Square guns....?

[infernl]

This looks like **** to me too.

Agreed.

But for some reason... I want it...

[XDRoX]

aside from looks, I think your position is pretty pointless.

Well said.

Plus your tune is changing throughout this thread OP. You starting out by talking about functional issues with certain guns (which you still refuse to name).

You're now admitting it's really just a looks issue.

I cannot understand why some guns sold now have all the aesthetics of a shoe box.

I inferred this in a previous post but maybe I was too vauge.

It is my opinion that you don't like the way certain guns look and tried to turn your dislike for their looks into problems in the way they function.

You're completely wrong.

In fact, most of the aesthetic issues which you complain about are the very results of function. Which to many of us is most important in a tool designed to protect.

You need to think outside your box. Buy a few more guns. At least shoot some different ones. Your close minded opinions will change. I think you've taken the phrase "Don't judge a book by its cover" to a whole new level.

I own guns by pretty much every major manufacturer and find that I have an appreciation for all of them in some way or another.

Or prove me wrong. Show us this secret gun that actually does just a few of the things you described in your OP.

...that look like they were cut out of various pieces of square bar stock then wire brushed & assembled. The sharp edges on slide and frame or most everywhere just don't make sense to me.

...sights [especially rear] that have sharp square edges & corners throughout, instead of the mfgr. making even a basic attempt to round them off. In many cases the rear sights are also very high and wide, far more than necessary.

All those sharp square edges will be the first to wear, downgrading the finish. They won't help a bit holstering & unholstering. There's zero comfort factor. To me they just look like a cookie cutter design lacking aesthetics & ergonomics desired & necessary in a handgun.

[dls]

My XD is square, but it was only a $500 pistol brand new OTD. so that's all I really expected at that price point.

[HKMadness]

Which one?

Exactly!

[djleisure]

I'm gonna have to single-star and bail on this thread. I have no idea what the point is.

[HKMadness]

[Ubermcoupe]

Fit, form or otherwise. If you dont like it, don't buy it. All guns are unique for what the offer, I just prefer some to others as it sounds u prefer different ones. Best of luck /thread

[Tiberius]

I think it really comes down to taste and styling. Glocks are square in large part, I suspect, because at the time they came out most other guns weren't. The squareness said "new."

As for taste and styling - hey, some guys like fat chicks in bikinis too. (Maybe because they've shot themselves in the leg.)

Easy, easy, whoa, back off, jk!

[ZombieTactics]

Try one-hand manipulations, including support hand reloads, malfunction clearances, etc. on those "smooth, rounded" guns ... and then get back to me.

Form often follows function.

[elSquid]

Bring back the Vektor CP1!!!



-- Michael

[Spirit 1]

Well said.

Plus your tune is changing throughout this thread OP. You starting out by talking about functional issues with certain guns (which you still refuse to name).

You're now admitting it's really just a looks issue.

I inferred this in a previous post but maybe I was too vauge.

It is my opinion that you don't like the way certain guns look and tried to turn your dislike for their looks into problems in the way they function.

You're completely wrong.

In fact, most of the aesthetic issues which you complain about are the very results of function. Which to many of us is most important in a tool designed to protect.

You need to think outside your box. Buy a few more guns. At least shoot some different ones. Your close minded opinions will change. I think you've taken the phrase "Don't judge a book by its cover" to a whole new level.

I own guns by pretty much every major manufacturer and find that I have an appreciation for all of them in some way or another.

Or prove me wrong. Show us this secret gun that actually does just a few of the things you described in your OP.

I started out stating a personal opinion, that I think many guns are too square in shape. I haven't changed my tune at all. I said it was an aesthetics issue on one hand, and functionality on the other:

"Adding to this, sights [especially rear] that have sharp square edges & corners throughout, instead of the mfgr. making even a basic attempt to round them off. In many cases the rear sights are also very high and wide, far more than necessary.

All those sharp square edges will be the first to wear, downgrading the finish. They won't help a bit holstering & unholstering. There's zero comfort factor. To me they just look like a cookie cutter design lacking aesthetics & ergonomics desired & necessary in a handgun."

I've been an active handgun shooter for about 50 years, owned more than I can remember. I prefer guns that have design features that are attractive to the eye, as well as lending greater functionality. As specifically stated by me, there's no advantage in a square pistol at all when it comes to holstering or clearing leather. If there is, could you please describe what that advantage is?

"Or prove me wrong. Show us this secret gun that actually does just a few of the things you described in your OP"

Apparently you were insulted in some way by my opinion on square guns. Other than saying the square designs contribute nothing to holstering, unholstering, wear factors & comfort factor I didn't describe any gun doing any things.

If you like the square designs made by several manufacturers, that's your business. I don't. For the price of new handguns, I think they could give us a lot more for the buck, design wise. I can't see the need for insulting replies from what I have posted, especially when I refuse to name any particular gun for fear of offending others.

Whatever, for me it's just an observation, an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't intended as any kind of insult to anyone here, which is mostly what I got in return. I guess I'm only allowed an opinion if it agrees with y'all?

Thanks, guys, whatever you've got there, shoot it & enjoy it!

[XDRoX]

I started out stating a personal opinion, that I think many guns are too square in shape. I haven't changed my tune at all. I said it was an aesthetics issue on one hand, and functionality on the other:

"Adding to this, sights [especially rear] that have sharp square edges & corners throughout, instead of the mfgr. making even a basic attempt to round them off. In many cases the rear sights are also very high and wide, far more than necessary.

All those sharp square edges will be the first to wear, downgrading the finish. They won't help a bit holstering & unholstering. There's zero comfort factor. To me they just look like a cookie cutter design lacking aesthetics & ergonomics desired & necessary in a handgun."

I've been an active handgun shooter for about 50 years, owned more than I can remember. I prefer guns that have design features that are attractive to the eye, as well as lending greater functionality. As specifically stated by me, there's no advantage in a square pistol at all when it comes to holstering or clearing leather. If there is, could you please describe what that advantage is?

"Or prove me wrong. Show us this secret gun that actually does just a few of the things you described in your OP"

Apparently you were insulted in some way by my opinion on square guns. Other than saying the square designs contribute nothing to holstering, unholstering, wear factors & comfort factor I didn't describe any gun doing any things.

If you like the square designs made by several manufacturers, that's your business. I don't. For the price of new handguns, I think they could give us a lot more for the buck, design wise. I can't see the need for insulting replies from what I have posted, especially when I refuse to name any particular gun for fear of offending others.

Whatever, for me it's just an observation, an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't intended as any kind of insult to anyone here, which is mostly what I got in return. I guess I'm only allowed an opinion if it agrees with y'all?

Thanks, guys, whatever you've got there, shoot it & enjoy it!

My apologies sir. You've been shooting longer than I've been breathing and had I known your experience or age I wouldn't have responded the way I did.

To me your original post sounded like a 21 year old kid that just bought his first 1911 and was trying to justify his hate for square pistols.

I would however encourage you to try a square pistol. You may be surprised in the way they shoot, handle, carry.

I have three +$2k pistols in my safe. I respect my $500 square ones just as much for their simplicity, reliability, and durability.

[zfields]

This thread is a new and exciting way to bash poly guns....hurrah.

[HKMadness]

Just say glock already!!! Its ok, you are entitled to your OPINION. If some people get majorly offended or insulted by your opinion, then they have issues!! They have a right to also state that their opinion differs from yours, and we can all leave it at that. %100 of people are never gonna agree unanimously that any one particular gun or caliber is the best.

Im with xdrox in that nearly every gun make, model, and caliber has its own special something about it.

OTOH, i did see some of the hardcore glock guys go pretty ballistic (pun intended) on the last "glock exploded" thread. That thread was more about bad ammo (IMO) but because it happened in a glock and the op posted about it, some glock fanatics were ready to go to jihad as if it he had shown a picture of muhammad

[whipkiller]

My apologies sir. You've been shooting longer than I've been breathing and had I known your experience or age I wouldn't have responded the way I did.

To me your original post sounded like a 21 year old kid that just bought his first 1911 and was trying to justify his hate for square pistols.

I would however encourage you to try a square pistol. You may be surprised in the way they shoot, handle, carry.

I have three +$2k pistols in my safe. I respect my $500 square ones just as much for their simplicity, reliability, and durability.

Very classy post... +1


In the interest of keeping this rolling, I'll say it...

Glocks are Fugly!