This is a subjective observation, but there is consensus. Seemingly.
Why?
Oh, it's blocky, and not sleek. The finish is only fancy if you do that after-market. But it's the same with plastic pistols that came later, and those are considered less ugly. Sure, maybe there is a design flourish on a M&P, say, that apparently give that one style points over the Glock. But are they really raising M&P that far above the Glock in the looks department?
Ok, let's compare it the 1911. A pistol that is considered much more attractive looking. And not a fancy one. Picture a stock 1911, parkerized, plain grips. Heck even paint those grips the same color as the rest of the pistol so it doesn't look two-tone.
And now the hard part. Set your prejudices aside. And just look at the two pistols and judge as if you have never seen them before.
I know it is difficult. The 1911 had a 60 year head start to get itself ingrained into the culture. It had to compete on looks with revolvers, but those types are much more widely different than the two semi autos in question.
Is there some Golden Mean that grants the 1911 an advantage in the styling department? Is that enough to place it head and shoulder over the Glock where most call one gun attractive and the other ugly?
(and if there is the Golden Mean cooked into 1911s... good job Browning!)
6 comments:
The golden mean isn't in the looks. It's in the way it grips and points when you are moving at speed that the genius of the design reveals itself. The 1911 is a single stack so the magazine well isn't boxy and oversized. In the design I prefer, with the straight backstrap, the angle of the magazine to the slide allows a more natural wrist position than the Glock.
Glock knew their design was not optimal, that's why they came out with a new cartridge, the .45GAP, to allow them to make a handgun with a smaller magazine well. It didn't work out, but the idea was there.
I would submit that all designs that are familiar to us are appreciated for their function and reliability. They came to be seen as attractive over time because of that. Hand tools, dashboard layouts, aircraft designs, everything is judged by how well it fits the humans that will use it.
Well, the Glock line does look German. Alright, Austrian, it's right by there.
That Glock would look about 42% better without the finger grooves on the front strap. heh
I like the look of the Gen 5 Glocks that don't have the cutout at the front of the grip. Reminds me of the plain black suit look, no excess crap or decoration.
The balance. Look at the Glock hinder end. It's a fat block of stuff. On the 1911, you've got the hammer, the grip safety, all sorts of exciting stuff going on there. You've got action, you've got information, you've got movement. A Glock is like looking at a Kardashian ass. Large, fat, and doesn't move right.
I agree with BC - - the finger grooves are a major hit to the Glock's aesthetic appeal.
"Glock knew their design was not optimal, that's why they came out with a new cartridge, the .45GAP, to allow them to make a handgun with a smaller magazine well. It didn't work out, but the idea was there. "
Wat?
What does this even mean? The magazine well on the .45GAP Glock and on the 9mm Glock is the same size. That's the whole point of the cartridge: A .45" projectile in a magasine the same dimensions as the 9x19 magazine.
Post a Comment