Quantcast

About Oakley sunglasses

Discussion in 'Shooting Gear and Storage' started by DigMe, Apr 13, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Joejojoba111

    Joejojoba111 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,056
    Good point. My fault, brought up cheap, and most likely I'll bring my kids up cheap, and a millenia from now they'll be cheap ancestors telling people "You spent one gigaquadollar on that particle transformer? You're crazy, go to the scrap yard and take an old one out of a discombobulator for a few megaquads. Why not just throw your quads away."
     
  2. dpesec

    dpesec Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    565
    Wileys

    Well I'm the odd man here. I wear Wiley SG1. Great glasses, comfortable to wear, the only problme is with one set of lenses the left lens foggs a bit.
    I've contacted Wiley to see what they think.
     
  3. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    21,331
    Location:
    northern california
    oakleys really are more "restful" to your eyes...at least i seem to have less eyestrain when wearing them. my last pair were M-frames and the only concern was clearing my cheekbones.

    i may have to look into some of the smaller frames.

    does anyone know how expensive it is to have them ground to a perscription?
     
  4. TechBrute

    TechBrute Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Location:
    DFW, TX
  5. BerettaNut92

    BerettaNut92 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,723
    Techbrute,

    But the carbonfibrousity of my Half-Jacket XLJs doesn't hurt either! :D
     
  6. rkt88edmo

    rkt88edmo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    Have you tried the Hybrid-S lenses?

    I use the Hybrid-S lense when mountain biking, otherwise the bottom edge of the lense rests on my cheekbones and my skin gets quite irritated by the rubbing and sweat. I just picked up a larger lense though to maintain better coverage when at the range.
     
  7. Bayou Boy

    Bayou Boy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    South Louisiana
    All this talk about glasses. I have 4 pairs of polarized sunglasses at the moment. One pair of amber Oakley Polarized Eye Jackets that I bought on an employee purchase program when I worked at a bicycle shop, Two pairs of amber glass lens Maui Jim's bought in the past 2 years, and one pair of rose polarized Serengeti's bought a few months ago. I only wear the Serengetis on the motorcycle because they fit well in my helmet. All other times I wear the Maui Jims. One pair has a neck strap on them for fishing. The glass lenses never scratch if they fall and knock against the deck of my boat. That Polycarbonate lenses in the Serengetis won't break if a rock hits them with my face shield up.

    The Oakleys sit in the case in a drawer. No plastic lens has better clarity than the glass Maui Jim lens. They don't feel as secure on my face as the Serengetis.

    All this is just my observations in the past few years.

    Oh yea. THe Serengetis were about $90 and the Maui Jims were about $150. The polarized Oakleys retailed for about $180.
     
  8. YammyMonkey

    YammyMonkey Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    828
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    I used to be a big Oakley fan and still do like some of their glasses. Personally, I'll probably never buy a pair with the plastic frames again. My ti wires have lasted nearly a decade, only problem was the nose pads ripping a few years ago so I just pulled them off and the glasses actually fit me better because they're lower on my nose now.

    I've sent half a dozen pairs of M-frames back to Oakley, all broke at the same spot, pretty much right in the middle. The first pair lasted a few years, but they steadily were breaking more and more often and the last pair I got back broke within a week when I picked them up to put them on my face. And no, I don't have a wide face at all. No level of optical quality is worth sending your glasses back so often that they're in transit more than they are with you. Doesn't do any good to have "perfect" glasses if you don't actually have them.

    Now I'm using a pair of Smith sliders that I have been very happy with for my shooting, mtn biking, etc. IMO, Oakley knows they have the name and can get the high prices they demand regardless of the durability of some models.
     
  9. TechBrute

    TechBrute Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Location:
    DFW, TX
    And no glass Maui Jim lens is ANSI Z78.1 compliant. For one thing, there will be significant particulate matter in an impact. I don't care for glass in my eye, personally.
     
  10. rsilvers

    rsilvers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    578
    http://www.envirosafetyproducts.com/category/Ballistic-Eyewear.html

    Lost of great choices on this site for eyewear which meets ANSI standards.

    Only questionable claim is "Ballistic approved safety glasses protect against impact energies 7x higher than ANSI and CSA safety standards." But then when you look at the standards they meet, they only meet the basic ANSI Z87.1 and not even the high-velocity spec. So their main claim is probably BS, but if you look at individual models, then some will say "high impact ANSI."
     
  11. rsilvers

    rsilvers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    578
    Gargoyles claims to pass the MIL-STD 622 ballistic test.

    http://www.gargoyleseyewear.com/brand-statement.html

    This is very suspicious because the 622 test is just a "V50 armor test" and without knowing the velocity (it may have been 5 fps) there is no meaning to passing it.

    They say they pass "ANSI" tests but do not mention the "ANSI Z87.1 2003 high impact" test by name, so they probably do not pass it. I emailed them and got no reply. I called them and asked for the best person to speak to. He did not return my call.

    Also they do not mention Ballistic MIL-PRF 31013 3.5.1.1 which specifies the mass and velocity to use for 622, so I also assume they do not pass this.

    Wiley-X passes all of these.

    I like Oakley and Wiley-X. My Wiley-X are marked Z87. My Oakley are not. Oakley claims to pass it, but I cannot tell for sure if they pass the high-impact or the basic test.

    Ideally buy something that says "Z81+" on the frame and "+" on the lens.

    _________________
    R&D for AAC.
     
  12. snorky18

    snorky18 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    135
    Location:
    AL
    This marketing was what got me to buy Oakleys in the first place in the mid 90s. I never got shot in the face fortunately, but I had a bad Mountain Bike Wreck at high speed and the first point of contact between my body and the ground was my eye socket area slamming into a rock that jutted out from the trail I was on. My eye was still open and I watched the rock gouge the lenses. Nothing broke, the lenses just shoved up against my face and bruised a bit around the outside edge of them. I was (and still am) impressed.

    ^^+1 on that. I'm now the proud owner of 2 broken m-frames, and a bunch of the super tough lenses with no functional frame to hold them.
     
  13. Dustin4185

    Dustin4185 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Location:
    East TN
    I am sure this has been beat to death by now, but I have had a pair of M Frames that saved my eye while riding an ATV for work (game warden). I will only trust oakleys for safety/sun glasses. I have a pair of Costa Del Mars I use on the water and driving, but they are not safety glasses (glass lenses). If you are not military/le than find someone who is and have them log onto www.usstandardissue.com and set up an account.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice