Do aesthetics affect your buying?

Alot of the naked frame bottle gun types like the impact or the RTI stuff just makes me think someone decided to make precision CNC'd potato guns.

I like bottle guns provided it has a wood stock attached to it... preferably with a thumbhole. Otherwise I go for traditional style and like a carbine sized length.

It carries over to my PB guns. My ARs are the only tactical things I own. I still deer hunt with a 44 mag lever gun in walnut and blue.

AirgunAmateur said:

As for what I wouldn't buy any air pistols that look similar to these:

Spoiler: Air Venturi AV-46M & Diana Airbug

I think they're both match pistols and from I see most of the air pistols designed for competition shooting look similar. They tend to look like they belong in a sci-fi film.

Click to expand...

Those Diana/SPA pistols always make me throw up in my mouth a bit.

Ladies and gents, I present the Galahad for your viewing pleasure:

Could not care a less about how an air gun looks. My PB’s? Yeah i am a wood and blued steel lover.
I own a Crown MKII GRS with the Green Mountain laminate stock. Lots of people tell me it is a nice looking gun. I disagree. Nothing pretty about it to my eyes.

AirgunAmateur said:

[/spoiler]

Spoiler: Franklink's air rifle

I'd remove what ever that spindle thing is on the top though.

Click to expand...

Lol, that's the steering wheel.

jk, I think you're referring to the sidewheel on the scope. This one is actually tame compared to some. I've seen dinner plate sized wheels on field target guns, mine's only the size of a dessert or maybe a salad plate

I won't knock what other's like, just answer the question and state what I prefer. There should be a good balance manufactured across the board to fit many different tastes and shooting preferences. Gives many potential buyers a choice.

Gotta have both for me. It's usually looks/aesthetics that catch my attention first. But if it can't shoot accurately or aftermarket support is not available, I'll pass. I happen to like both "tactical" (I hate that term) and traditional or thumbhole stocked airguns. Even FT airguns like Franklink posted look cool to me and I know all the added doodads serve a purpose.

Absolutely. For example I have heard good things about a krait. Saw one for sale in the classifieds. Ugliest thing I’d ever seen. No way no matter how it shoots as there are many guns out there that shoot well.

I like all styles,........ it's not the style it's the execution.

Yes, the AirForce guns are the potato guns of the PCP world but to me, 90% of PCP’s are ugly. Crowns, Daystates, BSA and other traditional looking rifles are nice. But I think all the rest just look like expensive aluminum Super Soakers that kids use to squirt water on each other.

Yes

OOgsAggie said:

I ask specifically because I have been flirting with an AirForce Talon/Escape for awhile. It checks numerous boxes for me. Light, simple, inexpensive, POWERFUL! It should be a no brainer. I just simply can’t get over the “frumpy” looks. It doesn’t look bad by any means but as they say eye of the beholder and all. I just can’t seem to convince myself into it and it boils down to not looking attractive to me.

So convince me I am crazy, or do you all have the same hangups?

Click to expand...

@OOgsAggie

Overall I think aesthetics affect my purchasing decisions. I like to purchase things that I like and need. I am affected by how a product looks and is marketed. If a gun looks awkward, chances are I may think it’s ugly. Some are just ugly and unappealing to me and I’d pass on them in a similar fashion to how I might pass on speaking to a woman fitting a similar description. Awkward looks cause me to question a gun’s ergonomics or function. I look at them and think, “that just looks like it would feel strange to hold and shoot comfortably.” I could be wrong, but what I think matters to me.

I like to think of myself as practical, but I have a human brain and human brains can be manipulated, hence the psychological component of marketing to which I am not impervious. I think the practical element comes into play when determining the product’s (gun’s) use vis-a-vis what I am willing to pay for it. When it’s all said and done I ask myself, “Are you content or happy with your purchase?” If the answer is yes, then I’m ok with it.

I care about how a gun looks but I don't buy guns because I like the way they look. I buy them because they do what I want them to do and I think they look OK. I prefer wood, preferably walnut, gunstocks but do not have an air rifle with a walnut stock. I might make one, however. I'm also glad I got my P35s when Krale had them in stock even though the Stoeger Bullshark is available domestically (and still available last I looked). I think the P35 looks better and am happy I put up with the hassles of international shipment to get a gun I think is better looking. But if Stoeger had the Bullshark out while Krale was out of P35s early this year I would have probably bought the Bullshark (I can make a new stock after all).

I think the Taipan is attractive but I don't like the overly square fore stock design. I'd be tempted to round it off and refinish it. But it would work better from a rest to leave it square.

If the same gun has a wood stock and a synthetic stock, I would almost always choose the wood.

Something that looks ugly to me such as the Hatsan Bullboss, actually looks pretty amazing with the wood stock version. I wish Air Venturi would do a wood stock bullpup Avenger, I might finally buy a bullpup!

That all said I own a couple Guantlet 2's , not exactly renowned universally as beauties, but the looks have grown on me. Those were obviously purchased with a little more emphasis on performance for the value. Alas, no wood stock option.

In my collection (see signature below) the Hatsan Hydra is by far my favorite to look at. Also the nicest to handle and shoot off hand. I have it set up with a holo sight right now for plinking metal in the back yard and it really looks great set up that way. Super light as well.

The Hydra was the first PCP I purchased and I mainly did because price, I wanted a .25 caliber, and the looks. I still like it enough that I asked my wife for the .22 caliber barrel (it's interchangable) for Christmas!

I pretty much agree with what @Vetmx and @Filnez and others say about "classic" looks. I want a wood stock and I'm not a fan of "tactical" looks. However, as I have tinnitus, there is one function I can't give away and that's the quiet. For instance, I hate the synthetic stock of the HW110. Gross. However, if it's the most quiet gun out there, then I will purchase that one. I plan to go to AoA next year and find out for myself. My aesthetic sensibilities are rooting for the Daystate Revere. Which was AoA's recommendation when I asked them about my hearing dilemma. I'll keep an eye out for what @intenseaty22 said about the sub-12 model. Would probably be quieter anyway. I don't like the looks of the higher level Daystates with those bulbous tubes. And I hate thumbhole stocks. Eew! Between considerations of disposable income and my interest being limited to FT and 10m I feel my aesthetic choices are congruent with functionality. I think there's considerable choices at all levels for both looks and function. Which is pretty cool.

It is interesting to read about the various notions on this topic. Horses for courses.

My HW100S is mighty quiet. It's amazingly silent for 37 ft lbs of muzzle energy.

No it does NOT !!!

Function over form !!!!

Filnez said:

My HW100S is mighty quiet. It's amazingly silent for 37 ft lbs of muzzle energy.

Click to expand...

I'm going to check that out as well. There's a couple others to sample...

No I dont care what it looks like.

if it was held together with duct tape, bailing wire and bubble gum but one holed at a 100 yards Id be cool with it.

I have a lot longer screed, but it doesnt answer the OP's question, so that's anpother post....