you can`t shoot me Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 Looking at the pyramex i Force Goggles specs they state they pass ballistic MIL-PRF-32432 High Velocity Impact standards but the ESB7010SDT models only have an en166 f rating on both the lenses and the strap which is a low impact rating of 45m/s for a 0.86g ball or slightly less than 1J from what i`ve seen. So how can it have both, i would assume if it passes the MIL-PRF-32432 should it not have a higher rating than the En166f? It might have to do with how the strap and arms clip onto the googles lowers the rating as its not fixed but the bolle trackers lenses are rated en166B while the arms are rated en166F. The us model SB7010SDT does state it has the P Z87+ rating on the lenses and temple so are they the same as the uk models or different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Rogerborg Posted July 17 Supporters Share Posted July 17 I'd recommend them. From what I've been able to determine, glasses (which I believe means two single-piece lenses in a frame rather than one big lens) can only be rated to EN166 F for impact. If you look on (for example) Toolstation, all of the glasses they sell are EN166 F, and only the single piece goggles are rated to EN166 B. Bear in mind that there's a huge jump between F and B, and just because they're only rated to F doesn't mean that they barely meet it. I've had no concerns with point blank CQB impacts on mine, and the dual panes do a decent job of anti-fogging. Some owners have experienced crazing of the inner lens after some time. If you do get that, you can easily enough make replacement inner lenses from any thin, clear plastic, e.g. 0.5mm acetate. You can make inner lenses for pretty much any eyepro that way, by the way: just cut it slightly smaller than the main lens(es) and use 2mm or 3mm double sided foam tape to stick it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroshark Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 F is a pretty common on the frame of any thin sunglasses type frames. Although I've seen it happen It's very rare to get a hit direct and hard enough on a frame to break. And usually it just starts a small crack and will still retain the lens giving you a fair time to get out of harms way. A lot of the time people don't even notice. If you know your glasses have taken a good hit it's always good to check the frame for cracks and if you can carry a spare set of eyepro in the game zone. If not a good marshal should always carry a spare imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
you can`t shoot me Posted July 17 Author Share Posted July 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rogerborg said: I'd recommend them. From what I've been able to determine, glasses (which I believe means two single-piece lenses in a frame rather than one big lens) can only be rated to EN166 F for impact. If you look on (for example) Toolstation, all of the glasses they sell are EN166 F, and only the single piece goggles are rated to EN166 B. The Bolle trackers the lenses are rated EN166B so some glasses must be capable of receiving a higher rating. I am more curious as to how they passed the ballistic MIL-PRF-32432 High Velocity Impact standards which from what i`ve seen should be a higher rating than the EN166B but still only have the EN166F on the lenses. Although i am going on random internet calculations so perhaps they are wrong but i have seen it written that the MIL-PRF-32432 would be a rating of around 7J for glasses and 15J for googles and the EN166B is around 6J. Edited July 17 by you can`t shoot me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sewdhull Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Those mil specs have multiple specs and smallest part of that spec is the resistance against projectiles and there are multiple versions of that spec. Testing methods are different between the specs also. There are clauses that reference other standards and in general top end milspec stuff will not be affordable for airsoft. The highest standards of protection, which ppl will quote you wont see for reasonable money, you'll see the lesser protection some of which is less than the en166 variants. If you can find and read a copy of the spec you will see what I mean. I can only find snippets of the spec and old versions which I doubt are reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
you can`t shoot me Posted July 17 Author Share Posted July 17 I sent an email to pyramex who stated that the mil specs is only a partial test but stated the following The I-Force passes MIL-PRF-32432-A Class 1 impact clause with a 0.15 caliber, 5.85 grain T37 shaped projectile at 700-725 ft/sec. Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Lozart Posted July 18 Supporters Share Posted July 18 16 hours ago, you can`t shoot me said: I sent an email to pyramex who stated that the mil specs is only a partial test but stated the following The I-Force passes MIL-PRF-32432-A Class 1 impact clause with a 0.15 caliber, 5.85 grain T37 shaped projectile at 700-725 ft/sec. Quick translation: Quote In brief, the U.S. military standard requires that ballistic eyewear must be able to withstand up to a 3.8 mm (.15 caliber) projectile at 195 m/s (640 ft/s)) for spectacles and 5.6 mm (.22 caliber) projectile at 168–171 m/s (550–560 ft/s) for goggles. The European standard identifies four levels of impact protection. 5.85 grains is 0.38 grams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Rogerborg Posted July 18 Supporters Share Posted July 18 22 hours ago, you can`t shoot me said: The Bolle trackers the lenses are rated EN166B Huh, so they do, good spot. However, in their own data sheet, they also say that F is the "Maximum protection for glasses", so it's a definitional issue about what constitutes glasses vs goggles. Perhaps it's just a fully enclosed lens? 22 hours ago, you can`t shoot me said: Although i am going on random internet calculations Random internet calculations built this country! Well, the random internet parts of it, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Lozart Posted July 18 Supporters Share Posted July 18 52 minutes ago, Rogerborg said: Huh, so they do, good spot. However, in their own data sheet, they also say that F is the "Maximum protection for glasses", so it's a definitional issue about what constitutes glasses vs goggles. Perhaps it's just a fully enclosed lens? If you look at the table on the second page of that, you will see that in "temple mode" ie - worn as glasses without the strap, the lenses are rated to EN166F. Worn with the strap they are EN166 3 4 B. By wearing them with the strap the unit as a whole can be classed as goggles and hence gets an EN166B rating. EN166 F is the highest you can get with glasses because part of the classification for goggles is that they won't get knocked off by the impact. Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
you can`t shoot me Posted July 18 Author Share Posted July 18 (edited) I sent another email to pyramex asking about the ASTM F2879-19 which is listed on the i-force as specific for airsoft. The report tests for this by a lab was done with 0.2g bbs at 175m/s for a lens retention test and 0.25g at 177m/s for a high impact test. The results showed that 5 samples passed all the tests for the impact test in -12, 23 and 37 degrees celsius tests with both the temples and straps. One sample failed the lens retention test with the temples when cold stressed at -12 degrees celsius but passed with the straps. Two other samples passes the lens retention tests at 25degrees and 37 degrees celsius with both the temples and strap tests. Edited July 18 by you can`t shoot me Lozart and Rogerborg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sewdhull Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 You're taking chances with glasses even tho they are comfy, I have some bolle trackers with straps and they work well. Anything without en166 being sold in Europe should be viewed with suspicion. ASTM isnt a high enough standard in my view, not enough margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Lozart Posted July 19 Supporters Share Posted July 19 15 hours ago, Sewdhull said: ASTM isnt a high enough standard in my view, not enough margin. How do you mean? Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Rogerborg Posted July 19 Supporters Share Posted July 19 On 18/07/2024 at 17:45, Sewdhull said: ASTM isnt a high enough standard in my view, not enough margin. I'm confused too. If those numbers are right, it's testing at 3.92J. Not enough for some super-spicy European countries, but way higher than anything we should be catching in the UK. It's also far higher than EN166 F, which plenty of people wear without issues. Not something I'd do, I always wear a strap-on, but I've never seen or heard of any eyepro actually failing on site. On 18/07/2024 at 10:41, Lozart said: If you look at the table on the second page of that, you will see that in "temple mode" ie - worn as glasses without the strap, the lenses are rated to EN166F Aaah, now that makes sense. Thanks for reading on a bit. Lozart and Hudson 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Allen Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 1 hour ago, Rogerborg said: I always wear a strap-on Ooer, missus! Hudson and Shamal 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now