pockets
Member
YEP.....this post sums up my sentiments also.
Been wearing corrective lenses since 1961. Haven't bought any that were not fully safety rated for at least 40 years.
Eyeglasses a substitute for safety glasses, no.
- Thread starter stchman
- Start date
- Status
YEP.....this post sums up my sentiments also.
Been wearing corrective lenses since 1961. Haven't bought any that were not fully safety rated for at least 40 years.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Sorry to jump on the band wagon, but another vote for John's post as the best response given.
Safety is important, but I don't understand why some folks feel the need to tell everyone else what they should do.
Last edited:
threoh8
Member
NOTE: I'm not weighing in on the "nanny" aspect or whether safety glasses should be required for all shooting situation (Yet), but hoping to provide some information on standards for safety glasses should you choose to wear them:
The term "safety glasses" covers a wide range of eyewear. While modern prescription glasses do meet some safety standards from the manufacturers' associations, they may not meet ANSI standards. And within ANSI standards, there are different classes.
To see if a set of glasses meet ANSI standards, look for the "Z87.X" rating on the frames, usually on the inside of the temple pieces. Prescription frames will have "-2" added. Impact rated frames will have a "+".
Then look for the manufacturers mark on the lens. It will be their logo. A "+" indicates impact rating. There are additional markings for UV, laser, and glare ratings.
"Laboratory" safety glasses are chosen for the likely hazards in that particular lab. Chemical splashes, various laser frequencies, etc. require different types of safety glasses.
Where I work (not a shooting range), we require impact rated safety glasses that meet ANSI Z87 standards with impact ratings for all shop and field employees, and for anyone coming inside the shop. We provide prescription safety glasses for employees after they become permanent.
Here's a link to a SELECTION GUIDE.
The term "safety glasses" covers a wide range of eyewear. While modern prescription glasses do meet some safety standards from the manufacturers' associations, they may not meet ANSI standards. And within ANSI standards, there are different classes.
To see if a set of glasses meet ANSI standards, look for the "Z87.X" rating on the frames, usually on the inside of the temple pieces. Prescription frames will have "-2" added. Impact rated frames will have a "+".
Then look for the manufacturers mark on the lens. It will be their logo. A "+" indicates impact rating. There are additional markings for UV, laser, and glare ratings.
"Laboratory" safety glasses are chosen for the likely hazards in that particular lab. Chemical splashes, various laser frequencies, etc. require different types of safety glasses.
Where I work (not a shooting range), we require impact rated safety glasses that meet ANSI Z87 standards with impact ratings for all shop and field employees, and for anyone coming inside the shop. We provide prescription safety glasses for employees after they become permanent.
Here's a link to a SELECTION GUIDE.
And this is why I retired to my own property and built my own range, if ya' don't like how I shoot then feel free to leave my property.
I'm not in the military, nobody is shooting at me, and I don't have to worry about shrapnel flying in to my face so the civilian Z87 standard of my prescription lenses is just fine and provides me with all the safety I need.
I'm not in the military, nobody is shooting at me, and I don't have to worry about shrapnel flying in to my face so the civilian Z87 standard of my prescription lenses is just fine and provides me with all the safety I need.
highlander 5
Member
By federal law all eyeglass lens have to withstand a 3/4 " steel ball dropped from a heght of 40 " IIRC.
I used to get my glasses from work also and learned one lesson polycarbonate may be impact resistant but even with an anti scratch coating still scratched very easily. And polycarbonate in impact resistant but not bullet proof.
I used to get my glasses from work also and learned one lesson polycarbonate may be impact resistant but even with an anti scratch coating still scratched very easily. And polycarbonate in impact resistant but not bullet proof.
Speedo66
Member
If safety glasses are anything like motorcycle helmets, and I don't doubt they are, it's only up to the manufacturer to certify the item meets Federal standards. Almost every time some outside consumer group tests helmets, they find, outside of a few high end manufacturers, many do not meet the standards.
I have my doubts as to whether all cheap imported safety glasses are actually tested, and that all meet the Federal standard.
Also, despite the fact that many states require motorcyclists to wear certified eye protection, most helmet face shields are not marked with the certification. My $700 helmet, an upper end Arai, is not so marked. People have been given summons' because most certified eye wear is not marked. At that point it's up to the cyclist to prove it is certified.
I have my doubts as to whether all cheap imported safety glasses are actually tested, and that all meet the Federal standard.
Also, despite the fact that many states require motorcyclists to wear certified eye protection, most helmet face shields are not marked with the certification. My $700 helmet, an upper end Arai, is not so marked. People have been given summons' because most certified eye wear is not marked. At that point it's up to the cyclist to prove it is certified.
MICHAEL T
Member
The glasses I wear are way better than the junk uncle sam wanted me to wear in 60's in combat no less . .
I for one am tired of the Govt telling me I should do this or that . Glasses, helmets ,seat belts, air bags, on and on the list grows every year and people just say yes sir and follow like little sheep . Life is a risk . You can't be protected from every thing . No matter what the nanny people think . I am 70 and not changing my ways .
I for one am tired of the Govt telling me I should do this or that . Glasses, helmets ,seat belts, air bags, on and on the list grows every year and people just say yes sir and follow like little sheep . Life is a risk . You can't be protected from every thing . No matter what the nanny people think . I am 70 and not changing my ways .
newfalguy101
Member
My prescription glasses, bi-focals, Meet OSHA standards................
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/eye-protection-shooting-glasses-review/
"I think it’s also important to discuss prescription glasses. A fair number of people, including myself, wear prescription glasses, and a lot of ranges don’t see any need for protective eyewear beyond prescription glasses. Wearing eye pro that fits over prescription glasses is cumbersome and annoying, to say the least, and for the most part I’ve simply worn my prescription glasses without thinking about how well they protect my eyes.
Then I shot a few pairs of prescription glasses, both glass and polycarbonate. Quite frankly, I will never wear regular prescription glasses as eye protection again. It is difficult to imagine how the glass prescription lenses could have been any worse – not only did they offer little resistance to the birdshot, but small glass shards flew in various directions after the shot, including straight back into the “eyes” of the styrofoam head."
"I think it’s also important to discuss prescription glasses. A fair number of people, including myself, wear prescription glasses, and a lot of ranges don’t see any need for protective eyewear beyond prescription glasses. Wearing eye pro that fits over prescription glasses is cumbersome and annoying, to say the least, and for the most part I’ve simply worn my prescription glasses without thinking about how well they protect my eyes.
Then I shot a few pairs of prescription glasses, both glass and polycarbonate. Quite frankly, I will never wear regular prescription glasses as eye protection again. It is difficult to imagine how the glass prescription lenses could have been any worse – not only did they offer little resistance to the birdshot, but small glass shards flew in various directions after the shot, including straight back into the “eyes” of the styrofoam head."
Protecting eyes is a really important thing.
I can think of a lot of names to call somebody who thinks proper eye protection is a bad idea.
entropy
Member
Let me preface this with my qualifications;
I am an Optican, and former Optical Lab Tech. I've made glasses, I've fit and dispensed them, and I've shot them. Yes, SHOT them.
Polycarbonate dress lenses are sufficient protection for most shooting applications; Indeed, most safety glasses these days use polycarbonate lenses. The only difference between dress lenses and safety lenses is that dress polycarbonate lenses lenses have a minimum thickness of 1.0mm (ANSI Z80) and safety polycarbonate lenses lenses have a minimum thickness of 2.0mm. (ANSI Z87)
All other materials (CR-39, Flint and Crown Glass, HIP (Hi-Index Plastic) and Trivex) have a safety glass minimum thickness of 3.0mm.
When I was a lab tech, I used take the defective poly lenses (what defects, you ask? Mostly coating defects, and some carbon flecks in the lens. Those have been eliminated since then.) out and shoot them with various guns.
Here are the results:
.22LR, fired at 10 yards- bullet would stick halfway thru. I used one as a demonstrator at work.
.38 wadcutter, same distance-same result, wouls stick in lens.
.357, sailed right on through.
.44 Mag.-found lens fragments 20 yards away.
Shotgun, 30 yards. Dented, did not stick or penetrate.
Shotgun 50 yards, light dents. Same results.
I had shot ricochet off a plywood board from a .410 once, hit my glasses (poly lenses, of course) and dent them.
I wear dress thickness (granted with my Rx, they are only thin at the OC, thick everywhere else!) when I shoot, mostly because I don't walt to shell out for Sawflys or ESS with the inserts (I have a high minus Rx-it wil not fit in most shooting glasses frames without inserts) and I'm not worried about it.
Only Glass lenses have to be tested individually; 5/8" ball for dress 1" ball for safety; all other materials are 'representative' batch tested; ovbiviously, if every poly lens were tested, they'd all be dented; as you discovered, poly is impact resistant, due to the cubic molecular structure of poly, but it is soft as far as sratching is concerned.
Fun fact; pouring a little acetone on a poly lens will cause it to crack instantly.
I am an Optican, and former Optical Lab Tech. I've made glasses, I've fit and dispensed them, and I've shot them. Yes, SHOT them.
Polycarbonate dress lenses are sufficient protection for most shooting applications; Indeed, most safety glasses these days use polycarbonate lenses. The only difference between dress lenses and safety lenses is that dress polycarbonate lenses lenses have a minimum thickness of 1.0mm (ANSI Z80) and safety polycarbonate lenses lenses have a minimum thickness of 2.0mm. (ANSI Z87)
All other materials (CR-39, Flint and Crown Glass, HIP (Hi-Index Plastic) and Trivex) have a safety glass minimum thickness of 3.0mm.
When I was a lab tech, I used take the defective poly lenses (what defects, you ask? Mostly coating defects, and some carbon flecks in the lens. Those have been eliminated since then.) out and shoot them with various guns.
Here are the results:
.22LR, fired at 10 yards- bullet would stick halfway thru. I used one as a demonstrator at work.
.38 wadcutter, same distance-same result, wouls stick in lens.
.357, sailed right on through.
.44 Mag.-found lens fragments 20 yards away.
Shotgun, 30 yards. Dented, did not stick or penetrate.
Shotgun 50 yards, light dents. Same results.
I had shot ricochet off a plywood board from a .410 once, hit my glasses (poly lenses, of course) and dent them.
I wear dress thickness (granted with my Rx, they are only thin at the OC, thick everywhere else!) when I shoot, mostly because I don't walt to shell out for Sawflys or ESS with the inserts (I have a high minus Rx-it wil not fit in most shooting glasses frames without inserts) and I'm not worried about it.
Only Glass lenses have to be tested individually; 5/8" ball for dress 1" ball for safety; all other materials are 'representative' batch tested; ovbiviously, if every poly lens were tested, they'd all be dented; as you discovered, poly is impact resistant, due to the cubic molecular structure of poly, but it is soft as far as sratching is concerned.
Fun fact; pouring a little acetone on a poly lens will cause it to crack instantly.
Last edited:
JohnBiltz
Member
I don't expect my glasses to stop bullets, I don't expect my face or any other part of my body to stop a bullet fired directly into them either. What I expect them to do is stop fragments. Fragments of bullets that came apart, fragments from concrete, fragments from a gun that came apart while I was shooting and yes that has happened to me. Do people seriously think that their safety glasses will stop a .44 magnum or 9mm that will penetrate a car door? If you do you might stop to wonder why they don't make bullet proof vests out of the stuff.
pockets
Member
Superman usually removed his glasses before stopping bullets.
.
.
We discuss safety and shooting glasses from time to time and there are inevitably a lot of common myths repeated so it is good to have these discussions and get the facts out for folks that haven't seen them.
If you are not wearing glasses marked as Z87 or Z87+ made in the U.S. you're not wearing "safety glasses". If the glasses are tested and pass the minimum ANSI criteria for these ratings they can be marked as such. Z87+ is ANSI's high impact rating and most companies are simply going to this and abandoning Z87. ANSI is not a government standard, but the OSHA requirement references the ANSI standard for protective eyewear where it is needed. ANSI isn't the only standard relevant to the discussion though.
MIL-PRF-31013 is the U.S. military specification covering the requirements for eyewear to provide ballistic eye protection (Special Protective Eyewear Cylindrical System). You'll see it on glasses that meet the requirements. This is a performance standard like ANSI Z87+ and is certified by the manufacturer, not the government.
Then there are the European equivalents, EN166, 169, 170 & 172, to the MIL standard.
For our purposes, all of these standards focus on the lens withstanding impact for impact/ballistic protection. If the manufacturer tests per the standard and finds they meet the performance requirements of the standard they may mark them as meeting the standard. Again, these are not tested by the government and they're simply performance standards the manufacturers use to test their product.
This doesn't ensure that material might get around the frame, just that the lenses will withstand the impact of the standard. It doesn't ensure fit or comfort. It doesn't ensure they won't fog up. It doesn't ensure the frames won't break. It doesn't ensure that your face will be protected. It doesn't ensure they won't interfere with the pads of your ear muffs. I've had certified ANSI and MIL-PRF glasses that fogged, were uncomfortable and that the earpieces caused the pads of my muffs to gap.
I have prescription safety glasses meeting Z87+ and I have MIL-PRF-31013 glasses and goggles that I've selected based on my experience and profession as a safety professional.
If you are not wearing glasses marked as Z87 or Z87+ made in the U.S. you're not wearing "safety glasses". If the glasses are tested and pass the minimum ANSI criteria for these ratings they can be marked as such. Z87+ is ANSI's high impact rating and most companies are simply going to this and abandoning Z87. ANSI is not a government standard, but the OSHA requirement references the ANSI standard for protective eyewear where it is needed. ANSI isn't the only standard relevant to the discussion though.
MIL-PRF-31013 is the U.S. military specification covering the requirements for eyewear to provide ballistic eye protection (Special Protective Eyewear Cylindrical System). You'll see it on glasses that meet the requirements. This is a performance standard like ANSI Z87+ and is certified by the manufacturer, not the government.
Then there are the European equivalents, EN166, 169, 170 & 172, to the MIL standard.
For our purposes, all of these standards focus on the lens withstanding impact for impact/ballistic protection. If the manufacturer tests per the standard and finds they meet the performance requirements of the standard they may mark them as meeting the standard. Again, these are not tested by the government and they're simply performance standards the manufacturers use to test their product.
This doesn't ensure that material might get around the frame, just that the lenses will withstand the impact of the standard. It doesn't ensure fit or comfort. It doesn't ensure they won't fog up. It doesn't ensure the frames won't break. It doesn't ensure that your face will be protected. It doesn't ensure they won't interfere with the pads of your ear muffs. I've had certified ANSI and MIL-PRF glasses that fogged, were uncomfortable and that the earpieces caused the pads of my muffs to gap.
I have prescription safety glasses meeting Z87+ and I have MIL-PRF-31013 glasses and goggles that I've selected based on my experience and profession as a safety professional.
Last edited:
Always. I always wear safety glasses. I can't imagine not doing so. I did wear prescription eyeglasses one time. Just the one (I always wore contacts to allow freedom in safety glass selection but that time I could not wear contacts, and since that was unusual I didn't have anything better available than regular Rx glasses)
In fact, I now almost exclusively wear Oakely Ballistic M-Frame 3.0 safety glasses that meet ANSI Z87.1 and MIL PRF-31013. Clear lenses indoors and TR22 lenses outdoors. I also have regular Oakley sunglasses that are simply rated Z87.1 that I might wear outdoors, to get different % light transmissions and tints.
In fact, I now almost exclusively wear Oakely Ballistic M-Frame 3.0 safety glasses that meet ANSI Z87.1 and MIL PRF-31013. Clear lenses indoors and TR22 lenses outdoors. I also have regular Oakley sunglasses that are simply rated Z87.1 that I might wear outdoors, to get different % light transmissions and tints.
You have to get ones that are designed to go over your Rx glasses-without frames, like the ones I posted about.^^ 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...
Sauer Grapes
Member
What, are you the safety police?
35 years doing construction. Short of cutting concrete or grinding steel, my regular glasses have been all I wear.
35 years doing construction. Short of cutting concrete or grinding steel, my regular glasses have been all I wear.
DUH
I was enjoying the various opinions on the subject of safety glasses until I read the posts about shooting the lenses with bird shot and another with explanations as to what happened when shot with various othercalibers.
DUH if a bullet hits my head its probably going to cause a lot more damage than a lost eye. Yes I wear safety wraparounds OVER my prescription glasses. Even wearing both, its very unlikely stop a bullet, even a lowly .22.
I CHOOSE to wear safety wraparounds over my prescription lenses, I also encourage new shooters and students to wear eye protection, but it still comes down to the fact its a personal choice, its not a mandate. And it sure as heck is not going to stop a bullet unless its at max range and the bullet has lost most of its velocity..
PS Yes my prescription glasses are hardened and tempered GLASS and meet all the basic safety requirements for prescription lenses. and NO they arent bullet proof!!!!
In over 40 years i have only ever had one incident where a shell casing hit my glasses. Despite this I would never dream of shooting without eye protection, its a personal choice.:banghead:
I was enjoying the various opinions on the subject of safety glasses until I read the posts about shooting the lenses with bird shot and another with explanations as to what happened when shot with various othercalibers.
DUH if a bullet hits my head its probably going to cause a lot more damage than a lost eye. Yes I wear safety wraparounds OVER my prescription glasses. Even wearing both, its very unlikely stop a bullet, even a lowly .22.
I CHOOSE to wear safety wraparounds over my prescription lenses, I also encourage new shooters and students to wear eye protection, but it still comes down to the fact its a personal choice, its not a mandate. And it sure as heck is not going to stop a bullet unless its at max range and the bullet has lost most of its velocity..
PS Yes my prescription glasses are hardened and tempered GLASS and meet all the basic safety requirements for prescription lenses. and NO they arent bullet proof!!!!
In over 40 years i have only ever had one incident where a shell casing hit my glasses. Despite this I would never dream of shooting without eye protection, its a personal choice.:banghead:
zxcvbob
Member
I wear "aviator" style prescription eyeglasses and take my chances. They have kinda thick plastic lenses but not "safety" polycarbonate.
Debris of the type that may be encountered in the area of firearms being discharged might not be terribly unlike a small pellet from a round of birdshot.
Recreating a kaboom or hangfire or shrapnel or whatever over and over, hitting the glasses being tested each time, is pretty hard to do, duh
It is possible to get prescription safety glasses. My normal prescription glasses are safety glasses but you'd never know it unless I told you. They came with detachable side-shields which can be reattached when wraparound coverage is appropriate.
Panzerschwein
member
I see tons of people at the range with there coke bottles on.
Makes me nervous. Sight, baby, ain't free.
Makes me nervous. Sight, baby, ain't free.
leftymachinist
Member
Being that I am a machinist by trade, PPE is a priority. Recently had to get prescription eyewear. Luckily company paid for it. must be Z87.1 or higher to qualify as safety eye glasses. Use'em all the time now.
SSN Vet
Member
The $2 cheapo light molded plastic non-prescription "safety glasses" that they pass out at work all qualify for the Z87+ label. But take an old scratched up pair of these and whack them with a ball peen hammer and see what happens. They will crack (but not shatter).
I'll take my poly-carbonate prescription glasses in a metal frame with a steel hinge and pin any day. Whack these with a ball peen hammer and all you'll get is a pock mark in the plastic. No cracks or shattering.
Oddly, prescription safety glasses have to have a riveted metal hinge pin that is peened over to prevent the hinge pin from walking (as a threaded hinge might come loose) in order to qualify for the Z87+ stamp. But the cheesy plastic non-prescription "safety" glasses get away with a flimsy molded plastic nub for a hinge. And I can snap the bow off of these cheapos with two fingers.
Like anything else... the devil is in the details, and knowing those details makes all the difference.
I'll take my poly-carbonate prescription glasses in a metal frame with a steel hinge and pin any day. Whack these with a ball peen hammer and all you'll get is a pock mark in the plastic. No cracks or shattering.
Oddly, prescription safety glasses have to have a riveted metal hinge pin that is peened over to prevent the hinge pin from walking (as a threaded hinge might come loose) in order to qualify for the Z87+ stamp. But the cheesy plastic non-prescription "safety" glasses get away with a flimsy molded plastic nub for a hinge. And I can snap the bow off of these cheapos with two fingers.
Like anything else... the devil is in the details, and knowing those details makes all the difference.
entropy
Member
Untrue. They may use screws like any other frame. The screws are often perfunctorly staked, but so are many non-Z87 frames. When replacing screws in a Z87 frame, they must meet the Z87 standards, thus at work I usually have to order them for patients' frames, unless we have a 'junked' Z87 frame laying around. We used to keep boxes of old frames of all types but the higher-ups poo-poo'd that, because it made sense, and it is Wal-Mart....
The differences between Z87 and Z87+ are worth noting, however:
From
nationalsafetyinc.org
Last edited:
- Status
