Why the importance of paintball approved goggles anyway...

[FOX_111]

I beleive you could try to get JT ship you a free lense replacement. As their product failed during normal use and they should back their product.

If they don't... time for bad publicity IMO.

[Donster]

Originally Posted by ThunderCactus

The fact the lenses cracked means the lens is underrated for what we`re doing, what would have happened if all the bbs hit the lens in the same spot??
The lens could have broken, or the lens could have fucking splintered off pieces on the inside(and I`ve seen it happen testing a 4mm thick gas mask lens).
Dont ever take eye protection lightly, you only get one pair
IMO, everyone should be using Z87.1+ glasses/goggles with 100% UVA/UVB protection

true. i guess im spoiled though. my PB goggle lenses can stop a RS .40 bullet from a USP.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by DONSTER 125

true. i guess im spoiled though. my PB goggle lenses can stop a RS .40 bullet from a USP.

???!!!!

[Dynamo]

paintball goggles are designed for just that.. taking hits from a large soft ojects that deform on impact and spreads the impact forces over a large serface area.
it's like throwing a beach ball at a window then doing the same with a golf ball.
BBs are hard and brittle objects. they transfer energy through a tiny area of contact which PB goggles are not designed to take. this is why PB goggles can crack and even shatter when hit by a BB. it's unfortunate that PB fields require airsofters to use PB goggles. we should be using full sealing ballistic goggle with an ANSI Z87.1 or better rating.
this will only happer after someone gets hurt when their PB goggles fail and they loose an eye.

[theguy]

Originally Posted by Dynamo

paintball goggles are designed for just that.. taking hits from a large soft ojects that deform on impact and spreads the impact forces over a large serface area.
it's like throwing a beach ball at a window then doing the same with a golf ball.
BBs are hard and brittle objects. they transfer energy through a tiny area of contact which PB goggles are not designed to take. this is why PB goggles can crack and even shatter when hit by a BB. it's unfortunate that PB fields require airsofters to use PB goggles. we should be using full sealing ballistic goggle with an ANSI Z87.1+ or better rating.this will only happer after someone gets hurt when their PB goggles fail and they loose an eye.

+1

I was surprised when i was told i couldn't use my ANSI Z78.1 sealed goggels at flagraiders, i had to rent a pair of JT goggles that smelled like balls... >.<

[ReaperX]

Paintball goggles are for paintball, where you would not need to get in tight to your weapon to use such things as a scope or viewfinder. Get yourself a pair of Smith Optics Elite goggles or something of that nature.

I personally use the Revision Desert Locust goggles. The Revision goggles are ANSI Z87.1 certified, are on the US Army authorized protective Eyewear list and have stood up to a Remington mod 870 wingmaster super magnum, 26" barrel with improved cylinder choke using heavy load 12 guage, 1 1/4 oz #6 lead shot, velocity at 1300 fps +/- 30 fps at 16ft. The result was 39 strikes on the clear lense, no penetrations, and 43 strikes on the smoke lense, no penetrations.

I think the test speaks for itself. Ballistic goggles FTW

I was shot in the eye back in 1988 with a pellet gun when i was a kid. Came out of that with a dented cornea and a detached retina, Luckilly my eye was repaired and is fine now, but since then, i dont mess around with protecting my eyes. Paintball goggles good...... Ballistic goggles better.

Link to Revision Eyewear's Website

[Scarecrow]

Based on recent research on the subject ( I bought and paid for all the referenced standards documents), I've changed my assessment. I won't be using ANSI z87.1 or ASTM F1776 goggles personally anymore. My eyewear will have to be mil-dtl-43511d with full closure like pb goggles. The ANSI Z87.1+ allows for eyewear with gaps and is only tested for industrial applications. ASTM F1776 has testing only for paintballs. Neither test protocols comes close to the analog of intentional high velocity BB rounds and intentional targeting the way the mil standard covers. In essence the mil standard goes all the way to 1.1g at 550 fps - using metal projectiles. This standard far exceeds all materials, speeds and impact velocities of airsoft as we play it.

I'm going to post more information on the Bastard site once I have had a chance to formally and in a detailed manner, dissect the other standards and document my argument with references.

I think playing with anything below that standard is exposing yourself to undo risk of eye damage.

[MadMax]

ANSI Z87.1 is not a complete specification for eyewear for use in our sport.

A brief synopsis: http://www.safetyglassesusa.com/ansiz8712003.html

ANSI Z87.1 includes a minimum specification for ballistic front angle protection which is quite high (1/4" steel ball at 250fps for goggles or 150fps for glasses) but offers no rigid specification on non frontal angle coverage.

Conversely ASTM F1776-10 is a very complete specification for eye protection for stopping paintballs. ASTM F1776-10 does not require the same high level of front angle ballistic protection as ANSI Z87.1, but ASTM F1776-10 does describe a very robust complement of angular protection.

For instance, ASTM F1776-10 contains a specification for a fitment test of test goggles to a few standardized mannequin heads. The heads are fired upon from numerous specified angles at the edges of the goggles to test how well the goggles prevent entry of large shell fragments into the ocular area. The test requires shots to strike from behind at the temple and upwards near the nose area. Goggles are required to not allow particles beyond a certain size to enter the ocular area to show that they can seal against shots from odd angles. Most goggles without the face mask cannot meet this specification due to the difficulty of sealing around the nose area. There is significant variation between players noses which confounds reliable sealing around the nose. The requirement for off angle strike protection is met by the addition of a facemask which reliably prevents shot fragments from traveling along the side of the nose.

A similar test requires shots the be fired from behind striking the left or right edge of the goggle to see if goggles could be jarred from the face with repeated strikes from behind. This test evaluates the efficacy of the strap for holding the goggles in place from several (something like 10) high energy hits from the side and rear.

The importance of non frontal angle protection cannot be understated. Forward angle strikes are relatively easy to stop. Polycarbonate which has not been embrittled by long UV exposure (old lenses become less crack resistant) can easily stop paintballs or airsoft projectiles. Much of the text in ASTM F1776-10 specification describes protection from odd angles as well as goggle retention which has unfortunately shown to be the most common cause of failure in eye protection in a long history of paintball.

A few interesting paintball accidents in history:

A player wearing a motorcycle helmet which easily met ballistic requirements (designed for rock strikes on the highway) was blinded when a shot entered the helmet from below impacting in the ocular area. The player was laying prone and took fire from behind which went straight up the open bottom of the helmet.

Players wearing goggles with no face mask and worn foam taking fire from a low angle (also laying prone) are exposed to risk of pellet or fragment entry beside the nose into the ocular area.

Players wearing glasses can have their glasses stripped off or jostled when backing into heavy shrubbery. Glasses with side shielding offer very little low or high angle coverage. Players eyes can be exposed to fire when laying prone or engaging opponents firing into or from elevated positions (2nd floor balconies or windows etc).

ASTM F1776-10 is a specification for shooting sport eye protection that is far more appropriate for airsoft than ANSI Z87.1. Heavy ballistic specifications are not necessary with our typical muzzle energies. Trading off a small degree of forward protection for a significant degree of off angle protection and retention provides a more complete specification for eye protection in our application.

ASTM F1776-10 is a recognized specification for paintball fields which means that insurance agencies will require adherence to it. Even if you think that your ANSI spec eyewear provides better forward angle protection, pball fields will lose their insurance coverage if they allow players to wear ANSI eyewear.

mil-dtl-43511d is an interesting specification:

http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/M...-43511D_15101/

It has a lot of focus on optical quality that I think isn't in ASTM F1776-10. The forward angle ballistic requirement is quite high, but I see little reference to retention requirements, or non forward angle protection. The anti scratch tests are interesting. I suspect they're not in ASTM F1776-10 because they might not make enough difference with players rubbing their sandy hands across the front. I also see no fog resistance specifications in MIL-DTL. IRC ASTM F1776-10 makes some attempt to specify a minimum fog resistance test.

It should be noted that ASTM F1776-10 is a PAINTBALL goggle specification. While passing it's ballistic tests will probably result in a lens strong enough for airsoft, ASTM F1776-10 does not address all of the issues of our projectiles. Some years ago, I attended an ASTM conference when it came to Toronto. An airsoft division was just starting up to address the needs for new regulation. Last I heard they were going to set out new regulations for airsoft eyewear. That was years ago though. I'm out of the loop.

http://www.airsoftcanada.com/showthr...highlight=astm

[MadMax]

http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/F0827.htm

Ah that's too bad. They're starting their work on sub 1J airsoft. I'm not surprised. The biggest stakeholders attending the conference in '96 were Palco and Crossman who market a lot of lower energy stuff. I couldn't follow the conference around as it moved across America (no travel budget) and I couldn't drum up enough interest with other airsofters in the US to attend.

Perhaps things will change now that Spartan (US Classic Army distribution) and Palco have been bought by Cybergun. Cybergun has also acquired Innokatsu. If Cybergun gets more into high end airsoft in the US, they will have a vested interest in developing regulations for higher energy airsoft.

[Styrak]

Cybergun/Palco already sell AEG's that shoot 380-400fps with a 0.20g BB FYI.

[Lord of Rebirth]

I kinda wish I could find out if motocross goggles were rated well enough. I have several pairs and I only by top of the line since I have taken several fist sized rocks to the goggles at high speed and with top range goggles it doesn't even hurt a bit. I know goofing off at the end of a wet day I didn't even have goggles on and got some gravel and mud in the eye and I rolled my ATV into a tree so I always make sure to have at least 4 pairs of goggles and 12 lenses with me.

[Danke]

All the MX and ski goggles I've seen have huge vents in the frame; great for moving air. Not great for stopping the ingress of a BB.

A rated lens is only part of the deal. If you duck your head down and get a snap shot into the brow of your goggle it will punch right through the foam and bounce around inside the frame.

[Short Round]

Ski Goggles can be pretty thin. Atleast the ones I have.

PB Goggles aren't a biggy with me , personally as long as my eyes are somehow protected I'm happy. HOWEVER like it was mentioned before, until someone is hurt badly, PB fields will require PB goggles. In that case I believe that ballistic goggles still out perform PB goggles any day.

[EagleDriver]

Here in the US, the reason so many fields require PB masks is simply because there is no "airsoft" insurance, just paintball. So the policy dictates paintball masks. Some field owners will be proactive and negotiate a different policy with the insurer, but because the market is so small, the larger insurers won't do that. We have one outfit here that has three fields. Two are insured as paintball fields and require full PB masks. The third has a different insurer and requires full seal goggles.

I also agree with the additional comfort of using a ballistic goggle. I have two sets of Revision Desert Locust goggles (I admit it) because of their marketing and how they show that they perform better than the mil standard (basically a 28 joule .2g BB strike.)

http://www.revisioneyewear.com/technology.html

Then again, I also have been wearing the bitter end lower face mask, and have just switched to the Brass Guard full face mask because I want to protect my teeth. We had two people get broken front teeth at OP Pine Plains this year.

[Echo-Four]

Let's get real here. It is not hard to get good eye protection. 25$ Cdn for these:


Ballistic grade, and fit over my glasses perfectly. Why would you ever risk becoming blind, when you can get good protection for low cost.