How safe are your "Home made" goggles?

MacAonghusa

I 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.

iceage

Bit silly shooting yourself in the face at point blank range??:p Are we talking point blank as in inches from the googles?

Cuddlesworth

MacAonghusa wrote: »

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.

I could stab people with a spoon. Might not work on the first attempt but its very possible. Would you reckon people should be wary of me with a spoon or should they just assume I won't try to stab them with it?

Point Blank firing at one specific spot on full auto would require a deliberate effort on the part of the other players to achieve.

weeder

agree with above, and for cqb i would rather a full face because i value my teeth

iceage

Also why would a "shooter" get that close, even in CQB? If he/she did and let fly at someones face......Curious about the mesh in your fav. Pair, where did you get that mesh from? I don't think its suitable, and definately not up to the job. Fullface in a CQB envirioment is the only way to go.

MacAonghusa

iceage wrote: »

Bit silly shooting yourself in the face at point blank range??:p Are we talking point blank as in inches from the googles?

Approx 12".

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Point Blank firing at one specific spot on full auto would require a deliberate effort on the part of the other players to achieve.

No harm in testing the limits of your safety equipment. It's entirely plausible that in a CQB environment you could be hit at very close range. Fair enough probably not THAT close or with as many shots but no harm in testing the limits nonetheless.

Frank the Manc

the full auto may have been a bit of overkill, you would be better just doing say 20 shots on semi at different distances but it does prove that they arent indestructable in any way shape or form.
i wouldnt be risking them in CQB anyways.

MacAonghusa

iceage wrote: »

Curious about the mesh in your fav. Pair, where did you get that mesh from? I don't think its suitable, and definately not up to the job. Fullface in a CQB envirioment is the only way to go.

Got the mesh from the mask pictured. I have seen other people skirmish with them. I had more faith in that mesh than the back-up one but it let me down.
From product description on ebay:

" ...the mask is durable and can take a beating from even the most powerful airsoft guns. Best of all, the metal mesh screen is virtually indestructible .... we recommend you use this masks or sansei masks with power below 400fps for safety reason."

MacAonghusa

Frank the Manc wrote: »

the full auto may have been a bit of overkill, you would be better just doing say 20 shots on semi at different distances

Probably but any face shots I got were never single shots, always bursts.

I'll do more testing and try to replicate more "normal" usage.

Tigger

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

that said i would look on this in a different way it should be a lesson in how important a level of maturity and on site instruction is

shame you killed yer goggles i likesd them
how do you find the flaks?

NakedDex

Mine can take a 00 shotgun blast from 20ft. I reckon I'm safe.

Frank the Manc

MacAonghusa wrote: »

Probably but any face shots I got were never single shots, always bursts.

I'll do more testing and try to replicate more "normal" usage.

i didnt meant in that way, just i would have worked my way up witht it, see what the actual breaking point was.
good test though

NakedDex wrote: »

Mine can take a 00 shotgun blast from 20ft. I reckon I'm safe.

00 buckshot?
if it is id like to test those.


i dont think the test is flawed though, you can never predict what a lunatic wii do.
its always good to test things to the extreme, especially those that purport to protwct aomething as valuable as your sight.

TheDoc

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.

Tigger

Frank the Manc wrote: »

i dont think the test is flawed though, you can never predict what a lunatic wii do.
its always good to test things to the extreme, especially those that purport to protwct aomething as valuable as your sight.

'zactly; why it has to be drilledf into people

Dr_Pepper

I tested my guarders when i got em and saw similar results to what kdouglas' test was when they came out.

On a separate point CQB in full auto pisses me off. Its just not done, CQB should be single fire only. CQB is about precise shooting quick and fast double taps and keep moving. There just is no getting bogged down with some looney on full auto.
Just my opinion.

MacAonghusa

Tigger wrote: »

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 correctly

Tigger wrote: »

shame you killed yer goggles i likesd them

I'm just gonna make a new pair

Tigger wrote: »

how do you find the flaks?

very comfortable and passed my initial fogging up test. Just need to be painted now.

MacAonghusa

Frank the Manc wrote: »

i didnt meant in that way, just i would have worked my way up witht it, see what the actual breaking point was.
good test though

I still have the other half of my fave goggles to test on. Will do that this week.

Lemming

MacAonghusa wrote: »

I'm just gonna make a new pair

I've quoted the most relevant statement to this entire thread.

kdouglas

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.

And honestly, the pics you posted just make it look worse than it actually is and anyone who sees them without fully reading the thread (which some people will) will just think that airsoft is more dangerous than it is.

Personally I prefer lenses to mesh, but 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.

NakedHedgehog

the chances that you're going to get 30-40 rounds point blank in the same spot in a skirmish (even CQB) is highly unlikely to impossible...unless you are unconcious and some lunatic is standing over you.

You will move your face away at the very least or the BBs will not be as precise.

It's not really that accurate of a test.

MacAonghusa

kdouglas wrote: »

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.

kdouglas wrote: »

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.

MacAonghusa

NakedHedgehog wrote: »

the chances that you're going to get 30-40 rounds point blank in the same spot in a skirmish (even CQB) is highly unlikely to impossible...unless you are unconcious and some lunatic is standing over you.

The hole in the modified goggles was created by a single blast of only a small number of bbs.

kevteljeur

Myself and Cheeky tested a speaker griller from point blank with a GBB (which I still intend to use to make goggles with). Not scratch. Eirsoft's Tony sent me home with a cheap mesh mask and a bag of bio bbs to see if the bbs really would disintegrate as per the rumours, but they tore the mask up.

After lots of point-blank firing on full auto. The bbs were somewhat shredded and the mask was cut up, but unless someone held you down and blasted at you for minutes on end from half a metre, you'll be perfectly safe. The question is what is the line between testing safe margins and testing something that no kit is designed for...

MacAonghusa

p.s. it wasn't simply a test of the strength of the mask but I was curious to see if the bbs would split/shatter. I mentioned it but should have clarified better. Just remembered when kevteljeur mentioned it.

Frank the Manc

kdouglas wrote: »

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.

in theory yes, but also in theory it wouuldnt be beyond the realms of possibibily nor plausibility for that type of impact to happen over the course of a fast paced CQB game, before the wearer to realise.
whilst the test wasnt perfect, i dont think its results should be discounted.

[/quote]And honestly, the pics you posted just make it look worse than it actually is and anyone who sees them without fully reading the thread (which some people will) will just think that airsoft is more dangerous than it is.[/quote]

no more so than most other pictures put up here i dont think.

Lemming wrote: »

I've quoted the most relevant statement to this entire thread.

not really seeing as both components were from airsoft safety devices, marketed thereas, both mesh and frames, it would be different if he had put some garden mesh into a pair of sunglasses off the forecourts of a texaco station.

kdouglas

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.

Cuddlesworth

Frank the Manc wrote: »

in theory yes, but also in theory it wouuldnt be beyond the realms of possibibily nor plausibility for that type of impact to happen over the course of a fast paced CQB game, before the wearer to realise.
whilst the test wasnt perfect, i dont think its results should be discounted.

Without the following details I would discount the results;

Number of BB's fired,
Range at which the BB's were fired
ROF of AEG
Power of AEG.

What I have read so far,

A small number/large number, burst etc.
Nothing concrete on range
ROF has not been mentioned
Power has been akin to "Around a joule"

If bb's can dent thin sheet metal, its fairly obvious that repeated impact will bend and eventually bore a hole through wired mesh.

Why its not applicable to a real life situation is that anybody first instinct if concious is to move there head when something moves towards the eye. So you would not get repeated fire through one spot on the mesh.

Lemming

Frank the Manc wrote: »

not really seeing as both components were from airsoft safety devices, marketed thereas, both mesh and frames, it would be different if he had put some garden mesh into a pair of sunglasses off the forecourts of a texaco station.

Both components were from airsoft safety-wear. The most important feature (the mesh) was modified. It was cut up, and would have to have been warped and bent to get it into position once the cut was correct for the frame. Can someone tell me with precision as to what effect that has on structural integrity of mesh please?

So no, it's quite relevant since the goggles were effectively home-made.

MacAonghusa

kdouglas wrote: »

Well actually I do publish my results... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055193856&highlight=guarder

Thx!

kdouglas wrote: »

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

MacAonghusa

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Number of BB's fired

Ok, can't give an accurate number. The important one for me was the modified goggles which was approx 3 short bursts of 3-5 rnds

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Range at which the BB's were fired

I gave that, 12" +/- 2"

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

ROF of AEG

can check, it was an unmodified CA Aug A1

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Power of AEG.

0.9-1J

Lemming wrote: »

The most important feature (the mesh) was modified. It was cut up, and would have to have been warped and bent to get it into position once the cut was correct for the frame.

Cutting the mesh would have zero effect on the integrity. It was warped but only slightly and almost nothing in the area where I was shooting so I would say the effect on the strength of the mesh was minimal.

extremetaz

First of all - and to balance all this negativity a little, fair play to MacAonghusa for taking not only the time and the cost to destructively test these particular kinds of eyeware, but also for documenting it.

OK - so the range (12" or 2") is unclear but at that distance does it really matter?!?! stop splitting hair people.

Unlike MacAonghusa, I am actually well impressed that the goggles held up to that much punishment!!

What we now know thanks to MacAonghusa's efforts is that these mesh type goggles will stand up to an insane amount of punishment and that if you want to protect your eyes in close quarters, these are certainly up to the task!!

As for you naysayers - how about some credit for the man's efforts?