Eye Protection Standards

[gasman]

Who thinks we should have clearly marked AIRSOFT suitable eye protection with trading standards removing from shops any that fail those standards.

A suitable test would be the same joule value or exceeding that value that a 500 FPS sniper rifle with the heaviest BBs could impart.

I would also like all  eye protection to be required full fit so no BBs getting in via the sides of open glasses.

I cannot understand why anyone would risk their precious sight wearing glasses designed to protect from the front only in a sport wear BBs come from all directions!

 

[Adolf Hamster]

i think certainly we could do with an industry standard that directly covers the strengths needed for impact resistance in airsoft. this should however be to more than 2.5j because as much as we'd love the reality to be that the worst you could expect is a ~1.3j impact from a sniper at his MED (even with heavy ammo) the reality is there are idiots out there perfectly willing to point blank someone with an exceptionally hot gun and sometimes these people can slip past even well run sites.

 

i also think it should be mandatory for insurance purposes for sites to issue properly rated full seal eyepro/face pro for rentals, people who are inexperienced and as such don't know the risks they'd be taking running around with mesh goggles or no face pro.

 

however when it comes to walk on players i think it should still be acceptable to wear whatever the player is comfortable with, with the caveat that a site should be able to provide testing when requested if a player is unsure of their own eye pro's capabilities (ie that they should have a high powered gun on-site that can be used to test, although if there was a proper standard this would be less necessary)

 

there is a level of risk that players are willing to accept for themselves, for example i rarely wear face protection when outdoors and i have to accept that a result of this is i could lose a tooth if i get shot in the mouth from close range, i've seen it happen first hand but i still take the risk for the sake of the comfort a breeze can bring.

[Rogerborg]

2 hours ago, gasman said:

with trading standards removing from shops any that fail those standards

 

http://www.reading.gov.uk/tradingstandards

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/get-more-help/report-to-trading-standards/

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/maps/eastsoutheast.htm

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/oms/2009/03/om200903app3.pdf

 

BS EN166 B is rated (far more than) high enough for airsoft use.  EN166 F is not.  Which doesn't mean that everything rated F is not suitable, just that it doesn't meet the most relevant extant standard.

 

If you believe in this issue, please don't be a "Why someone oughta..." merchant.  Get on to Trading Standards, get on to H&S, and dob in your local shops and sites.  See if you can get their shelves stripped, or possibly even get them shut down.

 

Because that's in essence what you're asking to happen.  Nobody will voluntarily push this issue, until they are made to do so.

 

Please don't wish for anyone else to instigate that if you're not prepared to do it yourself.

[Immortal]

Whilst I agree shops shouldn't stock glasses/goggles that are unsuitable, it is equally stupid that people don't consider what they're buying. A lack of knowledge is no excuse IMHO. If people spend a fiver on specs and think that was money well spent then... well... say no more. There's no excuse for blind buying (ha! Little pun...).

 

If people choose to buy rubbish then shops will unfortunately stock it. Catch 22.

'Unsuitable' is vastly based on opinion (not accounting for safety ratings). People faces are all different so even full seal can be a false seal. Many glasses wrap around, shield the sides, bridge the nose and for me personally I've found they offer good protection. Whereas I've had full seal that didn't in the places I consider the most obvious entry points for a BB.

 

Again ignoring safety ratings it's a lot like motorbike helmets. You don't often get to pick the one you like, it's about the one that fits. Nobody is the same as far as bone structure so seal or not, it's about the fit. And the fit is what protects you.

 

I guess that rule could apply to full seal goggles too (also non sealed variants) but the range and models are just not varied enough and unlike a motorbike shop it's dificult to find a shop you can visit to try a huge array of models to see what fits best. I find in airsoft it requires me to buy eye pro and gamble on the fit. And the ones I use aren't even stocked by airsoft shops!

 

My preference is Revision Sawflys and Oakley Shocktubes. For me they protect, rarely fog and stop eyeball shots even when a nob ignores the MED (500fps @5m! deliberate shot... little berty blunt). If they're good enough for warefare then they're good enough for airsoft (perhaps not logical to everyone but it is to me)

 

In hindsight I agree with you and equally disagree with you... lol

 

[Lozart]

This falls entirely under "caveat emptor".

 

Make yourself aware of the right standards to look for and only buy equipment that you are satisfied meets those requirements.

 

Bear in mind that an awful lot of suitably rated kit will specifically say that it is not for use in airsoft. This isn't because the lenses aren't correctly rated, rather that the manufacturers never designed or tested them for that use and as such will not back them in the case of injury through effectively misuse. It's legal arse covering. Amusing little aside - ESS Profile goggles (which are more than high enough rating) say that they aren't for airsoft use BUT you can buy a thing called the "cortex clip" made and sold by ESS themselves that clips onto the front of the Profile goggles SPECIFICALLY to protect your nose in airsoft. Go figure.

[Druid799]

i do agree with your point about shops not selling crap quality glasses but I also feel your solution is indicative of society today , I don’t think trading standards raiding shops is the answer as there are so many different levels of impact resistance needed in safety glasses , personally I think players taking responsibility for there OWN safety is what should be happening not the state doing it for them . If a pair of ‘quality’ glasses from a reputable manufacturer cost £30+ and the bargain ones you saw on fleabay cost £5.99 posted from China , but you haven’t worked out for your self the quality of these ‘bargain’ glasses probably isn’t going to match the branded one ? sorry no sympathy from this player .

when buying anything (especially safety equipment) do your research and NOT expect someone else to do it for you .

as the old adage goes ‘you get what you pay for’ is true .  

[gasman]

19 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

 

http://www.reading.gov.uk/tradingstandards

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/get-more-help/report-to-trading-standards/

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/maps/eastsoutheast.htm

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/oms/2009/03/om200903app3.pdf

 

BS EN166 B is rated (far more than) high enough for airsoft use.  EN166 F is not.  Which doesn't mean that everything rated F is not suitable, just that it doesn't meet the most relevant extant standard.

 

If you believe in this issue, please don't be a "Why someone oughta..." merchant.  Get on to Trading Standards, get on to H&S, and dob in your local shops and sites.  See if you can get their shelves stripped, or possibly even get them shut down.

 

Because that's in essence what you're asking to happen.  Nobody will voluntarily push this issue, until they are made to do so.

 

Please don't wish for anyone else to instigate that if you're not prepared to do it yourself.

My brother works for trading standards so I understand what you are saying and I can assure you that like any other air-softer I want better standards of safety.

Trading standards are under funded and understaffed like any other enforcement body and can barely keep up with illegal tobacco selling in shops, counter-fit designer goods ect.

I am aware that people should do their own research and take responsibility for their own safety but would it not be so much better if what is sold for air-soft users is suitable and not what makes shops the most profit.

Should the shops not make an ethical decision to only stock a product that meets the relevant standards!

I like many others of my generation hate the nanny state that tells us what we may or may not do but,  , some people are so stupid they need protecting from themselves.

I would not like to be the one that shot out some idiots eye!!

[Lozart]

53 minutes ago, gasman said:

My brother works for trading standards so I understand what you are saying and I can assure you that like any other air-softer I want better standards of safety.

Trading standards are under funded and understaffed like any other enforcement body and can barely keep up with illegal tobacco selling in shops, counter-fit designer goods ect.

I am aware that people should do their own research and take responsibility for their own safety but would it not be so much better if what is sold for air-soft users is suitable and not what makes shops the most profit.

Should the shops not make an ethical decision to only stock a product that meets the relevant standards!

I like many others of my generation hate the nanny state that tells us what we may or may not do but,  , some people are so stupid they need protecting from themselves.

I would not like to be the one that shot out some idiots eye!!

 

I agree with some of what you've said (shops should at least take an amount of responsibility to make sure what they're selling is fit for purpose) but the creation of new standards and the required testing and certification thereof would be far too costly for what is at best a niche past time. Ultimately, in line with the various H&S legislation, the onus is on YOU as the user to make sure that the safety gear you use meets or exceeds the needs of your application.

[gasman]

The standards are already there, they just need to be applied properly, clearer marking and shops saying this is suitable.

The cheap crap that does not meet the standards, eBay and Chinese crap should not be allowed to be advertised in the middle of air-soft gear unless they clearly display the products rating.

Most cheap goggles designed to be used in engineering grinding applications costing a fiver are strong enough to protect against BBs, not found one my DMR at point blank range can penetrate yet.

The first thing I bought when starting air-soft was a Bolle enclosed goggle that fogged on me still best protection you could get for £80. Next I tried paintball masks same problem.

Now a tactical helmet with glasses and mesh + sides and lower. Snipers love hitting it and touch wood still good.

[djben9]

On 03/12/2018 at 16:30, Lozart said:

This falls entirely under "caveat emptor".

 

Make yourself aware of the right standards to look for and only buy equipment that you are satisfied meets those requirements.

 

Bear in mind that an awful lot of suitably rated kit will specifically say that it is not for use in airsoft. This isn't because the lenses aren't correctly rated, rather that the manufacturers never designed or tested them for that use and as such will not back them in the case of injury through effectively misuse. It's legal arse covering. Amusing little aside - ESS Profile goggles (which are more than high enough rating) say that they aren't for airsoft use BUT you can buy a thing called the "cortex clip" made and sold by ESS themselves that clips onto the front of the Profile goggles SPECIFICALLY to protect your nose in airsoft. Go figure.

as we have mentioned many times on here!!...Revision are the same

 

 

I also have the same ESS goggles as well and cortex clip!.....not work yet though

[Rogerborg]

On 04/12/2018 at 13:33, gasman said:

The standards are already there

 

EN 166 B provides far more protection than is required for airsoft.  It's also not supposed to be applied to glasses, only to goggles, which may be your intention, but would put off a lot - a lot - of players.  Including and especially marshals - I can't recall ever seeing one wear anything other than glasses.  The local site owners as well, for that matter.

 

EN166 F does not quite guarantee enough protection for airsoft.  For reasons that I've expanded on elsewhere, it's not unreasonable to expect that most F rated lenses will actually provide enough protection, but if we're being strict (and if we're not, why bother?) that would remove the majority of products from the market overnight.

 

There is no standard of which I'm aware that closely matches what we need for airsoft.

[Lozart]

7 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

There is no standard of which I'm aware that closely matches what we need for airsoft.

 

I know it's a US standard but I was pretty sure that ANSI z87+ does and that can be applied to glasses as well as goggles.

[Lozart]

Just a note on this, there IS a standard for Paintball eye protection and the basic impact rating for Z87.1 should be more than adequate for our purposes too.

(from another forum discussing much the same thing)

Quote

ANSI Z87.1
For basic Z87.1 compliance (Z87.1-1989, the first and minimal specification), a lens must be able to stand up to a one-fourth-inch diameter steel ball accelerated to 250 feet per second at the lens, which may not shatter or fragment any part of the lens or cause the lens to come into contact with the wearer’s eyes in any way [3]. When compared to an Airsoft BB:
A 0.2 gram BB shot from the barrel of an Airsoft gun at 400 feet per second (a typical field limit) will deliver 1.49 Joules of energy [1].
A one-fourth-inch diameter steel ball (0.635 centimeters, with an estimated density of 7.85 grams per cubic centimeter [4], weighs about 1.05 grams), and when accelerated at the lens traveling 250 feet per second, it makes contact with approximately 3.05 Joules of energy [1].

ASTM F1776
This standard was developed by ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) specifically for paintball. This standard is more suitable for Airsoft, as these lenses are qualified to resist much more impact than the ANSI standard for impact. I couldn’t find the ASTM F1776 specifications anywhere (for free), but here’s the math:
As shown above, a 0.2 gram BB shot from the barrel of an Airsoft gun at 400 feet per second will deliver 1.49 Joules of energy [1].
A paintball weighs, on average, approximately 3.201 grams [2]. A 3.201 gram paintball shot at 280 feet per second will deliver 11.6 Joules of energy [1].

 

[Rogerborg]

1 hour ago, Lozart said:

Z87.1 should be more than adequate for our purposes too

 

From here, Z87+ (high impact) is tested with a 1/4" steel ball shot at 102mph / ~150fps for glasses, but from a distance of 150'.  For goggles, it's 170mph / ~250fps from 250' and 250mph / 300 fps from 300'.

 

That's a big discrepancy, and being shot from a distance would render it effectively meaningless anyway.

 

Can we find an actual ANSI source for it rather than J. Random Forumite?

[Lozart]

2 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

From here, Z87+ (high impact) is tested with a 1/4" (~6mm / ~0.86g) steel ball shot at 102mph / ~150fps for glasses, but from a distance of 150'.  For goggles, it's 170mph / ~250fps from 250' and 250mph / 300 fps from 300'.

 

That's a bizarre standard, as only the retained impact energy when it hits the lens matters.  That could vary with air temperature, pressure and moisture when you're shooting from a distance.

 

In either case, if those numbers are correct then even Z87+ is inadequate for airsoft purposes.  ~150fps and 0.86g is just 0.89J.  250fps x 0.86g is 2.48J which isn't quite enough.  300fps x 0.86g is enough, but that's from 300' which renders it meaningless.

 

 

Interesting stuff, I found no reference to those distances in any of the stuff I could find. Without downloading the standard (at $60 a pop - no thanks) there is scant info available with anything more than "Z87+ is better m'kay".

[Adolf Hamster]

i'll have a gander later see if i can dig up that standard

 

edit: damn, no home access for the database, i'll have a look on monday

[Rogerborg]

Cheers chap.  However, how much eyewear sold in the UK is rated for ANSI Z87?  On a casual glance, EN 166 is more common.

[Lozart]

1 minute ago, Rogerborg said:

Cheers chap.  However, how much eyewear sold in the UK is rated for ANSI Z87?  On a casual glance, EN 166 is more common.

 

Anything sold in the US as well as EU/RoW will be ANSI rated.

[Tommikka]

5 hours ago, Lozart said:

Just a note on this, there IS a standard for Paintball eye protection and the basic impact rating for Z87.1 should be more than adequate for our purposes too.

(from another forum discussing much the same thing)

 

Z87.1 alone is not the standard for paintball.

 

Its a subset, and covers part of the standard, so it doesn’t fit that of its adequate for Paintball then it’s adequate for airsoft

There have been a couple of recent threads on standards for eye protection.  Impact is one factor and a key part of manufacturers not stating their protective glasses are suitable for airsoft is that impact protection in itself is not enough

Its generally accepted that glasses with the right impact level are good for airsoft, but there remains the possibility of indirect shots getting in

 

In Paintball the  lens must have the appropriate impact protection, seal the area around the eyes to give combined eye protection then the paintball standard also includes face and ear protection, the goggle straps and the chin strap

 

 

Chin straps came to the fore in recent years with a few incidents, particularly when a player was stabbed in the face with a barrel when his goggles were flipped off his face.  This caused international outrage (99% American outrage) that the existing chinstrap rule to meet standards was enforced with blame being attributed to the field layout and a large bunker - its true that this was the cause of the accident, but if the goggles were worn properly then they would not have come off

The chin strap rule has again been disregarded and forgotten

 

Other things that are thought to be safe can be the opposite. It’s become trendy to wear double straps, a couple of designs have two rear straps and others add them for a stronger hold or because a ‘pro’ wears them that way so it must be cool

The problem with doing it badly is the second strap if in the wrong place on your head it adds tension and pulls the goggle up and off your head if it’s knocked etc

 

Note that in addition to ANSI being American, ISO is international and EN European.

 

But neither ISO or EN standards are valid in the UK until ratified to a BS standard

 

Thus we have BS ISO xxx, BS EN xxx etc

 

 

 

[gasman]

I seem to remember when I bought the very expensive Bolle goggles some very impressive claims as to protection EN166 T   at 275M/S (A .22 LR rimfire bullet I believe travels at around 1100 feet per second) ballistic protection also ANSI Z87 so standards do exist that far surpass our requirements. Its all about the letters and numbers that tell you the level of protection. I might take a Bolle lens and shoot it at the rifle club just for the hell of it!

[Adolf Hamster]

11 hours ago, gasman said:

I seem to remember when I bought the very expensive Bolle goggles some very impressive claims as to protection EN166 T   at 275M/S (A .22 LR rimfire bullet I believe travels at around 1100 feet per second) ballistic protection also ANSI Z87 so standards do exist that far surpass our requirements. Its all about the letters and numbers that tell you the level of protection. I might take a Bolle lens and shoot it at the rifle club just for the hell of it!

 

i recall seeing a yank doing a similar test, he shot a pair with a .22 handgun and whilst the bullet didn't penetrate they were deformed sufficiently you'd likely have lost the eye, but i suppose in that situation i'd rather lose my eye than my brain.

[Rogerborg]

On 03/12/2018 at 11:32, gasman said:

Who thinks we should have clearly marked AIRSOFT suitable eye protection

 

To answer the original question, I'd like there to be a standard that closely matches airsoft limits, but it would have to be around 3.5J to cover the Eurolunies who run around with 550fps or even higher snipers. EN 166F is too low, 166 B is excessive.

 

Do I think there will be one?  No, not a chance.  It's too small a market and nobody's going to champion it or queue up to pay for testing.

 

Do I think that eventually EN 166 B and full seal will be mandatory at some or all sites in the UK?  Yes, eventually.  It's all fun and games until someone literally loses and eye, a site gets sued for failing in their duty of care to enforce suitable eye protection, and insurers (I can't imagine there are many underwriters) mandate it.

[gasman]

I thought this might be of interest,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIvgdalqiBU

or even better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZoLv-MMQTo

[Lozart]

On 07/12/2018 at 20:56, Tommikka said:

Z87.1 alone is not the standard for paintball.

 

 

Never said it was. Read the rest of the quoted text, ASTM F1776 is the standard that covers paintball eye protection.

[Rogerborg]

28 minutes ago, Lozart said:

ASTM F1776 is the standard that covers paintball eye protection

 

Hmm, so it is.  I guess there could be a similar one for airsoft.  Although I still reckon it'll take someone losing an eye to make it happen.