Mesh Face Masks.

Frank the Manc

after seeing MacAonghusa's thread last week with the masks, it remindinded me of this, couldnt remember for ages wheer i saw it.
makes for some interesting reading:
http://airsoft-barracks.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1083.msg10074#msg10074

Puding

Sorry but can we stop the scaremongering, this test are not really conclusive or even close to having a large test base, i have not come across a case of an accident from wearing mesh goggles myself, the morel of the post to me is more don't by cheap mesh goggles , same as don;t by any cheap eye protection really.

The goggles used are really the worse you could test , the type of mesh use means that bbs are more likely to break but, where as if you look at the bitter end goggles for example the mesh used is of far high quality and you do not get these issues.

Again the finding lean more towards showing the flaws in this make/design of goggle.

Busta Hyman

gotta say this test is flawed in SO many ways

spicymchaggis

tbh his high quality bb's look ****, brittle and glass like

The Master

spicymchaggis wrote: »

tbh his high quality bb's look ****, brittle and glass like

+1 most of the pieces are from the cheap lime green ones he used

NakedDex

Point out one person who uses cheap .12g bbs in a skirmish here? Or who fires at someones eyes from 6inches? Repeatedly?

These tests are not at all reproductions of anything that would happen in a skirmish. Airsoft is 2 years old in this country without any examples of a mesh goggle failing in regular use, let alone failing enough to cause injury or even distress. All of these tests are examples of what happens in unrealistic situations in the extreme.

MacAonghusa

Puding wrote: »

The goggles used are really the worse you could test

They look like the more expensive and widely available ones to me. The same kind that fared very well (considering the punishment dished out) when I tested them.

Puding wrote: »

if you look at the bitter end goggles for example the mesh used is of far high quality and you do not get these issues.

How do you know it's higher quality though? If subjected to the same test what results would you expect?

MacAonghusa

NakedDex wrote: »

Or who fires at someones eyes from 6inches? Repeatedly?
These tests are not at all reproductions of anything that would happen in a skirmish.

From the page linked:
"I've had a newb take a full auto burst at me from 2 feet away"

Not a big difference between 6" & 24".
No point testing at "best case" or "most likely" scenario, you learn nothing then.

spicymchaggis

ive had a half a team do it to me after they smoked the crap out of our base and stormed it

MacAonghusa

spicymchaggis wrote: »

ive had a half a team do it to me after they smoked the crap out of our base and stormed it

Yeah, it happens and it's important to know how good your eye protection is.

spicymchaggis

i mean, not going to discuss just state their muzzle output is greater than ours, mixed with crap bb's and at a close range with repeated shots on the same spot and what do u have. something that does not happen realistically over here.

MacAonghusa

spicymchaggis wrote: »

i mean, not going to discuss just state their muzzle output is greater than ours, mixed with crap bb's and at a close range with repeated shots on the same spot and what do u have. something that does not happen realistically over here.

Even good quality bbs fired at <1J can shatter esp bios.
And a full auto blast will result in "repeated shots on the same spot". It does happen.

Frank the Manc

didnt even see the .12s ha ha more wrecked than i thought.
that said that are still a significan number of chips gone through from the .25s.

scaremongering is about the last thing im trying to do here.
if you buy a cheap mash youre running the risk of slivers of bb passing through, its no use saying the tests are flawed when the type of mesh used is proppably the most common one found in airsoft masks on sale in this country

MacAonghusa

Frank the Manc wrote: »

scaremongering is about the last thing im trying to do here.

I agree it's not scaremongering. Mesh goggles are very popular and it's important to know what they are capable of.

NakedDex

There's a big difference between 6" and 24" in relation to airsoft ballistics actually.
There is also mention of the culprit being marched off site. I'd put money on there not being a 10ft Bang rule at that site if he opened up at 2ft. I also have no faith in peoples close distance judgement, 2ft is a lot less than people think when describing something.
It should also be noted that's an American site with higher limits and I see no mention of a chrono'd result apart from guess work. In my business, this is what we'd call a disregardable result, due to variables.

There's a very valid point in testing something in the "most likely" scenario. That being, it's the scenario going to happen regularly. No point in testing something to desruction in 30 seconds in extraordinary circumstances if it'll take a year of abuse in regular use. I can drive a nail through the windshield of a car, does that mean we shouldn't be using them? Sure, it could happen that someone would do it, but it's not going to suffer such abuse in regular use.

Say what you want, I refute the validty of this, and similar tests, to the fullest.

Frank the Manc

NakedDex wrote: »

Point out one person who uses cheap .12g bbs in a skirmish here? Or who fires at someones eyes from 6inches? Repeatedly?

These tests are not at all reproductions of anything that would happen in a skirmish. Airsoft is 2 years old in this country without any examples of a mesh goggle failing in regular use, let alone failing enough to cause injury or even distress. All of these tests are examples of what happens in unrealistic situations in the extreme.

well the best way to test anything be it a theory or produce it to take it to the extreme. when thr us army conducted tests on what pistol to replace the 1911a1, they didnt just dump a few mags through it and go "alrite sure that will do"
they reallly wrecked them until breaking point.

saying that these conditionswill never happen, airsoft is 2 years with out incident is just ostraich country.
iv seen the studs break off this type of mask from a 3 shot burst from an 8mil m500, from aout 10 feet,
a relatively common gun with a simmilarly common if not more face mask.
http://shop.ehobbyasia.com/default/combat-gears/src-face-mask-black.html

NakedDex

They also didn't hit the 1911 with 10lbs of explosive charge because "it's something that could happen".

These arguments are circular, the only evidence of damaged units I've seen or heard of so far have been under "test" conditions.

MacAonghusa

NakedDex wrote: »

There is also mention of the culprit being marched off site.

Which saves your eyes how exactly? The damage is done at that stage.

The point is every site will have newbies and rule breakers and accidents. It happens, simple as.

NakedDex wrote: »

There's a very valid point in testing something in the "most likely" scenario.

Very few products in my experience are tested just in the "most likely" scenario. All products (at least in the fields I have worked in) are tested way beyond that as you have to take into account the fact that ppl don't always use products as intended ... (edit) plus such products are not "disposable" and are designed for multiple use.

tonky

I use mesh goggles & balaclava all the time, with no problems, but take on board what being said here - problem with poly goggles etc is fogging up - every one I tried was the same, the tempetation to try to clear them (esp when under fire) is hard to resist, which is really a bad idea. What about a design that has both - i.e. mesh with some kind of poly screen or lenses held on some kind of frame - four legs or something a fraction of an inch in front of the mesh to stop the fogging up - is something like this possible at all ?

Tigger

tonky wrote: »

I use mesh goggles & balaclava all the time, with no problems, but take on board what being said here - problem with poly goggles etc is fogging up - every one I tried was the same, the tempetation to try to clear them (esp when under fire) is hard to resist, which is really a bad idea. What about a design that has both - i.e. mesh with some kind of poly screen or lenses held on some kind of frame - four legs or something a fraction of an inch in front of the mesh to stop the fogging up - is something like this possible at all ?

mesh is fine

decent branded mesh will hold up under real conditions

also the flap jaks don't fog i have a second brand new in bag pair that i might sell for cost (€40) but scope has first dibs

spicymchaggis

im interested in them tigger, you going to the the gathering?

Tigger

mabey....

hope so