There are many good options for shooting such as Oakley and WileyX. My go to hunting glasses are Oakley which I have tinted, clear, and orange lenses to match the conditions that I’m hunting. I have a pair of prescription glasses set up specifically for pistol shooting and shooting MRDS optics, but they were $$$. I chose yellow lenses for them because they allow me to shoot in just about every situation. Enough tint to allow use during bright days and not enough to cause trouble in low light. They also offer a good contrast in normal lighting conditions. To answer your question my preference would be Oakley but the WileyX are most likely to be had under $100 versus $150+ on the Oakleys. I’m sure there are plenty of other options, but between those two lines just about anyone can find a set of glasses that work.
_________________________ "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last” - Winston Churchil
Posts: 3141 | Location: Middle-TN | Registered: November 05, 2003
I am also a Smith Optics guy. Their ratings and demos are impressive. In real life they also cover your eyes better. I like the Oakleys but the side coverage of the Smiths is significantly better which on steel matches I find very important. The lens are also noticeably thicker than the Oakleys.
I bought the pack that came with clear, dark, and yellow. I find myself using the yellow all the time. It’s great for picking up the sights and targets and it’s enough on brighter days that I can live with it. I think it’s one of th3 better all around choices in lens color for shooting.
Posts: 7547 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 18, 2005
I wear the smoke/gray lenses outdoors and the clear lenses indoors.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher
I got tired of scratching / losing / crushing high $$$ Oakleys or other high end glasses. I researched other options and learned that ANSI has a standard for safety glasses and as long as the glasses meet this standard (Z87) they are good to go. My current ones are: Uvex Genesis bifocals. I get them from SafetyGlassesUSA.com. Veteran owned, local to MI and have great service.
End of Earth: 2 Miles Upper Peninsula: 4 Miles
Posts: 16852 | Location: Marquette MI | Registered: July 08, 2014
Yea I’m going to disagree. ANSI 87 whatever isn’t the best eyewear for shooting. It’s good but there are better standards for fragments coming back at you. ANSI87+ or whatever they call it is a very good shooting glass but you can do better. I only have one set of eyes so I do better.
Posts: 7547 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 18, 2005
I like the ESS eyeshields they call them. One big lens. More coverage from flying object and sun. They are on the Army approved list for ballistic eyewear.
Not for nothing Smith Optics used to have a video where they shot their lenses with a 22 short I believe. The glasses went flying and it dimpled the plastic but it didn’t penetrate. This is one time to ignore the cost and spend more. I think they retail for like 80 bucks.
Posts: 7547 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 18, 2005
Originally posted by Riley: I like the ESS eyeshields they call them. One big lens. More coverage from flying object and sun. They are on the Army approved list for ballistic eyewear.
In no particular order: Oakley Smith ESS, which I believe is owned by Oakley, which is owned by the Luxoticca group Wiley X
I have as many pairs of eye pro as I have holsters and gloves, trying to find the perfect fit. At the range I work at we sell a ton of $1.98 glasses, but I don't think eye pro is the place to go cheap on. I'll take it on faith that eye injuries are bad.
I shot an Oakley lens with a 7.5 birdshot load, it did not penetrate.
Oakley has several military appproved models. I use a set of the m frames they sell a shooters array which has several lenses of different colors in a case and spare nose pieces. If you qualify they have the standard issue program for vets/ police/fire which makes the whole set about $125. I have had mine since being issued them in Iraq in 2004 and they survived additional duty in Afghanistan worn in harsh conditions daily
Posts: 3521 | Location: Finally free in AZ! | Registered: February 14, 2003
The Oakley setup is nice. I almost bought a set. One thing that stood out to me though was the wrap around portion of Smith extends further back. If I’m standing perpendicular to splashback my eyes are covered better. I also think the lenses are thicker.
I certainly would have been happy with the Oakleys and by extension ESS since they are probably coming out of the same factory just less expensive. My point is to do better than the simple ANSI standard. I would cheap out on ear pro before eye pro. (don’t cheap out on ear pro)
Posts: 7547 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 18, 2005
I am a huge fan of ESS - specifically the Crossbow Suppressors. (Full disclosure, they were a sponsor when I was on Team SIG, but I've still continued using them to this day.)
Before that, I was on the Oakley bandwagon. But there were two things I didn't like about Oakleys. 1) the fact that eventually, the coating flakes off. Literally every pair has done it. Not the case with the ESS line. 2) M-frames tended to start to irritate my head where the stems ended - a combination of the electronic earmuffs and the stem pressure.
The biggest reason I'm a fan of the Suppressors is the thin stems specifically made for headphone-style hearing protection. The thin profile helps to reduce the noise gap most stems create. Also, you don't get the hot spot/pressure point most M-Frames give you from wearing earmuffs for 4-8 hours a day.
If you don't wear headphone-style hearing protection, I'd go with the regular Crossbows as they stay on your head better.
I have a pair of prescription Wiley X Saints with transitional lenses. They have worked well for me and are pretty damn durable given how many times I have inadvertently sat on them.
Posts: 4996 | Location: NH | Registered: April 20, 2010