Eye Protection
|
What You Should Look For In Eye Protection
Non-ballistic eye protection is fine for keeping relatively slow-moving objects away from your face. Empty cases ejected from a firearm, dirt kicked up by muzzle blast, etc. For faster-moving projectiles such as ricocheted bullets, you need high quality, tested eye protection. I would personally prefer eyewear with a single piece lens for any activity where my face might be struck by small, fast-moving objects. Individual lenses detach from the frames once a certain level of force is reached, and they are driven back into the eye sockets – sometimes at undesirable angles – where considerable damage may be done. There are good two piece lens eye protection out there, like the Smith Optics Director, but single-piece lenses distribute force much better. Also, a wide, comfortable, and preferably soft rubber nose-piece is critical. This will, along with good “arms,” serve to keep the eye protection in place during energetic activity – but it will also reduce the chances of the lens being driven down or back into the face at angles or with enough force to damage the orbital bones. A frame that connects across the top of the lens, not individual arms which attach to the outside corners of the lens, is recommended. This will reduce the chances of the lens detaching from the frame – it’s still possible, just less likely – under impact. Depending on the design, some eye pro with this design also uses the frame to absorb impact and distribute force. You should also consider how well the eyewear fits you, both in physical dimensions and comfort – and, frankly, whether you think it looks good on you, because you’ll be more likely to wear it if you don’t think it makes you look stupid. Finally, make sure the manufacturer states that it passes ANSI or MIL-PRF-31013 testing. Take some time to find the right eye protection for you – and keep in mind that you don’t have to spend a fortune. It’s possible to buy eye protection that meets all of this criteria for as little as $20, which is a pittance compared to losing your vision. |
New Mil-Spec eye protection offered by Champion
These glasses can be worn over prescription glasses just like the NRA glasses many members currently use. However, they meet MIL-PRF-31013 standard which is four times the protection of the ANSI Z87.1 standard, and they're less expensive at only $17 vs $20 for the NRA glasses. Note that they give side and forehead protection. They come in clear as well as amber versions. The Champion glasses will now be the primary eye protection available for sale at member meetings. We will offer both the clear and amber versions. 
Champion GOG - Mil Spec Ballistic Glasses - $17
NRA -GOG - ANSI Standards - $20
|
Unsatisfactory Eye Protection
Three Types of Eye-wear You Should Not Use As Eye Protection
In the course of my testing, I discovered that there were a few types of eye-wear which should not be used as eye protection:
First, we’ll take a look at older eye-wear.
I tested several different types of eye protection that I had owned for five or more years – my issued ESS goggles, some yellow-lens shooting glasses which were clearly of a previous decades’ style, some prescription glasses that had an integrated headband and were intended for “sport” use, and another pair of shooting glasses that were fairly basic/inexpensive, but had seen use for years.
Although the old, well-used ESS goggles shown here technically stopped the .22 Short bullet (visible at the top of the goggles), the lens broke and was shoved into the left “eye” of the styrofoam head, which would have resulted in injury.Every pair of older eye protection absolutely failed to stop basic “threats” which were stopped by comparable eye protection of newer manufacture or less use.
The highest quality example of the “older” group was the ESS goggle, which passed all military ballistic testing and which I personally wore in Iraq for almost all of 2006. ESS goggles and glasses were in use by nearly every Marine and Sailor in the area, and I constantly saw how effective they were.
Even so, age – and constant exposure to UV rays from sunlight – takes its toll on polycarbonate eye protection. For this reason, I would avoid using eye protection that is more than a few years old and/or has seen a lot of sunlight. Knowledgeable military sources informed me that the life cycle of military eye pro is expected to be six months.
If You Enjoy Vision, You Shouldn’t Use Regular Prescription Glasses As Eye ProI think it’s also important to discuss prescription glasses. A fair number of people, including myself, wear prescription glasses, and a lot of ranges don’t see any need for protective eyewear beyond prescription glasses. Wearing eye pro that fits over prescription glasses is cumbersome and annoying, to say the least, and for the most part I’ve simply worn my prescription glasses without thinking about how well they protect my eyes.
These prescription glasses offered no ballistic protection, and, in fact, proved more dangerous to the eyes due to the flying glass shards.Then I shot a few pairs of prescription glasses, both glass and poly-carbonate. Quite frankly, I will never wear regular prescription glasses as eye protection again. It is difficult to imagine how the glass prescription lenses could have been any worse – not only did they offer little resistance to the bird-shot, but small glass shards flew in various directions after the shot, including straight back into the “eyes” of the Styrofoam head.
The poly-carbonate lenses didn’t shatter in the same dramatic manner, but they did crack and allow many pellets to go through.
These “stylish” women’s sunglasses offered almost no protection for the eyes, allowing bird-shot to pass right through their lenses – and adding bits of debris to the face, as well.I also tested a number of cheap, off-the-shelf sunglasses, and while some stopped bird-shot, others did not. If it’s not ballistic rated/tested eye-wear, you shouldn’t be using it for eye protection, in my opinion
Three Types of Eye-wear You Should Not Use As Eye Protection
In the course of my testing, I discovered that there were a few types of eye-wear which should not be used as eye protection:
- impact rated eye pro which has been exposed to sunlight for long periods of time
- non-impact rated prescription glasses
- non-impact rated sunglasses
First, we’ll take a look at older eye-wear.
I tested several different types of eye protection that I had owned for five or more years – my issued ESS goggles, some yellow-lens shooting glasses which were clearly of a previous decades’ style, some prescription glasses that had an integrated headband and were intended for “sport” use, and another pair of shooting glasses that were fairly basic/inexpensive, but had seen use for years.
Although the old, well-used ESS goggles shown here technically stopped the .22 Short bullet (visible at the top of the goggles), the lens broke and was shoved into the left “eye” of the styrofoam head, which would have resulted in injury.Every pair of older eye protection absolutely failed to stop basic “threats” which were stopped by comparable eye protection of newer manufacture or less use.
The highest quality example of the “older” group was the ESS goggle, which passed all military ballistic testing and which I personally wore in Iraq for almost all of 2006. ESS goggles and glasses were in use by nearly every Marine and Sailor in the area, and I constantly saw how effective they were.
Even so, age – and constant exposure to UV rays from sunlight – takes its toll on polycarbonate eye protection. For this reason, I would avoid using eye protection that is more than a few years old and/or has seen a lot of sunlight. Knowledgeable military sources informed me that the life cycle of military eye pro is expected to be six months.
If You Enjoy Vision, You Shouldn’t Use Regular Prescription Glasses As Eye ProI think it’s also important to discuss prescription glasses. A fair number of people, including myself, wear prescription glasses, and a lot of ranges don’t see any need for protective eyewear beyond prescription glasses. Wearing eye pro that fits over prescription glasses is cumbersome and annoying, to say the least, and for the most part I’ve simply worn my prescription glasses without thinking about how well they protect my eyes.
These prescription glasses offered no ballistic protection, and, in fact, proved more dangerous to the eyes due to the flying glass shards.Then I shot a few pairs of prescription glasses, both glass and poly-carbonate. Quite frankly, I will never wear regular prescription glasses as eye protection again. It is difficult to imagine how the glass prescription lenses could have been any worse – not only did they offer little resistance to the bird-shot, but small glass shards flew in various directions after the shot, including straight back into the “eyes” of the Styrofoam head.
The poly-carbonate lenses didn’t shatter in the same dramatic manner, but they did crack and allow many pellets to go through.
These “stylish” women’s sunglasses offered almost no protection for the eyes, allowing bird-shot to pass right through their lenses – and adding bits of debris to the face, as well.I also tested a number of cheap, off-the-shelf sunglasses, and while some stopped bird-shot, others did not. If it’s not ballistic rated/tested eye-wear, you shouldn’t be using it for eye protection, in my opinion