Okay, here's a chance to participate in a thread where disagreement is both expected and encouraged.

In my opinion, for a firearm to be attractive it must have a wood stock. Even the most "tactical looking" AR's just take on a better look when they carry a wood stock. And while fancy checkering and engraving can add a nice touch, too much of it is like adding curb finders to a Lincoln. Also, I've never been found of muzzle breaks simply because they distract from the smooth lines of a fine-blued barrel. And lever guns always look better and more ready to work without a scope. Finally, I've never been a fan of stainless steel rifles. Gloss blue or matte black is the only way to go.

Wood scratches and fades. Iv always liked synthetic but just because I treat my guns like the tools they are. I do like the full dipped guns though... low maintenance no rust... just clean the action and barrel... Attractive gun to me is one that still shoots strait. Have seen plenty of sweet looking wood stocked guns though... they look great but id ruin one quick

Exactly. When I got my SBE II I wanted one with wood stock and forend but figured since I was going to be mostly duck hunting and don't baby my guns I would end up ruining it. So synthetic is what I got.

My preferences:

-for looks only, I really like the wood stocks. The gloss wood looks great! the problem is that the wood stocks are not good for hunting as they get scratched VERY easily.
-prefer synthetic for field guns
-prefer stainless steel - just looks awesome
-never had a rifle with muzzle break so I can't speak to that

Not to be overlooked, the type of sling that you choose takes away or adds a lot to the overall looks of any firearm. Simply put, it must be as tailored to the firearm as you would when choosing the attire for an attractive woman. And likewise, if the gun is ugly, a pretty sling will never cover for it.

good point.
for wood stocks, I prefer a leather sling.
for synthetic, anyone I like at the time

I like both.. I think guns, even the ugly ones, all look good in their own way. I own wood and synthetic. For field use though, you can't beat the synthetic!

edit: all the ugly ones EXCEPT the hi-points. Them things are uglier than the south end of my northbound lab.

I remember an old Browning shotgun way back there that had a green receiver. IMO, it remains one of the the most butt ugly shotguns ever made.

I like the look of synthetic and stainless, but the deep bluing on a perfect barrel, is just downright hot.

I can't get used to synthetic stocks of any kind. I realize the functionality and durability of them but to me no matter how well made or designed they immediately look cheap and crappy to me. This ranges from a "Tupperware" factory stock on a Savage to a thousand dollar McMillan on a custom build, they both look equally crappy to me. I say this while owning very high quality rifles with high end composite stock on em but they are still horrible looking. Give me deep rich blue with hand rubbed French walnut and 20+ lines per inch checkering polished bolts and very fine and small amounts of detailed engraving, that to me makes a pretty rifle. And yes I hunt a lot with a rifle of that exact description.

I'll just disagree with most of your post. There are good looking wood stock guns and there are good looking synthetic stock guns. And a wood stock on an AR is just wrong. It's an AR, not an AK. A wood stock AK does look better than a synthetic stock AK. And you mention the Lincoln like it's a good looking car to begin with. There are no current production good looking Lincolns. Adding curb feelers won't make it much worse. Stainless guns look fine to me, less maintenance is never bad in my book. But that's why there are lots of different models because we all have different tastes.

As I read this thread it is purely about aesthetics.

I don't see how anyone could/would say any synthetic rifle is more aesthetically pleasing than a beautiful wood stocked rifle.

Now, among wood-stocked rifles opinions on aesthetics are all over the board-but I prefer beautiful wood, elegant lines, and minimal "distractions".
Roy Weatherby would have disagreed with me.

Muzzle brakes are from the devil.
Battle rifles were never meant to be aesthetically pleasing-and they are not. A wood stocked AR would be silly.

Slim rifles with non-bulky looking stocks whether they be sythetic or wood, blued or stainless.

Many times there are specific lines and curves that give a firearm a distinctive and sometimes very unique look. Old Browning A-5's with a "round knob" stock is a good example of that.

The curve at the end of the forearm, like that on my new Winchester Model 70, has always appealed to me.

When the weather is nice and sunny, a wood stock and blued metal rifle is as pretty as a new gingham dress.

But when the weather gets lousy, stainless and synthetic start looking better and better.

Few people give thought to the appearance of their scope. Many people, including one of my long-time hunting partners, will build up a sporter-weight rifle and then slap a 2-lb beast of a scope with a 50-56 mm objective on top. All things being equal, a lighter, trimmer rig demands a light, trim scope (26-32mm obj). Conversely, your bull barreled varmint or LR outfit looks right at home with the big 30" tubes and 50-56+" objectives. I once read where a veteran rifleman admonished: don't mount your rifle on the scope; mount the scope on the rifle! Good advice....

.

Good post.

And scope should match the rifle, which is another reason why I'm not too fond of stainless. Not as many stainless scopes as you find in gloss blue or matte.

I always thought the lines of the 700 Mountain Rifle were about as graceful as it gets. Nicely figured walnut with understated but well executed 20-lpi checkering and a nice, deep blue finish on the metal just makes it all better. Forget the Monte Carlo stocks and the squared fore ends and gaudy polyurethane stock finishes. Top it off with a well proportioned scope in Cone-Trol rings, and you've got something I could gaze at day after day forever.

Yep RiverRider, the Mountain Rifle is my fave of the Remingtons too. I think it looks more classic than the Remnington Classic itself.

Many will swoon over the looks of the pre-64 M70. But the post-64 Featherweights trotted out by Winchester in the eighties and nineties were awful nice, at least to my eye.

And the early tang Ruger M77 rifles, especially the RL version with the trimmer forearm, looked almost custom made.

And of course, it's hard to get prettier than the Austrian Mannlicher, with its full length stock.

Never cared for a Mannlicher stock myself, but I kind of liked the opposite---the slightly shortened fore ends the old English express rifles sported.

Ditto on the Remington Classic though.

Browning double auto. The lightweight "twelvettes" had a aluminum receiver and they made them in different colors. I had one that was silver. Walnut had nice figure and it was a good looking / shooting gun. I may talk my brother back out of it one of these days.

Clean simple lines, nice wood and lack of bling make for an attractive firearm.

Anyone ever picked over one rifle or shotgun for another simply because the wood grain was better looking?

I have a couple of pretty rifles, but I have never bought a rifle solely for its looks.

Utility for the task at hand is the sole criteria. This means different things depending on the task. I get that utility makes them "beautiful" in one sense but,again, I am understanding this thread to be purely about aesthetics as one views the rifle.

I am a nut for Pre-64 Model 70s. But I would not consider them exceptionally beautiful as rifles go. In fact,IMO their distinctive hooded front sight is downright unattractive.

The most attractive rifle I currently own to look at is a beautiful Sako AV .416 Rem. Mag. I bought from JCB a year or so ago. A little Mannlicher Schoenauer 1903 carbine in 6.5x54 I have is up there. As is a beautiful original Winchester 1873 in .32-20.

The penultimate combinations of beauty and function are found in the classic English rifles and shotguns IMO. I drooled over several at the recent DCS show.

Some of the most beautiful rifles I have seen that are realistically within my price range are 1990s Sako AVs with the breathtaking wood they were using during that time. And I recently handled a Sako Safari Grade in .375 H&H that took my breath away. It took all I had to walk away without that rifle.

Guilty.

Absolutely.

As many know I'm a fan of the old Tang Safety Ruger's (hate the stock triggers)to me they have the cleanest lines out there, nice wood, deep bluing and a great feel to them. They ain't fancy just functional old meat and potato's rifles. I have several that are far nicer but nothing catches my eye like the old Tang Safety's.