TallPine
Member
Or you could just shoot a revolver ...
safety glasses???
- Thread starter emmie
- Start date
- Status
enfield303
Member
As Mom used to say..."It's all fun and games, until somebody looses an eye."
Then it's all fun and games with one eye. She never did like that response....
Then it's all fun and games with one eye. She never did like that response....
svtruth
Member
Testing
I got my first pair of safety glasses about 1963 for HS Chem class. The pamphlet that came w them said they were tested by dropping a 1" steel ball on the lens from 100".
Don't know if that is still the standard.
I got my first pair of safety glasses about 1963 for HS Chem class. The pamphlet that came w them said they were tested by dropping a 1" steel ball on the lens from 100".
Don't know if that is still the standard.
Molon Labe
Member
Only a fool would hunt or target shoot without anything over their eyes.nfl1990 said:
My metric FAL blew up in my face over the winter while I was shooting it in my backyard. A round went off out-of-battery due to a broken firing pin. The upper receiver was destroyed and the dust cover landed 40 feet away. My face was covered with hundreds of small blood-dots caused by hot powder being ejected reward from the case. Thank God I was wearing my spectacles. If I had not, I would be blind today.
My face is O.K. now, but I must admit... the experience put the fear of God in me. From now on I will never shoot a gun unless I'm wearing high-quality eye protection, e.g. ESS shooting glasses or goggles.
entropy
Member
Hey dracphelan, I used to work at #480, Collin Creek! (Lead Lab tech) Long time ago, 90-92.
Silverlance, I used to take all the junk poly lenses from work and shoot them, and I will attest that at 10 yards .38 Spl and 9mm ball will go into a -3.00SPH poly lens with a center thickness of about 2.1mm (ANSI Z87.1 std. is 3.0mm) , and lodge there, half in, half out. (I used to use one as a display in the store.) .357 Mag. will penetrate, as will .223, which drills neat little .223 holes in them (long past 10 yards), even through the thick outer edge (5mm or more) Didn't have a .45 to test with then,though I believe you. I also am about a -6.50, with 2.75 cyl to boot, so I know they can be thick. Not all high-index is poly, though, and while some are tougher than CR-39, they are nowhere near as tough as poly. The downside of poly is they scratch very easily, and you cannot remove or diminish them as is sometimes possible with HIP and CR-39
Bird shot penetrated out to @ 5 yards from an IC barrel, @ 9 yards from a full choke. Buck will penetrate to 10 yards. Slugs shatter the whole 80mm wide blank to 30 yards or so.
Always have eye and ear protection on while shooting or on the line at the range.
Silverlance, I used to take all the junk poly lenses from work and shoot them, and I will attest that at 10 yards .38 Spl and 9mm ball will go into a -3.00SPH poly lens with a center thickness of about 2.1mm (ANSI Z87.1 std. is 3.0mm) , and lodge there, half in, half out. (I used to use one as a display in the store.) .357 Mag. will penetrate, as will .223, which drills neat little .223 holes in them (long past 10 yards), even through the thick outer edge (5mm or more) Didn't have a .45 to test with then,though I believe you. I also am about a -6.50, with 2.75 cyl to boot, so I know they can be thick. Not all high-index is poly, though, and while some are tougher than CR-39, they are nowhere near as tough as poly. The downside of poly is they scratch very easily, and you cannot remove or diminish them as is sometimes possible with HIP and CR-39
Bird shot penetrated out to @ 5 yards from an IC barrel, @ 9 yards from a full choke. Buck will penetrate to 10 yards. Slugs shatter the whole 80mm wide blank to 30 yards or so.
Always have eye and ear protection on while shooting or on the line at the range.
You're right on about also wearing a hat. A few years ago I got a nice blister from a .22 case that bounced off the wall and fell between my glasses and nose. Never realized a little .22 case could be that hot. Made a believer out of me.pax said:
I shoot mostly handguns at indoor ranges and I wear a pair of $400 glasses with progressive lenses, so not only do I want to protect my eyes, but I don't want to damage my glasses also. I just bought a standard pair of large shop safety glasses with side panels and I just wear them over my regular glasses. It's a cheap and safe way to shoot.
Sooner or latter, some junk will be flying into your face. Why risk damage and pain and maybe a permanent injury?
Sooner or latter, some junk will be flying into your face. Why risk damage and pain and maybe a permanent injury?
TallPine
Member
Ha! I just shoot out in my "backyard" (40 acres)
gth12827
Member
If they have both of those qualities (impact and shatter resistance) then they are fine. Funny though, I always thought impact and shatter resistance was the definition of "safety glass".
jobu07
Contributing Member
I guess i'll be the first to admit it. But I have never worn saftey glasses when hunting. I used to wear prescription, but even since that stopped I haven't worn protective eyewear while hunting.
That said, I do wear saftey glasses whenever target shooting. It is a must.
That said, I do wear saftey glasses whenever target shooting. It is a must.
Mastrogiacomo
Member
Why not just spring for prescription Oakleys?
MountainPeak
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 784
For the "third" time, this IS the right answer!Sir Aardvark said:
MillCreek
Member
+1 to the concept of safety glasses to also protect my $ 300 polycarbonate progressive Transitions lenses with anti-reflective coating. Get those puppies scratched, and there is no polishing them out....
"How impotant are safty glasses when shooting?"
Only as important as your vision.
I've had hot brass eject back and bounce off my safety glasses. When wearing a borrowed set I've had it drop between the lense and my face. Shooting with safety glasses is important just to prevent the sharp edge of a hot case making an impression on your cornea. Imagine how much more important they are if your weaopon has a catastrophic failure (read BOOM!)
Here's the facts. You can't "guess" or "think" your glasses are good enough. Just because you're wearing polycarbonate lenses as thick as the bottom of a 1950's Coke bottle you have NO idea what impact they will or will not protect you from. The only way to have any idea is for there to have been some sort of scientific test that determines what they will protect you from.
That's where the ASSE/ANSI Z87.1 standard for eye protection that people here are referring to comes in. Since the protective eyewear standard came out in 1998 a lot of changes have occured in materials so the standard was revamped in 2003. One of the major changes was the introduction of the "high impact" category. Z87.1+ is the marking found on the new high impact type glasses. Here's an excerpt from a nice article explaining the changes.
Impact resistance
Perhaps the new standard's most significant change is the introduction of two categories of impact resistance: basic and high. In effect, this dual-tier approach will divide the eye protection world between non-plano (prescription) and plano products.
For non-plano lenses, the new standard still has thickness requirements for basic and high-impact products. Lens thickness in non-plano eyewear is an important factor for maximizing lens retention in frames during high-velocity impacts. For high-impact plano lenses, however, the thickness requirement has been eliminated.
In some cases, testing procedures have changed, with emphasis now placed on product performance instead of materials used. For example, the new High-Velocity Impact Test states that ". . . spectacles shall be capable of resisting an impact from a 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) diameter steel ball traveling at a velocity of 45.7m/s (150 ft/s)." Previously, spectacle lenses had to be at least 2.0 mm thick and resist such an impact. Now, spectacles with high-impact plano lenses need only to survive this and other impact and penetration tests.
Freed from the thickness requirement, manufacturers can explore the use of lighter, tougher materials. This is important because, though a 2.0 mm thickness does not cause unacceptable optical distortion for flat or slightly curved lenses, it does so in the sharper curves required for wraparound lenses.
The new standard will allow manufacturers to thin the lens material where the curve is sharpest. The result will be a thinner, lighter, distortion-free lens with better side protection. Because increased side protection is called for, the new impact testing occurs farther back (toward the ear) in the sideshield area of the eyewear.
New, even more fashionable eyewear styles are now possible. Look for increased use of wraparound designs.
New markings
Perhaps the most visible change will be the way that Z87.1-2003-compliant plano eye protection products will be marked. As with the old standard, all removable lenses, both plano and non-plano, must bear a permanent manufacturer's logo or mark. A brand new requirement is that high-impact lenses will be marked with a plus sign (+).
One-piece plano spectacles, like typical plant visitor eyewear, require only one mark: either "Z87" or "Z87+", whichever is applicable. This mark can appear on the frame, temple or lens.
Here's where the new standard may have some safety professionals scratching their heads. They may wonder how to tell the difference between an old-standard Z87 protector and a new-standard Z87 protector. It's an important difference, because new-standard Z87 protectors offer only basic-impact protection.
Basic- and high-impact non-plano lenses must meet many of the same performance requirements as plano lenses. Basic-impact non-plano lenses need to bear only the manufacturer's mark or logo. High-impact non-plano lenses will be identified with a "+". Under the new standard, non-plano frames that meet Z87.1 performance requirements will bear the mark "Z87-2".
The new standard attempts to clarify possible confusion by requiring basic-impact protectors to bear warning labels ". . . to alert the user when the lens(es) of a protector meet(s) only the basic impact requirements. . ." The label or tag is to be removed only by the user. But after the warning label is gone, there may be no way to tell the difference.
Under the new standard, manufacturers who make plano protective eyewear will find little incentive to make basic-impact models, as workers tend to opt for the highest level of protection available. It is quite conceivable that Z87 plano products will become a thing of the past.
Only as important as your vision.
I've had hot brass eject back and bounce off my safety glasses. When wearing a borrowed set I've had it drop between the lense and my face. Shooting with safety glasses is important just to prevent the sharp edge of a hot case making an impression on your cornea. Imagine how much more important they are if your weaopon has a catastrophic failure (read BOOM!)
Here's the facts. You can't "guess" or "think" your glasses are good enough. Just because you're wearing polycarbonate lenses as thick as the bottom of a 1950's Coke bottle you have NO idea what impact they will or will not protect you from. The only way to have any idea is for there to have been some sort of scientific test that determines what they will protect you from.
That's where the ASSE/ANSI Z87.1 standard for eye protection that people here are referring to comes in. Since the protective eyewear standard came out in 1998 a lot of changes have occured in materials so the standard was revamped in 2003. One of the major changes was the introduction of the "high impact" category. Z87.1+ is the marking found on the new high impact type glasses. Here's an excerpt from a nice article explaining the changes.
Impact resistance
Perhaps the new standard's most significant change is the introduction of two categories of impact resistance: basic and high. In effect, this dual-tier approach will divide the eye protection world between non-plano (prescription) and plano products.
For non-plano lenses, the new standard still has thickness requirements for basic and high-impact products. Lens thickness in non-plano eyewear is an important factor for maximizing lens retention in frames during high-velocity impacts. For high-impact plano lenses, however, the thickness requirement has been eliminated.
In some cases, testing procedures have changed, with emphasis now placed on product performance instead of materials used. For example, the new High-Velocity Impact Test states that ". . . spectacles shall be capable of resisting an impact from a 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) diameter steel ball traveling at a velocity of 45.7m/s (150 ft/s)." Previously, spectacle lenses had to be at least 2.0 mm thick and resist such an impact. Now, spectacles with high-impact plano lenses need only to survive this and other impact and penetration tests.
Freed from the thickness requirement, manufacturers can explore the use of lighter, tougher materials. This is important because, though a 2.0 mm thickness does not cause unacceptable optical distortion for flat or slightly curved lenses, it does so in the sharper curves required for wraparound lenses.
The new standard will allow manufacturers to thin the lens material where the curve is sharpest. The result will be a thinner, lighter, distortion-free lens with better side protection. Because increased side protection is called for, the new impact testing occurs farther back (toward the ear) in the sideshield area of the eyewear.
New, even more fashionable eyewear styles are now possible. Look for increased use of wraparound designs.
New markings
Perhaps the most visible change will be the way that Z87.1-2003-compliant plano eye protection products will be marked. As with the old standard, all removable lenses, both plano and non-plano, must bear a permanent manufacturer's logo or mark. A brand new requirement is that high-impact lenses will be marked with a plus sign (+).
One-piece plano spectacles, like typical plant visitor eyewear, require only one mark: either "Z87" or "Z87+", whichever is applicable. This mark can appear on the frame, temple or lens.
Here's where the new standard may have some safety professionals scratching their heads. They may wonder how to tell the difference between an old-standard Z87 protector and a new-standard Z87 protector. It's an important difference, because new-standard Z87 protectors offer only basic-impact protection.
Basic- and high-impact non-plano lenses must meet many of the same performance requirements as plano lenses. Basic-impact non-plano lenses need to bear only the manufacturer's mark or logo. High-impact non-plano lenses will be identified with a "+". Under the new standard, non-plano frames that meet Z87.1 performance requirements will bear the mark "Z87-2".
The new standard attempts to clarify possible confusion by requiring basic-impact protectors to bear warning labels ". . . to alert the user when the lens(es) of a protector meet(s) only the basic impact requirements. . ." The label or tag is to be removed only by the user. But after the warning label is gone, there may be no way to tell the difference.
Under the new standard, manufacturers who make plano protective eyewear will find little incentive to make basic-impact models, as workers tend to opt for the highest level of protection available. It is quite conceivable that Z87 plano products will become a thing of the past.
Last edited:
entropy
Member
For all you who keep insisting Z87.1 or don't shoot, and insist upon drop testing, note that polycarbonate lenses are not drop tested after edging (cutting to fit frame) , as they will without fail dent the lens from either drop ball test. Representative samples of lots of production lenses are drop tested at the production facility, but that poly pair you wear at the range was not drop tested. Only CR-39, HIP, and safety treated glass are drop ball tested individually after edging. Faliure to do so, or falsifying records pertaining to doing so is an OSHA violation for which the
individual will be fined a minimum of $5000, and the company will be fined a minimum of $10000. Verifying 3.0mm minimum center thickness and 1.9mm minimum edge thickness (for hyperopic Rx's) is considered verification of drop ball certification for polycarbonate lenses.
I shoot wearing my street lenses, but then I know who made them, and their strength.
individual will be fined a minimum of $5000, and the company will be fined a minimum of $10000. Verifying 3.0mm minimum center thickness and 1.9mm minimum edge thickness (for hyperopic Rx's) is considered verification of drop ball certification for polycarbonate lenses.
I shoot wearing my street lenses, but then I know who made them, and their strength.
cracked butt
Member
I just use a pair of prescription polycarbonate glasses with oversized lenses.
They've saved my eyes once.
They've saved my eyes once.
Entropy,
Not wanting to offend, but since CR-39 is a polymer type and I don't know what HIP is (although I assume you mean Hight Impact Polymer) can you provide a reference to your information that each lense in the glasses you note are individually tested.
Not wanting to offend, but since CR-39 is a polymer type and I don't know what HIP is (although I assume you mean Hight Impact Polymer) can you provide a reference to your information that each lense in the glasses you note are individually tested.
Pax wrote:
Duluth Trading (the folks that make the 'Bucketmouth' gear and tool bags) has some nice bi-focal safety glasses for $15. Bifocal, safety *sunglasses* are $20, IIRC. Got a set of both. Half a dozen strengths...I think the diopter runs to about 2.50, but I'm not that far gone...yet.
Cheers
Duluth Trading (the folks that make the 'Bucketmouth' gear and tool bags) has some nice bi-focal safety glasses for $15. Bifocal, safety *sunglasses* are $20, IIRC. Got a set of both. Half a dozen strengths...I think the diopter runs to about 2.50, but I'm not that far gone...yet.
Cheers
silverlance
Member
hm
just thinking that the Silencio "free" shooting glasses I got from CDNN will not likely stop a 1" from 100". Or will it? I don't know.
Can anyone recommend a good quality pair of shooting glasses that can fit over glasses and will save my behind even in the event of KABOOM?
I always kinda worry about this kind of thing each time i fire any gun, especially my Yugo SKS, despite my frequent safety checks of the firing pin, bolt, and trigger group. I just don't think I know enough to really spot a disaster coming.
Oh, and I know of a guy who got a charging handle from an M-16 lodged in his zygomatic arch. That's in your face, if ya don't know...
just thinking that the Silencio "free" shooting glasses I got from CDNN will not likely stop a 1" from 100". Or will it? I don't know.
Can anyone recommend a good quality pair of shooting glasses that can fit over glasses and will save my behind even in the event of KABOOM?
I always kinda worry about this kind of thing each time i fire any gun, especially my Yugo SKS, despite my frequent safety checks of the firing pin, bolt, and trigger group. I just don't think I know enough to really spot a disaster coming.
Oh, and I know of a guy who got a charging handle from an M-16 lodged in his zygomatic arch. That's in your face, if ya don't know...
Andrew Rothman
Member
If you expect them to save your behind, you may be wearing them wrong.
silverlance,
What you're looking for is OTG (over the glasses) safety glasses. Uvex makes a pretty good pair in their Astro series. The lenses are replacable and the temple are adjustable.
http://safetyglasses.com/store/store.pl?ac=st6&q=astro
What you're looking for is OTG (over the glasses) safety glasses. Uvex makes a pretty good pair in their Astro series. The lenses are replacable and the temple are adjustable.
http://safetyglasses.com/store/store.pl?ac=st6&q=astro
- Status
