My point is that we've had accusations of patrolbase being negligent, that these goggles should be returned which I think is a bit OTT and lacks quite a bit of nuance (no offence)
That would be me and
@Lyndication referring to about returns and negligence - both stating these are our opinions
I don’t think that I have been criticised for a lack of nuance - oversimplification is not a thing that I ever do, take note of the multiple posts it took me to go into my reasoning that there is no set standard for Airsoft eyeprotection (not even HSE state a requirement)
It comes down to personal choice (hopefully informed) and site requirements (which should be based on the combination of risk assessment and insurers - but then comes down to any enforcement of players choice complying with site policy)
In the UK it is a matter of buyer beware, but Patrolbase are selling those goggles for Airsoft.
They do have a rating for impact protection so are a form of eye protection.
But as I stated they have used marketing words to state protection standards. They quote the combined standard of the goggles at a lower level than Airsoft guns shoot at.
An uninformed new player can read that and think that the product is fully suitable
As I and
@Lyndication have stated we do not feel that they are suitable
It is true that the different components can meet different standards, but the combined goggle system then only meets the lowest of those standards
The risk of a lower standard frame is not that the frame will break, it is that the frame cannot hold the lens during impact. This is typically that a lens bends on impact and dislodges from the frame.
A dislodged lens is worse than a cracked lens - a cracked lens may still remain long enough for you to leave. A dislodged lens falls out
I have seen and dealt with people who have had goggles dislodged in game - it’s a scary time in only a few seconds and can involve running your body into their face or shoving their face into the dirt
