Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Looking for new eye pro - Are any polarized?

  1. #11
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    West Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Malamute View Post
    Interesting, thanks.

    The Edge glasses claim to be MIL_PRF 31013 3.5.1.1 compliant, but that apparently varies from the APEL list requirements in some way. Not sure yet what the difference is. The mil ballistic test level exceeds civilian safety glasses by a significant margin from what I can tell at this point.
    31013 is the full list of APEL requirements, which is extensive(optical distortion, chemical resistance, and on and on). 3.5.1.1 is the ballistic protection clause. If you don't care about the other stuff and are only concerned with ballistic protection then passing 3.5.1.1 is good enough. ESS also has glasses that specifically list that clause and not the full spec.

    Glasses can also meet the full spec but not be on the APEL list because they haven't been submitted to or completed the APEL process. The APEL list hasn't been updated in two years as far as I know. ESS claims that the new Crossblade glasses are fully compliant and based on their track record I don't doubt it. Magpul claims the same about their glasses and said they will eventually "tackle APEL". I have no doubts that at minimum they pass the ballistic clause and I've been wearing the Magpuls for a few months. Between them and ESS my M frames have been relegated to yard work duty.
    Last edited by scjbash; 04-07-2019 at 03:25 PM.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Quote Originally Posted by vcdgrips View Post
    Cut from a recent thread on a similar topic. I would not let polarized drive the train for eyepro. If the eyepro in question is not on the list referenced below, I would be suspect. It seems like most of the referenced sets have a clear and grey lenses that are not polarized. FWIW.


    "Re Eyepro: You have one set of eyes. NEVER Scrimp on eyepro. I will go one step farther: NEVER scrimp on anything that comes between you and the ground:
    ergo, shoes, socks, brakes, tires and mattresses as well... but I digress.


    Let me tell you a story:
    Circa 2005. Gunsite 250 in a contracted class with 19 of my closest shooting chums. Day 2 of a 5 days class in the am I have a 5.3g of 231 over a 230 RNL self reloaded .45 ACP round turn out to be a double charge in a stock Kimber "Series I" 5 inch, all steel gun. The recoil impulse and noise were such that both I and the RO on my side of the line knew something was up. I stayed aimed in downrange. The RO repeatedly said "Counselor give me the gun and come off the line." I did and he looked at me after removing my Oakley M Series specs.

    I had some "powder splatter" on my unprotected check that bled a bit. My "VR28" lenses had some impact spots that were more than scratches but less than pock marks. Another RO who was also a gunsmith cleared my gun for service and I got back on the line with another set of M-Frames after missing a few relays.

    Pat Rogers (RIP) talked me into those glasses on another forum way back in the day. Perhaps some of the best money I have ever spent.

    I have since learned that the the M Series of old does not meet the latest spec. I then consulted the previously referenced armed forces approved list: \

    https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/equipment/eyewear/#


    ... and have been sporting ESS stuff ever since. I simply would not wear eyopro while shooting that was not on that list or made to that spec as per an eye professional I trusted.

    YMMV Greatly."

    I checked all the items on that list and Honeywell, Wiley, and Oakley don't seem to make any polarized lenses

    It appears as though the Revision Sawfly, ESS Crossbow and ESS Rollbar do make polarized lenses. Since the ESS where what I was looking at anyway I guess that makes my decision easy.


    Quote Originally Posted by scjbash View Post
    31013 is the full list of APEL requirements, which is extensive(optical distortion, chemical resistance, and on and on). 3.5.1.1 is the ballistic protection clause. If you don't care about the other stuff and are only concerned with ballistic protection then passing 3.5.1.1 is good enough. ESS also has glasses that specifically list that clause and not the full spec.

    Glasses can also meet the full spec but not be on the APEL list because they haven't been submitted to or completed the APEL process. The APEL list hasn't been updated in two years as far as I know. ESS claims that the new Crossblade glasses are fully compliant and based on their track record I don't doubt it. Magpul claims the same about their glasses and said they will eventually "tackle APEL". I have no doubts that at minimum they pass the ballistic clause and I've been wearing the Magpuls for a few months. Between them and ESS my M frames have been relegated to yard work duty.
    I was wondering about that and that makes sense because the ESS Supressor use the exact same lenses as the ESS Crossbow, the only difference is the frame is thinner to accommodate ear muffs better so that's what I was going to get. What's new with the Crossblade?

  3. #13
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    West Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by mrozowjj View Post
    What's new with the Crossblade?
    Has two different sizes of lenses and nose pieces to get a more custom fit.

    https://www.esseyepro.com/Crossblade_259_category.html

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    south TX
    I used to be insistent on polarized lenses, but recently got a pair of Oakleys without polarization. they are as good or better than my WileyX ones with polarization for duty use. So now I don't sweat it, and have a lot more options.
    Last edited by Chuck Whitlock; 04-08-2019 at 08:38 PM.
    "It's surprising how often you start wondering just how featureless a desert some people's inner landscapes must be."
    -Maple Syrup Actual

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Whitlock View Post
    I used to be insistent on polarized lenses, but recently got a pair of Oakleys without polarization. they are as good or better than my WileyX ones with polarization for duty use. So now I don't sweat it, and have a lot more options.
    Do you have starbursting red dots?

    Something I saw that isn't polarized but is super interesting, Revision makes a Sawfly version that is Photochromatic... so it changes depending on the light which is interesting.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    south TX
    Quote Originally Posted by mrozowjj View Post
    Do you have starbursting red dots?

    Something I saw that isn't polarized but is super interesting, Revision makes a Sawfly version that is Photochromatic... so it changes depending on the light which is interesting.
    I cannot speak to starbursting, but IIRC polarized lenses could make the EOTech reticle disappear, depending on angle/rotation.

    My wife has used photochromatic glasses for some time now. I haven't used them with protective lenses, though.
    "It's surprising how often you start wondering just how featureless a desert some people's inner landscapes must be."
    -Maple Syrup Actual

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Whitlock View Post
    My wife has used photochromatic glasses for some time now. I haven't used them with protective lenses, though.

    The reviews all say they don't work well in use. Apparently the issue is that it needs UV light so they won't darken in a car as most car glass blocks UV and they don't work well on a shooting range if you wear a hat because the hat blocks some of the sun.

    Oh well.

  8. #18
    That first part is slightly true- in my experience, you still get enough UV to activate the photochromic function through a car windshield- but not the same as direct exposure- however, the second part is not true.

    I have a set of Oakley Jawbreakers with the clear (untinted) photochromic shield and it functions perfectly in outdoor conditions with a hat brim. I've used it in matches and at Gunsite with great results, both indoors and out. What's particularly good is, it self-adjusts for the light level- if a cloud moves overhead, it lightens up quite quickly.
    Last edited by Archer1440; 04-09-2019 at 03:41 PM.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Quote Originally Posted by Archer1440 View Post
    That first part is slightly true- in my experience, you still get enough UV to activate the photochromic function through a car windshield- but not the same as direct exposure- however, the second part is not true.

    I have a set of Oakley Jawbreakers with the clear (untinted) photochromic shield and it functions perfectly in outdoor conditions with a hat brim. I've used it in matches and at Gunsite with great results, both indoors and out. What's particularly good is, it self-adjusts for the light level- if a cloud moves overhead, it lightens up quite quickly.
    Maybe the Oakley's do it better than the Revision lens do?

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    south TX
    Hers are with her normal daily prescription glasses and he doesn't bother with an extra set of sunglasses.
    "It's surprising how often you start wondering just how featureless a desert some people's inner landscapes must be."
    -Maple Syrup Actual

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •