Airsoft Canada

Airsoft Canada (https://airsoftcanada.com/forums.php)
-   Gear Discussion (https://airsoftcanada.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   How important is eye protection to you? (https://airsoftcanada.com/showthread.php?t=155262)

ThunderCactus June 6th, 2013 15:11

How important is eye protection to you?
 
So this seems REALLY unnecessary, and the answer may be blatantly obvious to most, but it's a preference that actually swings both ways shockingly enough.

So here's me; I work in industry, I get eye protection speeches jammed in through my ears constantly, I'm fully aware of risk, and more over, having been on a safety committee, I know what to look for in eye protection.

What do I look for when I'm shopping for new lenses?
1) Glasses or goggles?
What level of protection I'm comfortable with, and I'm okay with glasses.
***special note: glasses are made for dozens of different types of faces. If at all possible try on a pair of glasses before buying them. Even if it's someone elses glasses at a game. make sure the contours fit your face well.

FYI for European standards they go by CE and EN166. Simply being marked "CE" doesn't necessarily mean anything; they could just block 99% UVA/UVB.
EN166 has the actual letter markings denoted the ballistic protection of the glasses.

2) Safety rating! Z87.1+
Z87.1 is rated to just over 1 joule. It's specifically a dust shield. Keep in mind safety GLASSES have lower standards than safety GOGGLES. And this is going off the 2003 standard.
Z87.1+ is around 3-4 joules, "good enough" for airsoft under normal conditions, assuming everyone is obeying the joule limits.

After finally being able to find a full, completely copy of the Z87.1-2010 documentation (couldn't freaking find one a year ago for some reason), it seems that they're just using the deflection test as proof of high impact resistance. Couldn't find any evidence that they were still doing a high velocity impact test, but apparently the deflection test doubles as the high velocity impact test


CSA Z94.3
Section 229
(a) safety eyewear must meet the impact strength requirements of the CSA Standards listed – able to withstand the impact of a 6.4 millimeter diameter steel ball travelling at 46.5 metres/second.
0.982g at 152.5fps - 1.06j
Equivalent to Z87.1, and not nearly good enough for airsoft


If it's mil-spec rated;
MIL-PRF31013
3.5.1.1

Ballistic Resistance
The ballistic resistance of the spectacles shall be such that they will pass a Vo test using a 0.15 caliber, 5.8 grain, T37 shaped projectile at a velocity of 640 to 660 feet per second when tested as specified in 4.4.1.1.

MIL-DTL-43511D
3.5.10

Ballistic resistance. The ballistic resistance of the lenses shall be such that they will pass a V0 test using a 0.22 caliber, 17.0 + 0.5 grain, T37 shaped projectile at a velocity of 550 to 560 feet per second when tested as specified in 4.3.5.

**MIL-PRF-32432, CLAUSE 4.4.3.3.5, SUPERSEDING FORMER MIL-DTL-43511D, CLAUSE 3.5.10
Same test as above, with more impacts and requirements. (Thanks to docholiday for that one)
Test specifics here


Wherein a "T37 shaped projectile" is a BULLET. And 17 grains is 1.1 GRAMS. At 550fps. That's about 15 joules of force for MIL-DTL-43511D, and 7.5 joules for MIL-PRF-31013.
Yeah, that'll stop a BB alright.

3) Documentation.
How do you know some chinese manager looking to make a quick $ didn't just use a mold with "Z87.1+" stamped in it and fill it with clear plastic? You know, because China has a reputation for doing shit like that.
Documentation means actual tests were performed, it means quality control, it means LIABILITY.

4) BRAND.
Okay some of you will think this is stupid. You can get a $5 pair of safety glasses that do the same thing as a $50 pair, right?
Where's that extra money go?
If it does turn out your $5 pair was just recycled paper bags, and it shatters in game and you lose an eye, what's your next course of action? Sue the manufacturer! Sue China? Yeah good luck with that.
***Also keep an eye out for REPLICAS. If you see a $140 set of oakley M-frames being sold for $30, chances are pretty darn high that they are fake. Good luck trying to sue oakley with a set of fake glasses.

5) More importantly, BRAND!
These people make thousands, maybe millions of lenses a year, and they can get sued or fined for hundreds of thousands of dollars for every single one that breaks. That's a lot of nerve wracking potential lawsuits out there.
I know soldiers wear the same lenses I have, day in day out, and I know some of them have seen how good the protection really is.
You never hear soldier say "Yeah those $5 princess auto glasses saved my eyes when our tank got hit with an RPG and it was like a frag went off inside!"


So obviously the minimum rating of your glasses needs to be at least 2.3 joules which is 500fps on .20s. That covers normal airsoft use.
There are some clubs that allow bolt action or other guns up to 600fps on a .20 (3.34j). You need to be aware that this is OVER the test limit for Z87.1+, and you should adjust your minimum eye protection requirements accordingly.
As well, there are some clubs that just don't chrono often or at all. We only chrono'd for fun back in the day, no one was ever required to chrono on a given weight of ammo. Be aware that some stock gas rifles, particularly 20" barrel length rifles, can shoot well over 500fps stock. I once clocked in a WE M16 at a whopping 570fps on .20s, just image what it would have shot on .36s... Figure it would have been well over 4.5j
There's also the occasional douchebag that wants to crank up the fps on their GBBR/P*/SMP/whatever.

So given all these unlikely, but very possible scenarios, I feel pretty safe having a minimum protection of 7.5j

Now the point of this is not to get you to run out and go buy a $50 set of glasses.
The point is to educate you so YOU can make that decision YOURSELF.
Either you're happy with $5 glasses that may shatter when hit and leave you screwed with a lost eye and nobody to sue. Or you feel safe in the fact your glasses are combat tested to protect you from high velocity shrapnel.

lurkingknight June 6th, 2013 15:21

for those saying 'oh my ACM has z81 stamped on them' ... chinese factories are notorious for counterfeiting trademarks and safety stampings/etching. They may say they are of higher quality when they are not. I will buy factory seconds or ghost shift merchandise from time to time, but if it's a matter of safety? Hell no, I buy from a reputed brand that I know won't be counterfeit.

R.I.T.Z June 6th, 2013 15:26

I'm happy with my Smith optics OTW Turbo Fan Goggles.
Don't fog, Working on getting the RX insert for them, Quiet as all hell.
And most importantly
Meets US standard MIL-DTL-43511D, ANSI Z87.1-2003 and EN166 standards

Drake June 6th, 2013 15:34

1. I have both glasses and goggles; use glasses most often.

2. MIL-DTL-43511D (Goggles), MIL-PRF31013 (glasses)

3. brand name product (ESS) purchased from a reputable source (CP Gear and DS Tactical [back in the day])

4/5. stick to reputable brands.

Cobrajr122 June 6th, 2013 16:07

1 - Both glasses and goggles. I like to use glasses more, goggles only when required.

2 - Glasses - EXCEEDS ANSI Z87.1-2010 / EXCEEDS MIL-DTL-43511D, CLAUSE 3.5.10
Goggles - EXCEEDS ANSI Z87.1-2010 / EXCEEDS MIL-DTL-43511D, CLAUSE 3.5.10

3 - Glasses issued w/ docs, Goggles bought straight from revision, came with docs.

4 - Both Revision

Immelmann June 6th, 2013 16:16

I'm just starting out, but as far as I'm concerned this is the most important piece of gear (more than the gun). I've got some ESS Profile goggles on the way from Jeroon (ArmyIssue), and I'm not going anywhere near a field until they arrive.

Hectic June 6th, 2013 16:29

I choose two answers. I love my mesh at fields that allow it (ie fields that dont use bio bbs. And for the most part even a goggle hit doesnt cause bb particles (only at super close range and you should be aiming center mass if im that close) but at all other fields i rock ess.
The reason i love my mesh is im often in a ghillie suit and any/all goggles even with fans and good anti fog will fog up and or get water build up.

Drakker June 6th, 2013 16:31

I wear exclusively goggles. I have ESS, Wiley-X, Revision and Pyramex goggles. They are all great but sometimes they will fog. On these days, I use those cheap 15$ steel mesh goggles. Been shot in the mesh often, never ever had shrapnel, even from bio BBs.

It would be great if the poll let us choose more than one option to reflect the fact that a lot of people might use different levels of protection depending on weather conditions and type of games.

lurkingknight June 6th, 2013 16:37

I have a pair of ess strykers for goggles and smith optics aegis for glasses, I interchange between them to keep comfortable, indoors I will almost always use goggles, there's some pretty crazy ricochets possible.

Curo June 6th, 2013 16:38

I am okay with Glasses outdoors. Indoors goggles are a must.

I stick to revision ballistic rated eyewear. I prefer it over everything else I've tried.

Wilkie June 6th, 2013 16:41

I wear my Oakleys when it's very bright out, but I usually just wear a set that came with my G&G m4.

Though I can't find my Oakleys and have no idea where they went :( Might be time for a new pair anyway

scubasteve June 6th, 2013 16:44

Like they say at CN. You can walk with a wooden leg you can grab with a metal claw but you cant see with a glass eye. Dont cheap out when it comes to eye wear.

OM3GA June 6th, 2013 17:12

1- Goggles and glasses (I prefer full seal)

2- Goggles exceed ANSI Z87.1-2010, MIL-DTL-43511D, Clause 3.5.1.1
Glasses exceed ANSI Z87.1-2010, MIL-PRF-31013, Clause 3.5.1.1

3- Brand name with documentation from from an authorized retailer.

4- Buy a known, reputable brand. Not some Chinese crap.

Ninja_En_Short June 6th, 2013 18:23

Always ESS glasses for me, currently Crossbow.
I have tried goggles before but never could find any that fitted comfortably, they always hurt after a few minutes and had not very good venting except for Turbofans... and yes they hurt me too.

cetane June 6th, 2013 19:22

Most of the time I got on a pb mask and it works. I do have some Sellstrom odyssey goggles that I will run once I find mouth protection I like. I tested them out with all I got at point blank & with a daisy shooting lead pellets. I trust them.

FreelancerInc June 6th, 2013 19:25

1@ ESS Ice Glasses
1@ smith Optics Echo's

2@ unnamed brand of z87.1 safety glasses from work

Blitz85 June 6th, 2013 19:43

Funny you mention safety committees, I'm currently co chair of the safety committee at a DuPont facility.. It's amazing how you take the knowledge with you outside of work..
Another member here sits on it as well we will see if he chimes in lol
Personally I use a DYE I4 mask, and have a pair of revisions as a backup.
Multiple face/ eye shots later and I couldn't be happier with them.

panzergrenadier June 6th, 2013 19:46

I've been using my Oakley Flak Jackets (Military Version) for the last 2 years.
I also use Smith Optics Boogie Regulators and just got a pair of the Prospect glasses.
Mil-Spec rated eyewear is what I prefer.

H1TMAN June 6th, 2013 19:54

Revision all the way.

Revision is what is issued to our military and if it passes their test it's good enough for me.

Swattiger June 6th, 2013 21:40

ESS Turbo Fan Googles, Oakley ballistic shooting glass.

I completely have no respect for those cheap clones as there is no joke for eyes protection!

ericwilliam June 6th, 2013 23:05

Revision Exoshields and Revision Sawfly's.

Both are unreal, obviously Mil-spec.

Would never EVER cheap out.

ThunderCactus June 6th, 2013 23:17

Some of you remember the thread I made about ESS ICE developing stress fractures over time and losing their protection
I'm now using ESS crossbows, although the fit is wider since there's no NARO option, they're really nice.
Would mind trying some WILEY-X or something, something more narrow lol

akira69 June 6th, 2013 23:27

used to run mesh never had an issue, with alot of fields requiring seal of at least lens, i bought a pair of revision desert locust fan goggles, once i removed the dust seal foam from the vents i havent had a lick of mosture or fog regular use of the revision wipes and fan running its almost better then using my own eyes.

darkshift June 6th, 2013 23:54

using revision sawfly and ess goggles. everything else you can cheap out on in this sport and its fine. NEVER cheap out on eye pro.

Curo June 7th, 2013 01:24

On a side note does anyone know if revision does Rx sunglasses? Ballistic rated ofc

OM3GA June 7th, 2013 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curo (Post 1803420)
On a side note does anyone know if revision does Rx sunglasses? Ballistic rated ofc

They do for the Hellflys, iirc the Stingerhawks and Sawflys use the rx carrier.

Cobrajr122 June 7th, 2013 08:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curo (Post 1803420)
On a side note does anyone know if revision does Rx sunglasses? Ballistic rated ofc

The sawflys have an Rx carrier that you ca get for them.

mzo June 7th, 2013 09:54

ESS Turbofan with Rx inserts ordered online from ESS.

I don't use the Rx inserts for airsoft games as they get drenched with sweat because they are close to my face, but the inserts are great for target shooting (airsoft and real steel).

Dasright June 7th, 2013 23:33

I use this: http://dx.com/p/uv-protection-resin-...les-grey-32118

Not ballistic rated in any way. I've shot right between where the eyes would be with my 2.8J AEG from a meter away and I can sort of see a very tiny imperfection left by the BB. I wear it in conjunction with this:http://dx.com/p/protective-outdoor-w...sk-black-94641

I cut off the mesh goggles of the face mask and just use the bottom as comfortable low profile protection for the mouth area and teeth.

oniwagamaru June 8th, 2013 00:32

hmmm where to start...
Paintball mask, ESS NVG Profile Goggles, Revision Exoshields, oakley m frames, revision BEWs (CF ones), and the one I use the most good ol' CF BEW's before the revision ones!

ThunderCactus October 9th, 2013 19:09

bump for education!

Aj619 October 10th, 2013 02:05

I use both JT spectra goggles and revisons I change it up when one feels uncomfortable to me but both are by and far strong enough to stop a bb and I always change my lense if they have been hit within 5 feet (Dosen't happen often) cause their my eyes and I want to keep them in my skull

slate6226 October 10th, 2013 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobrajr122 (Post 1803218)
1 - Both glasses and goggles. I like to use glasses more, goggles only when required.

2 - Glasses - EXCEEDS ANSI Z87.1-2010 / EXCEEDS MIL-DTL-43511D, CLAUSE 3.5.10
Goggles - EXCEEDS ANSI Z87.1-2010 / EXCEEDS MIL-DTL-43511D, CLAUSE 3.5.10

3 - Glasses issued w/ docs, Goggles bought straight from revision, came with docs.

4 - Both Revision

What Revision glasses/goggles models are you using? I was checking the Desert Locusts data sheets for spec compliance and I saw your post.

Reaver_RRTS October 10th, 2013 14:48

Just got these a little while ago: http://airsoftdepot.ca/catalog/produ...oducts_id=1540 and I'm not wearing them. One the left and right sides of the goggle, there's foam covering 1/4" wide x 1/2" gaps, more than enough space for a bb to pass through. They were cheaper lenses for what was in stock, and I thought they'd be alright but when I got them and noticed the gaps, I put them back in the box. The foam is very thin and soft. A bb will blow right through it with almost no resistance, I'm not risking my eyes wearing them. Not to say the goggles themselves are bad, but the gaps are a safety issue in my opinion.

Cobrajr122 October 10th, 2013 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by slate6226 (Post 1840242)
What Revision glasses/goggles models are you using? I was checking the Desert Locusts data sheets for spec compliance and I saw your post.

I have Desert Locusts. I have worn them to one game where goggles were mandatory. I prefer my Sawflys way more.

ThunderCactus October 10th, 2013 17:31

"PolyCarbonate lens stands 500FPS 0.2bb"

That's very convincing. You think that would hold up in court if they broke? lol

Magnaroth October 11th, 2013 09:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by scubasteve (Post 1803234)
Like they say at CN. You can walk with a wooden leg you can grab with a metal claw but you cant see with a glass eye. Dont cheap out when it comes to eye wear.

Can't see with a glass eye... YET! However, that's exactly why I bought my ESS. Stranger things have happened than BBs taking out someone's eye.

ThunderCactus January 3rd, 2014 14:47

Can I get this sticky'd?

J-Man19 January 3rd, 2014 15:01

I've dropped ESS and switched to smith. After Oakley bought ESS quality took a nose dive big time.

Ricochet January 3rd, 2014 18:27

I don't have a problem with safety glasses, but here is a few pointers.

- bare minimum, use CSA or ANSI rated lenses

- make sure there is full eye coverage (put your glasses on properly, if you can touch your finger to your eyeball, they fail)

- follow manufacturer's recommendations (if the glasses are struck or scratched, they're finished)

- use a retention strap (I've had mine fall of before, and I've seen several I there's as well

ThunderCactus January 3rd, 2014 22:19

You've also purposely taken your glasses off in a hot zone, captain safety :p

a1rs0ft January 27th, 2014 14:37

From what I read the updated MCEP GL-PD 10-12 standard supersedes any previous MIL-SPEC standard (ie MIL-DTL-43511D).

BioRage January 27th, 2014 15:34

Bought a pair of Revision Desert Locus Asian Fit, with Fan of course.

They had a 30% off deal, so ended up being $14x - 16x USD Shipped?

Can't wait to try them out!

ThunderCactus January 27th, 2014 15:50

the desert locust fan goggles are $170. You bought fakes.

BioRage January 27th, 2014 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThunderCactus (Post 1862584)
the desert locust fan goggles are $170. You bought fakes.

http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content...2/05/Orly1.jpg

Wow .. so fan, much fake.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8ybahe58zzxrjwg/revision.PNG

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8ybahe58zzxrjwg/revision.PNG

Sequential January 27th, 2014 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThunderCactus (Post 1862584)
the desert locust fan goggles are $170. You bought fakes.

No they're not. You can get them as low as $130USD before, with a different coupon on revisions site.

Janus January 27th, 2014 19:09

Mesh. I can fog glass from thirty paces. I don't have a choice unless I want to play blind.

_Whiskey_ January 27th, 2014 19:33

Revision all the way. You only get one set of eyes.

Zack The Ripper January 27th, 2014 20:35

I spent a pretty penny on my Smith Optics OTWs (with turbo fan) and its the best $190 I have spent. Multiple lenses, turbo fan, removable battery pack; I hardly use the fan they work so well, and I'm like you Janus, shit fogs fast with me.

ThunderCactus January 27th, 2014 21:07

my bad, thought that read $14-16 LOL

targetGspot January 27th, 2014 23:22

I wear properly tested safety glasses, then I test them myself at 600fps, 1' away to be sure. I also wear mesh once and a while if I'm fogging. At our game, proper eyepro is our only real rule. We test fire on anything anyone brings out and we encourage full face.

Ricochet January 28th, 2014 12:44

1 Attachment(s)
The issue with testing, is that now they have been "struck". So if you're talking safety eyewear, like your standard $5.00 - $20.00 CSA approved glasses, now they are technically no good. Manufacturers specifications always state this. In the case of ballistic, like say Oakley lenses, they are tested with a steel bolt, fired at high speeds. I'd argue that ballistic lenses can take multiple light BB hits without a worry, but as pointed out in previous posts, like the one by Thunder Cactus on ESS glasses, you can get bad batches, and they can and will fail. However in the case of standard safety glasses, after any strike or scratch, like a BB at close range from a 600 FPS gun, now they need replacement.

I'd recommend that anyone using CSA/ANSI safety glasses "must" have built in side shields, a retention strap, and "must be replaced after any strike or visible scratch. Light scuffs from being in a gear bag, or a BB strike out beyond 100', 200', 300' or more feet, FPS depending, may be considered okay, but they should be inspected each time a hit happens for visible damage. If also argue that any strike, no matter the distance, that you can feel, snaps your head back, or makes that audible "thwack", should count as a strike. So it stands to reason that buying an entire box of safety eyewear, say from an automotive store at once, is way more affordable and cost effective. Obviously you're going to then buy the $3.00 - $8.00 safety glasses, as the more expensive ones would be a waste of you had to regularly replace them.

So when someone brings out appropriate safety eyewear, I'd let them run them without a "test" as it were. Honestly, your better off long term, than technically being the cause of disabling their eyewear's safety abilities by shooting them. That being said, clearly outline "acceptable" field eyewear, and what it needs to be accepted, so people don't go out and buy garbage, or try running something unsuitable. We had a guy try and run a gas mask, that was safety rated, but had those old school "glass" lenses. It may take a hammer strike, but it did not like BBs, and the glass cracked. Can you imagine glass shards in his eyes, following a BB strike? So "modern" industrial or ballistic eyewear is a must, and if someone wants to test their own eyewear, and put themselves at risk, well, that's up to you, as it is your field. But I wouldn't want to be the guy who just shot their eyewear to test, and broke the manufacturer's instructions.

There is another issue we've dealt with, and that is facial structure. Facial features like cheekbones, orbital bones, and brow can all play a part in if their eyewear will fit right. The most common one is cheek bones, and this can make things difficult on certain players. Good rule of thumb, once any glasses are on, and worn properly, the player should not be able to touch their eyes with a finger from any angle. It does work, but this is where it gets interesting. If someone has a skinny face or a smaller bone structure, their safety glasses may not actually cover their eyes at certain angles. If the gap is big enough, a BB could come in and ricochet off of their safety lenses, and into their eyes. The human eye is relatively tough, and would likely take a ricochet, but I wouldn't want to put it to the test. In these cases, we make them wear large lenses glasses, such as the M-Frame style, like most modern ballistics have. You'll find safety glasses like this mostly in grinding or power tool settings, as the cover over the lower brow, center cheek bone, and orbital recess. Which leaves us with one last problem, although their are people who can wear thinner styles if safety eyewear and damn near get a seal due to their facial structure, their are those who cannot even wear large or wide lensed glasses, without still having their cheek bones providing any cover. I'm hit or miss with this myself, but I've seen many that no matter what they wear, they can still reach up from underneath, and touch their eyes. This is a tough one, because it is a very bizarre angle, and no matter what they do, they will always have the cheekbone gap. In these instances, we have daned to allow the player the choice of wide lenses, but recommend that they wear a full seal goggle instead.

Bottom line, is that eye safety is each individuals responsibility, but every team, field, host, club , etc, should set the proper example, and have clear cut safety expectations, and comprehensive rules regarding eyewear. Especially, in my opinion, to what is deemed acceptable eyewear, and that reasonable and responsible eye safety always supersedes comfort, style, and personal feelings.

This is a picture of a guy who wore his eyewear down the bridge of his nose, instead of properly. His eyewear fogged up, and he pushed them down so he could tilt his head and see. The gun that shot him was approximately 100' - 150' away, and shot approximately 400 FPS - 420 FPS with a 0.20 gram BB. I think I've posted it here before, but it's a good reminder that close, is too close.

targetGspot January 28th, 2014 16:32

I actually bought 2 of the glasses I wore last season, 1st set I fired multiple 600 fps 1' shots then went full auto from 4' 400fps multiple bursts, no damage. I wear that pair while driving and play with the other pair. I typically go through this routine every season, unless I feel the need to replace mid season from taking a few to many in the face but our guys are pretty good about actually aiming and avoiding a face shots. Everyone we play with knows the risk. We even tell them about one of our guys losing half a tooth. (we recommend full face, but a tooth can be fixed, not so much for an eye).

ThunderCactus January 28th, 2014 18:15

I would also argue that the mil-spec lenses can take multiple hits, and Z87.1+ lenses are actually tested in 6 places with the high velocity test, HOWEVER it's questionable if the HV test is comparable to a BB.

If you see your lens deform notably (fair sized crater), as mine did when they were hit by a hot GBBR from close, I'd say toss the lens. Deformation sets up internal stress which weakens the lens. ESPECIALLY if you see any sort of stress fractures, no matter how small, around the point of impact. Any sort of stress fracture or crack, no matter how small, seriously compromises the lens' ballistic rating.

Small hits within fps limits, say fired from 150', I don't believe should cause notable damage to a lens.

Red Dot June 16th, 2014 22:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarfn (Post 1895949)
I have tactical goggles don't what the rating is and glasses from the dollar store

If you read this thread do you feel confident in your unknown tactical goggles and dollar store glasses to protect your eyes? :confused:

SuperHog June 19th, 2014 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Dot (Post 1895959)
If you read this thread do you feel confident in your unknown tactical goggles and dollar store glasses to protect your eyes? :confused:

It is about common sense. If a person thinks a dollar store eye protection is fine, he probably does not have common sense on other things in life.

Jimski June 19th, 2014 15:02

Heys guise I just bought this awesome dollarstore parachute

lurkingknight June 19th, 2014 15:09

dollar store condoms?

ThunderCactus June 19th, 2014 15:38

All you can do is present a person with facts and rules. In the end, their safety is up to themselves.
It still blows my mind that some people cant justify spending more than $5 on industrial eye protection. You can fact them to death but they just dont get it.

lurkingknight June 19th, 2014 17:32

what's that saying? you can lead a horse to water, but the dumbass fucker will just drown itself?

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/15907393-lg.jpg

The Legacy September 2nd, 2014 19:48

Great thread. :) I'm someone who's using a friend's pair that I bought from him a year or so ago. He told me that they're ANSI rated, and so far I've had no problems. More importantly, though, is that they don't fog; I have a HUGE problem with fogging, and to find goggles that didn't fog is a wonderful thing. However, it's pretty worn out, so I'm a bit overdue in getting some new ones. Hopefully I'll find something reasonable.

I saw some people mention about using Mesh. I know that most events ban their use, but is it true that Mesh can stop all BB's? If so, why don't they make special plastic shields just under the mesh designed to protect against shrapnel? (Of course if fogging is still a thing, then I see the point)

ThunderCactus September 2nd, 2014 20:27

Yep, you answered your own question there. Only solid lens protects against shrapnel, and only ballistic rated lenses are allowed, so no need for the added protection of the mesh.
Follow the indicators carefully:
>*Bent wire*< mesh WILL stop all *SOLID* BBs.

If BB's shatter, which heavy bio and low quality ammo are prone to doing, then they may shrapnel through.

"Punched", "flat", or "lasered" mesh, is made from a flat piece of metal. It's the flat mesh with the million round holes in it. It's SIGNIFICANTLY prone to breaking on impact since there's very little strength to the structure to begin with, and it's very often made of aluminum, or some other low tensile strength material. Without taking 2 paragraphs to explain it, just take my word that it's super easy to puncture due to material type and design.

Bent wire mesh is typically made from steel wire, and because of it's interweaving structure, is highly resistant to impact and can also absorb a lot of impact since it's made of higher tensile strength material.

The issue is more about BBs breaking up than ballistic protection, but BB's WILL SHOOT THROUGH FLAT MESH.

Ricochet September 3rd, 2014 00:36

Mesh also dumbs down your vision I find.

Drakker September 3rd, 2014 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricochet (Post 1909786)
Mesh also dumbs down your vision I find.

It depends, when you have perfect vision its fine. I am slightly myopic, without my contact lens, I can't see crap through mesh, when I put them on, suddenly everything is clear and it feels like wearing sunglasses.

ThunderCactus January 26th, 2015 20:27

Edited, keep an eye out for replicas.

BattleBorn February 10th, 2015 22:07

It's probably been said but: you only have 1 pair of eyes, how valuable is your sight?

I would highly stress investing money in a top pair of ballistic goggles/glasses etc. Hell, I'm running Oakley M-Frame 3.0's and Revision desert locusts when I need a full seal! I like seeing stuff, hell porn would get kinda boring with just noise... imagine focusing on the wrong person's moan?

:banghead:

ThunderCactus February 11th, 2015 01:02

Couple changes, grammar, reworded a few things, added a bit at the end

lurkingknight February 17th, 2015 14:43

z87.1 BASE old standard.

high velocity test is .25 inch steel ball at 150 fps.


Quote:

z87.1 2010

the classification was reorganized into sub categories in a 2010 revision of the safety standard.
Eye Protection Marking

ANSI Z87.1-2010 requires markings on eye protection that directly relate to the ability of the eye protection device to defend against specific hazards. If the eye protection is Z87.1 compliant, it will be marked with "Z87."

Additional marking are divided into three categories:

Impact vs. Non-Impact
Splash and Dust Protection
Optical Radiation Protection
Impact vs. Non-Impact

ANSI Z87.1–2010 classifies eye protection as either impact or non-impact rated. Impact rated eye protection must meet specified high mass and high velocity tests, and provide continuous lateral coverage. Impact rated eye protection will have a plus symbol (+).

Z87+ impacted rated flat lenses
Z87-2+ impact rated prescription lens
Z87 non-impact rated flat lenses
Z87-2 non-impacted rated prescription lens


http://www.graphicproducts.com/artic...protection.php

so according to the 2010 revision of the standard, basic 87.1 is no longer rated for impact safety. You MUST purchase z87.1+ glasses.

ThunderCactus March 6th, 2015 18:39

updated with CSA Z94.3

docholiday March 6th, 2015 21:56

ThunderCactus, good job putting this together.

I think MIL-DTL-43511D has been replaced by MIL-PRF-32432.

From Revision product description for the Desert Locust:
Quote:

EXCEEDS U.S. MILITARY BALLISTIC IMPACT REQUIREMENTS FOR GOGGLES (MIL-PRF-32432, CLAUSE 4.4.3.3.5, SUPERSEDING FORMER MIL-DTL-43511D, CLAUSE 3.5.10)
EXCEEDS ANSI Z87.1-2010 BALLISTIC IMPACT AND OPTICAL REQUIREMENTS
http://www.revisionmilitary.com/prod...goggle-system/



U.S. MILITARY BALLISTIC IMPACT REQUIREMENTS FOR GOGGLES MIL-PRF-32432, CLAUSE 4.4.3.3.5 as outlined below:

Quote:

4.4.3.3.5 Ballistic fragmentation protection, Class 2 and Class 3. Class 2 Goggles shall be hit three (3) times with a 0.22 caliber, 17 (+/- 0.5) grain, T37 shaped projectile at 550-560 ft./sec, once on the left side and once on the right with both impacts at normal incidence (0 degree obliquity) to the primary lens at a location within the critical area. The third shot shall be in the center at the vertical center line at normal incidence (0 degree obliquity) to the primary lens. Class 3 shall be impacted in the same manner, with the exception that the center shot shall not be taken. The critical area is defined as a circle having a 20 mm radius centered on the horizontal centerline and 32 mm from the vertical centerline). A shot shall be considered valid if the projectile hits within the critical area or within 10 mm of the designated impact point, if the velocity requirements have been met for the shot (i.e., considered “fair” per paragraph 4.4.3.3.2), if obliquity requirements have been met for the shot, if the impact location is at least two projectile diameters (1.09 cm) away from the edge of a lens, and the projectile does not impact the frame. Projectiles shall be a fragment simulating project (FSP) of shape and dimensions as specified in Figure 4 and shall be manufactured from cold rolled, annealed steel conforming to composition 4340H; the projectile hardness shall be Rockwell C30 (+/-2).
Projectiles will be visually inspected for damage in between each shot. Projectiles may be reused after they have been fired unless visual observation indicates that the projectile has been damaged or deformed. The test item shall be mounted on an EN head form (small or medium) in the as-worn position. Compressed gas propulsion (N2 or He) of the projectile may be used. The test item shall be removed after each impact for inspection of both the sample and the witness sheet and any other observations noted. Damage to the witness sheet or eyewear and all observations (i.e. breakage, cracks, complete dislodgement, partial dislodgement, delamination, flaking, etc.) shall be noted. Ballistic fragmentation testing shall be conducted on a sample size of ten (10) for each configuration tested initially, and a sample size of three (3) for each post exposure (such as post chemical and post environmental). The test shall be considered a failure if one or more of the following occur:
1) if the witness sheet is perforated or if there is a complete penetration of the test item, 2) if the primary lens is cracked, fractured, or shattered,
3) if one or more fragments become dislodged on the inside of the eyewear (to include coatings)
4) if eyewear component needed to retain the eyewear on the head becomes completely separated from the eyewear
5) if the primary lens becomes completely separated from the eyewear
6) if the eyewear falls off the head form
7) if the inside laminate is cracked and results in a loose flap of material larger than the diameter of the projectile (for laminated lens structures only)
A lens crack is defined as a fissure that propagates beyond the impact site from one surface of the lens to the other. Petalling is not considered a crack.
http://everyspec.com/MIL-PRF/MIL-PRF...F-32432_45247/

lurkingknight March 6th, 2015 22:38

http://www.elvex.com/Facts-What-chan...Z87.1-2010.htm

TC, point of concern for 87.1+...

What do shooting glasses and shop safety glasses fall under, spectacles, goggles of face shields? cause if they're spectacles, that's only 344fps with a .2.

They're definitely not classified as a face shield, they do not cover your entire face.

ThunderCactus March 6th, 2015 23:19

docholiday, good info, it's been added

lurkingkknight, that's actually quite alarming. I just checked the actual spec to make sure, and it seems to ME that they've lowered the bar substantially.

The new high impact testing (the + mark) has new minimum requirements:
FACE SHIELD: ~4.08j
GOGGLES: ~2.84j
GLASSES: ~1.02j
Now only requires 6 strikes instead of the original 20

Here is the document I looked at
http://support.automationdirect.com/...NSI%20spec.pdf
page 19 (p12 of the document)

Quote:

6.2.3 High Velocity Impact
When tested in accordance with Section 9.12, the
complete device shall be capable of resisting im-
pact from a 6.35 mm (0.25 in) diameter steel ball
traveling at the velocity specified in Table 5. No
contact with the eye of the headform is permitted
as a result of impact.
Table 5.
High Velocity Impact Testing
Device type Velocity
Welding helmets 45.72 m/s (150 ft/s)
Spectacles 45.72 m/s (150 ft/s)
Goggles 76.20 m/s (250 ft/s)
Faceshields 91.44 m/s (300 ft/s)
So far as I can tell, this means Z87.1+ in the case of "ballistic glasses", no longer meets the minimum requirements of airsoft use.
Just so everyone doesn't freak out immediately, the minimum THICKNESS of the glasses (2.0mm) has not changed since the 2003 requirement of ~3j, but you'll no longer be covered if they break under airsoft use....

I'd like someone else to look up a different document, verify the result, and report back here before I make a "sky is falling" thread on safety glasses.

lurkingknight March 6th, 2015 23:25

here are the numbers translated so airsofters can understand a bit easier:

686 FPS with a .2 for face shields
572 FPS with a .2 for goggles
344 FPS with a .2 for spectacles

I calculated these numbers basing a 1/4 inch steel ball weighing 1.046 g.

It looks like your numbers are from a slightly more dense steel, I found several charts listing several different types of steel ball bearings, ranging from from 1.046 to slightly more, so we can assume they'll all reside in and around these numbers.

The difference in steel densities is irrelevant in this case, 2 are well above fielded output, and the one that is in contention is well below what is required for airsoft.


The concern is real, people could be betting on semantics in terms of how their eye pro is classified as a goggle or spectacle, and whether or not their particular eye pro was 87.1.2003 certified vs 87.1.2010 certified, most of the time it's never marked, it's just marked as 87.1 or 87.1+.

ThunderCactus March 6th, 2015 23:29

math I've used
1/4 steel ball
avg weight of steel being 7.8g/cm3
6.35mm/2=3.175
(that's pi, not a crazy n) 4πr=126.68mm3
126.68mm3=.126cm3
7.8/.126=.982g
.982@150fps=1.02j

So they seem to have dropped the high impact requirement for glasses altogether, since Z87.1 alone is 1j

aaaaan re-edited a bunch of numbers because I was using the high end of steel weight instead of the average. Dropped everything .1-.2j

lurkingknight March 6th, 2015 23:32

http://astronomyonline.org/Science/I...eticEnergy.gif


mass of steel I used for calculation was http://steelmedia.com/steel-balls-data.htm

1.046 kg per 1000 balls. so 1.046 g where m is represented as a decimal of 1 kg.

=0.5*(0.001046*(45.74*45.74))

This leaves us with 1.09 J

edit:

this formula calculates the KE for a 1/4 inch steel ball traveling at 150 fps.

Cobrajr122 March 6th, 2015 23:35

While these new impact ratings are indeed well below what we play at - I just want to add that they test using steel balls, which will transfer far more energy into the eyebro than an airsoft BB.

Either way - another great reason to stick with milspec only.

ThunderCactus March 6th, 2015 23:45

Had someone else work it out to 1.14j
Sooooooo we're all in agreement it's well below 3j

ThunderCactus November 29th, 2016 15:00

1 Attachment(s)
Ive been meaning to update the number on this but havent had time to spend an hour looking up facts and figures all over.
But here's a PSA from Manitoba's own Eddie Creek field owner:
Quote:

PSA...
Player today nearly lost an eye.
The round blew the back piece of the lense out. And got some in the eye.
This is a reminder.
Do not cheap on on eye pro. And just testing them by shooting at it with a gun may not do it. This player did test fire on the glasses...
Buy proper. Well fitting. Full seal eyepro.
They have yet ti create replacement eyes everyone.
These glasses were test shot to see if they could withstand a hit, and they passed that test. But shooting the lens weakens it. And like Ive said before, just because the field limit is 1.6j doesn't mean everyone out there understands joule creep, or is playing by the rules.

Remember, a Z87.1+ rating by itself doesn't mean jack shit. Any Chinese company can machine that rating into a mould and fill it with plexiglass or some shit.
A Z87.1+ rating means absolutely nothing unless there's actual documentation behind it. This is why brand name is important.

Ricochet November 29th, 2016 16:10

Most manufacturers will also tell you that after one strike or scratch, the eyewear is done. Buy proper ballistic lenses from reputable companies, from reputable retailers, period. You don't necessarily need full seal (depending on field rules or insurance), but your eyewear should fully protect the eyes from all angles and be properly lashed to your head by a proper retention strap.

LimaCharlie November 29th, 2016 19:03

Pyramex a good company then? If anyone has experiene with them.

Ricochet November 29th, 2016 20:31

If you're in Burnaby, go to DS Tactical in New West on the corner of 8th and 12th. They carry Oakley, Revision and Smith. I personally recommend the Revision Bullet-Ants for comfort and profile, but the Wolf-Spiders have better airflow.

ThunderCactus November 29th, 2016 20:35

Pyramex does industrial eyepro, so they're pretty good.
Edge as well.
You can get Z87.1+ and milspec glasses for >$10 and >$20 respectively, just make sure it's from a reputable company.

RainyEyes November 29th, 2016 22:30

Hmm that's a good point. How often do you replace eye pro after it's taken impact? I've been wearing my valken tactical sierra's for almost 6 years now. I've washed them, got them wet, got them shot at (has marks and scuffs on them). When is the telltale sign of the necessity to replace them BEFORE having a bb pass through like wet tissue paper and into my poor corneas?

chaz November 29th, 2016 22:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by LimaCharlie (Post 1994151)
Pyramex a good company then? If anyone has experiene with them.

I have a pair of pyramex goggles that have taken hits with no damage. Optics just aren't very clear.
Personally switched to Smith Optics Aeris and OTW's from Revision glasses.

Ricochet November 30th, 2016 00:00

Go through like paper? Probably not, but let's put it this way; I've had a hard hat literally disintegrate in my hands after a time. If you're talking about safety level eyewear, then the typical rating is one strike or one scratch and they're done. They'll certainly take more punishment, but that's the specs. Ballistic and Paintball grade lenses are supposed to be higher, but after a time, especially if you're cleaning them with chemicals and/or applying whatever anti-fog crap, the lenses will break down, not to mention sunlight, dirt, etc. This may take years however. If your lenses are old, scratched up, or you don't have complete faith in them, then it's likely time for a change. Also look for material breakdown and tiny stress fractures around the edges.

Cliffradical November 30th, 2016 08:10

Eyewear should be carefully inspected per hit and considered disposable.

Think of the money you spend as insurance against never being able to see again.
I do not understand how people can take this so lightly, or even necessarily scapegoat retailers for their own lack of research and eye safety/ paranoia.

Teeth are one thing, but eyes! Eyes!!!!

chaz November 30th, 2016 13:02

Buy something that has replaceable lenses. Done!
Initial output might be high but replacement lenses are cheap.

ThunderCactus November 30th, 2016 16:00

Microfractures are what cause lenses to break apart when hit. But can you tell when a lens is going to blow apart on the inside like that? Really doubt it.
It's usually due to the lens not being flexible enough, so instead of flexing to absorb impact, it blows apart on the inside. But can be caused by hardening over time, like exposure to chemicals. Not sure if UV exposure does the same thing.
If you have an impact dimple on your lens, then you should replace it. Dimples are induced stress and weaken the lens. Regardless, you probably shouldn't go more than 2 seasons with the same set of lenses.

Ricochet November 30th, 2016 16:36

Eventually the protective coatings wear down and the lense will become more susceptible to UV and other exposure, though this can take years, even with safety glasses. Micro-fractures can be seen if you look carefully. This is why you should ever clean your eyewear with anything more than warm soapy water and approved anti-fog. Most ballistic lenses will be fully BB resistant for years and years.

Cobrajr122 November 30th, 2016 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainyEyes (Post 1994167)
Hmm that's a good point. How often do you replace eye pro after it's taken impact? I've been wearing my valken tactical sierra's for almost 6 years now. I've washed them, got them wet, got them shot at (has marks and scuffs on them). When is the telltale sign of the necessity to replace them BEFORE having a bb pass through like wet tissue paper and into my poor corneas?

I replace mine once a year or so, they see a LOT of use outside of airsoft. Lots of sweat, UV, and bug dope damage.

Most companies recommend replacing lenses often or after light damage though every manufacture is different. Check your manual.

BenG November 30th, 2016 19:29

Personally Id replace a ANSI87.1+ lens after 1 strike, or after 2 years. And ill be replacing my oakley/smith optics lens every 2 years as well or if I notice any damage to them or if they take multiple strikes. in 7 years of playing I can think of only half a dozen times when my eyepro has been struck by a bb, typically its in the helmet, or finger.

lurkingknight November 30th, 2016 20:26

87.1 are nothing but dust/debris shields, most reputable manufacturers will tell you to replace them after a significant impact of anything greater than dust or debris.


Remember that the ratings don't just cover the lens shield, the ratings (and particularly milspec requirements) include the frame as part of the rating. The frame must help distribute the impact forces, much like the windshield of your car requires the frame around it to be strong, and the frame becomes stronger because the windshield is in place.

I've seen people with their 5 year old goggles have the frames break on them because they were either knockoffs or just old enough that the sweat and heat cycling from usage outdoors plus uv rays weakened the material. His lens was in ok shape but the frame was unable to hold the lens properly.

Pyramex stuff is generally under 30 bucks and they make milspec rated stuff in that price bracket, there really is no excuse not to be vigilant and overly cautious about protecting your eyes.

ThunderCactus November 30th, 2016 22:02

I've actually seen guys play with regular Z87.1 faceshields before. Back before we really knew anything about ratings. Of course now we know that's extremely dangerous lol

Ricochet December 1st, 2016 08:04

Many of us spent years wearing whatever safety glasses we had and many ended up really old and scratched to shit, but we never thought about it. I've been struck in the eyewear hundreds of times, but luckily most safety equipment is much stronger and more durable than its rating. I remember a game we hosted and Kimbo from JOC was wearing his ESS ballistic glasses (I think they were ESS), but they were quite old. I shot them right off his face, a BB literally broke right through the frame or arm of the glasses because it had been so weakened from years of abuse. For years I also used to have a pair of ESS ballistic goggles, but they never saw much use at all. One day I took them out of my gear bag and was inspecting them and the frame literally disintegrated in my hands like it was wet paper.

ThunderCactus December 1st, 2016 12:11

I had an old thread on here where i had a bunch of pictures of a 3yr old pair of ess ice glasses that i blew apart.
Actually i think i broke 2 lenses shooting at them in my basement, but i was demonstrating how dangerous the ess ice glasses ended up being due to their mounting system causing stress fractures in the lens. Dont have the pictures anymore though.

docholiday December 1st, 2016 12:27

I use the Oakley M-Frames sometimes with sometimes without halo kit for the outdoor stuff and for indoor arenas I use the Oakley Revision once.

Personal policy and i think what most people on the team do is switch the lenses on them once per year.

chaz December 1st, 2016 12:49

replacement lenses are cheap!
Buy a good set of whatevers, Smith Optics, Oakley, Revision, etc and just replace your lenses often enough to ensure you don't get fucked.
I mean, shit, most lenses are what $20-25 for those systems?

Ricochet December 1st, 2016 13:23

M-Frame lenses are $60US plus shipping, that's right from Oakley. Still, I could easily spend that once a year to save my eyes. Mind you, if you are running proper ballistic eyewear, that have not taken a shit-kicking, then you could probably replace them every two years if you properly inspect and store them.

docholiday December 1st, 2016 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricochet (Post 1994290)
M-Frame lenses are $60US plus shipping, that's right from Oakley. Still, I could easily spend that once a year to save my eyes. Mind you, if you are running proper ballistic eyewear, that have not taken a shit-kicking, then you could probably replace them every two years if you properly inspect and store them.

CAD50 from 911.

ThunderCactus December 1st, 2016 14:40

$50 plus shipping to vancouver


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:13.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.