do think its a interesting design. Semi auto revolver, who woulda thunk it. O yeah the Italians. Ever shoot one? How was it? |
agreed 100%. If Glock is that gun that does it both then that's great! All I'm saying is that with so many choices there is probably something that fulfills good form and function, that may be Glocks for some folks, 1911s for others, Hks whatever.... |
Yeah, I shot that one, can't ask for a better shooter. Accurate, great trigger, reliable, and ALMOST NO recoil, even for a 357 mag. Double taps were a cinch. |
Because to me, function IS form. The more functional something is, the more beautiful I find it. And much like Kalashnikov, I also find beauty in simplicity. For example, take the Ghurka kukri. Not the most beautiful edged weapon by far. Look at the offerings of any custom knife maker and you'll find many more beautiful weapons, but very few simpler and more functional. To me, that's true beauty. Whether it's a gun or a knife, first make it simple and effective. Then, if you must, shape it, gild it, chrome it, paint it pretty colors or set jewels into it to reflect the light. But for God's sakes, leave one of the stark functional models for me. |
True! |
I understand your point, and if aesthetics do not matter at all then that's great, buy what pleases you. But I'm sure you understand that form and function are totally different things, form cannot be the same as thing as function, just because something works well does not mean it is also pleasing to the eye (although it may not matter to you, which is fine). I'm only saying that for some people, there are choices that function well as well as look nice. |
1911 has been around for what, almost a century? but everytime I see people bought a new 1911, there's always something wrong with. Look how many posts of problems in 1911 forums. Look how many posts of problems in Glock/HK/Beretta combined. There's still more problems in 1911 forums! You would think after making this stuff for about 10 decades, and lots of people are making it trying to improve it, you'd think it would get better. Well, it doesn't. This ugly gun you speak of, they're getting better and better. They operate as designed, propelling metal alloy powered by gun powder. who is the progress and congress now? |