What makes a firearm attractive and with good looks?

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.

There's no prettier firearm than a "honey and smoke" stocked over/under with tasteful engraving. That said, I have never owned one. All of my shotguns are hunting guns and I would be eternally miserable if I scratched up a beautiful gun like that so both of my over/under shotguns have synthetic stocks. I am biased but the Browning Cynergy is the prettiest synthetic stocked over/under on the market. I bought a Marlin .357 carbine a few years ago and within an hour of owning it my god-son scraped it on a concrete step permanently scaring the wood stock. I figured that just meant that I didn't have to worry about scratching it because it was already done. If that had happened to a wood o/u stock I'd still be crying.

I can sure relate to that aversion to beating up a nice piece of wood. That said, I've put enough scars on rifles through careless handling and plain ol' accidents and those really suck. I think it's a little different when it happens during a hunt, but it still bugs me. On the other hand, I have rifles that acquired dings before I owned them and I don't think they're so bad (obviously---I bought the rifles!). We're humans and humans are funny critters. I will admit though, when I know I am going to use my rifle to beat my way through heavy brush I take one with a synthetic stock.

I like Browning X Bolt Medallions for pretty, I have one.

Utilitarian, Tikka T3.

One seems to shoot as well as the other. Big difference in price though.

I use the Tikkas more.

Just not into pretty guns too much. I like guns in good shape, and have refinished a few wood stocks, but I would never pay more for a pretty stock.

It's odd because the X-Bolt Medallion basically violates every rule I *think* I have for what makes a rifle aesthetically pleasing, but I like the looks of them anyway. Like I am so fond of saying: humans are funny critters.

Okay, maybe it's just me then.

Some firearms seem to take on a more attractive appearance after decades of use, than when they were new. IMO, this is especially true of military weapons. Perhaps there's just something about war licks that makes it so.

Man, you guys must be tough on your rifles...I've had my Remington 700 BDL 300 Mag for over 30 years and hunted with it for at least the first 15 years and it has one scratch on it...it looks almost new and shoots lights out.

I love beautiful walnut stock rifles! There's just something about them...they just look majestic... And I've never had a problem getting them to shoot...not the bolt actions.

Like my Winchester featherweights.....

First trip out with a browning abolt m1000 stainless eclipse I had the sling swivel break and it hit the ground flat on its side. In ETX that would've been fine, since it happened in Rocksprings it has a craters in it. Makes me sick all over again just thinking about it.

Naah, actually I agree with you. I had a trial period on the looks of the X-Bolts but then I saw the White Gold Medallion. Then I handled it. Then I shot it. Then I got it. The darned thing just shoots wonderfully. VERY smooth.

Problem is, it's almost too pretty to hunt with.

Almost.

One word: Hideous

Hey, one more reason to love east TX!
Got a ding on my Sako going under a rock overhang while chasing my ram. I actually think that one is cool just because of how it got there/memories of the hunt and all....

This is an interesting thread. I was always taught that Beauty is in eye of the beholder. Like most folks who came of age in the 1950's & 1960's, a well hand crafted firearm is what I respect most, and is usually constructed of finely polished deeply blued metal & highly figured wood with a deep rich oil finish and finely hand cut checkering.

Back when I was repping firearms in the 1980's, I was at a customer's in Enid, Oklahoma for my annual booking order of SAKO Safari grade 375H&H's and whatever else I could tempt my customer with. The customer, who also owned a small line of uniquely styled high grade producution rifles and catered exclusively to the Travelling Hunter segment of the rilfe business - this was not your local LGS schlepping Rem'Chesters, was tied up on the phone talking to a client in Europe, leaving me to wander his showroom for almost 2 hours.

After more than an hour of inspecting every last item on display, I gravitated to a particular older unique looking double rifle from a very prominent English maker, that had scars all over it from decades heavy use. The styling was not current with it small splinter forearm, folding leaf sights in meters & funny looking trigger guard with an extended finger grip holding a very plain looking double trigger setup and no recoil pad, but the craftsmanship was superb and more finely detailed than the same gun in new condition, sitting next to it.

When my customer, George Caswell at Champlin Arms, got off the phone, he asked if I was interested in purchasing the old styled early 1920's 375H&H Holland double gun, since I had shown so much interest I was in the process of indicating a solid YES, but after my surprise that I'd misread the price tag, shorting the price by a digit with my fat finger covering the bottom of the ticket, and not $3,750 but really $37,500 I begged off completely embarrassed.

The New Gun in the same model, with little or no "character & obvious history" had taken over 3 years to recieve from the initial order date and was priced at $75,000...and had no desirability to me at all even at my intial $3,750 price supposition.

Again beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the old gun's horn trigger guard and horn shadow butt plate, case hardening on the reciever, the quiet solid sounding snick on closing with the hand crafted perfect lockup etc, and reeked of the long history of being hand carried on Safari in Africa chasing Dangerous Game...and still has me by the heart....30 years later.
JMHO & YMMV
Ron

Agreed

Bought a White Gold Medallion 7 years ago.Most beautiful rifle I ve ever seen.I cant bring myself to hunt with it.I grab my synthetic stocks aand abuse them.(brush/rain/stalking)

I have to admit, if it's going to be bad weather or I know I'm going to be crawling through the thick stuff I'll take the synthetic stocked Tikkas.

M

Yes, no doubt a unique and beautiful firearm is very much like a beautiful woman. Once you get the chance to hold one in your hands, the experience stays with you forever.

Thanks for sharing.

nothing makes a firearm (rifle) look any more sexy than a Schmidt and Bender mounted on top of it...

And that's why I would never pay extra for a pretty gun. In my opinion, a gun is nothing more than a tool. A utilitarian device with a purpose. Unless I'm blessed So much that some day money is of no object to me and I can spend as much as I want when I want, I'll never own a gun I won't use. I just can't justify spending that kind of money on something that just sits in a safe. But everybody is different. It's not my thing, but I know a lot of guys who just enjoy the ownership of certain guns.

I hunt with different rifles depending on where and how I am hunting. I LOVE a deep blue and pretty wood, but when I am heading into an east texas swamp I am taking a beater gun that I will feel zero remorse if it has to serve as a tent pole, pry bar, club, or paddle - not to mention dealing with the typical briars, blackberry, locust trees, and bouncing around in a jon boat. I save the pretty rifles for sitting in a blind on farm land.

All that said, the absolute most beautiful guns to me, are those that have been handed down by my father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. The years of use and the stories my dad tells about being a kid running around in the woods with those fine men adds a patina that money can't buy.

-ww

To me, wood stock guns are blondes and synthetics are brunettes.

I love blondes, always have, but I keep dating brunettes...

Ruger Number 1s.

There is no one size fits all for me, but I know it when I see it.

From a Ferguson Breech to a stainless and dark wood gripped 1911 to
a r700 wearing a McMillan A5. I'm not sure what they have in common.

I'm guess I'll be the first to admit I prefer the look of carbon/fiberglass stocks and coated metal. I'm not into blued metal or wood stocks at all. Give me a manners or McMillan and some dark earth or od green cerakote and I'm happy.So long as it doesn't have a savage action!

A Mcmillan Swirl with the right colors
A fluted Barrel
Fluted bolt
A Kampfeld cerakote job
a good matte colored scope
and small groups

This makes a good looking gun

Man, all this discrimination! I never met a gun I didn't like.

I've bought a couple just because I liked the looks among other reasons. But I find I don't shoot them as much as the others because I don't want anything to happen to them. I just pull them out, caress them for a bit and put them back up. Stupid I know.

I've always though stainless looks fine with a black synthetic stock, and as synthetics have become more varied in color and texture I think stainless looks fine in them also. I think stainless in a fine walnut stock is just plain weird and don't care for it at all.

I have a few rifles that are blued or finished to LOOK blued, wearing black synthetics. I don't really mind that at all and they're very good rifles. I value them highly for their utility. I just don't admire them much.

Fine lines and definitions, throw in subjective taste. We all like different stuff for the same reasons or the same stuff for different reasons. Every perspective is unique.

But this...I think all of us who are normal would agree this is just plain hideous.

Yall still at this?

Go before show.

I want it to run like a Singer sewing machine, shoot bugholes, and not get me busted by a coyote.

Dang skippy.

Your ding will be memorable. Mine isn't all that memorable, just a dead axis, shot from the porch.

Mmmm...but then there's always "carry like a nice hunting rifle," JG. Go before show is a good philosophy, but what's going unrecognized is that rifles underwent evolution for centuries and became ever so gradually the Model 70 and what evolved from it afterward. Until the "tacticool" craze caught on. Some will agree with you that 14-pound rifles with giant freekin bolt handles and all kinds of stock doodads is what "go" all about...and for some purposes that may be true. For many of us, it's not..."go" is something else all together.

That's the funny thing about wood. It records history, and has done so throughout history. I guess that maybe in time we'll look at synthetic stocks and say they record history too, but only by being either still in use or in a landfill.

Call me stupid. After taking a nice buck with my new Winchester Model 70 the first season after I bought it, it pretty much stays in the safe, except for an occasional trip to the range. There are others that may never leave the safe until they're given to the kids after my death.

That is so true. And sometimes those dings and cracks become linked to family events and legends.

There's an old shotgun in my wife's family with a cracked stock. The crack came at the hands of my wife's great grandfather when he used it to kill a wolf that had attacked her great grandmother when she had gone down to a peach orchard. She survived the attack but lost a breast as a result. As the account was told through the years, he had to use the gun to beat the wolf off the poor woman since shooting it might have injured his wife even worse.

I like wood and blued metal and appreciate the patina of a well used but cared for gun. The Japanese use the term Wassabe for attractiveness or character developed thru use which describes what I like and why I tend to buy used guns. It might kill me to scratch a new gun, but adding to the wassabe of an item doesn't as long as it's expected wear.,

I like wood and blued steel. Always have.

But, I will say my accumark is dead sexy.

There are times when a synthetic rifle makes more sense than wood but for 80% of hunting a wood rifle is fine

Lightweight and balanced? You bet!

As long as nothig on it is shiny is alls I was meaning. I dont like gloss blued, or shiny stainless. Yes I need to get that fixed on a couple of my bolts.

My favorites have oil finished walnut stocks and mat blued metal finish.

Nothing fancy, that said one being that is in the works now will have a walnut stock, silver bolt handle and stainless barrel on a blued receiver, or at least that is what it will start off with, might coat it at some point and put the blued bolt handle back on it.