Eyeglasses a substitute for safety glasses, no.

[stchman]

I have a buddy I go shooting with and I see it all the time. People that wear eye glasses don't wear safety glasses while shooting. Prescription eye glasses are NOT suitable replacements for safety glasses unless they have side shields, special plastics or glass, etc.

I tell my buddy he should wear proper eye protection, but it is his sight.

 

[acdodd]

I have prescription glasses and they are safety glasses.
No side shields but none of my standard safety glasses have side shields.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

As thick as my lenses are one might argue that point.

Seriously though, over the years in construction I've had all kinds of stuff fly back and hit me in the face/glasses. Messed up a couple frames but never got more than a very light scratch on the lens, much less broken one.

 

[berettaprofessor]

I have impact resistant prescription glasses/lenses that I also use for shooting, but I admit knowing that they probably don't substitute for safety glasses, particularly with lack of side shields. On the other hand, most shooters that I've seen don't use "real" safety glasses, as in laboratory safety glasses, they use the cheap plastic style glasses that are sold by most gun shops, Dicks, and Walmarts for a few dollars. I'm willing to bet those are not much better.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

The optician I use can order prescription lenses in the same polycarbonate material as safety glasses. As I wear prescription lenses at all times, I have my glasses made from the safety lens material. The optician can order safety frames with side shields so it is possible to have prescription safety glasses.

I also have a pair of Randolph Engineering XLW frames with prescription inserts. The XLW frame provides interchangeable colored polycarbonate lenses in an outer frame over an inner prescription insert. The XLW frame is semi-wrap around, and provides side protection. I generally use the XLW glasses for shooting as I can interchange the lens color as needed for the shooting conditions.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Messed up a couple frames but never got more than a very light scratch on the lens, much less broken one.

However, I'm sure you agree that lack of accident does not constitute proof that precautions aren't needed. I've never totaled a car but I would lose any argument about use of a seat belt. I've never been in a tornado, but when the sirens go off, I'd be happy to find a shelter available.

 

[wojownik]

My prescription glasses that I use for shooting have polycarbonate lenses and solid reinforced rims, and good size lenses.

They lack side protection, of course, and I did once have a brass case bounce in from the side (ouch). So, I do plan to one day soon get a pair of prescription safety or wraparound polycarb glasses. But these current prescription glasses will do for now.

I also have a dainty pair or prescription glasses for business attire. Same safety-grade polycarb, but not enough real estate or frame resilience to even remotely be considered useful in an application like shooting sports.

 

[Schwing]

The three main criteria are that they offer total protection from all angles (the side shields), the impact resistance of the lenses AND the impact resistance of the frames.

If the lenses are separated from the frame or the frame is easily broken, they are not a good substitute regardless of how impact resistant they are.

 

[Shaq]

I use eye protection designed to be worn over Rx glasses. Full side protection & prevents damage to my pricey Rx glasses. And they're cheap.

"Enviro Safety Products"

 

[wojownik]

So, the consensus of this thread seems to lean towards "Oakley style" wraparound safety glasses, rather than classic, ranger or aviator style safety glasses.

Not all safety glasses have side shields.

Not all wraparound glasses are made of good polycarbonate.

Not all prescription glasses have either.

 

[jonnyc]

.....and 'stchman' is not an optometrist.

 

[wojownik]

^^ which raises another consideration. The reason I have not gone with prescription wraparounds is that my particular prescription resulted in an ... extraordinarily ... expensive custom order. So, I've been saving my pennies, but my eyedoctor had already suggested that I'm probably not going to like the result.

Tried putting safety glasses in front of my prescription glasses, but the second pair just does not stay in place. Guess my nose is too small

So, I've gone with "extreme duty" prescription eyeglasses, which are far more durable than many "safety" glasses on the market (one ... I think S&W brand ... cracked when I sat on them on my car seat. Safety polycarb should have stood up to that ... and I'm no porker...

 

[420Stainless]

Polycarbonite lenses tend to work pretty well as safety glasses, but mine are fairly small and do not give good coverage. Besides that, my prescription is for distance vision and so I end up looking over my glasses at the sights, which leaves them exposed. I just switch to non-prescription shooting glasses when I'm shooting handguns.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Aside from my reading glasses, all my prescription glasses are safety rated.

Doesn't cost more, in fact cheaper, work pays for them.

 

[jmr40]

There are very few glasses made today that are not impact resistant. Years, and I mean years ago real glass was used most of the time. That may still be true for some, but I don't think I've ever encountered any.

You can make an argument that side protection is needed. Or not.

 

[JohnBiltz]

From what I understand from a conversation with my optometrist the vast majority of glasses made today meet safety glasses standards. I wear my everyday glasses when I shoot. I want to practice with the same glasses I would be wearing if something happened and I needed to shoot in self defense. The truth is every pair of glasses is a little different from another and shooting with one is different from shooting with another. This is particularly true with bifocals.

As for the OP, I'm 60 years old and been shooting 30 years and been a grown man for a long time, go find something else to nanny.

 

[pjeski]

My eyes, my risk, my choice.

 

[.308 Norma]

I have prescription glasses and they are safety glasses.
No side shields but none of my standard safety glasses have side shields.

Same here. The company I used to work for supplied me with an eye exam and 2 pairs of prescription safety glasses (in my case, bifocals) every year. They had clip on/off side shields and were approved for use on every formal shooting range I ever shot on.

 

[benEzra]

^^ which raises another consideration. The reason I have not gone with prescription wraparounds is that my particular prescription resulted in an ... extraordinarily ... expensive custom order. So, I've been saving my pennies, but my eyedoctor had already suggested that I'm probably not going to like the result.

Yup. I purchased a pair of prescription Oakley Radar wraparounds for shooting and outdoor sports. Loved them, but they well over $600, as I recall. Some idiot stole them from the rest room of a Golden Corral in Virginia a couple years ago; probably didn't think they were prescription when he grabbed them, but they'd be completely unusable for most anyone.

 

[RugerBob]

when I ordered my eye wear, I had them give me 'impact resistant' lenses.
better then nothing.

 

[FL-NC]

Probably better than nothing. The RIGHT answer is wrap-around safety glasses with whatever safety rating. For most recreational shooting/hunting applications, I would think shatterproof is probably sufficient. I know the Army issues eyeglasses that meet this standard. Whatever they cost, its cheaper than losing an eye or 2.

 

[FROGO207]

I have the industrial safety glasses with removable side shields and glass lenses. Those were well over $500 earlier this year. I have worn this type for well over 40 years.

 

[JTHunter]

Having worn glasses since the 1st grade, I always have them on. The switch several years ago from glass to lighter polycarbonate lenses for the thicker lenses means my "safety glasses" are always at hand.

 

[hemiram]

I've had safety rated lenses from about 1972 on. I got tired of breaking frames constantly due to dog head butts, usually in the car. He flung himself around from the day we got him until almost the end and broke many frames, usually popping the lens out of the frame by breaking it. The last time, a few years ago, I asked the optometrist to find me the strongest stainless steel frames they could. She came up with three similar looking aviator style frames, and the one I picked was from "Safilo", and they are tough, believe me. They survived a bunch of head butts from my dog, and a bunch of them from a friend's Pit Bull who loves me but hurts me almost everytime I visit his house. My nose has take a few huge shots but the glasses sail on. An interesting thing though, I still have acne (At 60!)and last summer, I had some on my temple and it bled onto the right bow and it's pitted like an old barrel from lead! I had no idea that could happen.

The only problem I've ever had shooting is when I was shooting about 10 years ago when a 9mm case somehow made it between the lens and my eyelid. That was painful beyond what I had ever imagined it could be, but that was the only bad thing that happened with "normal" glasses in 39 years of shooting.

 

[Da Yooper]

from what i understand from a conversation with my optometrist the vast majority of glasses made today meet safety glasses standards. I wear my everyday glasses when i shoot. I want to practice with the same glasses i would be wearing if something happened and i needed to shoot in self defense. The truth is every pair of glasses is a little different from another and shooting with one is different from shooting with another. This is particularly true with bifocals.

As for the op, i'm 60 years old and been shooting 30 years and been a grown man for a long time, go find something else to nanny.

spot on ...................