Airsoft Canada
http://triggerairsoft.com/shop/

Go Back   Airsoft Canada > Discussion > Gear Discussion
Home Forums Register Gallery FAQ Calendar
Retailers Community News/Info International Retailers IRC Today's Posts

New z87.1-2010 ratings may be insufficient

:

Gear Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 6th, 2015, 23:51   #1
ThunderCactus
Not Eye Safe, Pretty Boy Maximus on the field take his picture!
 
ThunderCactus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Exclamation New z87.1-2010 ratings may be insufficient

So apparently the Z87.1-2010 high impact ratings for glasses are the exact same as the standard Z87.1 baseline tests. Meaning your "impact resistant" Z87.1+ glasses are now only TESTED to ~1j of impact.

Before you go freaking out, the minimum lens thickness has not changed from 2003 (2.0mm), so they may very well hold up to 3j impacts, but they're not RATED nor is anyone LIABLE for the lenses breaking over 1j

So first of all, I'd like more than just the 3 people we had double, triple, quintuple check this math and report back to here:
http://www.airsoftcanada.com/showthread.php?t=155262

End result is we may have to *very quickly* raise the minimum eye protection requirement for airsoft in Canada to MIL-PRF31013 (7.5j) pretty much overnight.

I REALLY hope someone proves us very wrong on this and the standard is still in the 3j range, but if not, everyone change their shit immediately.

Last edited by ThunderCactus; March 6th, 2015 at 23:56..
ThunderCactus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2015, 23:57   #2
ThunderCactus
Not Eye Safe, Pretty Boy Maximus on the field take his picture!
 
ThunderCactus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Just to be super extra clear
We are talking about minimum TESTING requirements

Shooting a pair of glasses in your basement with a 500fps gun and having them survive isn't going to win someone a 1.5 million dollar settlement again UVEX because they lost an eye
ThunderCactus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 00:00   #3
lurkingknight
"bb bukakke" KING!
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ottawa
I think at this point, an industry manufacturer (or several) really need to step into this safety game here, and purchase a copy of the safety standard documents, current and future revisions of said documents and standards, and be vigilant about this.

I think it would be a concern to assume 87.1+ will still work without the proper testing at higher velocities than what is listed in the document I found.

The easy way to fix it would be to mandate military ballistic eyewear on all fields, immediately. We know the minimum MIL ratings will far exceed the requirements leaving us a huge margin of safety.

This isn't just an issue for canadian airsoft, it's an issue for ALL airsofters everywhere shooting greater in than 1J.
__________________
I futz with V2s, V3s and V6s. I could be wrong... but probably, most likely not, as far as I know.
lurkingknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 01:15   #4
ThunderCactus
Not Eye Safe, Pretty Boy Maximus on the field take his picture!
 
ThunderCactus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
*ahem* BB bastard?
ThunderCactus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 01:20   #5
mcguyver
 
mcguyver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern Alberta
Over-react much?

Sounds like lots of theory and math trumping real-world use.

I'll stick to real-world use, and leave the eggheads to scratch themselves bald.
__________________
Age verifier Northern Alberta

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner.

Freedom is the wolves limping away while the sheep reloads.

Never confuse freedom with democracy.
mcguyver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 01:20   #6
Cliffradical
butthurt for not having a user title
 
Cliffradical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Yeah, holy hell.

Edit: Holy hell for the ratings, I personally don't think that a bit of paranoia is a bad thing in the safety gear world.
Cliffradical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 01:29   #7
mcguyver
 
mcguyver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern Alberta
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffradical View Post
Yeah, holy hell.

Edit: Holy hell for the ratings, I personally don't think that a bit of paranoia is a bad thing in the safety gear world.
Depends what you are being paranoid about.

Lots of safety experts these days. I especially like the ones who say "I am not sure what you are doing, but my book says you are doing it wrong."

I am sure lots of people have their BBs shot at 3J actually strike eyewear and transfer all 3J into the polycarbonate. Let's ignore BB material, distance, temperature, basically science itself.

Now stop worrying about molehills.
__________________
Age verifier Northern Alberta

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner.

Freedom is the wolves limping away while the sheep reloads.

Never confuse freedom with democracy.
mcguyver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 01:45   #8
lurkingknight
"bb bukakke" KING!
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ottawa
you know who ironically paid the price of his clutching to his beliefs that eggheads were worrying too much?

dale earndheart.

The man called the hans device a noose.

he spent the last years of his career protesting it's introduction into nascar.

he died of an injury the hans device was designed to prevent. He also believed that his injury wasn't going to happen.

Are you seriously going to wait until after someone gets their eyepro shot through and loses an eye before you think about it?

You know what else sounds ridiculous from your point of view? It wasn't that long ago when there were a number of people out there who believed they didn't need a seatbelt, and that in case of an accident they could hold on to the steering wheel and prevent themselves from flying forward and ejecting themselves from the vehicle, along with prevent collision related injuries.

Did eggheads overthink seatbelts too?

If a material has a base tolerance to perforation it means at the minimum it can take that hit, it could also mean it's been overbuilt to take a harder hit, but the key word there is MINIMUM.

Would you rather stand on a bridge that could hold your weight plus 1 pound, or your weight plus 5000 pounds? Did you remember to take a shit that morning?
__________________
I futz with V2s, V3s and V6s. I could be wrong... but probably, most likely not, as far as I know.
lurkingknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 01:47   #9
Cliffradical
butthurt for not having a user title
 
Cliffradical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Winnipeg
That's fair. I still like my eyepro to be dependable in the 'oh shit' freak accident worst case scenario.
If z87.1 potentially won't do that, I don't want it. Market pressure in this direction is a good thing anyway.
Cliffradical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 02:13   #10
mcguyver
 
mcguyver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern Alberta
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurkingknight View Post
you know who ironically paid the price of his clutching to his beliefs that eggheads were worrying too much?

dale earndheart.

The man called the hans device a noose.

he spent the last years of his career protesting it's introduction into nascar.

he died of an injury the hans device was designed to prevent. He also believed that his injury wasn't going to happen.

Are you seriously going to wait until after someone gets their eyepro shot through and loses an eye before you think about it?

You know what else sounds ridiculous from your point of view? It wasn't that long ago when there were a number of people out there who believed they didn't need a seatbelt, and that in case of an accident they could hold on to the steering wheel and prevent themselves from flying forward and ejecting themselves from the vehicle, along with prevent collision related injuries.

Did eggheads overthink seatbelts too?

If a material has a base tolerance to perforation it means at the minimum it can take that hit, it could also mean it's been overbuilt to take a harder hit, but the key word there is MINIMUM.

Would you rather stand on a bridge that could hold your weight plus 1 pound, or your weight plus 5000 pounds? Did you remember to take a shit that morning?
It's pretty easy to theorize about the "what-ifs" for scenarios that are unlikely and unrealistic. It is even easier to theorize when you ignore the realities of gameplay and simple material physics.

Want to make the game safer? Worry about bushplay and tripping over deadfall in a paintball mask, not the numbers behind an unlikely shot.

Mountains, molehills and all that.
__________________
Age verifier Northern Alberta

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner.

Freedom is the wolves limping away while the sheep reloads.

Never confuse freedom with democracy.
mcguyver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 02:29   #11
ThunderCactus
Not Eye Safe, Pretty Boy Maximus on the field take his picture!
 
ThunderCactus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
We're not talking about a 3j minimum limit here. 3j is perfectly reasonable, even if you have people with 600fps bolt action rifles on the field. Given deceleration over distance and such, chances are you're typically taking 0.8-1.3j impacts to the lenses. Lens shots tend to occur more often within 100ft.

What we're talking about is the minimum testing requirement being lowered to 1j, which is not at all safe, even from 100ft. Which means if those glasses break and a lawyer can prove people were shooting over 1j, you're fucked, you might as well have been wearing 1990s snowboarding goggles.

The standard states the lens thickness hasn't changed, therefore even if they're not rated to 3j, chances are they'll be just as good as they were before, however with significantly less liability protection, which is the WHOLE purpose of getting rating eye protection in the first place.
However, even being the same thickness, they could potentially be a weaker material to pass the test. You just don't know. And the institution that does the testing to assure you that THEY know, no longer does sufficient testing.

The standard that determines what the minimum safety requirement for our glasses is the most dangerous plausible scenario.
Either a 2.04j bolt action rifle/DMR at point blank range
Or a hot M16 GBBR or P* DMR (starting at 2.04j), that's joule creeped either from being chrono'd on .20s or from rising outdoor temperatures, being fired at point blank, which could potentially be over 3j, but is less likely than the first scenario.

Last edited by ThunderCactus; March 7th, 2015 at 02:32..
ThunderCactus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 02:38   #12
mcguyver
 
mcguyver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern Alberta
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderCactus View Post
We're not talking about a 3j minimum limit here. 3j is perfectly reasonable, even if you have people with 600fps bolt action rifles on the field. Given deceleration over distance and such, chances are you're typically taking 0.8-1.3j impacts to the lenses. Lens shots tend to occur more often within 100ft.

What we're talking about is the minimum testing requirement being lowered to 1j, which is not at all safe, even from 100ft. Which means if those glasses break and a lawyer can prove people were shooting over 1j, you're fucked, you might as well have been wearing 1990s snowboarding goggles.

The standard states the lens thickness hasn't changed, therefore even if they're not rated to 3j, chances are they'll be just as good as they were before, however with significantly less liability protection, which is the WHOLE purpose of getting rating eye protection in the first place.
However, even being the same thickness, they could potentially be a weaker material to pass the test. You just don't know. And the institution that does the testing to assure you that THEY know, no longer does sufficient testing.

The standard that determines what the minimum safety requirement for our glasses is the most dangerous plausible scenario.
Either a 2.04j bolt action rifle/DMR at point blank range
Or a hot M16 GBBR or P* DMR (starting at 2.04j), that's joule creeped either from being chrono'd on .20s or from rising outdoor temperatures, being fired at point blank, which could potentially be over 3j, but is less likely than the first scenario.
I am far more worried about substandard China-clone junk being passed off as legitimate with proper ratings.

You are still ignoring how much of the 2J a BB "may" possess at POI will be transferred to the lens, and not be wasted in BB deformation.

I am never one to buy into alarmist kneejerkism. There is far greater liability in the "real world" of work with big business and insurance companies than between a couple guys on an airsoft field. And big companies take safety very seriously, it can cost them huge $$$$ for incidents. Look at their take on this matter and see if they are pushing for increased standards.

This sounds more like an issue of idle hands. But who can argue with safety, right?
__________________
Age verifier Northern Alberta

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner.

Freedom is the wolves limping away while the sheep reloads.

Never confuse freedom with democracy.
mcguyver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 02:58   #13
Ricochet
“How much sand CAN you fit in your vagina?”...
 
Ricochet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Delta, BC (Greater Vancouver)
I've said it before and I'll say it again; "manufacturers specifications!". you should always use ballistic lenses at least. If a safety lense is struck or scratched it is no good anymore. It may stop subsequent BBs, in fact it probably will, but you won't win a settlement of you've used them for airsoft. But ballistic and guaranteed lenses.
__________________
I’ve developed a new sport I call ‘Airhard’. It’s basically Airsoft, except while you play you must maintain a massive erection...
Ricochet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 11:16   #14
ThunderCactus
Not Eye Safe, Pretty Boy Maximus on the field take his picture!
 
ThunderCactus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcguyver View Post
I am far more worried about substandard China-clone junk being passed off as legitimate with proper ratings.
So then you're totally on board with raising the minimum eyepro standard to MIL-PRF31013, since clones of that are much easier to spot, and we've got nothing to argue about lol

The impact energy definitely changes a lot, and the deformation of the BB upon impact does make a big difference on penetration. Some BBs are harder than others, some are heavier than others and will strike with more energy. I've been hit in the glasses plenty of times, and as most people would experience; the BB just bounces off, no big deal. That shot from the hot KJ nearly blew them right off my face from a front impact, like I actually had to re-adjust my glasses because they had shifted forward and on an angle.
Basically if a gun fires 2j, you need the lens to withstand exactly 2 j. In a shooting sport where the object is to shoot others, you are expecting at some point to get shot in the lens. Worst case scenario being you walk around a corner where there's a dude with a bolt action rifle lining up a shot and BAM right in the glasses. Or more likely: any scenario in CQB where the aftermath is "sorry man, I could only see your head" also has a high risk of close range impacts to the glasses.
Then take into consideration that some people cheat and adjust your limits *within reason*. 600fps is a pretty darn high mark to hit, 450-500 is more likely. 3j is 570fps, and on top of that taking into account the BBs deforming on impact and energy loss over distance, and the fact Z87.1+ (2003) glasses can probably withstand up to 4-5j, 3j is just fine for a minimum test limit.
And we don't have to worry about silica BBs anymore, so that's good too lol

Last edited by ThunderCactus; March 7th, 2015 at 11:29..
ThunderCactus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2015, 12:53   #15
Ricochet
“How much sand CAN you fit in your vagina?”...
 
Ricochet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Delta, BC (Greater Vancouver)
Out here Level III snipers can run up to 550 FPS. However ballistic or paintball eyewear is mandatory everywhere, no ANSI, no CSA, etc.
__________________
I’ve developed a new sport I call ‘Airhard’. It’s basically Airsoft, except while you play you must maintain a massive erection...
Ricochet is offline   Reply With Quote
ReplyTop


Go Back   Airsoft Canada > Discussion > Gear Discussion

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Airsoft Canada
http://triggerairsoft.com/shop/

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.