TargetTalk

I seem to be one of the lucky few that actually sees better without my prescription glasses then with them! (at least for pistol) I was playing around with my grip today, and in the course of dry firing to test the grip, I noticed how much clearer my sight picture was then normal (no glasses). I haven't tried it at the range yet, but my prescription is very mild, so I think I will be best with no correction while shooting.

The next question, of course, is what sort of eye protection to wear? I have some inexpensive plastic shooting glasses, but they complement my pneumatic cutoff wheel better than my pneumatic airgun. I could get shooting glasses hand just have a neutral piece of glass made, by I don't really see the need when there are (or should be) vastly cheaper options. Does anyone know of any high quality non-prescription shooting glasses? Wrap-around would probably be ideal, but I would be open to any suggestions.

Try your local supplier (a gas supplier is often a good place to start).

there is a big range of protective eyewear, and it is not all 'clunky'

take a look at http://www.bollesafety.com.au/bolle-safety-spectacles/

Spencer

A Google of 'Safety Glasses' will turn up a dozen similar sites.

I too was fortuneate enough to find that my uncorrected vision brought my front sight into sharp focus, and this condition lasted for almost ten years. I opted for a pair of good optical quality polycarbonate wrap-around glasses, after a piece of lead from a neighboring shooters pistol hit me on the side of my face. Probably not necessary if you stick to AP :-) BTW, some of the better wrap-arounds come with interchangeable, tinted lenses; a good choice if you plan to shoot both outdoors and indoors.

Fred

Fred,

Believe me, eye protection is needed on the 10 M range

Those little air pellets can raise quite a welt - even when bounced back from the wall 10 M away (not all the shooters get the pellet trap every time)

Spencer

Spencer wrote:Fred,

Believe me, eye protection is needed on the 10 M range

Those little air pellets can raise quite a welt - even when bounced back from the wall 10 M away (not all the shooters get the pellet trap every time)

Spencer

Excellent point. And I continue to be amazed that ISSF does not require eye & ear protection for shooters at matches.

High quality but expensive
http://www.randolphusa.com/GWW-Randolph ... pageid=184

Fred Mannis wrote:

Spencer wrote:Fred,

Believe me, eye protection is needed on the 10 M range

Those little air pellets can raise quite a welt - even when bounced back from the wall 10 M away (not all the shooters get the pellet trap every time)

Spencer

Excellent point. And I continue to be amazed that ISSF does not require eye & ear protection for shooters at matches.

ISSF is based in Europe and the Europeans aren't into the nanny state as much as North America. The ISSF does not discourage use of PPE but they leave it up to the competitor to use their brain. In North America people like (and seem to need to be) told what to do.

Richard H wrote:

Fred Mannis wrote:

Spencer wrote:Fred,

Believe me, eye protection is needed on the 10 M range

Those little air pellets can raise quite a welt - even when bounced back from the wall 10 M away (not all the shooters get the pellet trap every time)

Spencer

Excellent point. And I continue to be amazed that ISSF does not require eye & ear protection for shooters at matches.

ISSF is based in Europe and the Europeans aren't into the nanny state as much as North America. The ISSF does not discourage use of PPE but they leave it up to the competitor to use their brain. In North America people like (and seem to need to be) told what to do.

I think you have a distorted view of North America. And let's leave it at that.
Fred

Fred Mannis wrote:

Richard H wrote:

Fred Mannis wrote:

Spencer wrote:Fred,

Believe me, eye protection is needed on the 10 M range

Those little air pellets can raise quite a welt - even when bounced back from the wall 10 M away (not all the shooters get the pellet trap every time)

Spencer

Excellent point. And I continue to be amazed that ISSF does not require eye & ear protection for shooters at matches.

ISSF is based in Europe and the Europeans aren't into the nanny state as much as North America. The ISSF does not discourage use of PPE but they leave it up to the competitor to use their brain. In North America people like (and seem to need to be) told what to do.

I think you have a distorted view of North America. And let's leave it at that.
Fred

I live in North America and am a safety officer and I think the view is pretty spot on. North American's say they don't want it but their actions prove otherwise, they want a law to protect the stupid from themselves. The US litagation system is a testament to that. " Your Honour I was in the tub making toast and got a shock, the manual didn't tell me that I couldn't make toast in the tub" to wit the judge then imposes a million dollar judgement on the toaster manufacture.

If my view is distorted why do you think the ISSF should require people to wear PPE, If people are so smart and would do it on their own?

Richard H wrote:

Fred Mannis wrote:

Richard H wrote:

Fred Mannis wrote:

Spencer wrote:Fred,

Believe me, eye protection is needed on the 10 M range

Those little air pellets can raise quite a welt - even when bounced back from the wall 10 M away (not all the shooters get the pellet trap every time)

Spencer

Excellent point. And I continue to be amazed that ISSF does not require eye & ear protection for shooters at matches.

ISSF is based in Europe and the Europeans aren't into the nanny state as much as North America. The ISSF does not discourage use of PPE but they leave it up to the competitor to use their brain. In North America people like (and seem to need to be) told what to do.

I think you have a distorted view of North America. And let's leave it at that.
Fred

I live in North America and am a safety officer and I think the view is pretty spot on. North American's say they don't want it but their actions prove otherwise, they want a law to protect the stupid from themselves. The US litagation system is a testament to that. " Your Honour I was in the tub making toast and got a shock, the manual didn't tell me that I couldn't make toast in the tub" to wit the judge then imposes a million dollar judgement on the toaster manufacture.

If my view is distorted why do you think the ISSF should require people to wear PPE, If people are so smart and would do it on their own?

I'm not gonna lie, I definitely did not see this thread going in this direction :)

It's amazing what twists and turns a thread can take. If you don't need Rx glasses get good saftey glasses. But beware some can distort without you knowing it. I played racquet ball and had glasses on and missed some shots that I really thought I should have made, I tried another pair of safety glasses and everything was fine. Later I compared the two and there was a lot of distortion in the one make.

I fully support your last comment, Richard. I've found that I'm particularly susceptible to optical distortion. Most cheap safety glasses have enough distortion that they cause me to become nauseated in a matter of a couple of minutes. The cost of shooting glasses and a good lens (lens from our host) was not much more than the cost of a good pair of safety glasses. The choice for me was pretty easy...

And yes, I've had more than one pellet come back and whack me in the leg, and they hurt! The range where I used to shoot used coreplast backers for the airgun target boards. Normal air pistols had no problems, but lower-velocity air pistols like the FWB 65 didn't have enough energy to pass through the plastic. The net result was those pellets used the coreplast like a springboard and came back to the shooter with almost as much energy as they had when they left the muzzle!

Fred Mannis wrote: Excellent point. And I continue to be amazed that ISSF does not require eye & ear protection for shooters at matches.

Richard H wrote: ISSF is based in Europe and the Europeans aren't into the nanny state as much as North America. The ISSF does not discourage use of PPE but they leave it up to the competitor to use their brain. In North America people like (and seem to need to be) told what to do.

Fred Mannis wrote: I think you have a distorted view of North America. And let's leave it at that.
Fred

Please read the ISSF guide on range set up.............please

and please get back to the thread

JY

JulianY wrote:

Fred Mannis wrote: Excellent point. And I continue to be amazed that ISSF does not require eye & ear protection for shooters at matches.

Richard H wrote: ISSF is based in Europe and the Europeans aren't into the nanny state as much as North America. The ISSF does not discourage use of PPE but they leave it up to the competitor to use their brain. In North America people like (and seem to need to be) told what to do.

Fred Mannis wrote: I think you have a distorted view of North America. And let's leave it at that.
Fred

Please read the ISSF guide on range set up.............please

and please get back to the thread

JY

Well Julian we were back on topic yesterday so thanks for taking it back off topic, you're like the guy that bothers more people by saying "SHHHH" than the person actually making the noise.

What is the "ISSF Guide on range setup....." do you mean the ISSF Official Statutes Rules and Regulations? Exactly which part would you like us to read?

Rifle and pistol rules deal with both,7.2.8 and 8.2.8 hearing protection is urged and 7.2.9 and 8.2.9 Eye protection is urged. I'm not sure why I needed to read it as isn't that what my post said?

Range Standards seem to just deal with making hearing protection available 6.2.3.

The ISSF does talk out both sides of its mouth though, they say safety is paramount but then limit sizes of front and side blinders and hat flaps that do add safety all for asthetic reasons.