About Oakley sunglasses

[Guns_and_Labs]

The glasses that did not hold up under testing, did the lenses all fail, or was it the frames that got destroyed? Polarized or non ?

Oh, the frames were all toast by the time we were done. We were more interested in whether the eyes were protected. As I recall, the winners all survived the pellet gun and the nail gun, the lenses survived the birdshot (the frames did not), and the surviving lenses all failed the .22.

For optical quality, we shot broad spectrum lasers through them at different angles and measured any distortion or shift. None were polarized, and I have no idea how to test the polarization anyway.

We also threw them in thermal cyclers, as a kind of accelerated wear test. In retrospect, that was kind of silly. Polycarbonate does degrade in some aspects over time, but not over the time we had.

 

[TechBrute]

One more thing... sunscreen will degrate the plastic frames over time, as it is alcohol based.

 

[BerettaNut92]

Darn, I look tactical with my boonie hat and Camelbak!!!! AND MY CARBON FIBER FLAVORED OAKLEYS!

 

[..]

I started wearing Oakleys on my first delivery job. Nothing beats Oakleys for coverage, lightweight and staying put. They are pricey, but worth.

You guys would blow a gasket if you knew what cost was. My friend works for Oakley, I got a pair of Mframes for under $40. Let's just say I'm stocked up.

 

[TechBrute]

Hey .., you should share the Oakley love...

Here's the link I couldn't find earlier.
http://oakley.com/private_pilot/
http://oakley.com/media/brochures/private_pilot/results.pdf

Rudy Project did have glasses included. Wiley X did not.

 

[DigMe]

Thanks, techbrute! That's interesting to see.

Too bad they didn't have Gargoyle's in there. I'd like to see how those rate too. Also interesting to see that Von Zipper scored high compared to the rest. Marshall's Discount clothing store just down the road had the model rated under men's sports glasses here on clearance for 15 bucks.

It seems like Oakley was well-ahead of the competition in all those tests though. I'll probably get some Oakleys down the line but I just don't think I can afford them at this time. We'll see... I'm still looking at some of these Gargoyles as a solution until then.

brad cook

 

[TechBrute]

Too bad they didn't have Gargoyle's in there.

They still make those?


Remember, this comparison only regarded optical clarity, not impact resistance.

Personally, I think the fact that Oakley can offer the (arguably) most clear glasses on the market and simultaneously offer the level of impact resistance they do is pretty impressive. All starting around $85 full retail.

 

[SLCDave]

I called Oakley and everyone I talked to said they do not offer a trade in allowance. I tried.

 

[hso]

http://www.safetyglassesusa.com/ansiz8712003.html

http://www.occupationalhazards.com/articles/7221

Various manufacturers of high-impact Z87 safety glasses abound.
Some of them even offer very high quality optical quality lenses.
That said, most safety glasses do not have very high optical qualtiy lenses. Many companies offer prescription lense service where they will make the prescription high-impact lenses for the safety glasses you order from them.


Not all high-speed, low-drag operator's shades (lens/frame) offered out there get tested to ANSI Z87.1+ 2003 standards so read up on what they're offering you.

 

[DigMe]

Remember, this comparison only regarded optical clarity, not impact resistance.

Yeah, that's why I was lamenting the absence of Gargoyles. They are rated to the same impact resistance as Oaks and they are always talking about their "toric curve" lenses that supposedly offer good clarity. I don't know if that really means anything or not.

brad cook

 

[DigMe]

Well, fellas, I was able to get some Oakleys after all.

I ordered them last night. This was made possible by two things:

1. I found some Oakleys for $55 before shipping (www.mbstores.com). Sure, it's their cheapest adult model, the Fives 2.0, but I've always liked that particular style anyway even before I knew that. The lenses are the same quality. They were just under $65 shipped. I got the ones with the grey lenses. I could have gotten the gold iridium or black iridium lenses for 10 bucks more but I was pretty much maxed out on what I can spend on a pair of sunglasses at the moment.

2. I received a webcertificate for $35, which allowed me to get these by spending only a bit under $30 of my own money. Without the web certificate I probably would have tried out some of the Gargoyles from the www.idealtrade.com liquidator site.

Anyway, I hope I like this particular model when I actually get to put them on. We'll see.

brad cook

 

[David]

What's a "web certificate" ?

Also, does anyone wear CARRERA of Italy Sunglasses?

I have seen a few styles of Carreras that I really like (at pretty good prices), but nobody on THR so far has mentioned that they own a pair.

 

[DigMe]

I currently wear Carreras. That's what I'm replacing. They've been fine. Not outstanding but they were good for the money. You can often find them around here for 15 bucks or so in discount stores like Ross or Marshall's. The nosepad just fell off of mine and I lost it and before that the screw fell out of the earpiece and I lost that. They fog easily when they're cold and you put them on and sometimes I can see a little bit of reflection of myself off of the inside of the lenses. I've had them for several years and I've been satisfied with them overall for the price but they weren't as good optically as a pair of Killer Loops that I had a long time ago and the Nikes that I had before these that now reside at the bottom of a lake. For 15 bucks they aren't bad. I just wonder about their impact resistance though too.

brad cook

 

[DigMe]

Oh and a webcertificate is like a gift certificate that you can spend anywhere on the web that accepts Mastercard (www.webcertificate.com). I got mine through taking part in the mypoints program where you look at and, if you want, respond to ads that you receive by email. Every time you look at or respond to one you get points and when you accumulate enough you can spend them on various rewards. I just finally got enough so it was worth it to cash them in and I chose this webcertificate as my reward.

brad cook

 

[TechBrute]

I guess this whole discussion is about priorities.

If your eyes are a priority, you will spend a few bucks to protect them.

Some people say that they can't afford them. I'd say that most people could, it's just an issue of priorities again.

Monthly costs:
Dinner out at a casual restaurant, once a week: $160 = Oakley Big Square Wires
Carton of cigarettes, one per week: $120 = Oakley Zero S
Happy Hour, once a week: $80 = Oakley Fives 2.0
Date Night (Dinner, 2 Movie Tickets, 2 Sodas, 1 Popcorn, Drinks), once per week: $400 = Oakley Romeo 2.0 (The name's appropriate for this comparison. )

Don't get all picky about the costs of the stuff, it's just for illustration purposes. Most people that say they can't afford Oakleys seem to be able to afford other "luxuries", so it's just an issue of priorities.

 

[DigMe]

Don't get all picky about the costs of the stuff, it's just for illustration purposes. Most people that say they can't afford Oakleys seem to be able to afford other "luxuries", so it's just an issue of priorities.

Yes, and my top priority at the moment is scraping together 2 grand by may 9th for a teacher certification program and then saving enough money to get me through June and July when I'll be unemployed. Luckily I was able to afford some Oakleys and spend only 30 bucks. Hopefully the particular model will work out for me.

brad cook

 

[kart racer]

I have costa del mar 2 pairs and some action optics.For the money the polarized action optics,available in many different styles are hard to beat.I dont think the oakleys i had compared to them,at least not for my eyes.

 

[mattk]

I have some costa del mars, oakelys and smiths. Oakelys have proved to be the best of the 3.

 

[TechBrute]

I went Oakley shopping this weekend. My current pair, after 5 years, have seen better days. I'm debating between the Juliets, the Big Squares, and the XX. I have Square Wires right now, and I like them just fine, but the frames on the metal O's are a lot more stout.

 

[DigMe]

I got my Fives 2.0s on Saturday. The lenses look good and are very sharp although just to the naked eye I don't know whether or not I can discern a difference in sharpness from the Carreras I was wearing. They are different colored lenses though so it's kind of hard to compare.

I got the basic grey lenses in the fives and they seem to enhance blues and kind of take out or tone down some yellows and yellow-greens. I like them. They are definitely quality lenses. In the future I'll probably step up to some of the higher quality frames and some of the lenses that block out more visible light like the iridiums or something.

These fives actually look better on my face than they did in the picture. I think they were worth 65 bucks shipped. They were definitely worth the 30 bucks that I paid out of pocket!

brad cook

 

[TechBrute]

Just to show that I put my money where my mouth is, I picked up some Oakley XXs yesterday. My original Square Wires were really starting to get scratched. I called Oakley today and they will replace the lenses in my old glasses for $50. So off they go tomorrow, and will be good as new. I found out that about the only place that will discount Oakleys is the PX. So, off to the PX to get some new M-Frames, too, for shooting.

 

[Joejojoba111]

"Monthly costs:
Dinner out at a casual restaurant, once a week: $160 = Oakley Big Square Wires
Carton of cigarettes, one per week: $120 = Oakley Zero S
Happy Hour, once a week: $80 = Oakley Fives 2.0"

Ah, but glasses are also a recurring cost, they will be lost or broken in 5 months, too.

For that ratio, Oakleys are Champagne tastes on a Beer budget, when other glasses are as safe or safer, but perhaps not a trendy.

Want a tip? Find a way to write them off as a health expense, or get work to pay for half. Or just get some from the hardware store that aren't as cool


But when we're cruising in our private aircraft I suppose we really do need that optical clarity, do say. Old chap I also recommend Hilfigger and Ralph Lauren, they're unmatched for comfort on a weekend riding the thoroughbreds at the second house in the country.

And Surefires are brighter and Nikes are faster and...

 

[TechBrute]

Ah, but glasses are also a recurring cost, they will be lost or broken in 5 months, too.

I guess for some people. I take care of my stuff and my current wires are 5 years old.

Or just get some from the hardware store that aren't as cool

You've obviously missed the ENTIRE point. Oakleys are the most optically perfect glasses out. Period. They are also impact resistant. Being cool or trendy has nothing to do with it, but whatever floats your boat...

But when we're cruising in our private aircraft I suppose we really do need that optical clarity, do say. Old chap I also recommend Hilfigger and Ralph Lauren, they're unmatched for comfort on a weekend riding the thoroughbreds at the second house in the country.

And Surefires are brighter and Nikes are faster and...QUOTE]

Just because you don't value your eyes as much as the next guy or don't have an understanding of the value of some things doesn't mean that everyone else is in your boat. Go ask Pat Rogers about the people in his class who, repeatedly, shoot better with quality eyepro. Those visual imperfections are in the way of you lining up your sights...

 

[Joejojoba111]

Fair points

But come on the absolute perfect clarity for flying aircraft is slightly different requirements, irrelevant to daily life of many people. Besides, no-one proved hardware store stuff is less safe, especially when it's designed for exactly the stuff that happens in common injuries.

 

[TechBrute]

But come on the absolute perfect clarity for flying aircraft is slightly different requirements, irrelevant to daily life of many people.

If you say so. I like to be able to see. When I put on Oakleys, I get a relaxing sensation in my eyes. I recently bought my wife her first pair of Oakleys, and she made the same comment to me. I can guarantee that some of the optical imperfections in other glasses WILL affect your aiming your gun. Watch IDPA, IPSC, IPSA or any other serious shooting competition, and EVERY shooter is wearing Oakleys.

Besides, no-one proved hardware store stuff is less safe, especially when it's designed for exactly the stuff that happens in common injuries.

No one suggested that the safety goggles at Home Depot were less safe. I don't know if any tests have been done to check relative impact resistance. All we know is that certain glasses meet ANSI blah blah blah. I'll be going to HD today. While I'm there, I'm going to check on the cheap glasses and see what ratings they have. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you might not need to see where your sledgehammer is being swung as precisely as you may need to see the sights on your handgun. But, if you do both with the same amount of precision, maybe you can use the same glasses.

No one is saying that YOU should buy Oakleys. It's a matter of priorities. You may be fine with wearing Home Depot goggles, carrying a maglight, and shooting a Jennings. Some people like to have better stuff. Some people NEED better stuff.