Green Eyes Black Rifles Book

[Charles]

Kyle's book is the best I have read on the broad subject for the employment of the rifle. It has been needed for a long time as unfortunately we have been bombarded with "trainers" that do not have the experience, base of knowledge and quite frankly the skill to speak at the level of which they have been allowed to.

It does not go into great detail as for as techniques go, more of a general over view. Several things written in it will not sit too well with a lot of the "tactical" trainers.

Here is another shooters view on it. http://http://www.tacticalforums.com...;f=12;t=001116




There is indeed a measurable difference in speed between "tube" sights like the Aimpoint and sights such as the Eotech, just like there is a measurable difference between RDS’s and 1-4x scopes. The more "tube'ish" an optic is- the slower it is to use. Whether ones skill level allows them to realize it, is the question. If someone is running 1 to 1.5 second one shot drills at 7 yards, any advantage is "lost in the noise" so to speak. However if one is in the .4-.5 of a second range, it is very noticeable.

[Jay Cunningham]

Keep in mind, even with KL's experience, his is still "A" way, not "the" way. He'll probably be the first to say that.

[Charles]

Keep in mind, even with KL's experience, his is still "A" way, not "the" way. He'll probably be the first to say that.

Sure. However, would one say that isosceles is a way, or the way to shoot a pistol? Similarly, an aggressive stance (some claim it's "bladed"), forend hand gripping as far forward as possible, etc, are not theories. They are proven by the timer. Just as the timer proves that isosceles is superior too weaver.

[Charles]

Of interest (?)
One shooter put it this way. The 68 is like a Glock. It runs when mistreated and tends to be a little more "Joe" proof. The Eo is like a 1911. Not as "Joe" proof and requiers a little more care, but with a skilled shooter who can take advantage of it, it has some advantages.

That is exactly the comparison that should be made. I have said that for some time, and I would use either in the same instance I would choose to use the counterpoint in pistols. Just like a Glock is better for 99% of users, so is the Aimpoint.

[Robb Jensen]

gotm4


I never bought into that claim simply because of the common variable which is the shooter.

A good shooter is going to be pretty much equal regardless of which sight, especially if you time Hundreds of shooters with both sights.

I also hear the same thing in regards to the EOTech having a larger field of view. It's just not so... one eye is looking at the target, one eye on the reticle... the shape of the housing is irrelevant. You focusing on the reticle, not the housing and your other eye is looking at the target.

In my case it was the same shooter (me), same carbine (mine), 15yds from target (IPSC target, only A zone hits count), 10 one shot strings of fire from a low ready (safety off - to eliminate shooter error) with each optic (throw out worst time from each optic, add the other nine and divide by nine).

I'm guessing the eye/brain 'sees' all the red (EOTech) essentially as a 65moa dot instead of the 4moa dot of the Aimpoint. When I turn up the brightness on the Aimpoint 2-3 clicks brighter than the EOTech I then got the Aimpoint within 3/100ths of a sec of the EOTech. If I get the Aimpoint way brighter, I can get it actually faster than the EOTech but I don't run my Aimpoint that 'crazy bright' normally so the point is really moot.

If you own both optics and a timer, try it sometime. It's very interesting.

I agree with you on the who larger view EOTech bullshit that people claim. You can close the front dust cap on the Aimpoint for absolutely no FOV and still make good fast hits which debunks the bullshit theory of the EOTech 'wide FOV' crap.


Back to topic:
I plan to buy the book as well.

[rob_s]

That test is still biased towards whatever you're most familiar/comfortable with.

[Robb Jensen]

That test is still biased towards whatever you're most familiar/comfortable with.

I have more rounds down range using an Aimpoint and prefer it over an EOTech, but I found the EOTech was faster so how does that logic work?

[Matt Edwards]

Sure. However, would one say that isosceles is a way, or the way to shoot a pistol? Similarly, an aggressive stance (some claim it's "bladed"), forend hand gripping as far forward as possible, etc, are not theories. They are proven by the timer. Just as the timer proves that isosceles is superior too weaver.

Charles,
This kinda sounds like every thing anyone i've met from that place has ever said, in a nut shell.
You have earned the "Golf Clap".

What, beside the Eo, Iso and "loading your mag with 30 rounds" do you think about the book will upset some trainers?

Matt

[Charles]

Matt,
There were a couple of other things, however I don't have the book in front of me and it’s hard for me to remember off the top of my head. The big ones were as you noted the stance, grip, loading to 30, the focus on accuracy and speed, and some probably aren’t gonna like his dissertation on BUIS. Also one gets the feel that he might not buy into the whole fine/gross motor skill thing so much.

I know for a fact the stance sets people off, as I found out (again) recently.

[Redmanfms]

Nevermind, probably not worth the potential shitstorm.