Good stuff. Thanks for posting.
Results really suprised me on a number of accounts. Civvie grade Oakleys (my brand) - weak! Prolonged exposue to sun degrades protection relatively quickly (1 year-ish).
Moderately priced options like ESS, Revision superior.
"No one ever sees you coming; do they Bob?"
Good stuff. Thanks for posting.
-Seconds Count. Misses Don't-
I agree, good find on this.
Oakleys have been my favorites for years now, but I stopped shooting in them for other reasons. But, their optical clarity is the best I've found, for my needs at least. I'm actually looking at the ESS Crossbow packages now and will probably order those to replace my current Wiley X's.
If you can't taste the sarcasm, try licking the screen.
Gettin’ old and blind ain’t for sissies. ~ 41Magfan
In light of the information in the test, good choices for "guest" or range eyewear might be the Uvex glasses listed on the APEL (http://www.health.mil/Libraries/1108...ter-110620.pdf). They're widely available for $10-15.
I've used both of them at work. The XC wraps down the cheeks a bit more. They're not as light or sleek as the higher-end glasses, but they're probably good protection for the money.
I love ESS. I wear the cdi max for everyday and the crossbow suppressor for range use.
That amazon price is the lowest I've seen!
Awesome. Thank you for posting this.
I actually logged on here planning to do the same (it's copied in my clipboard!) and I was glad to see you beat me to it.
This is important, and most people who could spend ten minutes telling you why they use the magazine floorplate they selected, chose their eyepro based on what was cheap or looked cool or was already sitting around. It's probably about the most un-sexy gear we have, but some of the most important.
You could argue it's not a totally comprehensive, exhaustive scientific review of the literature, but I don't care. I didn't see any glaring inaccuracies and as someone who has had unpleasant things bounce off my eye-pro, I'm a believer and I learned a lot from that report about what to look for and avoid in my next pair.
"The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to have its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards." - Sir William Francis Butler
This is an interesting article, but I wonder how much relevance it has to civilian shooters who wear their eye pro mainly for training at the range. To Mil/LE, having extra sturdy eye pro that can withstand being hit by birdshot and .22 short rounds makes sense. But I'm more concerned about stopping jacket ricochets from steel targets, empty brass casings, and maybe parts of the gun flying back after a kaboom or other gun failure. I wonder how well the various eye pro would do against that level of impact. If one set of glasses provides very good protection, and another provides 'good enough' protection and is otherwise more desirable in terms of cost, comfort, and/or optical clarity, it would be reasonable to select the latter pair.
Car teach did a few blog posts a while back that did a similar test. To simulate ricochets he shot a 22 at a metal plates at an angle and put the glasses where they would catch the spray. The cheap glasses stood up to that level of abuse no problem.
So I'd probably consider them good enough for most range use, but with the mil rates ones a step up if you want the extra protection. Especially if you're shooting in a less controlled environment.