Is it douchey to wear goggles at the range? I trust my eyesight

>>34921823
Just get properly rated shooting glasses or safety glasses.
There's no need to look like GWOTman, fighter of the brown man at the range.
I mean, far be it from me to tell you what you can and cannot wear but people will probably think you look silly unless your range is very sandy and windy.

>>34921854
>Just get properly rated shooting glasses or safety glasses.
yea.
This is actually mandatory at my range. Except for people with actual prescription glasses....

>>34922025
I only wear prescription glasses myself, but they really offer no protection at all. I'm considering going back to contacts and start wearing proper shooting eye pro again, since I can't afford prescription safety glasses.

>>34921823
Probably. I'm tempted to get some, because I'm tired of regular safety glasses compromising the seal of over-the-ear hearing protection. I can't get over looking like a goober though.

>>34922057
>the glasses dont offer any protection so im going to put these things on my eyeballs that make me totally sensitive as fuck to dust and debris
top quality

File: 1x5_Charlie_gun.png (395KB, 841x631px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 841x631px

>>34921854
GWOTman, aaah ahhh! Fighter of the brown man, aaah ahhh! Champion of the gun!

>>34922057

this

if it's not the brass hitting the lens that makes me nervous, it's the hot brass going behind the glasses that does. Did that once, but took my glasses off in time before it started to hurt.

File: smopt-rx-kit-a.jpg (28KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 700x500px

>>34922057
Prescription eyeglasses are actually worse than no eyepro at all since a ballistic impact will cause their lenses to shatter into hundreds of tiny fragments.
The RX insert for Smith Aegis glasses is $25 + the cost of the lenses and

>>34922069
the Smith Aegis Echos are specifically designed with ultra-thin spring steel arms that won't affect the seal of your earpro.
I'm really pleased with mine and highly recommend them.
Another benefit to having a separate RX insert is that if something hits the ballistic eyeshield, you can just buy a new one for $25 and pop it right in without having to wait to have a new prescription lens made.

File: IMG_0369.jpg (27KB, 900x562px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 900x562px

I have a pair of wiley x worksights for normal wear and range.

>>34922076
Do you even wear contacts? It can be bad if eyelashes or something get under them when you're putting them on but once in properly they actually shield the eye pretty well.
When I wear contacts my eyes dry out less and I don't cry when I cut onions because the contacts keep a layer of moisture near the eye.

>>34922518
>a ballistic impact will cause their lenses to shatter into hundreds of tiny fragments.
plastic lenses, my dude

>>34922831
Normal polycarbonate lenses probably aren't worth relying on for ballistic protection.
And a lot of people (like me) use high index glass lenses because our prescription is high and they're thinner and have better clarity. Contacts are the best imo, uninterrupted field of vision and no weight at all.

>>34922831
You're right; polycarbonate lenses don't explode dramatically, they just fail to provide any protection whatsoever.

File: 1491365301114m.jpg (159KB, 688x1024px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 688x1024px

>tfw it'll cost me hundreds of dollars to get prescription eyepro
Thankfully I shoot in private so I can dress all tacticool with my goggles that go over my glasses.

File: flash.jpg (53KB, 620x838px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 620x838px

>>34922204
Hey I get that reference.

>>34922995
>hundreds of dollars to get prescription eyepro
https://www.amazon.com/Smith-Optics-Elite-II-Eyeshields/dp/B00THMGQ5A
https://www.amazon.com/Smith-Optics-Interchangeable-Eyeshield-Goggles/dp/B003AARA50
Plus the cost of the lenses, which should be around $40.

File: 2874795-An-older-guy-wearing-a-motorcycle-helmet-looking-over-his-sunglasses-Stock-Photo.jpg (54KB, 1300x866px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1300x866px

>>34921854
>worrying about what Chad will think of your range aesthetic

>>34921823
ansi z87 safety glasses or gtfo.

>>34923160
Bifocals are fuggen expensive my dude.

>>34923160
where do you go to get 40 dollar lens that isn't mail order Chinese? It's not like the stores that carry the Chinese lenses usually allow you to put their lenses in other frames or insert anyway. They might have their own, but they won't fit most safety glasses, just their own that aren't advertised as safety but aren't

Most of the cheaper places, like costco, charges like 80, and they can't even make lenses to fit the contour of wrap around glasses either. Last I checked costco doesn't even do non instore frames anymore, but when they did they charged an extra 20 bucks.

Smith doesn't list their RX lens prices last I checked, but ESS charges like 115 for basic with no coatings. Rudy Project charges 240. Optics Planet would probably be the cheapest, but that still like 100 bucks depending on the insert.

You can avoid dealing with all that by just using contacts. I don't like contacts, and they are expensive in their own right, but they're a better solution than RX shooting glasses unless you are a serious shooter than shoots pretty much everyday.

File: free shrugs.jpg (100KB, 500x715px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x715px

>>34923461
I went to Walmart with the Rx insert in hand and asked them to fill it with the most basic bitch polycarbonate they offered.
$30 for the lenses, $10 for "LENS PROCFEE".
I figured I don't necessarily need superb optical clarity or fancy coatings for lenses with which I'm never going to look at anything more than a few feet away from my face.
This was May 2016, and the only issue I had was spilling some spaghetti about them being for construction, etc. because
>tfw blue county in a red state

>>34923441
That sucks.
You'd think they'd have gotten pretty cheap after 250 years.

>>34921823
Why do you care?

You're going to the range for yourself, so you and you alone get something out of the trip, so who gives a fuck what a bunch of folk who you will never see again in your life think of you when they give you a quick sideways glance?

>>34922057
I use prescription glasses and i just have them upgraded with safety glass lenses. Not sure the compound, but it does meet OSHA requirements for safety glasses.

As for OP. wear whatever you like, anyone who says shit about it is an asshole, disregard them. A good RSO ain't gonna say shit so it ain't any of their business.

t. Certified RSO

>>34923162

Is that public domain Tom Waits?

>>34922518
>Prescription eyeglasses are actually worse than no eyepro at all since a ballistic impact will cause their lenses to shatter into hundreds of tiny fragments.
Who the fuck wears glasses made of actual glass anymore?

>>34922069
>because I'm tired of regular safety glasses compromising the seal of over-the-ear hearing protection

ESS Suppressor frames my nigga

>>34922560
>I don't cry when I cut onions
This is what I miss the most. Oh, and the peripheral vision. Contacts are kind of a hassle, but they really are better (plastic softs, not glass hards).

>>34926527
people who don't like replacing their lenses all the time because their shit's all scratched up

>>34922057
http://www.zennioptical.com/sports-glasses
Check out their sports glasses with polycarbonate lenses, strong and cheap.

File: 1488532848384.jpg (132KB, 896x672px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 896x672px

>>34922204
Top quality post