There is beauty to be found in weapons.
How can that be? Start with a Google search on the two words “weapon” and “aesthetic.” Take a look at what Pinterest users have organized under “weapons aesthetic.” My understanding of a weapons aesthetic is this: weapons obviously vary in their utility, when and how they are used in combat or self-defense. But they also vary in their design and their “eye” appeal.
Of course, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” As a beholder of beauty in certain weapons (both real and fictitious), I offer up the following opinions:
The Mauser C96 semi-automatic pistol is “ugly.” I don’t care for either the angular shape of the box magazine or the bulbous round handgrip. The materials don’t match, and the lines (angular and bulbous) don’t match.
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. gun, a pistol carbine based on a Walther P38 and used in the TV series, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” is a thing of beauty. It is sleek, minimalist, and because it is made from detachable components, it can be customized on-the-fly. The toy version of this gun (which I owned in 1966, lost, and subsequently reassembled component-by-component from parts offered on eBay) is not an exact replica, and its aesthetics are marred by the design of the pistol (not a P38). As a boy I also owned a toy P38 that fit my hand so perfectly it felt like the proverbial extension of my arm.
Several of the weapons used in the filming of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings catch my eye because of the smooth curves and lines of the blades and/or hilts. See, for example, the double-bladed Mirkwood pole arm; Orcrist, the sword of Thorin Oakenshield; and the fighting knives of Legolas.
Ornamentation of any kind (e.g., jeweled hilts for blade weapons, filigree etching on gun barrels or handgrips, pink coloring for women) I find aesthetically displeasing. It is distracting and non-functional. (Though the fantasy blades mentioned above do have varying degrees of ornamentation, it is not overly distracting.)