|
Post by insterburger on Mar 31, 2016 21:16:04 GMT -5
OK, we've all had that frustration... because of the nature of our hobby, where projectiles are flying and often hit us in the face, we need eye protection. Unless we want to look like morons sporting ultra-modern sunglasses in 1944, the options are few: We can use clear safety glasses, which are pretty unobtrusive but still plainly visible, unless we're at field that requires full seal. Options for full goggles basically suck: Almost all the current designs look WAY too modern for a decent WWII impression. Jerry has had success with his mesh goggles that look vaguely period, but require modification to get rid of modernisms. I have an idea that, if it works, could be pretty awesome. I found the following product on Amazon, and bought a roll: Window Security FilmThis is designed to stop people from breaking through windows, I'm confident it can stop a BB. I've put a layer of this on the inside of some USGI dust goggles, and will test them under fire. Visibility through the goggles is great, if they are effective at stopping BBs and/or shards of broken lens, then we can theoretically make any goggles field-safe. First off, I will give the legal disclaimer that I am not warranting the safety of this or recommending it! Second, the film definitely needs to go on the inside-- that way it will not only stop BBs, but if the lens should break, the shattered bits will stay outside the goggles, meaning outside your eyes. I definitely think this is worth testing out, and will let you know what I find. If these provide a safe way to mod out any goggles (and again, I don't recommend this!), it could really open up some pretty cool possibilities in terms of fielding more period-correct goggles as part of an impression.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Mar 31, 2016 23:22:24 GMT -5
The nearly invisible and unobtrusive clear goggles I have seen work real well with regard to NOT being distracting visually but I always worried about their effectiveness. I bought several sets and then tested them only to discovery that they ABSOLUTELY were not effective at consistently preventing penetrations or spall. This film potentially could remedy that and the idea of coating the inside is brilliant. Let us know how the testing goes!. The ONLY concern I have about discrete eye pro is that frankly it's not obvious when your target ISNT wearing eye pro and unfortunately I have run into that several times!
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on Apr 1, 2016 8:34:50 GMT -5
Spall-- either from fragmented BBs or slivers of broken plastic from the glasses-- are my biggest concern, much more than full-on penetration from BBs.
I wear the clear safety glasses for the reasons you state-- they're unobtrusive (practically invisible in an engagement) and provide reasonable protection. That said, while they provide adequate protection in 99.9% of cases, all you need is one close range direct hit to seriously (and possibly permanently) damage the eye. This game is not worth going blind over, hence my search for a better solution.
Unfortunately, I don't think this film will be compatible with most safety glasses-- they tend to be molded with very rounded lenses, and the film is actually quite thick (despite being VERY clear to see through) and I don't think it will adhere too well to heavily rounded surfaces. That's why I think putting them on goggles-- and period-style goggles specifically-- will work better. I have them on the more recent USGI dust goggles (which look very close to WWII) which have a gentle curve to the plastic, but are essentially flat.
I think what I will do as my first test is put a piece of the film on the flimsiest plastic I can find-- something that would not stop a BB AT ALL-- put that in a rigid frame to prevent the kinetic energy from bleeding out, and see how it performs. If it can stop a BB on its own, then I think putting it on the inside of ANY goggles should work, at least in my eyes (no pun intended).
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Apr 1, 2016 16:59:48 GMT -5
The old GI issue dust goggles I would think would be more intrusive than the barely noticeable invisible goggles unless you're a tanker or motorcycle courier?
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on Apr 2, 2016 15:31:16 GMT -5
The old GI issue dust goggles I would think would be more intrusive than the barely noticeable invisible goggles unless you're a tanker or motorcycle courier? Arguably, yes. However, my understanding is that anyone who could get their hands on a pair did. That said, from the evidence it seems they were pretty hard to come by and were generally only used by specialized troops. I would certainly put them in the "plausible" category, and they're far and away better than the ultra-modern ballistic goggles on the market. The clear safety goggles have the best look, but for fields where full seal goggles are required, or for players who don't want to roll the dice on the off chance that their safety glasses will splinter on a direct hit, I think these could be a viable alternative with reasonable authenticity. I did get a chance to test the US dust goggle material with the protective backing applied. The lens was held into a rigid frame with duct tape so that it wouldn't flap and would actually suffer the full brunt of the kinetic energy of the BB. I shot at it full auto with a 465 FPS gun from about 8 inches away. After two bursts-- probably 6-10 shots-- the duct tape gave way. The lens had some visible dents in it, but was 100% intact. Personally, I would trust these goggles in the field, at least with the protective backing applied.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Apr 16, 2016 13:30:16 GMT -5
With the protective backing I would as well. If you're testing up close like that and they hold they are absolutely good to go. Airsoft BBs lose a tremendous amount of kinetic energy in a relatively short distance. The FPS at 20 feet is so dramatically reduced from its FPS at the muzzle that in conducting tests I was amazed and retested repeatedly to insure the data was correct. This is more pronounced the lighter the BB. This is why a .25 gram BB with a lower FPS at the muzzle will fly farther than a .20 gram from the same gun even though at the muzzle the FPS on the .20 gram is higher.
It's also why 20 feet seems to be a pretty consistent minimum engagement range. Given that point blank engagements can happen (hopefully very rare). It is always prudent to test for a worst case occurance.
|
|