I thought that the new S&W rifle was designed by the same tasteless designer who afflicts Knights muzzleloaders with horrid designs but it was not even close in the ugly contest.

I don't think I've ever seen an uglier rifle than the new Mossberg 4x4! The only question is which version is the most hideous? My vote is probably for the synthetic.

Check out the link but you might want to have a trash can handy to hurl in:

http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=27§ion=products

Who the heck is designing these abortions?

Thoughts?............... ............DJ

We must have the same vision, same taste. Those rifles are UGLY.

I tried drinking a six pack to see if they'd get any better looking. Didn't work.

But, I'm sure there's someone out there that will hold them and think they are a work of art.

dj-

The copy reads "Every bit attractive as it is rugged...."

What does that say about ruggedness?

flaco

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I won't be buying one, but let's see if it sells. I showed the pics of this new one around at work, and got not a single comment about "ugly".

OK let us think about this. Done! When did Mossberg ever make a "pretty" gun? I can't think of one. Maybe somebody can, but all I can remember is butt ugly, utility guns that got the job done at a reasonable price. I am sure they appealed to someone, but even the 4 eyed nerd got laid sometime

it doesn't look too much worse that some of the early pre 64 Model 70 Winchesters!

there was a time when getting an AR 15 was akin to wanting to "play army"... now, they're beautiful.

Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.

You know, the Ruger Company hired Lenard Brownell to design the stock for the model 77 and it's an attractive stock that's remained nearly unchanged since it's inception.

Why can't these gun companies hire a good gunsmith to design thier stocks? Pride I guess, and the R&D department is too cheap.

Ruger has to be in the running for ugliest rifle with their Mini-14 Target. The Mossberg is pretty bad too; copy the worst feature of the old Ruger Synthetic stock, throw in some barrel cooling cuts copied strait off of a Winchester that wasn't produced....what were they thinking?

Aaron

quote:

Originally posted by Thaine:
OK let us think about this. Done! When did Mossberg ever make a "pretty" gun? I can't think of one. Maybe somebody can, but all I can remember is butt ugly, utility guns that got the job done at a reasonable price. I am sure they appealed to someone, but even the 4 eyed nerd got laid sometime

Mossberg made the SSi-one single shot rifle that photographed beautifully, was built horribly and shot worse.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
We must have the same vision, same taste. Those rifles are UGLY.

I tried drinking a six pack to see if they'd get any better looking. Didn't work.

But, I'm sure there's someone out there that will hold them and think they are a work of art.

I tried two sixpacks (seriously!!)... that doesn't work either... I don't mind something where form follows function (AR-15 sort of), but that rifle is just ugly.

I handled the 4x4 at the NRA meeting, and it's pretty crappy. Even for a 'working' gun, it doesn't cut the mustard. I don't understand why they went to extra lengths to make the stock that ugly. They could've just as easily used an off the shelf stock or designed a normal one themselves. Go figure.

I was, however, pleasantly surprised by the S&W Ibolt. It is made well, attractive, and reasonably affordable. I can also appreciate the fact the rifle is made entirely in the USA; I shouldn't need to get so excited over something like that, but in this day and age, it peaks my interest.

I'm glad I looked at this before lunch...and as a lefty, happy its not available for that .001% of lefties with poor taste.

Isn’t it amazing how the gun companies can pull such a boner and then be mystified why there products don’t sell ?
Just too arrogant to get customer input I guess.

The Ruger synthetic is about as ugly as they get.

Aha! Now perhaps we knowwhere the designer of the Ruger paddle stock has gone.

jim

I don't think it's ugly. It looks much better than that other piece of junk for a rifle they've been trying to sell the last few years.

I actually think it looks better than Styer, Benelli, Savage, etc just to name a few.

I could really care less what they look like. To me, it matters how it shoots and how durable it is. I like pretty rifles but, I prefer to own rifles that I can actually use.

Reloader

That is ugly, But it's the stock that's ugly. I agree with another poster they should do what Ruger did. The 77 (wood) stock (Brownell designed) is a timeless American classic and they patterned the #1's pretty cose to it.
To be really uuugly, the action & the stock needs to be ugly, like Rem 600 with the forward bolt & plastic rib ... Only the French would do something like that ..(MAS)

It is no uglier than the Browning A bolt and way better looking than many of the plastic or laminated stocked clunkers marketed today.
Certainly the TC Encore has a ugly handle too.
The early model 600 Remingtons with that dumb rib were considered ugly as hell when they came out but look what they bring now.

What the Mossberg looks like in person is another thing.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
I showed the pics of this new one around at work, and got not a single comment about "ugly".

Resign immediately!

Fjold,

You are 100% correct. In fact I wanted one until I saw them in the Steel & wood (flesh).

quote:

OK let us think about this. Done! When did Mossberg ever make a "pretty" gun?

As I said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to like my old model 800CV just fine. Better than my Rem 700 that is no longer around.

It's not ugly it's fugly!!

steyrs, now those are ugly

The Kifaru was the ugliest in my opinion, but it is no longer made.

1st runner up, probably a tie with this Mossberg, has to be the Browning Acera.

This Mossberg is bad, but I almost tossed my lunch the first time I saw the Acera. Maybe I've just got jaded in the last few years, but it doesn't surprise me much at this offering from Mossberg.

I remember back in the 70's Mossberg brought out, what has to be the all time ugliest rifle ever designed, a 22 lr of some sort. I can't ever remember now if it was an auto or a bolt, but I think I remember it being an auto. It was a hideous thing, though.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
it doesn't look too much worse that some of the early pre 64 Model 70 Winchesters!

You need some serious psychiatriac help my friend. Please get help now! I can't believe I am the only one that read your post and commented.

Why the suprise? All should have been clear when you read the name "MOSSBERG" They've never made a rifle or shotgun that it's looks wouldn't crack a Adobie wall from 50 ft!

And I was just thinkin' their 100ATR was a good looking rifle!

quote:

The early model 600 Remingtons with that dumb rib were considered ugly as hell when they came out but look what they bring now.

I agree, but the 660 does look better and I kinda like the dogleg bolt handle. Anything with a tupperware stock is ass ugly, period. I wouldn't walk across the street for a free tupperware stock.

I might still vote for the Benelli R1 as the ugliest dog in the contest.

I never dreamed of the day when I would see a rifle every bit as ugly as a Steyr. Boy, was I wrong.

That Benelli R1 is certainly ugly enough! But not nearly as ugly as the horrible dogleg hunmpback stocks on CZ rifles.

In fact, I think that all iron sights on bolt action rifles make them ugly, and all rifle stocks that are not straight, i.e. with the same or nearly the same drop at heel as the drop at comb, are unconsionably ugly.

I have an old Remington 721 30-06 that shoots well and has a well-figured and checkered stock. The metalwork is exemplary. But it's nevertheless ugly because that buttstock drops down instead of going back straight as it should.

High on the list would be the Remington 788

Now you guys just don't look at them right. I see a good home for wasps, yellow jackets and hornets there, maybe a few mud daubers and spiders thrown in. Since they are so ugly, they would have to stay out at the barn.

quote:

High on the list would be the Remington 788

bite your tongue.

Those rifles (i.e., the Mossberg and the Benelli) are post-modern, that's all. The only things missing are the laser plasma ray gun converters and the Buck Rogers decoder rings.

Perfect for extra-terrestrial varmint hunting on the third blue moon of Tattooine.

I personally can't imagine anything much uglier than the various Thompson Center single shots. Yech!

In 1968 I was 17 and got my first taste of ugly



Like a Buddhist monk, I overcame the ugliness and came to accept it and play the record.

Now I have no problem with the way that the Mossberg rifle looks.

Guns are not jewelry.
I am a man and do not wear jewelry.
Guns are tools.
I just care about how the tool functions.



I do care about how poorly Al Gore puts thought together.

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:
Like a Buddhist monk, I overcame the ugliness and came to accept it and play the record.

Now I have no problem with the way that the Mossberg rifle looks.

Guns are not jewelry.
I am a man and do not wear jewelry.
Guns are tools.
I just care about how the tool functions.

Why date the Ugly chick when the Hot one will go out with you and "function" as well or better?.........................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:
Like a Buddhist monk, I overcame the ugliness and came to accept it and play the record.

Now I have no problem with the way that the Mossberg rifle looks.

Guns are not jewelry.
I am a man and do not wear jewelry.
Guns are tools.
I just care about how the tool functions.

Why date the Ugly chick when the Hot one will go out with you and "function" as well or better?.........................DJ

Because they cost a hell of alot more to maintain. And who is to say that the Hot one will function as well or better? It's kinda like a car. Depends on how many miles she has got on her.