Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderCactus
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?