kasaran Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaydee Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Adolf Hamster Posted December 7, 2020 Supporters Share Posted December 7, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alimcd Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasaran Posted December 7, 2020 Author Share Posted December 7, 2020 On 07/12/2020 at 13:07, Alimcd said: Exact same experience, tested with my DMR and split the smoked lens in two. Expand Yeah, on closer inspetion, I have removed the lens and its in 2 pieces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommikka Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 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 FMA F1 testing FMA F2 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airsoft J2 Posted December 8, 2020 Share Posted December 8, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tactical Pith Helmet Posted December 10, 2020 Share Posted December 10, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted December 10, 2020 Share Posted December 10, 2020 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommikka Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.