Project Guinea Pig; Dickies SP1045 Goggles, CHEAP Goggles

[Partiboi69]

The back story;
Desperate to hit the fields this weekend and wanted to ensure I had some better eye protection that previously.
Checked out Bolle 800 and 1000 at a local store only to find both strongly disagree with my nose. Gutted. 
Frantically check local army surplus stores but come up with nothing. 
Later that evening while searching for unrelated things, someone drops a link to £5 dickies safety goggles! 
Imagine my shock when they're available nearby for collection the following day! 

The goggles;

• Feel good, but lack foam and so i'm worried about overheating or fogging. 
• I haven't been able to use them in anger yet, but will do tomorrow. 
• If you are collecting in-store are available in other options than stated online. Mine are clear! 

Where to buy;
Link will be in the comments, I'd rather not have the entire post automatically deleted by a bot. 
I was in a hurry so popped in to my local branch of in-excess. They can also buy them online by checking out the in-excess website. 

I have attached some fitpics so you can get an idea for sizing and also to add some colour to this post. 
..It's kinda cool having the dickies logo on them. 

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Partiboi69

[Alimcd]

Have you shot them?

 

please do this before fielding them

Edited July 30, 2022 by Alimcd

[Partiboi69]

Well, i don't have my own airsoft gun yet. So no. 
But I will do before stepping on to the field tomorrow.... 
Worried it may reduce the integrity of the goggles for when they're actually needed on the field though... Think i'll get another pair the following day after testing. 

Link to the goggles
£5 Dual Lens Dickies Goggles, here

[Impulse]

RIP eyes, gone but not forgotten

[Cannonfodder]

What rating are they? 

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

32 minutes ago, Cannonfodder said:

What rating are they? 

EN166 (6MM steel BB at 450km/s IIRC)

Edited July 30, 2022 by Tactical Pith Helmet
Forgot to state steel.

[Alimcd]

450km/s? We should be covering tanks in these

[Adolf Hamster]

7 hours ago, Tactical Pith Helmet said:

EN166 (6MM steel BB at 450km/s IIRC)

 

got a source for that? some googling i've not found anywhere referencing an image of these things conforming to en166 or what impact rating they'd have within that standard.

 

EN166 has 3 different standards for impact rating.

 

the low velocity impact (F) is ~0.86j which means they can crack at airsoft velocities

 

the medium energy impact (B) is ~6j, so well above any reasonable airsoft standard and the high (A) further still (iirc ~15j)

 

ofc passing a standard is only a minimum, so it's possible for something marked en166f can still be strong enough for airsoft given it's a fair bit to go before it'd be strong enough for the b rating. ofc if you want to gamble your one and only pair of eyes finding out then that's your personal choice, although personally i'd not enjoy having the associated PR if that goes south.

 

op- at a bare minimum before you field those i'd be asking someone with a bolt action (at appropriate bolt action energies, ie not a 1.1j no-MED gun) at the local site to put a round straight into them point blank, might sound overkill but we live in a world where kickingmustang exists.

[Rogerborg]

The low price of these doesn't bother me at all.  There's a few Yuan of material in any set of eyepro.  Polycarbonate is cheap, and a dual pane of acetate or PETG and some double sided foam won't add much.  I've measured my many (many) sets of eyepro at under 2mm of polycarbonate and none of them have given the slightest concern even when point-blanked in CQB.

 

Yes, you should test them, but that applies to any set of airsoft eyepro.  Be honest though: how many of us actually do it?  Especially with 0.48g of "plastic" at 2.3J?

 

Even the cheapest of polycarb glasses stand up to AEG energies just fine. Mesh... not so much.

 

 

And here's a 0.43g sniper BB against £1.42 unrated novelty goggles.

 

 

 

One exception is the ~£20 full face masks being punted on Amazon under many names, a few of which are honest enough to admit that they won't take UK airsoft energies.  This makes me suspect that they've chiselled that last half a Yuan and use acrylic (perspex) instead of polycarbonate, or under 1mm of the latter.

 

 

[Cannonfodder]

15 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

The low price of these doesn't bother me at all. 

Nor me, it's quite easy to pick up appropriately rated eye protection cheaply if you shop around

[Adolf Hamster]

7 minutes ago, Cannonfodder said:

Nor me, it's quite easy to pick up appropriately rated eye protection cheaply if you shop around

 

the price being low as you say isn't the issue, the issue is having some form of assurance that the product has some kind of rating, hence why i asked for the source on them being en166 rated.

 

27 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

Yes, you should test them, but that applies to any set of airsoft eyepro.  Be honest though: how many of us actually do it?  Especially with 0.48g of "plastic" at 2.3J?

 

there's also the question of factor of safety.

 

taking a [insert maximum field limit] hit point blank is one thing, but there's also the issue that they might be asked to deal with higher than that in an unlikely but not impossible scenario of tripping over your local kickingmustang who will swear blind they didn't see you so close they were shooting at someone behind you check the footage bruv.

 

whilst i'm sure such a scenario could and possibly would descend into quite the interesting set of lawsuits centering pretty much around the modern incarnation of an eye for an eye, i'm not sure it'd be much consolation to an involuntary cyclops, or the community as a whole that could do without the bad PR.

 

ultimately it's on each individual to make a decision as to what level of risk they're willing to accept in the pursuit of sport, certainly airsoft is generally by comparison to many other hobbies a relatively safe one, but that's no reason not to at least try and make an informed decision as to the efficacy of the equipment you're using to prevent potential injury.

[Cannonfodder]

1 hour ago, Adolf Hamster said:

the price being low as you say isn't the issue, the issue is having some form of assurance that the product has some kind of rating, hence why i asked for the source on them being en166 rated.

https://www.durasafe.com.sg/shop/dickies-sp1045-one-size-facial-seal-safety-glasses-clear/

[Partiboi69]

Mid game review!

 

Shot at close range prior to stepping on the field and they did not break. Winner.

 

My anti-fog wipes did not arrive in time and I did not have a chance to clean them prior. While laying prone for some time they did fog up and took a long time to unfog. 
So far this is the only time they have fogged and I feel I have not given them a fair chance to succeed. 
 

Overall so far;

Very happy. I’ll still be searching for a certified set of goggles after this. But I would certainly recommend these as a backup and wouldn’t be anxious playing with them again. 
 

Interesting debate on this thread. I feel that there are many goggles being used and sold without full certification. I would definitely choose to have a certified pair for the peace of mind and I find the culture of companies choosing to sell ‘airsoft’ or ‘tactical’ goggles without stating their safety certificates very disconcerting. 

[Adolf Hamster]

4 hours ago, Cannonfodder said:

https://www.durasafe.com.sg/shop/dickies-sp1045-one-size-facial-seal-safety-glasses-clear/

 

fair enough, my google done been lying to me cos there was basically 3 shops came up for "dickies sp1045", none of whom mentioned any rating and i done checked as far as page 3.....

 

kinda surprising, you'd think that the major selling point of any pair of safety goggles would be telling people if they conformed to an internationally recognized safety rating......

 

edit: scratch that, see @Lozart's post below.....

[Lozart]

3 hours ago, Cannonfodder said:

https://www.durasafe.com.sg/shop/dickies-sp1045-one-size-facial-seal-safety-glasses-clear/

 

That listing suggests en166 f which is only low energy impact. Not really good enough for airsoft but about what I'd expect for a fiver.

[Adolf Hamster]

1 hour ago, Lozart said:

 

That listing suggests en166 f which is only low energy impact. Not really good enough for airsoft but about what I'd expect for a fiver.

 

you'd think, given i literally wrote the energy thresholds for each letter suffix earlier in the thread, that i'd have seen that.....

[Partiboi69]

Where exactly is stated? 
I'm finding this unclear. .

[Adolf Hamster]

Just now, Partiboi69 said:

Where exactly is stated? 
I'm finding this unclear. .

 

it's the F suffix to the en166:2001

 

this should also be marked somewhere on the frame:

https://www.wiseworksafe.com/blog/view/understanding-en-166-personal-eye-protection-standard#:~:text=It tests the oculars and,to goggles and face shields.

[Partiboi69]

Final review.

The body of them has EN166BT printed on the rim. Not sure if this means they are b safety rating.. 

 

The goggles were left some time and then crinkled on the outer lense. I assumed this was a film that requires removing, but when I attempted to remove it seemed to break down in to a residue. I cleaned them with soap and they still look extremely cloudy. Not sure why this happened. But I would not recommend these upon further usage and will be updating the original post to state as such. 

[Adolf Hamster]

41 minutes ago, Partiboi69 said:

Final review.

The body of them has EN166BT printed on the rim. Not sure if this means they are b safety rating.. 

might be they're b rated and the site has it wrong stating f.

 

they also seem to have ANSI Z87+, which some rough calculation appears to be ~3j equivalent for its high velocity test (1/4" steel ball at 170mph). regular Z87 by the same math works out 1.06j.

 

if this thread shows anything it's the absolute cluster that is trying to figure out if something's been tested to a high enough energy for our uses

[Rogerborg]

I'd take issue with the claim that any of this stuff is "certified". It's marked as such, that's all.

 

That's a weird thing to happen to them.  It looks like might have got soapy water in between the two panes.  It's easy to get it in, harder to get it out again.  The black line is just double sided foam mounting tape, you can replace it if necessary (I DIY dual pane all my goggles using tape and PETG plastic).

[Adolf Hamster]

2 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

I'd take issue with the claim that any of this stuff is "certified". It's marked as such, that's all.

 

I dunno, for decent companies with reputations to uphold i doubt they're gonna want to be caught mis-advertising safety products. Literally a lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

Granted they wont be testing every pair that's made, but that applies to many products (eg car airbags).

 

Ofc knock off amazon specials aren't going to give a damn, which is why those who care want to trust their eyes to companies with decent rep like bolle and products with proper ratings.

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

6 hours ago, Partiboi69 said:

The goggles were left some time and then crinkled on the outer lense. I assumed this was a film that requires removing, but when I attempted to remove it seemed to break down in to a residue. I cleaned them with soap and they still look extremely cloudy. Not sure why this happened. 

The film is the anti fog coating.  It is hydrophobic, so it floats when you apply too much water.   I have had several pairs of mega tough Uvex goggles ruined by people cleaning them or leaving them face down in the rain.  

 

9 minutes ago, Adolf Hamster said:

 

I dunno, for decent companies with reputations to uphold i doubt they're gonna want to be caught mis-advertising safety products. Literally a lawsuit waiting to happen.

100%.  Whatever the stated test however, accidents happen in all manufacturing processes.  It is simply good practice to test each pair of eye pro, whatever the make/cost/certification.  I've tested silly damaged Uvex goggles with everything up to a 40 Mike at point blank. 

 

17 hours ago, Alimcd said:

450km/s? We should be covering tanks in these

I'd like to blame the k and m keys being close together, but I actually remember typing that on purpose!!  FFS, senility gallops ever closer...