|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:26 pm
|
|
|
|
Since I'm bored as ********, and I haven't seen it brought up before, what is everyone's preferred eye protection? Safety glasses.
I used ot use $10 sunglasses from walmart. Not exactly protective. Originally, I used Smith and Wesson smoke-lens generic glasses, which were stolen. But at basic, I was issued Revision Eyewear Sawfly glasses. The retention strap is goofy as ********, and they gave me large instead of normal, but I'll never get rid of them now that I bought smoke lenses for them. With the retention strap adjusted properly, you can do ANYTHING in them and they won't come off (and believe me, the Drill Sergeants sure tried damn near everything with us), and they'll always go right back to where you like them if you adjusted the strap there. The provide good all-round protection, while limiting your field of view as little as possible, with almost zero distortion. They're a bit pricey, but nowhere near as much as Oakley.
I haven't gotten a chance to shoot in them yet, and probably won't till I graduate AIT, but I just purchased a pair of Revision Hellfly's, which are ballistic wraparound sunglasses. The nosepiece molds to the nose for a snug fit. I don't like that, so mine is set a bit loose. From casual wear, they offer a good field of view, comfortable fit, and the standard smoke lenses offer great glare and sun protection.
For an explanation as to why smoke instead of polarized, we are not allowed to wear polarized lenses. Only straight black, which would be smoke lenses if they don't offer anything actually called black. Otherwise I would go with polarized. I'm not sure if this is just my Battery or uniform standard.
And a bit of an update, to go with this idle chatter.
Me, and my recently inherited truck during my 5 day leave to attend my grandfather's funeral (7th Special Forces group, hooah) I hate berets, just so you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:49 pm
|
|
|
|
uryu ishida SOmeone had those WileyX's during our AIT landnav course. They look sweet as s**t, but I have my issue Revision Desert Locust goggles (which look goofy as ********, but wear like heaven) so I don't plan on buying any myself. Prescription ballistic glasses, or just glasses? If they're just glasses, a lot of the major protective eyewear dealers have inserts for their glasses that will hold lenses. Now, how much those inserts cost depend on how much your local optometrist will charge to grind lenses for them. Form what I've seen, every single one of them are literally glasses attached to the nosepiece inside of the protective lens. As to ears, I've always just grabbed cheap s**t for my muffs. I have $20 electronic muffs from Sportsman's Guide that I use with disposable plugs, cranked all the way up so I can hear normally but still have optimal protection. But I shoot a lot of big rifle. I saw them, and I liked them, but they just looked a bit too goofy for every-day sunglass wear. Someday, though, for shooting.
I've just got standard glasses, now. Polycarb though, to be sure. I plan on getting the Wileys not only because they're prescription, but because I like the design and the durability impresses me.
That's what I've got, but the vinyl/plastic O won't lock into the main section any more, so they just fall apart on my ears. I need a cheap-s**t pair of Peltor Shotgunners or something.
@Requiem: Don't fall for that s**t, man. I'd be secure in saying that 75% of severe hearing loss cases in civilian shooters comes from .22LR, because it doesn't sound loud and that s**t sneaks up on you. It's cumulative, remember that. It's probably already seriously affected you. The only rounds I would shoot without ears are ≤.22 and subsonic. Usually, this means air rifles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:32 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:50 pm
|
|
|
|
Fresnel uryu ishida SOmeone had those WileyX's during our AIT landnav course. They look sweet as s**t, but I have my issue Revision Desert Locust goggles (which look goofy as ********, but wear like heaven) so I don't plan on buying any myself. Prescription ballistic glasses, or just glasses? If they're just glasses, a lot of the major protective eyewear dealers have inserts for their glasses that will hold lenses. Now, how much those inserts cost depend on how much your local optometrist will charge to grind lenses for them. Form what I've seen, every single one of them are literally glasses attached to the nosepiece inside of the protective lens. As to ears, I've always just grabbed cheap s**t for my muffs. I have $20 electronic muffs from Sportsman's Guide that I use with disposable plugs, cranked all the way up so I can hear normally but still have optimal protection. But I shoot a lot of big rifle. I saw them, and I liked them, but they just looked a bit too goofy for every-day sunglass wear. Someday, though, for shooting. I've just got standard glasses, now. Polycarb though, to be sure. I plan on getting the Wileys not only because they're prescription, but because I like the design and the durability impresses me. That's what I've got, but the vinyl/plastic O won't lock into the main section any more, so they just fall apart on my ears. I need a cheap-s**t pair of Peltor Shotgunners or something. @Requiem: Don't fall for that s**t, man. I'd be secure in saying that 75% of severe hearing loss cases in civilian shooters comes from .22LR, because it doesn't sound loud and that s**t sneaks up on you. It's cumulative, remember that. It's probably already seriously affected you. The only rounds I would shoot without ears are ≤.22 and subsonic. Usually, this means air rifles. Even .22 short? I hear those are really quiet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:52 pm
|
|
|
|
Das Rabble Rouser Fresnel uryu ishida SOmeone had those WileyX's during our AIT landnav course. They look sweet as s**t, but I have my issue Revision Desert Locust goggles (which look goofy as ********, but wear like heaven) so I don't plan on buying any myself. Prescription ballistic glasses, or just glasses? If they're just glasses, a lot of the major protective eyewear dealers have inserts for their glasses that will hold lenses. Now, how much those inserts cost depend on how much your local optometrist will charge to grind lenses for them. Form what I've seen, every single one of them are literally glasses attached to the nosepiece inside of the protective lens. As to ears, I've always just grabbed cheap s**t for my muffs. I have $20 electronic muffs from Sportsman's Guide that I use with disposable plugs, cranked all the way up so I can hear normally but still have optimal protection. But I shoot a lot of big rifle. I saw them, and I liked them, but they just looked a bit too goofy for every-day sunglass wear. Someday, though, for shooting. I've just got standard glasses, now. Polycarb though, to be sure. I plan on getting the Wileys not only because they're prescription, but because I like the design and the durability impresses me. That's what I've got, but the vinyl/plastic O won't lock into the main section any more, so they just fall apart on my ears. I need a cheap-s**t pair of Peltor Shotgunners or something. @Requiem: Don't fall for that s**t, man. I'd be secure in saying that 75% of severe hearing loss cases in civilian shooters comes from .22LR, because it doesn't sound loud and that s**t sneaks up on you. It's cumulative, remember that. It's probably already seriously affected you. The only rounds I would shoot without ears are ≤.22 and subsonic. Usually, this means air rifles. Even .22 short? I hear those are really quiet. I think those are usually subsonic. I've got to try them someday... my rifle was made for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:22 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:44 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:46 am
|
|
|
|
Fresnel ArmasTermin I only wear eye protection when I go to the indoor pistol range. I know I should use them all the time... Maybe when I get around to a decent-looking pair of goggles. If you ever do skeet, wear eye protection NO MATTER WHAT. s**t coming out of the low house is hazardous as hell, I took more than one pebble of dusted clay in the face. Also, I've totally taken a chunk of jacket in the arm on an outdoor range. It only takes once... i had a great big piece of .45 jacket embed itself in the hanging part of my jeans leg while i was sitting.less than an inch from my leg. nice and jagged too. i wear eyepro everytime now. and that was only reinforced when an m240B blew up in another private's face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:44 am
|
|
|
|
uryu ishida Fresnel ArmasTermin I only wear eye protection when I go to the indoor pistol range. I know I should use them all the time... Maybe when I get around to a decent-looking pair of goggles. If you ever do skeet, wear eye protection NO MATTER WHAT. s**t coming out of the low house is hazardous as hell, I took more than one pebble of dusted clay in the face. Also, I've totally taken a chunk of jacket in the arm on an outdoor range. It only takes once... i had a great big piece of .45 jacket embed itself in the hanging part of my jeans leg while i was sitting.less than an inch from my leg. nice and jagged too. i wear eyepro everytime now. and that was only reinforced when an m240B blew up in another private's face. The chunk of jacket that hit me was the barest of grazes... not even a red line across my arm, but I sure as s**t felt it. No pain, but boy did it drive home the whole "protect yourself" thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|