sunglasses as eye protection

I think tinted shooting glasses would be better but I'm sure the Oakleys are adequate.

How's that for a non answer?

Ballistic shooting glasses are not that expensive, ESS, Wiley X and others are available. Here in Iraq, they are lifesavers. Seen several pictures of GI's who have taken IED blasts, faces are messed up but eyes are intact and they can still see. A richocet, lead spitting or a round bouncing back from a target frame can make you blind. Spend the money, eyesight protection is defnitely worth it.

I think this is a judgment call. Do you feel comfortable with their coverage?

The impact protection they provide should be enough to stop burning particles of gunpowder and other relatively common debris from hitting your eye, if that's what you're asking.


I personally wear Revision Hellfly sunglasses at the range; according to their sales sheet:

Compliant with ANSI Z87.1-2003 Standard
Exceeds U.S. Military eyewear ballistic impact resistance requirements
(MIL-PRF-31013, clause 3.5.1.1)
Exceeds EN 166 ballistic impact requirements

Click to expand...

So I'm fairly confident that my glasses will protect me from anything short of a direct shot to the eye.

I wear two generations of Oakley Zero's with ANSI Z87.1--They are not shooting glasses per se, but are light and comfortable.

Given that a lot of people wear their regular glasses, I feel that I'm more protected with an ANSI rated sunglasses. I also wear clear Oakley M frame for indoor/night shooting. I personally wound't have hesitation, but that's just me.

The impact protection is more than adequate. How close are the lenses to your face, around your brows? I've had errant ejected cases fall into that space and become trapped. Those things are hot.

The impact protection is more than adequate. How close are the lenses to your face, around your brows? I've had errant ejected cases fall into that space and become trapped. Those things are hot.

Click to expand...

Ditto, about the 100th 9mm case lodged in mine once at the range. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!

Oakleys are usually have polycarbonate lenses and this is the stuff that the the good safety glasses are made of.

At least some form of eye protection is well worth the minimal investment required.

The wood this is embedded in was ten feet from the ejection port, straight up.

The impact protection is more than adequate. How close are the lenses to your face, around your brows? I've had errant ejected cases fall into that space and become trapped. Those things are hot

Click to expand...

When it comes to impact protection of your eyes, there is no such thing as "more than adequate".

OK, so they are all adequate.

There IS something beyond adequate though...I suggest a dictionary.

More than adequate



but who wants to wear it while shooting?

Most sunglasses work.

I use Rudy Project "Impact X" glasses with photochromic lenses

http://www.rudyprojectusa.com/products/sunglasses/styles/rydon.htm

Like others here I'm content with the balance of protection and comfort the close fitting Oakley's provide. I wear M frames when I shoot outdoors, have for years, and am quite happy with them.

I think as long as they are ANSI approved you should be ok.

They are ballistic rated lenses (ANSI Z87.1) so the level of impact protection isn't even a question. (Yes, they are more than adequate; as defined by the American National Standards Institute)

The main concern would be that the lenses do not wrap around to provide a "side-guard." I would assess my shooting environment and decide if there is chance that brass, from another shooter, could enter the side of the glasses.

Some Oakleys give "more than adequate" side protection. It really depends on which one.

When so many IPSC,IDPA champs are using them, I would think that they are fine

I wear my Oakely M frames to the range.

Originally posted by lvcat2004:
Some Oakleys give "more than adequate" side protection. It really depends on which one.

When so many IPSC,IDPA champs are using them, I would think that they are fine

Click to expand...

Yes, many models provide excellent side protection (all of my shooting glasses are Oakleys)...


But this is the model in question (which lacks the wrap around design):

If they're ANSI Z87.1 rated, I wouldn't worry about it.

I wear cheap glasses from AO Safety. I use these for outside of work, clear ones are provided at work. I wear them as regular sunglasses. At $3 a pop, I almost consider them disposable, I dont get mad when I lose a pair, or my daughter gest ahold of them, and they're cheap to replace. I buy a few pairs whenever I'm at northern.

IMHO Ballistic shooting glasses is the only way to go. I had a kaboom with a Glock 40 cal at an indoor range. The pieces of the weapon and fragments from the round struck me in the face, upper arm and hand. If I had not had approved shooting glasses on I most likely would have been blinded in my right eye based on the damage to my face and glasses..

I have a set of Oakley M frames I wear. But these are prescription frames. I do wear them outside because they offer more side coverage than my regular glasses.
I have used them indoors as well. Man, does that darken a room up..

ANSI Z87 is the same rating you find on shooting glasses as well as on regular ol' safety glasses.

I wear prescription glasses all the time. I order them with safetyglass rated lenses and wear the large lens style. If I need sunclasses, I use the clip-ons.

Pops

I have Oakley Half jackets for outside and a some S&W clear lens for indoor shooting.

I would tend to think that oakley has the best eye protection sunglasses on the market.