screamin_weasel Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 rofl at the best typo EVER !!! "thankfully he was blinded" :rofl::rofl: its good to hear real world experience of the rated eyewear holding up, especially in the US with 'hot' guns. these 'lab specs' defo look cooler than my sansei goggles lol. Link to post Share on other sites
Ledpocket Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 lol, yeah. Also in my above edited post, the reply is referencing the new 2003 z ratings (I think). The old z standard had no differentiation between regular and high impact. It is all spelled out in the one link with the pdf... reposted: http://media.msanet.com/NA/USA/HeadEyeFace...NSI_Changes.pdf from here: http://www.msanet.com/catalog/product1088.html Link to post Share on other sites
Jimisin73 Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Heya guys, I play with the same group as Led, and we have been using shooting glasses for a while, but you must be aware that bbs ending up inside your glasses isn't as odd as you would think. I was actually hit in the upper eyelid durring a game when a shot sneaked over the top of my glasses while laying prone. I still prefer them, but for the sake of overall saftey have agreed to support the "full contact" initiative for this comming season. I guess what I'm trying to say is... just be aware of the hazards and then make up your own mind. Link to post Share on other sites
screamin_weasel Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 yeah i will be defo adding a strip of foam along the edges of these glasses, hopefully not detracting from the look and function of them too much. the RAF dont like half blind people Link to post Share on other sites
cazboab Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 The rateing you're looking for in the UK is EN166F, althought the only glasses/goggles I own that actually have that rateing on them specificly cost £3 from B&Q. Link to post Share on other sites
Ledpocket Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 So, as luck would have it, the guy that sells perscription safety glasses was in to work today (I work in a machine shop) and I was having a little chat with him about the ansi z87.1 spec and how it related to different uses of eye protection (raquetball vs working vs shooting, etc) He was saying that when it comes to the polycarbonate lenses, if the lens is marked z87.1, it will pretty much stop a .22 round. The big difference between what qualifies as appropriate for a given use is the frame that the lens is mounted in. In my raquetball example, the frames need to be beefed up to prevent a raquet from dislodging the lens and driving the lens itself into your eye (while the frames just stay put). Basicly he said any z87.1 polycarbonate lens should offer the same protection as any other z87.1 polycarbonate lens. The frames being the big difference. So, I'm no expert, and this guy is no ansi lab tech, but he seemed pretty knowledgable, and is employed in the safety glasses industry, so I'll trust his opinion. edit- spelling. And, for some reason he seemed to stress "polycarbonate lenses" when ever he mentioned the ansi spec. I'm assuming it's because other types of plastic or glass are inferior, or maybe because the z87.1 spec only applies to polycarbonate. I forgot to ask him why. Link to post Share on other sites
screamin_weasel Posted February 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 cool. i did read in some of those links you gave me that other types of palstic and glass and inferior to pukka polycarbonate. my intial reaction is that a BB wouldnt have the surface area to push the whole lense into your face - the BB or lens would shatter first. as the pro seems to think the lenses stop .22, my bet is on the BB shattering before the polycarbonate lenses. but still, the only way is to find out. Link to post Share on other sites
Lokki Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 At this moment there is quite a debate about Guarder C3, ESS ICE 2.4 etc. style glasses' safety in one of major Finnish airsoft forum. Over 90% of Finnish airsofters uses goggles Bolle X500 and X800 being most visible products. Also mesh goggles are very popular. The lens itself meets all those convincing standards but biggest issue is how properly they stay in place, for example during sprint through a bush, and durability of legs. There are several confirmed cases of legs breaking from close range hit from tuned up AEG with Guarder C3 glasses in Finland. What I would like to know is how your glasses, especially what manufacturer and model, have perfomed and endured during movement through heavy foliage and direct hits to legs. Link to post Share on other sites
screamin_weasel Posted February 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 all stuff to consider dude, cheers. situation at the mo is i have sent an e-mail regarding postage costs, but they are yet to get back to me, so i might try again soon. as for the glasses fallign off, im sure soem type of head band will keep them on. be assured, im nto just going to open the package and go and play airsoft in them Link to post Share on other sites
Lokki Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 I had a chance to test durability of ESS ICE's legs and I shot them point-blank with Star L85A2 which chronoed 1,45 joules out of the box. Legs broke to pieces with single shot. In Finland M120-level tune ups in AEGs and 300%-level tune ups in bolt action rifles are nothing unusual so I can't recommend using glasses like ESS ICE and Guarder C3, since there is a durability issue with legs. If someone still wants to use those... well its their own responsibility. In some organized scenarios in Finland those kind of glasses are totally banned. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.