Fma Fan Goggles. do Not Buy

[kasaran]

On an order from TaiwanGun, I tagged on a set of fan goggles as an experiment.  At £17, if they worked, they would be a steal, if not, then no big loss.

https://www.taiwangun.com/tactical-glasses-goggles/protective-goggle-mod-2-with-built-in-anti-fog-fan-black-fma

I could not find any impact rating on the website, claiming to survive 550fps from a koer SVD.

They arrived fine, though the fan didnt work.  After some prying I found that the proportions of the battery case were off to the point that it wasnt making contact with the positive end of a AAA battery....  great QC (a sign of things to come).

They arrived in a lovely case and conviniently they had the tinted lens fitted.  I dont know why people wear them... why make the shadows in the woods darker?  Either way it means it doesnt matter if they get skuffed during testing as I would be putting the provided clear lens in. 

I fired 3 rounds of 0.36g bb's at 490fps from my cyma springer from about an inch away.  It left 3 little dimples where the left eye would be.  All seeming fine so far. 

For the second test I brought out my gas TM M870 and fired 2 sets of 3 bb's all weighing 0.28g over the right eye, where it was as yet undamaged.  The first salvo bounced off fine.  The second.... two bb's went right through the lens cracking it majorly.  Not so good.

Also, the website claims the lens has a thickness of 2.4mm.... i measure it at 1.5mm with a ruler.  I will need to borrow some calipers to be more accurate.

I know my test would be somewhat extreme... and unlikely to happen in game... but I dont think I will use them now.

Was my testing a little too much for it? I mean, it shugged off the sniper with no problem, hell, the scuffs were not even bad.  The BB's and gas used that broke them are included in the photo.

View attachment 66103

View attachment 66104

View attachment 66105

View attachment 66106

 

[Shaydee]

If it's not clearly rated I wouldn't bother going about buying/using them in the first place (a personal opinion, but one I would presume many would agree with).

Anyways that sentiment aside, if they are/were fit for purpose - after shooting them the first time you may have created an underlying weakness which has caused them to crack on receiving further hits. If any eye pro you use has suffered damage to the extent it has caused an indentation that large, a crack, or something similar it's at that point I'd recommend replacing lenses. It has been used up to its maximum tolerance and is likely no longer safe and I'm making a presumption here that the maximum tolerance for off brand eye pro is a sub 3 joule impact.

 

[Adolf Hamster]

There is simply no substitute safety rating for doing as you've done and testing the thing yourself.

I agree with the battery compartment, and even though mine worked as designed the fan is simply too anaemic to de-fog.

 

[Alimcd]

Exact same experience, tested with my DMR and split the smoked lens in two. 

I've gone back to mesh, as a sweaty betty - can't beat mesh

 

[kasaran]

Exact same experience, tested with my DMR and split the smoked lens in two. 

Yeah, on closer inspetion, I have removed the lens and its in 2 pieces

 

[Tommikka]

Note that the link to the goggles include the small print that they are it for use in ‘Tactical games / war / military / ASG’ 

Taiwan gun only state that they have shot them for testing.

FMA have featured a number of times for sub standard goggles, and are responsible for a rip off of the Dye i4

There are various videos around of people testing at close range and breaking the lens.

PBM magazine recently put together a fairer ‘real life’ scenario with both 0.5” and 0.68” paintballs and the lens survived for a while, on getting closer and repeated firing the lens broke.

They will be conducting a new test with a side by side comparison of FMAs vs genuine protection

@kasaran did literally go into this with eyes open to see if they survive.

Some will survive some shots, but eyes need to be protected with confidence - minimum impact testing should be conducted during design and certified properly.  These standards exceed real life situations so that subsequent hits don’t degrade to risky levels etc 

FMA F1 unboxing 

With regard to lens colours etc, there are valid reasons for different conditions and also a matter of looking pretty 

Clear is the good all rounder 

Amber helps in low light giving contrast

Dark filters in bright light

Mirrored and posey finish’s look pretty, give a level of filtering, and for those like me who are international male models - a fancy lens prevents your eyes being visible and turn the photo into a product shot rather than a picture of the person

A brand new fancy lens is a stupid idea for a photographer who uses their viewfinder.

 

[Airsoft J2]

Good post. I don't think what you've done is overkill at all. Good effort for doing it.

This really reinforces the view that no shortcuts are worth taking with PPE. As @Shaydeesaid above, if it's not clearly rated (and you trust that the rating symbol hasn't just been slapped on), don't bother.

My advice is always the same: for PPE, buy big name stuff from trusted places. 

 

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

Couple of years back I fired a 3 shot burst (Mosfet controlled) around the corner of a building.  Bloke jumped out just as I fired and took a shot or shots to the face at less than a foot range.  I immediately felt guilty, but he laughed it off and said that all the hits had been to his eye-pro so no worries.   

If he had been wearing that crap, it could have been a different story.   It's possible that I only hit him once, but the rifle I was using was certainly capable of very rapid fire.  I expect that he took two shots at least.   Seemed that way anyhow.  

 

[Cannonfodder]

The post above is a prime example of how PPE should be tested for a worst case scenario. 

I was looking at these last year but I was put off by this. Yes, it might just be the manufacturer or shop covering their arse but it doesn't give me any confidence in the goggles doing their job 

View attachment 66227

 

[Tommikka]

A follow up video to the FMA goggle lens test:

 This new video gives a repeat of the FMA 1, new test of the FMA 2, plus tests of VForce Grills with old and new lenses

Bottom line is don’t use eye protection that doesn’t meet the standards or use unreliable sources.

Also check the condition of your lenses, particularly as we have not been able to play for some time