Goggles query

[Adolf Hamster]

Yeah fine but just because it doesn't have EN166B doesn't mean the frame will break if its shot by a ~0.9j gun.

Click to shrink...

Everyone is welcome to draw the line of what they do or dont consider to be adequately safe where they want to.

And yes your right that in many cases unrated eyepro is probably good enough. Given the gap between 166f and b means something could barely fail the b standard but still be more than adequate.

But theres where you draw that line for yourself, the risk you are personally willing to accept, and the risk you put on someone else with erroneous guidance.

So you can understand that when giving advice on a forum, we have to come down on the side of caution. Arm people with the most correct knowledge we can and let them make that choice for themselves.

Just like anyone is welcome to wear trainers to airsofting, i've even played a couple of games when i forgot my boots. But i would never ever reccommend anyone to play without good solid supportive boots because if they break their ankle based off my bad advice then that's on my concience.

 

[Cannonfodder]

Personally I feel that while b rated will probably be "good enough" I'd rather not take the risk. Wearing PPE that's rated for higher than I expect to need means they shouldn't fail. Like the glasses vs goggles debate, it comes down to personal choice and what level of risk you're willing to take

 

[GeorgePlaysAirsoft]

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

Click to shrink...

I appreciate the reply. If you don't mind me nitpicking (I want to address your general points not specific):

"the combined goggle system then only meets the lowest of those standards" - this is what PB have done. It seems unfair to then say that "An uninformed new player can read that and think that the product is fully suitable" If I was going to criticise patrolbase, I'd probably say that if I was selling this as a retailer I'd direct people to the pyramex's website where they can read the datasheets.

Fundamentally my disagreement is that a goggle must be fully rated to EN166B. It's just one certification out of many. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely do not think that a lens only rated to EN166F is appropriate. But, I would be, and am, much more reassured that the goggle is compliant with a diverse range of certifications such as "ASTM F2879-19" (which does seem to be the closest thing to a "set standard for airsoft" though the key word is probably "set"/enforced) , and MIL-PRF-32432. If were in America chatting about this, we probably wouldn't be having the argument as the goggle is ANZI Z87+ which is broadly equivilant to en166 and seen as the "short hand standard" (my words) - but I understand that anzi z87+ has it's downsides too - It would be interesting to know the specifics of the ASTM airsoft rating as it might take into account things more relevant to airsoft then EN166 - like repeated hits.

As I mentioned, this will be soon to be a little bit more academic as EN166 is phased out with a new ISO (the number of which escapes me at the moment).

It's plausible to imagine I think, either a site, or the insurers going "all eye pro MUST be be certified by ASTM/MIL-PRF" which would exclude those who have a goggle only certfied by EN166 etc.

Likewise, I think it would be unfair if someone said "the dyei4 has not been certified to the mil-prf standard. as such, I will not use it for airsoft, and shops that sell it are negligent, if you reccomend the dyei4, you are giving shit advice"

Everyone is welcome to draw the line of what they do or dont consider to be adequately safe where they want to.

And yes your right that in many cases unrated eyepro is probably good enough. Given the gap between 166f and b means something could barely fail the b standard but still be more than adequate.

But theres where you draw that line for yourself, the risk you are personally willing to accept, and the risk you put on someone else with erroneous guidance.

So you can understand that when giving advice on a forum, we have to come down on the side of caution. Arm people with the most correct knowledge we can and let them make that choice for themselves.

Just like anyone is welcome to wear trainers to airsofting, i've even played a couple of games when i forgot my boots. But i would never ever reccommend anyone to play without good solid supportive boots because if they break their ankle based off my bad advice then that's on my concience.

Click to shrink...

Also thank you. When you say "yes your right that in many cases unrated eyepro is probably good enough." - may I clarify "for the record" that actually I don't think that "unrated eye pro is probably good enough". I just think that EN166B for lenses, F for frame, Z87+ ASTM-etc Mil-PRF-etc is absolutely good enough.

 

[Adolf Hamster]

Also thank you. When you say "yes your right that in many cases unrated eyepro is probably good enough." - may I clarify "for the record" that actually I don't think that "unrated eye pro is probably good enough". I just think that EN166B for lenses, F for frame, Z87+ ASTM-etc Mil-PRF-etc is absolutely good enough.

Click to shrink...

yes i may have taken the liberty of extending your meaning to include unrated eyepro to make a broader point, but that is indeed not what you were saying. my apologies for that insinuation.

 

[Tommikka]

I appreciate the reply. If you don't mind me nitpicking (I want to address your general points not specific):

"the combined goggle system then only meets the lowest of those standards" - this is what PB have done. It seems unfair to then say that "An uninformed new player can read that and think that the product is fully suitable" If I was going to criticise patrolbase, I'd probably say that if I was selling this as a retailer I'd direct people to the pyramex's website where they can read the datasheets.

Fundamentally my disagreement is that a goggle must be fully rated to EN166B. It's just one certification out of many. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely do not think that a lens only rated to EN166F is appropriate. But, I would be, and am, much more reassured that the goggle is compliant with a diverse range of certifications such as "ASTM F2879-19" (which does seem to be the closest thing to a "set standard for airsoft" though the key word is probably "set"/enforced) , and MIL-PRF-32432. If were in America chatting about this, we probably wouldn't be having the argument as the goggle is ANZI Z87+ which is broadly equivilant to en166 and seen as the "short hand standard" (my words) - but I understand that anzi z87+ has it's downsides too - It would be interesting to know the specifics of the ASTM airsoft rating as it might take into account things more relevant to airsoft then EN166 - like repeated hits.

As I mentioned, this will be soon to be a little bit more academic as EN166 is phased out with a new ISO (the number of which escapes me at the moment).

It's plausible to imagine I think, either a site, or the insurers going "all eye pro MUST be be certified by ASTM/MIL-PRF" which would exclude those who have a goggle only certfied by EN166 etc.

Likewise, I think it would be unfair if someone said "the dyei4 has not been certified to the mil-prf standard. as such, I will not use it for airsoft, and shops that sell it are negligent, if you reccomend the dyei4, you are giving shit advice"



Also thank you. When you say "yes your right that in many cases unrated eyepro is probably good enough." - may I clarify "for the record" that actually I don't think that "unrated eye pro is probably good enough". I just think that EN166B for lenses, F for frame, Z87+ ASTM-etc Mil-PRF-etc is absolutely good enough.

Click to shrink...

Eye protection standards for Airsoft are like the Wild West, but for paintball there are recognised standards
For paintball you must use the approved standard, an Dye i4s meet the US, European and International standards
EN166 stays valid in the UK post Brexit (while current certification applies and new products require EN ISO 16321
(Dye i4 lenses and frames are both compliant to EN166B, plus additional standards also apply to the face guard, main head strap and also the neck strap)
There are unsafe grey import goggles in lookalike designs that are very unsafe, and a lot of videos around showing why)

As there isn’t an accepted standard for Airsoft then you can argue for those that meet any of the standards but with the claim that the Pyramix meet MIL-PRF-32432 it is in contradiction to the lens being EN166B and the frame EN166F. The product data sheet clarifies EN166 for the lens and the frame but does not clarify MIL.
A MIL standard frame includes holding the lens. Therefore an EN166F frame cannot hold the lens to MIL-PRF-32432 standards

Sites (in conjunction with their insurer) can choose to require specific standards (and will have to check those)
If they opted for US MIL spec they would have to explain that to their insurer, but then would be perfectly entitled to refuse the Dye i4

If they did enforce standards then common sense would be to use an applicable national standard ….. this is the case for HPA air cylinders and despite all of the international HPA standards being equivalent, DOT and TC are not valid for filling on sites in the UK - you require EU TPED Pi (depending on the date), GB Rho or multinational UN ISO

 

[Lyndication]

After seeing Kicking Mustang's latest video - which I won't link here because I don't want to give him more views - I'm happy to double down on "you can't be too safe in Airsoft."

He shoots a rental at seemingly close range from above, in the upper part of a paintball mask. You see it punch through the plastic and presumably hit the kid in the brow.

It takes one cunt out to cause harm to potentially inflict a life changing injury.

Also for like the fifth time now, those PB goggles are both very overpriced and inferior. I don't understand why you're repeatedly going to bat for them on this product.

 

[Mtemprell]

After seeing Kicking Mustang's latest video - which I won't link here because I don't want to give him more views - I'm happy to double down on "you can't be too safe in Airsoft."

He shoots a rental at seemingly close range from above, in the upper part of a paintball mask. You see it punch through the plastic and presumably hit the kid in the brow.

It takes one cunt out to cause harm to potentially inflict a life changing injury.

Also for like the fifth time now, those PB goggles are both very overpriced and inferior. I don't understand why you're repeatedly going to bat for them on this product.

Click to shrink...

Without going off topic too much. I hate his attitude towards face shots. As a sniper body shots are more than easy to do and face shots are lethal even for people wearing full face protection with 116b/a. Let alone like myself the Wiley x glasses wearer (I do it knowing the risks) all it takes is one shot to knock them off my face and if he pulled trigger twice that's a second BB heading to my face with dislodged safety glasses.

 

[The_Lord_Poncho]

As an owner of those Pyramex goggles myself - and this isn't a recommendation, everyone needs to make up their own minds - personally I don't feel unsafe wearing them and they are one of the most mist free goggles that I’ve tried. The frame is very substantial, and very flexible - I struggle to think of a situation where a bb would punch through or render the frame so damaged that the lenses are no longer held in place. I note they are widely sold in places other than PB as airsoft goggles, including Novritsch - not that that forms a stamp of approval! Interestingly., on that website they are listed as meeting MIL-PRF-32432 ; CE EN166 B ; ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2020 ; CAN/CSA Z94.3-2020 ; ASTM F2879-19. So it is plausible that Pyramex simply hadn't subjected the frame to the testing to get the B rating, but aftermarket sellers have - and it achieved a pass.

As I say, not a recommendation though. Before i knew better, i wore a pair of relatively cheap Bolle knock off's (pun intended!) in a game - they took a BB to the thin part of the frame that retained the elastic strap shattered the plastic, and I had to grab them to prevent the goggles falling off my face - so these things do happen!

 

[John_W]

I always wear genuine Bolle goggles or glasses.
I managed to scratch a lens on my 500s a few years back and replaced it, took the old lens and gave it a bit of TLC from my .22 Diana 52 rated at 11 Ft Lbs.
Didn't even mark the lens.