The 'What have you just bought' Thread

[B.S]

I believe you will still need a lower mesh mask or similar while under 18

Best to check with site etc on their site rules

 

Yeah, I'm gonna get one of those at my local shop, this way I can test If they fit with the mask. They're also the guys who run Badlands, So I can ask about the rules too.

[Sacarathe]

So your like me with flashlights, like to get the extras

Did the same with my xtar light last year and got the extras!, don't use pressure switch either, find it easier to just use thumb

 

Well it's not a pressure switch it's just a row of switches. As for extras, not really I wanted a weapon light that's what I got. Admittedly the beam is not as focused as a true weapon light, but it will do, I can always put a matt black cylinder/cone around the end if I need to focus it.

[djben9]

I use a filter on mine as I needed the light spread better than a focuses beam, can remove if needed, may now get the coloured filters

 

I do prefer my old surefire 6p filters as they have flip covers, but they don't fit ☹️

[XLRWoody]

 

Out of interest, where is that armour carrier from? It's like the standard issue new airsofters' rig these days.

It's just a military surplus vest, they're fairly cheap. Got mine from eBay, it's grade 1 but no noticeable marks or damage.

[TheFull9]

Sorry, but no it isn't. No military issues those I can guarantee you.

 

Unless it's China where they're made perhaps...

[Bottledtorment]

They seem to be the fleabay/cheapest vest in the airsoft shop chris(wholesalers sell them for less than £5 to most shops- don't ask how I know).

[Bencupra]

I'm currently at home waiting for Mr UPS man to deliver my Tipmann

[Lozart]

 

Now All that's left is to go shoot them, make sure they'll Work. I'm not particularly keen to shoot something I just spent £30 on, But it's better than being blind.

 

Why do people insist on doing this? As if your AEG is a better test than the CE marking or something?

[B.S]

 

Why do people insist on doing this? As if your AEG is a better test than the CE marking or something?

 

The What marking?

(That probably explains why people insist on it XD)

 

And it doesn't hurt to do it, Better safe than sorry.

plus I used a springer

[Lozart]

 

The What marking?

(That probably explains why people insist on it XD)

 

And it doesn't hurt to do it, Better safe than sorry.

plus I used a springer

 

The goggles you've bought have been designed to meet the test criteria for CE EN166 which governs the standards for mechanical impact protection and clarity of view for protective eyewear. These tests are designed for repeatable results and as such are standardised in lab conditions. Manufacturers have to regularly provide test samples to be able to continue to put the CE mark on their products. These tests are far more scientific and accurate than you firing at them with your gun. If the goggles are certified to EN166 B (medium impact) then they will be absolutely fine and do not need you to "test" them first.

 

If they are only certified to EN 166F then you've bought the wrong thing and "testing" them with your gun will again prove nothing more than your own lack of knowledge.

 

"Testing" them with a springer will be about as much use as a one legged man at an arse kicking contest considering you may be exposed to someone with a 500FPS sniper rifle when you take them out in anger. It's like testing a cars impact protection by kicking the bumper.

[Doad13]

On the whole CE marking eye protection do people realise that the highest rating for specs is F? If you want to achieve B they must be Goggles which fully encase your eye from outside impact?

 

I see a lot of people saying what is good and no good but without full understanding of the standard they are tested to.

 

Edit: has been a few years (2013) since I checked this mind and I am happy to be corrected if wrong.

[Sitting Duck]

Think the more subtle but still important point Lozart is trying to make.....

 

Bolle make some kick ar$e eye pro that passes way more than a bb stress test:

http://www.screwfix.com/p/bolle-atom-safety-goggles/4516f#product_additional_details_container

(however the side protection is not up to such high impact me thinks but still...)

 

HOWEVER - just coz Bolle make stuff the above and many many more goggles for all areas etc....

 

DO NOT THINK ALL BOLLE STUFF IS THE SAME EYE PRO PROTECTION LEVEL

Ski goggles and other stuff is not capable of withstanding sniper impact - well you might look good but that might change if shot

 

http://www.ekosport.co.uk/bolle-carve-crystal-smoke-citrus-gun-15-p-9-2974.html?gclid=CNOqoI7tz8wCFSsq0wodrRYFrw

 

so be very careful when buying eye pro and look for proper protection and ratings if possible

yes shoot test but if rated to EN166 you should not need to test it really

look around at proper safety eye-pro - you don't need to spend to much to be safe

but maybe choose a safe pair with some style or look like a scuba diver or lab technition

[Doad13]

I totally agree I wouldn't even touch anything without the EN166 rating on it. My eyes might not be great but I don't want to loose them.

 

Just pointing out that although there is potential for the energy of a bb hitting them to be higher then the rating majority of reputable manufacturers will have a safety factor there. I personally use a variety of bolle glasses all rated to F as they are part of the PPE used at my place of work.

[B.S]

 

The goggles you've bought have been designed to meet the test criteria for CE EN166 which governs the standards for mechanical impact protection and clarity of view for protective eyewear. These tests are designed for repeatable results and as such are standardised in lab conditions. Manufacturers have to regularly provide test samples to be able to continue to put the CE mark on their products. These tests are far more scientific and accurate than you firing at them with your gun. If the goggles are certified to EN166 B (medium impact) then they will be absolutely fine and do not need you to "test" them first.

 

If they are only certified to EN 166F then you've bought the wrong thing and "testing" them with your gun will again prove nothing more than your own lack of knowledge.

 

"Testing" them with a springer will be about as much use as a one legged man at an arse kicking contest considering you may be exposed to someone with a 500FPS sniper rifle when you take them out in anger. It's like testing a cars impact protection by kicking the bumper.

 

Goggles weren't really something I've done much reading up on, Didn't seem necessary. I got Bolle because it was British Army Spec - I didn't expect them to break, but since they looked different to the one on the Ebay image I thought it worth doing.

 

And your right about the springer of course - But I ran out of Gas for my pistol and I don't have an AEG yet. I love your Car Crash analogy btw XD

 

Also @Sitting Duck, I'd never get something that didn't have 'Ballistic spec' in the name, I just didn't know about the individual ratings, and like I said the only reason I tested them was because It looked different to the picture (At the time, it's actually just a really poor picture and they're the same)

[rc540]

In the last week

 

Cyma 028u

5x Mid Cap AK Mags

Red Dot sight

SW 40

Co2 12g's

10k KA 0.2's

5k KA 0.25's

m100 spring

Smart charger + extra battery

Mechanix Gloves

Camel Bladder Water System

[Guest PT247]

4 x spare Mobius ActionCam batteries,

2 x power extension leads for them,

1 x TM speedloader,

3x5m of greenscreen fabric.

[Lozart]

 

Goggles weren't really something I've done much reading up on, Didn't seem necessary.

 

Bit of luck you bought decent ones then!

 

Seriously though way too many people spend too little time making sure the ONE PIECE of critical safety gear for the game is up to scratch. I'll never understand that. You've only got one pair of eyes.

[Lozart]

Just pointing out that although there is potential for the energy of a bb hitting them to be higher then the rating majority of reputable manufacturers will have a safety factor there. I personally use a variety of bolle glasses all rated to F as they are part of the PPE used at my place of work.

 

EN166F isn't actually high enough for protection in airsoft.

[Lozart]

On the whole CE marking eye protection do people realise that the highest rating for specs is F? If you want to achieve B they must be Goggles which fully encase your eye from outside impact?

 

I see a lot of people saying what is good and no good but without full understanding of the standard they are tested to.

 

Edit: has been a few years (2013) since I checked this mind and I am happy to be corrected if wrong.

 

Specs can only achieve F in the CE marking scheme for industrial eyewear, however there ARE ballistic rated glasses that have a far higher impact resistance (Bolle Tactical have some for starters).

[Doad13]

 

Specs can only achieve F in the CE marking scheme for industrial eyewear, however there ARE ballistic rated glasses that have a far higher impact resistance (Bolle Tactical have some for starters).

Yes I agree but if somone was to select specs based wholey on EN166 they could be mislead into thinking bolle tactical are not rated high enough as they can only achieve F.

 

My point is that there shouldn't be a mass disregard for EN166 F rated specs as some are perfectly fine (bolle tactical among others), especially when most reputable manufacturers will have there own safety factors and will not be right on the lower limit to pass the test.

 

(Sorry for hijacking the thread mods although I did recently buy a cheap second RIF, AGM SCAR L).

[Mr Monkey Nuts]

 

My point is that there shouldn't be a mass disregard for EN166 F rated specs as some are perfectly fine (bolle tactical)

Yes we should. 166F is not considered enough to withstand 350fps at .2g that is clear, documented and tested vigorously by an independent entity who's only bias is safety.

 

To argue otherwise is naive and moronic.

 

Just because they say tactical and have pictures of uber l33oporor8rz does bit make them credible ballistic glasses.

It's nothing more than marketing hype.

[Mack]

Yes we should. 166F is not considered enough to withstand 350fps at .2g that is clear, documented and tested vigorously by an independent entity who's only bias is safety.

 

To argue otherwise is naive and moronic.

 

Just because they say tactical and have pictures of uber l33oporor8rz does bit make them credible ballistic glasses.

It's nothing more than marketing hype.

 

AFAIK it was "Low energy impact (marked F) can withstand a 6mm steel ball weighing 0.86 g and traveling at least 45 m/s at the time of impact".

 

Im not sure of the maths to do the calculations for the above , but arent ESS Glasses 166F rated? and we all know what they can withstand

 

http://safetyspecs.co.uk/BS%20EN%20166.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_eyewear

[Mr Monkey Nuts]

Using our own app at the top of the page:

 

45m/s = 147.64 fps

 

0.86g at 147.64 fps = 0.87 joules

 

.2g at 350fps = 1.14 joues.

 

ESS ICE meet ANSI 787+ (impact rated) and 31013 military standard, which are both much higher spec than 166.f standards.

(Closer to 166.a)

 

http://www.elvex.com/Ballistic-testing-of-safety-glasses.htm

 

 

 

The current edition of the standard is Z87.1-2010. In the standard, eye protectors are either non-impact or impact rated devices. Impact rated protectors must meet the established high mass and high velocity tests, and defined, continuous lateral coverage. The following “high” impact tests apply to lenses, as well as to the frames or product housing:

• A lens retention test is conducted via a “high mass” impact. A pointed 500 gm (1.1 lb) projectile is dropped 50 inches onto the complete protector mounted on a headform. No pieces can break free from the inside of the protector, the lens cannot fracture, and the lens must remain in the frame or product housing. This test is a good measure of the product’s strength, simulating a blow such as from a tool that slips from the work surface or when the lens collides with stationary objects.
• A high velocity test is conducted, at 6 specified impact points, where the projectile is a ¼ inch steel ball traveling at specific speeds depending upon the type of protector. For spectacles, the velocity is 150 ft/sec or 102 mph. The pass/fail criteria are the same as for the high mass test, plus no contact with the eye of the headform is permitted through deflection of the lens. This is meant to simulate particles that would be encountered in grinding, chipping, machining or other such operations.

http://www.uvex.us/inspiringsafety/educate/articles/impact-resistance-protective-eyewear/

[Guest PT247]

any chance you all could start a different thread for this, the convo has gone on way too long within this one!

[Lozart]

Yes I agree but if somone was to select specs based wholey on EN166 they could be mislead into thinking bolle tactical are not rated high enough as they can only achieve F.

 

My point is that there shouldn't be a mass disregard for EN166 F rated specs as some are perfectly fine (bolle tactical among others), especially when most reputable manufacturers will have there own safety factors and will not be right on the lower limit to pass the test.

 

(Sorry for hijacking the thread mods although I did recently buy a cheap second RIF, AGM SCAR L).

 

The simple fact is that EN 166 F is not high enough for airsoft use (it equates to 0.87 Joule impact energy). Regardless of what margins the manufacturer may or may not build in, physics is physics. Now granted the tests are for proof against penetration and under a higher impact MIGHT only crack but they might also shatter or just not stop the BB puncturing your eye. Is that a chance you're willing to take, because I'm certainly not.

 

The other thing to bear in mind is that in terms of industrial safety use, most companies provide EN 166 F glasses for free because they're cheap and they're legally obliged to provide some sort of PPE. If they're letting you use them for grinding, cutting or drilling then they're at risk of being open to prosecution if you get hurt because those activities require EN 166 B or better to provide correct protection (ie goggles).