Well, for me cost is the first consideration. I live in New Zealand and really wanted a AR15. I bought a 12.5" NEA (used, good condition). What sold me the NEA over the slightly more expensive Norinco was the forend. And I gambled that I would like a higher quality AR ( cue NEA haters, all 2 of 'em!), used AR over a new, but ugly but functional AR. Summary, function is critical, cost is the first consideration and form is something you can do with a file, spray paint can and aftermarket mods. My NEA is MOA with both 55gr and 69gr factory ammo. So far, the local rabbits and hares are very unhappy with my purchase.
In choosing a rifle, which is more important to you, form or function?
- Thread starter geologist
- Start date
There's such a thing as functional beauty. We love the way it looks BECAUSE we admire its function.
For example: think about a fighter jet. We love how it looks, and yet I assure you, not a cent was spent on its appearance - all the cost went to function. So how is it then that an object created with no mind on aesthetic is still so aesthetically appealing?
There are many examples of humans liking the looks of "ugly" things because of a deep admiration for its function. There are also examples of people loving "ugly" people because of a deep admiration for the person's quality.
A good example to me is the Buick Grand National. Man, what a monstrosity. And yet, I admire its qualities so it does look kinda good looking just because of that.
Of more relevance is the Glock. I assure you - no-one would buy it if it was a turd. I mean would you look at it? And yet... so many millions of people (including me) love it, because it is NOT a turd! Its brutally superior function dictates its own attractiveness.
For example: think about a fighter jet. We love how it looks, and yet I assure you, not a cent was spent on its appearance - all the cost went to function. So how is it then that an object created with no mind on aesthetic is still so aesthetically appealing?
There are many examples of humans liking the looks of "ugly" things because of a deep admiration for its function. There are also examples of people loving "ugly" people because of a deep admiration for the person's quality.
A good example to me is the Buick Grand National. Man, what a monstrosity. And yet, I admire its qualities so it does look kinda good looking just because of that.
Of more relevance is the Glock. I assure you - no-one would buy it if it was a turd. I mean would you look at it? And yet... so many millions of people (including me) love it, because it is NOT a turd! Its brutally superior function dictates its own attractiveness.
Function IS beauty. I have some really bad looking guns that are great shooters. If it isn't reliable and functional then it's useless, and if it's useless there's no point in wasting time on it. The same holds true for almost everything in life - guns, girlfriends, pickup trucks, or your buddies. Choose well and life gets easie; choose them based on looks alone and you'll probably regret it.
Eye candy is how advertisers sell useless #### to clueless people.
Eye candy is how advertisers sell useless #### to clueless people.
Last edited:
I'll chime in...
Function.
But i like to start with a dependable rifle and make it a little ###ier if i can, usually with ergonomics in mind.
Some people look at firearms in the same way that others look at hotrods or bikes, and i have to respect that they appreciate them as a form of art.
There is no shame in buying a rifle for its looks, but just remember to keep a reliable one around as well.
Function.
But i like to start with a dependable rifle and make it a little ###ier if i can, usually with ergonomics in mind.
Some people look at firearms in the same way that others look at hotrods or bikes, and i have to respect that they appreciate them as a form of art.
There is no shame in buying a rifle for its looks, but just remember to keep a reliable one around as well.
boss351cleveland
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Down by the river
Im a function guy but say a rifle like the Benelli MR1 my friend has one , it shoots extremely tight groups, good quality , seems a bit more accurate than my Swiss Arms or entry level AR , its super reliable , takes AR mags.. Whats not to like? .. But OMG that damn thing is so ugly i could not spend my money on it lol.
.Doc Rainbow
CGN Regular
- Location
- Beautiful B.C.
That is a fascinating question and hard to answer and individualizes with each firearm. Have to go with function as I like a gun that shoots straight (where I point it) , every time and will eat whatever I feed it and will keep shooting straight as long as I keep shooting it and won't jam or blow up. Doesn't have to be the fastest or shiniest . I like old stainless Ruger Bisley Vaqueros, Colt SAA's (preferably with a Smith and Wesson barrel and a nice wood grip) and octagonal Browning or Winchester ( ie Miroku ) deluxe leverguns ( BL22's and 1892's) preferably takedowns. I think they are beautiful.
Doc Rainbow
CGN Regular
- Location
- Beautiful B.C.
And sorry , thought about it so long I forgot originally was about rifles.
Like anything, aesthetic influences the forming of conception concerning the functionality of an item. An item that is not aesthetic pleasing is at a disadvantage to convey its functionality.
Case in point, too many times people complain the "fit and finish", that has nothing to do with the functionality technically. On the other hand, the "fit and finish" does provide come clues as to how much details and attention are given to the design and production of a product. One can confer that lousiness in paying attention to form and finish means the same lousiness in the design of functionality. It is not always true, but for consumer products this is the message you are sending to your customers whether it is true or not.
Case in point, too many times people complain the "fit and finish", that has nothing to do with the functionality technically. On the other hand, the "fit and finish" does provide come clues as to how much details and attention are given to the design and production of a product. One can confer that lousiness in paying attention to form and finish means the same lousiness in the design of functionality. It is not always true, but for consumer products this is the message you are sending to your customers whether it is true or not.
^this
If everyone says form over function then we have lots of liars on cgn LOL. All you have to do is check any "Post your sks BUILD pictures" thread. Those abortions sometimes defeat all functionality the rifle ever had LOL
NOTE multiple LOL's and smiley added to avoid flaming from heavily modified tactical sks owners
1. remove bayonet and add tactical bipod to enhance accuracy for those long range shots out to 150 yards
2. add tactical muzzle device to increase length, create more muzzle blast and tame massive 7.62x39 recoil and muzzle flip
3. add scope to raise cheek weld by 8 inches, ensure "zero" is lost every time the rifle is cleaned and increase accuracy out to 150 yards on this precision sks
4. add ar style butt stock to increase ergonomics and ensure good "neck" weld on every shot, will also allow you shorten her right up for CQB style gun fights
5. add tactical fore grip, again to enhance CQB gunfights.
LOL Nailed it! Finally someone that gets it! Lights on weapons are okay. Lasers are only acceptable if you use it with NVGs. Foregrips... most serve a purpose but I see too many added for the wrong reasons. $200 optics on a $2000 firearm is unacceptable under any circumstance. I'm an opinionated gun snob, deal with it.
I would make my firearms "uglier" in trade of enhanced reliability. However, that increased reliability would make the "ugly" rifle more attractive to me. End rant.
TheHowitzer
Member
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
Could not have said it better myself. But a rifle that functions and looks schmexy, that's a bonus.
Side note about a snazzy looking handgun, I am sure I will get some mixed feedback when I post a picture of my 1911 I'm getting nickel plated
