Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
How safe are your "Home made" goggles?
-
07-10-2008 8:58am#1I decided to test my mesh goggles last night.
My favourite ones:
made by combining these and adding a lick of paint.
And my back-up:
which is the following with a paint job.
Both googles were fired on using 0.25g bbs at point blank range. The larger mesh goggle was also fired on using 0.2b bio bbs to see if the bios would split easier.
The results were less than impressive.
Fav Goggles
Fire was concentrated, 10-20 shots in bursts
Back-ups
Harder to see but the 0.25s penetrated the mask. Fire was concentrated, 30-50 rnds in bursts in a fairly small area.
Both types of bbs broke however 1 full 0.25g bb got through the mask. Bios did appear to leave more fragments.
Gun was chronoed afterwards; came in around the 1J mark with 0.25g bbs
I'd be confident wearing either "in the field" but not for CQB where are chances of getting a face full of bbs is a lot higher though it could be argued my testing was somewhat extreme.0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
i ripped the **** outa my flakjacks when i got home the day i got them, and they arnt even marked...
didnt have any sort of blemish.
I also fired a 203 at them
The three sets of goggles i have have been superb with mind numing full auto test..
Its the risk i think you take with mesh and why i dont use them.0 -
-
-
in fairness that test is flawed no ojne s`hou`ld be head shotting`inside 10 feet i'm sure that people have their opinions on bang kills and head shots but i really cant see players being allowed to do this anywhere
I agree but some people:
- are reckless
- have bad aim
- tend to shoot high when not looking through the sights correctlyshame you killed yer goggles i likesd them
I'm just gonna make a new pairhow do you find the flaks?
very comfortable and passed my initial fogging up test. Just need to be painted now.0 -
-
MacAonghusa wrote: »I'm just gonna make a new pair
I've quoted the most relevant statement to this entire thread.0 -
-
-
What you've done there is basically the real steel equivalent of shooting a full mag of 7.62mm rounds into bullet proof glass at point blank range. Repeated impact in the same spot is going to make the mesh fail.
The real test was for the modified goggles; it got short blasts over a rough area and was a worthwhile test IMO.
I think it's interesting to see what some close range blasts could potentially do to masks. I have been hit from very close range and want to be sure my mask will stand up to it; you have to test to extremes sometimes.I've tested my Guarder C4's with full auto from a 1J p90 at the same range, and other than a couple of blemishes on the blue tinted lense, they were still perfect after.
So the only difference is I decided to publish my results as some might find it interesting.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
MacAonghusa wrote: »So the only difference is I decided to publish my results as some might find it interesting.
Well actually I do publish my results... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055193856&highlight=guarder
Unfortunately my site is down at the moment because of a problem with my hosting provider, but it should be back up soon enough.
BTW... not saying your results are a bad thing, but just a little extreme, although it does give a good indicator of the breaking point of mesh goggles.0 -
-
-
Well actually I do publish my results... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055193856&highlight=guarder
Thx!BTW... not saying your results are a bad thing, but just a little extreme, although it does give a good indicator of the breaking point of mesh goggles.
I wanted the extreme to see how much they could take and if the bbs would shatter and bits creep through the mesh.
In hindsight I could have taken a more measured approach 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
in fairness that test is flawed no ojne s`hou`ld be head shotting`inside 10 feet i'm sure that people have their opinions on bang kills and head shots but i really cant see players being allowed to do this anywhere
Think of it this way, What is the most likely thing a person will poke above or out of cover? His or Her head which is also the most likely thing to be shot at.
Knowing how good your head protection is should be paramount :cool:
I for one will be testing all my head protection, thanks MacA for bringing this up 0 -
-
extremetaz wrote: »OK - so the range (12" or 2") is unclear but at that distance does it really matter?!?! stop splitting hair people.
Just to clarify it was 12" plus or minus 2", I was trying to dodge ricochets
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I'm not knocking his efforts, I just find it dubious that someone is asking people how safe their goggles are when the ones tested are home-made, and as kdouglas mentioned; the tests were on the extreme side of extreme. Handy to know but a bit sensationalist at the same time (sorry MacAonghusa, that's just how it reads to me)
Personally speaking, I squirm everytime I see a thread about modifiying and/or mention of building eye-protection because you're effectively removing the certainty of any ballistics & safety certification and introducing an unknown. I'd rather not risk my eyeballs on an unknown, and I'd rather nobody else did either for their sakes. I squirm because it reads like encouragement to DIY on something that should be the absolutel last thing we'd ever consider encouraging as DIY; The safety and well being of players eyesight.
well if some one wants to waste money of expensive goggles simply because they think price is calculated proportionate to safety, theyre being somewhat nieve in the extreme, but sure let them off.
its not costing me anything and will put a smile on the retailers face anyways.MacAonghusa wrote: »Fair point, but my intention was simply to pass on testing that I personally found interesting and my friends here (also airsofters) also found interesting.
I know a lot more about the quality of my goggles now.
I do dispute the "homemade" tag however, I'll put another mask of the same quality (unmodified) through the same testing and I won't expect it to fare any better.
How many ppl are wearing masks/goggles that are made in China? Probably quite a few. Does anyone honestly believe they have all gone through any sort of certification testing? It would be interesting to see what are the most common goggles available for rent for example.
beat me to it, that is exactly the point im am arguing agains the "home-made" name tag. id trust my standard of work before some 6-fingered 10 year old, sat on a dirt floor getting paid a box of fags and a bowl of rice to get through 5,000 masks in his 16 hour shift.
is that a .22 air rifle or .22LR wadcutter round?
polycarbonate is strong auld stuff, pity it fogs up though.
are they the same ones dex was on about?0 -
p.s. One thing I know for sure is that the bigger of the goggles I tested can take a truck load of abuse so I'd feel satisfied using them in any environment. It's one strong positive I can take from the testing.Im pretty sure my eye are gonna be safe.,:)
I just got me a pair of those. I trust them against bbs but not against humid breath
I still have to give them a proper test. 0 -
-
MacAonghusa wrote: »
I just got me a pair of those. I trust them against bbs but not against humid breath I still have to give them a proper test.
They actually dont fog!
there the best ive ever used so far, cant fault them.,:)0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The mesh most commonly used in airsoft goggles is not strong enough - Read the below extract from uscmCorps on Arnies about the Bitter End Goggles, it explains about the weaknesses about the types of mesh that your referring to.uscmCorps wrote on Jul 18 2008, 11:54 PM:• The Mesh:
Perhaps THE most important part of these Goggles... the mesh Bitter End uses to protect your eyes. A lot of testing has been done in the airsoft community in recent years as to what kind of mesh is acceptable and what kind of mesh can guarantee you loss of vision. There are currently two basic metal mesh types out there that is being used on goggles. There's the type that features metal wires that are woven together in a cross hatched method. Then there's the type that starts off as a solid metal sheet that is then perforated (pierced/stamped) over and over again to form a mesh like pattern. After extensive testing by many different parties, the common consensus is that the former, Woven Wire Mesh type, is not sufficient for our uses in airsoft as tests show that BBs can exploit weaknesses in the weave and puncture the woven wire mesh. The other latter mesh, the Perforated Metal Sheet type, has been deemed sufficient at deflecting BBs with minimal deformation to the mesh itself.
That said, not all Perforated Metal Sheet is up to the task either. Aluminum metal mesh isn't strong enough. It has to be Steel. The thickness is also important as most testers (myself included) have found that the mesh must be at least 20 gauge sheet steel (the lower the gauge number, the thicker the material is). Then other factors must be considered such as the hole size and the distance between the holes. Hole size and space between the holes not only affects the strength of the material but also the user's visibility through the mesh. You need to find a usable but also safe balance between all these factors. Once in a while I hear about someone wanting to take a wire mesh waste paper basket and cut that up to use for eye protection. I cringe every time. It may seem strong enough to you... but do you really want to risk your eyes trying it? At the very least, you should do extensive testing with the material first to ensure that it's safe to use. I say, leave it to the professionals... like Bitter End.
Bitter End's mesh is high quality stamped steel (perforated metal sheet... i.e. the stuff you SHOULD use), appears to be at least 20 gauge steel (possibly 18 gauge), and has been tested to withstand 400+ FPS hits with .23g BBs at point blank range and showed just minimal deflection. Impartial third party testers (such as LionClaws game control who you know has to be uber strict due to insurance issues) have done their own tests with these goggles and found them to be suitable for the major OPs. Bitter End kindly sent me a sample piece of the metal mesh he uses in all his goggles for me to test in my review and I noted the same findings as these other parties concluded... this stuff is STRONG.Here's a side by side pic. On the left is the ACM/Japanese style Perforated metal sheet (I think it's steel, but a very thin gauge). On the right is the sample piece BitterEnd sent me.
A pic of what the ACM/Japanese style Perforated Metal Sheet looks like when shot using 0.23 gram Excel BBs at 390 fps at point blank range:
The top three significant dents were from one shot each at point blank range. All three dents are relatively deep and cracked the metal.
The bottom hit was a penetration resulting from a triple tap at point blank range (penetration occurred upon the second shot). This pic is the entry side of the shooting.
Verdict... stay well away from these ACM Goggles. They aren't good enough.
Here's another angle (exit side) to show the results:
A pic of what the Bitter End Perforated Metal Sheet looks like when shot using 0.23 gram Excel BBs at 390 fps at point blank range (left pic with camera flash, right pic without flash):
Two separate side by side hits. Note that the metal seems almost unaffected by both hits. It did split the first BB in half but the dents in the mesh were very minimal.
Although the BB was split in two, no smaller fragments ever passed through the mesh.
I then decided to see if repeated point blank hits would penetrate the Bitter End Mesh. I fired 6 rounds at point blank range at a single point (remember it only took 2 hits to penetrate the ACM mesh):
After 6 consecutive hits, a deeper dent was created, however no penetration occurred and the mesh didn't even crack... just deformed slightly more than the single hits.
Verdict... while I don't plan on getting hit six times at point blank range all on one spot on the goggles, it's certainly a relief to know that the Bitter End Goggles are up to the task. Thumbs Up!!!
On his website, he's got a FAQ section and he shows what one of the lenses look like after being shot by a sniper round at 460FPS with a 0.36g BB at point blank range.
As for Visibility between these two meshes, I'd say the ACM/Japanese mesh has slightly better visibility, however, it is at the cost of overall safety. Whereas while the Bitter End mesh is not quite as clear, it is still beyond decent and the safety factor is much higher. I certainly never plan to use ACM/Japanese Mesh Masks again in the future. Scary stuff!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Simon, Swaffield on ASI makes polycarb (I think) lenses for them.
Yeah, you can also buy tinted ones ect on ebay. But thats not the problem, its the vents.
THe centre one, the curved one was penetrated in 1 shot! The one on the users right was the same. The left has the canister but that has a small vent with a plastic grille, that cracked, and with more hits may break
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UmhSbTPmGQ
Advertisement