Good looking or not?

[ebiggs1]

I read a study yesterday where Stradivari violins were compared with some of the finest newly made instruments. I suppose everyone knows the legendary status the Stradivarius violins have. Some command prices well into seven figures and some even all the way to the priceless category. Anyhow 21 professional violin musicians form the world's best symphonies were asked to judge the sound quality of Stradivari and three of the best modern made instruments. They would not be able to see the instruments only hear them.
The test consisted of two Strads, a Guarnieri, and the three best new instruments.
The results, only three of the twenty-one musicians got it right!
This long way around brings me to this question, just how much is a flintlock that is looked upon as the best made, best looking, actually is the best? How much does seeing what you are using have to do with how well it shoots? If it looks good it has to be good? Do you work harder to make a nice looking gun shoot better?
You know the difference between a $2000 gun and a $1000 gun can be a $1000 dollars worth of engraving (carving). Which adds nothing to how well it preforms????

BTW, there were three (of the twenty-one) musicians that took the test, stated before they started, there was no way they could NOT tell, absolutely, without doubt, which were the Strads. All three picked incorrectly!

Just how much does “looks” influence your decision of how good a flintlock works and shoots.

 

[aeatwood]

Well, to my way of thinking, that is why you start w/ a good barrel and good lock. Entropy rules!

Start w/ junk, end w/ junk, no matter how pretty. (You can also start w/ good stuff, and end w/ junk. That is why the good makers get good money.)

 

[tom deinek]

Without being disparaging, I find flaw with the articulation of your enquiry. Are you asking if analysis of a target can be affected by the appearance of the firearm?

I've got an ugly, third hand, $41 New Englander POS that outshoots bespoke rifles for which I paid > $2K.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I could strap a barrel to a 2 X 4 and get it to shoot well.Not something that would be fun to look at or shoot. :shake:
Life is too short to own ugly guns.

 

[nchawkeye]

Ever held a really well built custom flintlock???

If so, you don't have to ask...It's like a good sipping whiskey, worth more than the price paid...

 

[Rifleman1776]

Ever held a really well built custom flintlock???

If so, you don't have to ask...It's like a good sipping whiskey, worth more than the price paid...

Yes. Have one. And agree.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Digital music is precise and perfect, but a scratchy old recording picks up the performer's nuances better. A gun that someone lavished skill and love into may not shoot any better than a factory punched out shoot-o-matic, but holding each one for 10 minutes you can feel the difference.

So, a $750,000 violin doesn't sound much better than a $10,000 violin. Now bring out the $400 violin. :wink:

I have one I bought my wife for $1 off ebaY, plus $35 shipping (direct from China). The strings are smooth Nylon, as is the bow. It doesn't hardly make a sound. :haha: But it looks great on top of the bookshelf.

 

[hanshi]

Just like the old lady who hikes the Appalachian trail regularly with her "stuff" in a plain paper bag. Most wannabees with their state-of-the-art equipment fail frequently and can't make it all the way. Still, a nice backpack makes one feel better.

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

Ever held a really well built custom flintlock???

This is it right here.

Looks really don't play into it. If you've never held an original or a well made custom you really would not understand, at all.

I would lay out some serious odds that you could hand a carved and engraved rifle of mediocre architecture to an experienced ( somebody that actually knows what architecture means ) student of the American Long Rifle, and then hand them a plain rifle of quality architecture and they will pick the plain rifle hands down, blindfolded.

If you doubt this then you just don't know, period.

 

[rabjr]

:thumbsup:

 

[mr.flintlock]

I don't believe just because one rifle looks better than another or if it is made by a famous builder and commands a high price that it will always shoot better than a plainer rifle made by say a hobbyist such as myself. I Do believe that it has more to do with design, construction and the quality of parts being used in the construction.

 

[Robby]

I'm not sure I know the answer to your question, and do agree with most of what has been said. I know, when my gun performs well, I do spend more time cleaning it. It isn't any cleaner, I just spend more time getting there. :grin:
Robby

 

[Stumpkiller]

Just like the old lady who hikes the Appalachian trail regularly with her "stuff" in a plain paper bag. Most wannabees with their state-of-the-art equipment fail frequently and can't make it all the way. Still, a nice backpack makes one feel better.

That was Grandma Gatewood, God rest her soul. :hatsoff: :hatsoff: She's been gone a long time, now. Slept in an Army blanket wrapped in a shower curtain and wore Keds. Though she did stop off to buy Vienna sausages. :haha:

Did the whole thing three times! And the first time she was 67!

Now there was a woman you can imagine holding off the sauvage attackers with a fry pan.

 

[wilded]

If you pick up a rifle that is made to fit you personally it will make all the difference in the world how you shoot. If you close your eyes and settle into a rifle so that when you open your eyes the sights are automatically lined up right where they are supposed to be it makes all the difference in the world. If I had to depend on the rifle I would want the one that fit perfectly no matter how plain. JMHO ET :idunno:

 

[jerrywh]

It takes years of experience to make a real good looking rifle from scratch. Gunsmiths with that much experience don't make manure that won't shoot.
It's not a matter of one or the other. It's a matter of if you want both or just a shooter. I personally won't make a plain gun. Why? I can make a fine plain gun in about 150 hours. The gun will sell for about $2000.00 I can spend another 150 hours on it and sell it for $15,000 to $20,000.00. Fancy guns get a lot of criticism from other who just can't build them and won't put forth the effort to learn how. You will never hear a high art gun builder run down cheap or plain guns because they know it is all a lot of people can afford. I constantly hear plain gun builders running down or criticizing the high art guns. It gets real old. But we all know why ---right??? There is no comparison between the sound of a violin and the feel and performance of a well-built rifle. They balance, they fit, and they shoot as well as the guy holding them. There are no cheap parts on a $20,000.00 gun. It is not uncommon to spend $1000.00 to $2000.00 just for the barrel. There are customers with money believe it or not. Everybody is not broke. When the economy collapsed it was said that trillions of dollars were lost. I got news. The money was not lost. Somebody got it.
ps- some of them are buying guns with it.

 

[justtim]

Sort of the same reason I only drink beer from a long neck bottle. Only a damned animal would drink beer from a can. :grin:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Another way to look at it. When, say, deer hunting a hunter might spend 40 hours during the season in the woods and six seconds engaging in firing the firearm. So that leaves 39 hours, 59 minutes and 54 seconds you can be appreciating the beauty of a well made rifle. Also, the rest of the year, it can be displayed where you can look at it during commercials.

Plus, as Wilded noted, if the dimensions match yours it will be much more pleasurable to shoot.

As Keats said: "A thing of beauty is a joy forever."

 

[hoochiepapa]

That's why I want to build high art guns. Not for the money, but because they are art. I took my last gun that wasn't the best that can be made to a jeweler friend, and he said, "now that's art!" I don't care if they are laughed at on some forums, but they make me feel good knowing that artistic talent came from me and went into that build.
And I also agree with AB, in that the architecture makes or breaks any gun.

 

[Stony]

Looks are very important. If the builder started with quality parts and he made sure the little things were paid attention to, making it look right, it's up to you, the shooter, to find out what works best with the gun. If you handed me a gibson guitar, I would probably sound as bad as if I were playing a Kmart $75 special. It's not so much the instrument as much as it is the player. Same goes for guns. I had a H&R .410 single shot shotgun that I was good with. Took quite a few pheasants with it. Once at the hunting club picnic I entered in an informal trap shoot, 6 shooters on the line, winner got a "free" bird. After 10 clays, if there were ties, it went to doubles. I was in a number of shoot-offs. That single barrel made it hard (almost impossible). My little H&R sure didn't look like much compared to the Charles Dalys' and Berettas' that a lot of the other guys were shooting but I beat quite a few. (When it came to doubles, I had to shoot the first clay within the first ten feet, then worry about the other one. I once was able to break both, but so did the other guy.) As one of my friends likes to say, "It's the loose screw behind the butt-plate that determines how well a gun shoots." Looks are important but the shooter is more important.

 

[Muskeg Stomper]

I had the privilage of handling several guns built by Judd Brennan. Beautifully well engraved and carved and defiantely pricier than any of my factory made guns. What really struck me however was how balanced every one of them felt in my hands.