# Ballistic Glasses do a great job



## Bintheredunthat (5 Oct 2007)

Did a search and could not find this already.  And I'm aware this one could easily be moved.

Saw this today - DWAN access required of course - http://kingston.mil.ca/notices/2007/10/ballistic_glasses.asp  (NOT FOR THE LIGHT OF STOMACH TYPE)

For those with no DWAN access:

<<Sgt Murgais, from 5 RGC, has given his permission to use the photos for whatever the CF wishes. Yes please do use them to demonstrate the importance of the ballistic eyewear.

One of the Leos with mine rollers was clearing a route through a known Russian minefield. It was backing out of part of the cleared area and turned slightly. As it turned one of the rollers left the cleared area by a few inches and went over an anti-tank mine. The majority of the mine was not under the rollers and contained about 6kg of explosive.

Sgt Murgais was standing dismounted, at what was believed to be the edge of the minefield, observing the tank. The roller was about 5m away from him when the mine went off.

The majority of the damage to his face was done by the sand and small rocks propelled by the blast. If you look closely at the BEWs you can see several deep marks from small rocks that would have injured his eyes if not blinded him.>>

Capt Bruce Gilchrist
OL Tech
QG FOI-Afg Roto 4

<end text>

Perhaps someone else can add the photo.

Bin


----------



## Lumadue (5 Oct 2007)

link doesn't work


----------



## Sig_Des (5 Oct 2007)

Lumadue said:
			
		

> link doesn't work



The link works. You, however, are trying to view it on a computer that does not have access to the Defence network. That's what Bin meant by 





> DWAN access required of course


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Oct 2007)

Put a two inch gash in mine on my last night nav. I like them now.


----------



## Armymedic (5 Oct 2007)

Amongst the troops I support, we have had a case of an eye injury where the person has had a decrease in his vision for 6 months caused by a foriegn body projectile from an explosion, and 3 cases of eyewear preventing eye injuries from anything ranging from blast, mg cook off, etc.

No one questions the need for protective eyewear, and compliance with wearing them is close to 100%


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2007)

I personaly am a huge fan of protective eye wear...just not the issue kind


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Oct 2007)

I'm with HitorMiss

I doubt anyone will disagree over the usefulness of ballastic eye wear.  The CF issue eye wear however has been known to give soldiers headaches and nausea and the arms scratch the hell out of the inside of the lenses making them very difficult to see out of and requiring replacement.


----------



## 241 (5 Oct 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I'm with HitorMiss
> 
> I doubt anyone will disagree over the usefulness of ballistic eye wear.  The CF issue eye wear however has been known to give soldiers headaches and nausea and the arms scratch the hell out of the inside of the lenses making them very difficult to see out of and requiring replacement.



I haven't heard about the headaches and what not and I wear mine all the time not just in the field, the arms scratching the lenses however I ran into but when I exchanged them they issued me a different cover that covers the lenses only and it works great


----------



## medaid (6 Oct 2007)

not to mention the so called 'anti-fog' spray? well it don't work!  :rage: multiple cleanings with that thing and it STILLLLLL fogs up like no tomorrow! I could barely shoot with mine on all I saw was white mist and then Fig.11 *bang* *bang* *bang* *bang* *bang*  then more haze! UGH! I hate mine


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2007)

Hmmmm I did not intend for my post to turn this into BEW bashing tread..... I was more making a joke about my Oakley's but I digress

I don't think you will meet a member who has any real world experience that would not agree that some form of Ballistic eye wear is not needed. It's a 100% necessary piece of kit regardless of who makes them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2007)

HitorMiss what do you think of the idea of the CF taking 3 or 4 different styles or brands of BEW and offering it to the soldiers.

Or, since that would be a huge issue and supply headache, offer the regular BEW as issued eye wear however allow soldiers to, at cost to themselves, buy approved  brands of eye wear such as Oakley M frames or wiley X's or something.


----------



## Sig_Des (6 Oct 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> HitorMiss what do you think of the idea of the CF taking 3 or 4 different styles or brands of BEW and offering it to the soldiers.
> 
> Or, since that would be a huge issue and supply headache, offer the regular BEW as issued eye wear however allow soldiers to, at cost to themselves, buy approved  brands of eye wear such as Oakley M frames or wiley X's or something.



That'll work out, I'm sure...just think of boots.......


----------



## Teflon (6 Oct 2007)

Well as much as I don't like wearing them (I don't like wearing anything strapped to my head) *I would still never go without them * given my absolute fear of being blind and all.  I already have on a helmet and in most cases a vehicle headset so it makes very little comfort difference adding the BEW so you might as well use them and you just might save your eyesight!


----------



## geo (6 Oct 2007)

The problem with issuing one piece of kit and authorising private purchase and wear of something else is .... what happens when the personal kit fails and your injury claim shows up.  Veteran affairs & CF HR Mil may feel that if the CFs kit had been worn, your injury wouldn't have happened and reject or reduce your claim ....

Alternatives aren't worth it.


----------



## Armymedic (6 Oct 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> The CF issue eye wear however has been known to give soldiers headaches and nausea


That is only the perscription inserts, which IMHO are shit...if you think one layer of plastic fogs, try 2 with an open space between them, allowing sweat to flow between lenses.



> and the arms scratch the hell out of the inside of the lenses making them very difficult to see out of and requiring replacement.


Only if not carefully put away, but as they need to be on your face most times...

As for the fogging problem, even high speed Oakleys, ESS, Wileys etc fog when you are doing up-he sees-me-down over and over again.

I  think we need issued ballistic goggles as well as glasses, there are times when goggles are better.


----------



## KevinB (6 Oct 2007)

Oakleys's and Bolle T800 Goggles...  Dont leave home w/o them.


   IIRC the CF was issuing the T800 - I was issued a set when in the CF, and as well they had sets at the Sims house in Edmonton for those not issued when not doing force on force with the helmet...

I will agree with SMTT - Anything will fog when its 10x the heat of the sun and your sweating like a pig...


----------



## Big Red (6 Oct 2007)

+1 on always wearing ballistic eyewear. Like everything the CF does, they need to reinvent the wheel so instead of buying proven designs like Oakley or Wiley (hate them) they get some el cheapo glasses with distortion.

I wear m-frames or t800s. Before a mission I wipe down the lenses with Op Drops, seems to reduce fogging.


----------



## Armymedic (6 Oct 2007)

Our glasses are a civilian design, Revision Sawfly. Revision makes a goggle too.


----------



## Big Red (6 Oct 2007)

I also forgot to mention the CF glasses have extremely low LCF.  If you're going out to kill might as well look good while you do it.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2007)

Big Red said:
			
		

> I wear m-frames or t800s. Before a mission I wipe down the lenses with Op Drops, seems to reduce fogging.



Thanks Kevin!!

But the rest of this thread is:


----------



## Taylor187 (6 Oct 2007)

Civilian Input -

I use Wiley X goggles myself on the range, and at work as a machinist. They're terrific and saved my eyes on three occasions that made my heart skip a beat. I figured if they're strong enough to stop IED shrapnel they're strong enough to stop a chunk of solid carbide that was moving at 19,000RPM's before it decides to fly in my general direction.

I noticed ArmyVern requests pictures, so I'll just direct you all to the Wiley website. They have two pictures out of Iraq sent by Marines in theater. Be warned about a bit of blood and shrapnel damage. Oh and horrid spelling and grammar.


----------



## KevinB (6 Oct 2007)

I think she was lookign for a pic of Red with his blooper of death


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Oct 2007)

Had my Wiley X's with me when in uniform (SOP), and out in the shyte, always had the EPS 21's on, along with all that other fun protective stuff!

Wes


----------



## Armymedic (6 Oct 2007)

Big Red said:
			
		

> I also forgot to mention the CF glasses have extremely low LCF.  If you're going out to kill might as well look good while you do it.



Is that not the 2nd tenant of SOF?

If you can't be good, look good   ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Oct 2007)

Here is my EPS21's, in a LAV prior to my deployment to Iraq.


Cheers,

Wes

EDIT - Ya, I know its a shocking pic


----------



## LordOsborne (7 Oct 2007)

Strictly speaking on my experiences at the Infantry School in Gage, the BEWs are a pain to wear constantly, but I definately like having them on when the jolly course staff insist on routes through the thick scrub. My eyeball and tree branch collisions have decreased noticeably   the only headache i have with them is the fact that they scratch at the drop of a hat and replacements seemed to be difficult for the supply system to conjure. I wonder why a scratch-resistant clear layer wasn't added into the lens design?


----------



## KevinB (7 Oct 2007)

Even Oakley's scratch.

  One needs to accept eyewear (and ALL kit) has a life span that decreases with use.


----------



## DirtyDog (7 Oct 2007)

BEWs seem especially prone to scratching easily however.  I've always been a cheap, gas station sunglasses kind of guy because I usually break or lose them, and even they didn't scratch as easily as the BeeDubs.

I would complain about having to wear them at certain times, but I shudder to think how uncomfortable the new visor is going to be. :-X


----------



## DirtyDog (7 Oct 2007)

As far as googles go, I'm interested in trying a pair of these out:


----------



## armyvern (7 Oct 2007)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> Strictly speaking on my experiences at the Infantry School in Gage, the BEWs are a pain to wear constantly, but I definately like having them on when the jolly course staff insist on routes through the thick scrub. My eyeball and tree branch collisions have decreased noticeably   the only headache i have with them is the fact that they scratch at the drop of a hat and replacements seemed to be difficult for the supply system to conjure. I wonder why a scratch-resistant clear layer wasn't added into the lens design?



Your "jolly course staff" are just following the direct order given by Comd 3 ASG, and supported by Comd CTC that BEW were to be worn by every individual upon entering the trg area, which came about 3 summers ago when a CAP student sustained a permanent and blinding eye injury (on a Friday evening ...  we were called in that night and spent the rest of the night and Saturday issuing BEWs to every student and staff on ground and expected to enter the trg area before Tuesday).

Do you mean difficult to get exchanged at the QM up in the school??

Or difficult to get at Clothing Stores?? And when was that?? Because we always had a couple hundred clear and shade lens ... on auto-replenishment when the stock hit our minimum levels ... we've never breached zero stock as far back as I can remember ... which is since the replacement lens came into the system 3 years ago.

And, yes they do scratch very easily. I've submitted a UCR (and others have too) -- still waiting -- although they did come out with a new lens cover afterwards that only covers the lens and thus prevents the arms from scratching the lens. You should wander down to your clothing stores and pick one up if you haven't already.


----------



## darmil (7 Oct 2007)

> IIRC the CF was issuing the T800 - I was issued a set when in the CF, and as well they had sets at the Sims house in Edmonton for those not issued when not doing force on force with the helmet...



I have a pair of T800's not a bad gogle I  used them here in wainwright or sorry aka KAF I have alot of people asking me where I got them.Defeantly keeping them in my go bag for over there.


----------



## Scott (7 Oct 2007)

The last piece of info I had on Oakley's as safety eyewear was that they _were not_ CSA approved - not because they were inferior, would not do the job or because they did not provide enough protection _but because_ Oakley had not had them tested for such. *Does anyone know if this has changed?* I've searched Oakley's site and only found things quoting ANSI specs, nothing to say they are marketing them as safety eyewear though. I wouldn't wear my Oakley's on the job as they'd just get trashed.

And does the CF follow CSA standards WRT safety eyewear? Vern? Anyone? Bueller? ;D

I wear safety eyewear every single day and know how big of a pain in the arse it can be. Cheap sets scratch in no time no matter what you are doing and spending on expensive sets gets, well, expensive. I now buy an off the shelf brand (don't ask, I do not know) that retails for about 10 bucks a set. Half metal frames and I get one set in amber for night wear and a tinted set to save myself from going blind offshore. The big thing about them, compared to most others I have worn, is the straight back arm design. The Doc told me to try a straight back design over one that hugs the ears to limit headaches and since then I've had no issues.


----------



## armyvern (7 Oct 2007)

CF equipment must comply with CSA standards at the MINIMUM. Most of our stuff outdoes them by far.


----------



## TCBF (7 Oct 2007)

Except maybe the helmet!

 ;D


----------



## COBRA-6 (7 Oct 2007)

Vern, do you have the specs for the CSA rating for the BEW? All I can see on the manufacturer's website is the US ANSI Z87.1 specs... http://www.revisioneyewear.com/sawfly.html

Z87.1 seems to be the gold standard for eyepro as Oakley and others all reference it, I'm curious as to the CSA test specs... Oakley explains it pretty well on their US Standard Issue line site: https://usstandardissue.com/tech_impact.aspx


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Oct 2007)

Maybe other lenses have not been approved because dimaco or another CF friendly company doesn't make them


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2007)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Vern, do you have the specs for the CSA rating for the BEW? All I can see on the manufacturer's website is the US ANSI Z87.1 specs... http://www.revisioneyewear.com/sawfly.html
> 
> Z87.1 seems to be the gold standard for eyepro as Oakley and others all reference it, I'm curious as to the CSA test specs... Oakley explains it pretty well on their US Standard Issue line site: https://usstandardissue.com/tech_impact.aspx



IIRC, CSA Z94.3 1999 is the equivelent to ANSI Z87.1-2003 standard


----------



## LordOsborne (8 Oct 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Your "jolly course staff" are just following the direct order given by Comd 3 ASG, and supported by Comd CTC that BEW were to be worn by every individual upon entering the trg area, which came about 3 summers ago when a CAP student sustained a permanent and blinding eye injury (on a Friday evening ...  we were called in that night and spent the rest of the night and Saturday issuing BEWs to every student and staff on ground and expected to enter the trg area before Tuesday).
> 
> Do you mean difficult to get exchanged at the QM up in the school??
> 
> ...



The "Jolly" bit had more to do with the bushwacking aspect, not the BEWs, Vern   
And about the difficulty to get exchanges - this was both during CAP last summer and IODP 1.1 this year. We as students don't get the chance to go to the Clothing Stores building unless it's to purchase an item of kit that was lost. I think even then some of the guys on my course had trouble getting replacement BEWs. I submitted my scratched clear lenses to my staff only to have them come back to me a couple of days later, telling me and the rest of the course that there weren't any more replacement lenses in stock and that we had to suck it up and make do.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Oct 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> As far as googles go, I'm interested in trying a pair of these out:



TSOs have stated these goggles are banned in Kandahar, as the pad on the inside will melt under the heat from an explosion. Heck, even the issued tan gloves are banned for use in vehicles for the same reason, can use them on patrol but not while you're driving...

I don't mind the BEW, and I wear the prescription inserts as well. Only bad side is the constant switching between clear and sun lenses, and the fact that the perscription lense takes a while to get used to. Almost like looking through a fishbowl.


----------



## Miliceman (2 Nov 2007)

They made a mistake on the name of the guy : it's not Murgais, but Murgia, it's an italian name, and the guy is from my unit. He was on sick leave for a little while, now back in service whitin is section.


----------



## chriscalow (2 Nov 2007)

I like the BEW with the orange lenses that the UOI's get, I tried them on and they are great, any word on these lenses becoming avail to the average doorkicker?  Also, the lens cover is a great way to avoid scratches, all you have to do is get one, and use it EVERY time you take off your eyewear.  The fogging is always a PITA, but I'd rather deal with a bit of fog that I can kinda see through, than not be able to see at all.


----------

