Sun Glasses

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yo Mama

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,230
Hello All-

I wanted a good pair of sun glasses, but have a strict budget of 100 bucks.

I was looking at the Oakley sun glasses, and liked them because you can switch out the dark lenses for yellow shooting lenses, and both are balistic hardness.

However, they are above my limit. Do you have any other brand you would recommend that are good looking and easy to switch out lenses?
 
I like Gargoyles, however, they have fixed lens choices - at least as far as the ones I have had.

I do not know what the regular retail price is on your Oakleys but if you shop around you ought to be able to find them substantially discounted. I have a number of $100-$200 eyewear including Gargoyle, Ray-Ban and Panoptx; I paid between $30 and $60 for most of them mainly on eBay.

-------------------------------------

http://gtr5.com
 
how about a pair of ESS CDI Max?

ESS is now a part of Oakley, they make excellent sunglasses/eyewear for the military. I use the ICE but it doesn't quite have that normal sunglasses look like the CDI Max. Besides, chicks dig it :)

ESS7400297.jpg

http://www.chiefsupply.com/Law_Enforcement/Tactical_Equipment/Eye_Protection/ESS7400297 pretty good price here
 
Thanks for all your help everyone. I'm looking closely at the ESS CDI Max, as these look almost exactly what I'm wanting. Good looking pair of shades.
 
I like the 5.11 Tactical sunglasses, i don't know if they are up to saftey glass standards but its what we used in the PD so i assume they are pretty good. Plus they re comfy and only go for about $70
 
Thanks Fast, I'll have to check them out as well as they look pretty current with style :).
 
Alot of us in the military use Wiley -X brand. Depending on style from about $60 on up. I have the transition glasses and work great.
 
Ok, I ended up with Smith Optics, the Director model as it's on sale now at Big 5 for 40 bucks. I checked everywhere else, and it was a killer deal.

However, one question:

How strong in terms of safety are the ANSI Z80.3 standards?
 
How strong in terms of safety are the ANSI Z80.3 standards?

That standard isn't for impact resistance (safety). It's for non-prescription sunglasses (UV protection). It's useless for impact. You need to look for Z87+ for the current highest ANSI impact rating or Military Velocity Sub Zero (MIL Vo) for the tougher military standard for impact resistance. You can pick up a pair of UVEX Genesis sunglasses that meet both Vo and Z87+ for around $10.

The Directors only meets the lower ANSI Z87.1 impact standard (which is lower than Z87+).

If you were primarily looking for impact resistance you may have wasted your money on the Smiths.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the quick replies. Ok, looks like they have a carbonic lense, so I was incorrect asking about the standards as it looks like these are a bit tougher than the standard I was referring to. Is the carbonic lense good enough?
 
Last edited:
The lens material won't be fully relevant since different thicknesses of material have different impact resistances.

The impact standard rating is all that matters for impact resistant safety glasses. ANSI Z87.1 is the minimum impact rating that was in place for years. Z87+ is a newer higher impact resistance rating and MIL Vo is the highest. If the Smith's don't have Z87.1 or Z87+ embossed on the ear piece or frame then they are NOT rated for impact resistance.

Is what you have "good enough"? As long as they won't shatter or the lens pop out on impact then "good enough" is up to you. Without the impact resistance ratings there's no objective way to say whether you've wasted your money or not. I wear MIL Vo rated safety glasses because I want the best protection I can get should a "KABOOM" occur. Since I can get that with a pair of UVEX Genesis for under $20 easily I don't worry too much about it.
 
ANSI Z87.1-2003

You'll find a wide selection of glasses that meet that standard for under $20 at your local Lowe's or Home Depot.

UVEX Genesis

HSO is an invaluable source of info. I read about those on a previous post. I keep a pair in my glove box and shooting bag. I'm not military, swat or any leo-type person so all I need is a pair that meets those standards. $50+ is a waste for me. I can either buy one pair of high end glasses that meet those specs and "look cool," or I can buy several pairs for myself and whoever happens to go shooting on my property with me. YMMV.

Now for my casual glasses, I am a huge Ray Ban fan. I'll spend more $$$ on those. They're just comfortable and I like them.
 
Most of the core UVEX line is now Vo rated. When Z87+ came about I predicted that it would eventually become difficult to find Z87.1 rated safety glasses from the major manufacturers because of the economics of producing products meeting both standards. While I don't think Vo will have the same results in product availability I do think we'll continue to see fewer and fewer industrial safety glasses manufacturers producing the lower impact rated protective eyewear.

Considering that these companies have learned that the "cooler" looking the protective eyewear the more likely it will be purchased I'm not sure that I'd buy sunglasses from other companies when I also want impact protection.
 
Most of the core UVEX line is now Vo rated. When Z87+ came about I predicted that it would eventually become difficult to find Z87.1 rated safety glasses from the major manufacturers because of the economics of producing products meeting both standards

Exactly what I've been finding. Safety glasses are easy to find, but clarity and UV protection is limited. I've been looking at these Carbonic lenses, they are polycarbonate but supposedly stronger. I don't need them to stop a .50 cal here, but wanted a pair that also would work at the range as well as flying debris in the air when my head is in the wind.

For now, looks like I get a pair for fashion that works ok, and a pair of safety glasses for the machine/wood work.

BTW, thanks again for the continued dialogue and answers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top