"Adequate" Eye and Ear Protection

[Graham Smith]

Now that I'm a full-fledged match director with one whole match under my belt, I've started reading the rules much more carefully and thoroughly. One thing caught my attention the other day and I thought I'd ask about it here.

USPSA 2008 Handgun Rules

5.4 Eye and Ear Protection

5.4.1 All persons near an area potentially exposed to ricochet debris or bullet fragments are required to wear eye protection. All persons near an area where the sound of firearms being fired may potentially cause hearing damage are required to wear adequate hearing protection.

5.4.2 If a Range Officer deems that a competitor about to make an attempt at a course of fire is wearing inadequate eye or ear protection, the Range Officer may order the competitor to rectify the situation before allowing the competitor to continue. The Range Master is the final authority on this matter.

It's the term adequate that bothers me. I have seen people with glasses on that look like they could be ordinary sunglasses and others with what could very well be ordinary prescription glasses. Is that "adequate"? If it isn't what is? There are cheap "shooting" glasses sold that are probably little better than a pair of sun glasses but does just being labeled as "shooting" glasses make them "adequate"?

Secondly, in that kind of situation, can an RO ask about what a person is wearing?

[lcs]

Now that I'm a full-fledged match director with one whole match under my belt, I've started reading the rules much more carefully and thoroughly. One thing caught my attention the other day and I thought I'd ask about it here.

USPSA 2008 Handgun Rules

5.4 Eye and Ear Protection

5.4.1 All persons near an area potentially exposed to ricochet debris or bullet fragments are required to wear eye protection. All persons near an area where the sound of firearms being fired may potentially cause hearing damage are required to wear adequate hearing protection.

5.4.2 If a Range Officer deems that a competitor about to make an attempt at a course of fire is wearing inadequate eye or ear protection, the Range Officer may order the competitor to rectify the situation before allowing the competitor to continue. The Range Master is the final authority on this matter.

It's the term adequate that bothers me. I have seen people with glasses on that look like they could be ordinary sunglasses and others with what could very well be ordinary prescription glasses. Is that "adequate"? If it isn't what is? There are cheap "shooting" glasses sold that are probably little better than a pair of sun glasses but does just being labeled as "shooting" glasses make them "adequate"?

Secondly, in that kind of situation, can an RO ask about what a person is wearing?

Do we (RO/CRO/MD/RM) want to get in the business of approving a praticular brand/type of glassess or hearing protection? I think you have to go with common sense and presume shooters want to protect their ears and eyes. In other words, hearing protection and glasses---good to go. Missing either and they don't shoot or be allowed on the range.

[Graham Smith]

Missing either and they don't shoot or be allowed on the range.

So even if someone showed up with what looked to be off the shelf sunglasses or reading glasses, you would give them a pass?

[Corey]

Missing either and they don't shoot or be allowed on the range.

So even if someone showed up with what looked to be off the shelf sunglasses or reading glasses, you would give them a pass?

Ive seen that more times than I can count with visitors as well as shooters.

Its my opinion that if the have something covering their eyes and something covering/plugging their ears, they have fulfilled the "adequate" part of having protection. Is it the best available? Not really, but the rule doesnt say you have to have the best, you just need to have enough.

[lcs]

Missing either and they don't shoot or be allowed on the range.

So even if someone showed up with what looked to be off the shelf sunglasses or reading glasses, you would give them a pass?

Rule book does not prohibit either. If you don't think they are "adequate", then .....

[mactiger]

The rule isn't there to help endorse any particular brand of shooting glasses or hearing protectors, it's there to ensure that someone isn't trying to shoot with a false sense of being "protected". The first job of a range official is safety, always, but this means that a little common sense needs to be applied.

Most competitors know that they have to have "adequate" eye and hearing protection, but some (not intentionally, but out of ignorance) ignore the needs of their family and friends that may come to spectate. A pair of $3 sunglasses that aren't marked as safety glasses (basically the toy glasses you see at some big box stores) would not be adequate, IMO. Somebody's prescription glasses are probably adequate to prevent injury in the event of a direct strike, if they are spectating, but may not be adequate if they are shooting. Again, most competitors will know that. Likewise, spectators can use their fingers in their ears to prevent hearing damage, but a competitor obviously can't. Foam earplugs get the job done, and they are cheap, but cotton balls obviously wouldn't qualify as "adequate", right?

FWIW, a good pair of safety glasses, i.e., those that meet or exceed the ANSI Z87.1-2003 standard, do not cost that much. I've seen them for as low as $3 or $4 here .

Interestingly, many high-dollar glasses (a lot of them are sold for other purposes than shooting, such as motorcycling) aren't stamped with the ANSI Z87.1 mark on their frames, which is the only way to tell if they are truly "safety" glasses. However, they are a quality product and the literature accompanying them will generally state that the manufacturer "assumes" that their product would meet the standard. (They just didn't pay the additional funds to have them tested.) Would these be considered "adequate"? The answer is most likely yes, but you'd have to use your judgment.

I have yet to see anyone show up with glasses I didn't think were adequate, and if you've ever seen me RM a match, you know I'm a stickler for glasses on everybody. If you've been to Vegas, you know why. I have seen plenty of people (spectators) show up with hearing protection and no glasses, so I generally keep a couple of cheap pairs of safety glasses for their use. If they walk away with them, no biggie. I don't wear anything that costs more than about $20, but they are all ANSI stamped. I'm too hard on glasses to pay big bucks for them. Plus, I get safety glasses for free where I work, so that's hard to pass up.

My suggestion for all MD's and RM's working matches: go to your local safety supply company or to the web site above and get a few pair of inexpensive safety glasses, just in case. Get a few foam ear plugs, too. That way, you'll be prepared if someone doesn't have one or the other. And, use your best judgment to determine what is "adequate"--most glasses will be.

[mactiger]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I could see these glasses at a match. Note the disclaimer. But, I'd call these adequate.

On the other hand: you could see something like this, or this. Both are more than adequate, even though there is a huge price differential.

Hope this helps.

Troy

[Graham Smith]

Here's why I am asking. At a match last year I saw someone who had a pair of sunglasses with a built-in camera - if these are what I believe they are, then these are not safety glasses. At a different match, I saw someone who was wearing what were almost surely off the shelf reading glasses.

I'm reasonably sure that either of these would take a casual ding without breaking and both the shooters were experienced enough to decide for themselves what is adequate. It's just that now that I am a match director, I tend to look at things a bit more critically.

I'm probably just nit-picking, but I figured it was worth asking since it may come up in the future.

[bbbean]

I'm reasonably sure that either of these would take a casual ding without breaking and both the shooters were experienced enough to decide for themselves what is adequate. It's just that now that I am a match director, I tend to look at things a bit more critically.

Just don't look at things so critically that you end up becoming the glasses/hearing protection police. There are more pressing issues for a MD. With the possible exception of children, if they have something covering their eyes and ears, they should be good to go.

[aztecdriver]

A lot of prescription shops aren't going to stamp the frames because they insert the glass per order. The information that I've found is that standard polycarbonate lenses meet the ANSI standards for safety glasses - in fact that most safety lenses are made from polycarbonate. Given a set of prescription glasses cover the necessary amount of the eye area (a lot might not), I'd have a problem challenging a shooters prescription glasses based on not being stamped. I know mine are polycarbonate, but I'll have to (and will) check with the manufacturer to see if they comply with ANSI standards.

[mactiger]

I have some of the video glasses. I consider them adequate, being polycarbonate and not plastic. As Aztec mentioned, polycarbonate is pretty tough, especially for our purposes.

Troy

Here's why I am asking. At a match last year I saw someone who had a pair of sunglasses with a built-in camera - if these are what I believe they are, then these are not safety glasses. At a different match, I saw someone who was wearing what were almost surely off the shelf reading glasses.

I'm reasonably sure that either of these would take a casual ding without breaking and both the shooters were experienced enough to decide for themselves what is adequate. It's just that now that I am a match director, I tend to look at things a bit more critically.

I'm probably just nit-picking, but I figured it was worth asking since it may come up in the future.

[Nik Habicht]

Here's why I am asking. At a match last year I saw someone who had a pair of sunglasses with a built-in camera - if these are what I believe they are, then these are not safety glasses. At a different match, I saw someone who was wearing what were almost surely off the shelf reading glasses.

I'm reasonably sure that either of these would take a casual ding without breaking and both the shooters were experienced enough to decide for themselves what is adequate. It's just that now that I am a match director, I tend to look at things a bit more critically.

I'm probably just nit-picking, but I figured it was worth asking since it may come up in the future.

I had a problem with anyone wearing glasses that didn't properly shield the eyes -- think tiny glasses, aka the Lennon glasses. My solution as a match director was much like Troy's -- have a few pair of inexpensive glasses on hand to lend out, as needed. By all means, educate, on a case by case basis...

And keep an eye on spectators who show up as well -- they often have no idea how far splatter might travel...

[Nik Habicht]

I'm reasonably sure that either of these would take a casual ding without breaking and both the shooters were experienced enough to decide for themselves what is adequate. It's just that now that I am a match director, I tend to look at things a bit more critically.

Just don't look at things so critically that you end up becoming the glasses/hearing protection police. There are more pressing issues for a MD. With the possible exception of children, if they have something covering their eyes and ears, they should be good to go.

There's a fine line there. Eyes aren't readily replaceable, and loss of vision in one eye is serious.....

I'm pretty confident that Graham will find the balance...

[Wild Gene]

Now that I'm a full-fledged match director with one whole match under my belt, I've started reading the rules much more carefully and thoroughly. One thing caught my attention the other day and I thought I'd ask about it here.

USPSA 2008 Handgun Rules

5.4 Eye and Ear Protection

5.4.1 All persons near an area potentially exposed to ricochet debris or bullet fragments are required to wear eye protection. All persons near an area where the sound of firearms being fired may potentially cause hearing damage are required to wear adequate hearing protection.

5.4.2 If a Range Officer deems that a competitor about to make an attempt at a course of fire is wearing inadequate eye or ear protection, the Range Officer may order the competitor to rectify the situation before allowing the competitor to continue. The Range Master is the final authority on this matter.

It's the term adequate that bothers me. I have seen people with glasses on that look like they could be ordinary sunglasses and others with what could very well be ordinary prescription glasses. Is that "adequate"? If it isn't what is? There are cheap "shooting" glasses sold that are probably little better than a pair of sun glasses but does just being labeled as "shooting" glasses make them "adequate"?

Secondly, in that kind of situation, can an RO ask about what a person is wearing?

What are you going to do the first time someone shows up in a bikini and flip flops, but have their Peltor Muffs and Team Rudy glasses on?

WG

[Alan550]

A lot of prescription shops aren't going to stamp the frames because they insert the glass per order. The information that I've found is that standard polycarbonate lenses meet the ANSI standards for safety glasses - in fact that most safety lenses are made from polycarbonate. Given a set of prescription glasses cover the necessary amount of the eye area (a lot might not), I'd have a problem challenging a shooters prescription glasses based on not being stamped. I know mine are polycarbonate, but I'll have to (and will) check with the manufacturer to see if they comply with ANSI standards.

The poly lenses alone may meet ANSI standards, but the glasses themselves, not necessarily. In order for a pair of glasses to meet ANSI standards, the frame has to be marked indicating that IT meets the standards along with having lenses inserted (read Rx here) that have to meet a level of protection set by that same Institute. Just putting Polycarbonate lenses into a pair of regular "street" glasses won't meet that level of protection. The frame itself is part of the equation here and a flimsy frame that can't handle the impact specifications would give a false sense of security to the wearer.

I've spent over 30 years as an Optician, so I have some knowledge of the subject. It has always been a problem to try to explain these rules to customers who want the ANSI level lenses in their street wear and expect the glasses to be OK on the job where "real" safety glasses are required. Some even asked that I sign a waiver saying that the glasses were OK for occupational use...............I always refused because of the liability issue involved. If it's not stamped with the ANSI standards marking, it ain't gonna protect you like the real thing!

Just my $.02

Alan~^~

[Steven Cline]

Now that I'm a full-fledged match director with one whole match under my belt, I've started reading the rules much more carefully and thoroughly. One thing caught my attention the other day and I thought I'd ask about it here.

USPSA 2008 Handgun Rules

5.4 Eye and Ear Protection

5.4.1 All persons near an area potentially exposed to ricochet debris or bullet fragments are required to wear eye protection. All persons near an area where the sound of firearms being fired may potentially cause hearing damage are required to wear adequate hearing protection.

5.4.2 If a Range Officer deems that a competitor about to make an attempt at a course of fire is wearing inadequate eye or ear protection, the Range Officer may order the competitor to rectify the situation before allowing the competitor to continue. The Range Master is the final authority on this matter.

It's the term adequate that bothers me. I have seen people with glasses on that look like they could be ordinary sunglasses and others with what could very well be ordinary prescription glasses. Is that "adequate"? If it isn't what is? There are cheap "shooting" glasses sold that are probably little better than a pair of sun glasses but does just being labeled as "shooting" glasses make them "adequate"?

Secondly, in that kind of situation, can an RO ask about what a person is wearing?

What are you going to do the first time someone shows up in a bikini and flip flops, but have their Peltor Muffs and Team Rudy glasses on?

WG

Take photographs?

On a more serious note, I am only concerned with something which protects the eyes and ears. Sunglasses, prescription eye-glasses, Willy_X, all are eye protection in my book. Adequate hearing protection is what the person makes it- fingers, foam, muffs, in the car. All of these work for me. I will worry about the absence of protection and declare that inadequate.

[Wild Gene]

Take photographs?

On a more serious note, I am only concerned with something which protects the eyes and ears. Sunglasses, prescription eye-glasses, Willy_X, all are eye protection in my book. Adequate hearing protection is what the person makes it- fingers, foam, muffs, in the car. All of these work for me. I will worry about the absence of protection and declare that inadequate.

Yes, but also on a more serious note, common sense dictates you wouldn't want to shoot as such. I don't know if there are rules against it in the book or not. When a competetor is mandated to have "adequate" protection, then it is up to them to decide. All you can really do is "suggest", but if you start making the determination for them, where does it stop? Suppose you are in the habbit of determining what adequate is, then the one time you don't something (God forbid) does happen? Where does your responsibility (and Liability) as an RO, RM, etc. stop? It is a tough call. I think as long as they think it is adequate, and if you may have pointed out that it may not be and possibly offered options for better glass etc., then you have done your job as to the extent it is possible.

Again, it is a tough call, and I am not sure where it all stops.

WG

[JAFO]

IMO, the RO's responsibility ends once they see that the shooter is wearing more than 3D glasses and cotton balls. If minimum requirements are not stated in the rulebook, it should not be the RO's duty to inquire as to the ANSI rating of the glasses or the NR rating of the hearing protection. By all means, make suggestions and even offer better protection if available, especially if someone is wearing Rx glasses with limited or no side impact coverage. But beyond that, it's the shooter's responsibility to take that advice. I do carry some foam earplugs, an extra set of muffs, and an extra set of safety glasses for these occassions.

[granderojo]

I was wondering if the subject of SIDE protection in glasses worn for shooting matches was going to be brought up. I can't begin to count the number of times that shooters and spectators show up w/glasses that have small flat lenses that don't really cover that complete eye. Are they "adequate" and how do you deal w/a lot of shooters and spectators that think they are OK? I would bet that more than 50% of the people I see at the matches I shoot (both shooters and espically spectators), have no side protection on their glasses.

I don't want to offend anyone, but as an RO I have some liability and responsibity in this matter, not to mention my concern for these peoples saftey. I don't want to be thought of as a range/rules nazi, but I am concered for their saftey. Y'alls thoughts on how to deal w/this.

[Nik Habicht]

I can't begin to count the number of times that shooters and spectators show up w/glasses that have small flat lenses that don't really cover that complete eye. Are they "adequate"

No.

....how do you deal w/a lot of shooters and spectators that think they are OK?

Politely explain to them that they can't shoot/need to leave the area until they have proper protection. Let them know that we shoot at steel targets, and that occasionally there is stuff flying through the air. Offer them appropriate safety glasses, if you happen to have some....

I would bet that more than 50% of the people I see at the matches I shoot (both shooters and espically spectators), have no side protection on their glasses.

Most folks I see wear glasses that wrap around the face -- at least to some extent. If they're new, or visitors to the match, educate, and provide safety glasses for them to wear. If they've shot a few matches -- they assume some risk; although I won't start a competitor wearing glasses that don't at least frontally protect his entire eye. You can always hand the timer off...

[tackdr1ver]

I honestly don't think any glasses will stop a round traveling 900 FPS+. Off the shelf, specialty, low cost, high cost. If it is covering the eyes and will deflect minor impacts = good to go. I don't think we need to split hairs on the eligibility of eye wear.

[Wild Gene]

I honestly don't think any glasses will stop a round traveling 900 FPS+. Off the shelf, specialty, low cost, high cost. If it is covering the eyes and will deflect minor impacts = good to go. I don't think we need to split hairs on the eligibility of eye wear.

I had a pair of Team Rudy Sunglasses go through a HAY BALER. I found them later in the year, one lense was bent, but not broken. They would not stop a round, but not much will. They will stop fragments.

If you know anyone that has ever lost vision in one eye, even temporarily, you would not think of it as splitting hairs. I have, and it is not fun. Not one bit. With that said, I still believe it is up to the individual to use their own common sense to what is "adequate" or not.