Aesthetics: excluding wood furnitured guns, 1 to 5 how much do they impact your purchasing decisions?

[Sleestak]

Everyone loves beautiful wood furniture, so leaving that out of the decision process I'm a solid 4. That said, something that I'll agree is conventionally ugly (cough, cough any AF gun) can also be something that I find myself warming up to as I begin to appreciate it's functionality. So it's like a trusty power tool type relationship beauty in the eye of the beholder type thing.

With the vast selection to be had out there in consumerland it also leads down a real rabbit hole when it comes to actually finally selecting something. Being out of the activity since the early 90's & limited to springers, I restarted out w the attitude that it had to look like a traditional gun. Now I'm coming around to kind of appreciating the ability to tweak the more 'tactical' looking airgun furniture and hardware. Shooting game where it may really matter isn't something that I'm currently engaged in and also tacticool isn't really my thing either, but those features really are convenient just for general range shooting IMHO. Should I feel guilty about this?

 

[Gerry52]

Guilty? Tastes, attitudes, needs & opinions change over time. Why feel guilty? I was strictly a classic furniture gun guy until I was gifted a .22 FX Bobcat. Until I owned one I thought they were the fugliest airguns out there UNTIL I SHOT IT! It shoulders beautifully & shoots even better. The beauty is in its function, not aesthetics. I'm glad I still have the "brain plasticity" to change my mind. No "guilt" involved. I'm 5 on the scale though for furniture. LOVE the smooth, warm wood against my cheek. If any of you were aroused by that, you might have problems BTW, I have problems!

 

[DevilsLuck]

About a 4 out of 5. If i have a number of guns with near equal features across the board that hold my interests, the good looking one gets my money. I too have gotten bored with the "tactical" look. But appreciate the easy access to adjustments. Which... In airgunning... Suits the "tactics" required to get the job done. Which i guess makes it "tactical" after all.

 

[DeanB]

Forgot 4.5/5 on looks. Im a traditional wood/blueing guy only tactial looking gun Ive bought is a Notos which I like a lot. I can deal with tactical if it has some wood added to it

 

[Scotay42]

4 out of 5 here. I went from a Huben K1 to a Leishy 2. L2 slings pellets which is what i wanted over the pure slugger, but it looks much better also. It is still no comparison to some of the Beautiful wood stocks out there, but I also wont use it if it is " Too Pretty" or too long.
Zero guilt

 

[BABz58]

I’m am a fan of synthetic stocks. What I’m not a fan of is most manufacturers making them look military, tactical,sniper etc. they are air guns FFS. Nothing tactical about them.

But this explains why some businesses are now requiring ID to purchase BBs

 

[jps2486]

Testicle(tactical) rifles? Meh! They are a tool that shoots projectiles. While I have some of both, I appreciate a gun with a nicely figured walnut stock quite a bit. Plywood (laminate) stocks aren't bad but I prefer something that God made in one piece to enjoy the beauty. Accuracy trumps everything however.

 

[Firewalker]

This has changed for me over the decades.

Walnut, swirl-figured, nothing else! Then the Gulf War came and there wasn't a single wood stock available.

Kicking doors, urban, underground, helos, the pistol grip became familiar then beloved.

It's not "tacticool" to me, the AR platform became an extension of my movements, I still feel that first skinny/plastic grip in my dreams.

 

[SteveV]

Truth be known, I'm actually a springer guy that has been enjoying modding inexpensive Crosman and Benji guns, sometimes adding a bottle, having said that, my first love is walnut and blued steel.

I don't mind synthetic stocks at all, as long as the lines are sexy and classic.

And I completely do not get why anyone would want their airgun to resemble or be mistaken for an AR-15. I am also approaching 70 and don't give a rats ass about following trends or what anyone else thinks. The GEEZER PARADOX is my mantra -

 

[Sleestak]

The tactical thing being cosplay is partially true, but having used them a bit I feel like it's partly just co-evolution. Functional, economical & bling are reasons why its being pushed in shooting sports. Also, some airguns just can't help it and w a pistol gripped synthetic stock, pic rails etc. it's already arrived at tactical town. The Texan again for example...remove the grip & it stops looking tactical and more like a funky power tool.

But when I don my tinfoil hat I also believe that most plastic grips, stocks, etc are AR type because it allows the mfgs to cheap out and buy preexsisting catalog stock from overseas w which to assemble their "domestic" guns while looking cool at the same time. Just compare the current gun market & then search "butt stocks" online. You'll see what I'm talking about....man. I'm into other activities where the same type of marketing occurs, there really is nothing new under the sun.

Those shiny hardwood Tyrolean stocks looked so sweet back in the day were / are a bit rich for me. As a pleb it's nice to have affordable performance enhancing options these days, even if it's plastic instead of bespoke quality craftsmanship. If money were no object tho I could really add to deforestation with muh wants.

The admins should start an ugly gun competition. It would be intersting to see what people have stashed away. As just an opinion, brand-wise Hatsans are some of the ugliest around. But if you've ever actually handled them, the ugly plastic stocks are very dialed in ergonomically. Also, being ugly makes dings & scratches less traumatic.

 

[shambozzie]

+1 on what Gerry52 said. Things change. Pulled the nice laminated stock on my Raw hm1000x 30 and dropped in in a chassie stock. Now best of both worlds.

 

[coastal drifter]

I love the way this gun looks feels and shoots

I also love this one with its traditional look and feel.

 

[RM100GUY]

Bobcats "ARE UGLY"...Every time I get my Bobcat out and shoot it I regret not getting the Royale 500 version with the "PRETTY" walnut stock, even though there is no way I could shoot that telephone pole full length rifle as well

as the Bobcat...I guess it's considered a Carbine. My Bobcat must realize it's one "flier" away from the land fill because it has been nothing short of remarkable for me the way it fits me and the shooting satisfaction it has/continues to provide. Even so the only reason I don't sell, trade, or take it to the land fill...I bought the thing new and paid a fortune for it in '18, AND, have lots of .25 cal pellets in store. Consider these groups I recently shot, 10 shots at 33 yards on low power and 9 shots at 55 yards on high Power. Top left pellet on the 55 yd group was a damaged pellet. Both groups shot off my knee from my chair...And it better not blow-out an o-ring after just 7 years either....I go to the land fill every week...Gunna' make sure it reads this post too! Oh...5 on your question...Only pretty wood going foward...lol.

 

[Rizz01]

I don't think I have a preference. Performance and price come into play. But I will admit, I have a huge appreciation for a wood stock. I do like tactical stocks but it needs to look right, like an airgun.
I've been looking at other guns but when I pick up my Redwolf with that beautiful textured walnut stock, I quickly loose interest in anything else.

 

[boscoebrea]

I am old enough to know when plastics were invented,
They are useful, But not for my guns
I'm kidding, of course, but I will take wood every time.Where wood we be without woodies?

 

[elh0102]

Wood and synthetics both have their place. I have an Italian 20 ga sxs that cost more than all my air rifles combined. I would take it quail hunting in relatively open cover and in nice weather. If I were slogging through mountain thickets trying to find a grouse, I'd take something else. Same with air rifles, it depends on the use and, as always, personal preference.

 

[Bedrock Bob]

Wood is good if you can get it.

And yes, you should feel guilty about your obsession with storm trooper armament. It's disgusting. Please take a moment to reflect upon your transgressions.

I like synthetic stocks. I shoot a Savage 30-06 that will flat out bruise you with a wood stock. Put a Hogue stock on it and it's a powder kitten. 100 shots a day no problems.

I love wood. I have 30% sawdust in my blood. But I have 2 synthetic airgun stocks and I love them both. They are tough, easy to modify and they absolve me of the duty to be careful with them. Cheaper too. No one will be dazzled by my black plastic rifles. At least not until I pick one up and start shooting.

I've got a beautiful walnut stock on my HW95 and would trade it for a good synthetic stock any day.

As far as the tack tickle look you can have it. I'll shoot anything and I love shooting anything. Tack tickle rifles are fine but I've never bonded with one. Some make great fighting guns but I'm no longer in the gunfighting business. Give me a classic rifle that sticks out there as long as a drill stem and I'm happy.

 

[Trucker3573]

Aesthetics are definitely subjective and with the number of choices that all are going to shoot well there is no reason to purchase a gun you feel is ugly. For me it ranks between 4-5 for sure.

 

[MikeVV]

Having already owned two rifles with plastic stocks, I've bought a "second" copy of the same gun, but with a wood stock.
My "second" Wildcat III, but this one has the wood stock.

Mike

 

[JungleShooter]

Everyone loves beautiful wood furniture, so leaving that out of the decision process I'm a solid 4. That said, something that I'll agree is conventionally ugly (cough, cough any AF gun) can also be something that I find myself warming up to as I begin to appreciate it's functionality. So it's like a trusty power tool type relationship beauty in the eye of the beholder type thing.

With the vast selection to be had out there in consumerland it also leads down a real babbit hole when it comes to actually finally selecting something. Being out of the activity since the early 90's & limited to springers, I restarted out w the attitude that it had to look like a traditional gun. Now I'm coming around to kind of appreciating the ability to tweak the more 'tactical' looking airgun furniture and hardware. Shooting game where it may really matter isn't something that I'm currently engaged in and also tacticool isn't really my thing either, but those features really are convenient just for general range shooting IMHO. Should I feel guilty about this?

It appears to me that most of us have misunderstood the OP's question:

He wanted to leave wooden furniture out of the discussion.
But most responses discuss the perceived importance and beauty of wooden stocks....
(Or maybe I misundersood the OP?!)


On a scale from 1 to 5 for how important the looks of a gun are — I'd be a 5.5.


(Wooden furniture? — Yes, please! For my dining room table and my entertainment center.
But please, not on my killing tools — I like them tough, lean & mean.
I have other items to "remind me of grandpa and my childhood in the woods" — I don't need an archaic looking gun for that.)


Sorry, I seem to be in the minority here — but thankfully today we have plenty of great guns that cater to all flavors of aesthetics — and that is great!!

Cheers,

Matthias