I wanted to clarify that in my earlier comments I wasn’t meaning to suggest that a stock Glock was going to perform on par with an Alien (though in reading it over it does come across that way).
For me the sticking point was the argument that you’d have to be blind to not notice the difference and then that even a monkey would shoot the Alien better. My experience is that the hardware for many shooters is frankly better than their software. I’ve seen this in close to 30 or so shooting courses (a fair criticism here would be these were defensive oriented, not competition oriented). Most people can’t achieve the mechanical accuracy capable of their $500 pistol. Will the difference with a $5000 pistol really be as dramatic as was seemingly being suggested? I think to a point that depends on the user and his or her intended use (and that goes back to some of the metaphors I used).
A fair counter to this, and bac touched on this, is that just because a person might not shoot well enough to do 2-3” at 25 yd with their production pistols doesn’t mean they wouldn’t appreciate the better trigger, ergonomics, and reduced recoil of something like an Alien. A person can also improve. Something like an Alien might allow for more headroom in this regard. There are also shooters that frankly are good enough to push the mechanical limits of different handguns.
An additional comment I would make is there are a lot of price points between a Glock and an Alien, including for competition. Often when it comes to firearms there are diminishing returns where to achieve more accuracy or more control you need to spend significantly more money. If a shooter is in a position where they have to make trades between money spent on shooting or training and money spent on the pistol, then maybe other options make more sense. If you don’t have those limitations then going for a unique system like the Alien may very well make sense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
