« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Wiley X Romer IIs ... FAILURE  (Read 1671 times)

Offline The Flying Dutchman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant First Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 348
    • View Profile
Wiley X Romer IIs ... FAILURE
« on: March 18, 2005, 10:06:24 PM »
Well, recently I had bought a pair of these for airsoft purposes and they have miserably failed me. I remember being in the field and being shot in the lens and the lens popping out once and thought nothing of it until a week later. I was my back yard I got shot by a stock AEG and it cracked the frame on the upper left eye. So I thought I might have got a "Bad" pair so I contacted Wilex and they had me send them a $5 check(for shipping) and they replaced them. When I received the new frames the lenses didn't fit properly in them and they moved side to side and around. Thinking safety, I decided to test them out myself and shot them in the lens 1 time and the lens took it pretty well but when I shot it again the frames cracked in the same exact place as before.


Here are the pictures.








Overall.... The frames=POS and I wouldn't recommend after my discoveries to use these at all. Just be cool and by some okies because thats what im doing !
[/img]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by The Flying Dutchman »
Logged

Offline busta_cap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant General
  • *****
  • Posts: 3887
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2005, 10:11:30 PM »
I shot mine a few times after I got them, no problems here. The frames I have are actually z87.2 rated, as well as the lenses, And they seem like they would take a hit to that spot.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by busta_cap »
Logged

Offline The Flying Dutchman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant First Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 348
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2005, 10:24:06 PM »
Quote from: "busta_cap"
I shot mine a few times after I got them, no problems here. The frames I have are actually z87.2 rated, as well as the lenses, And they seem like they would take a hit to that spot.


Haha all right I will just listen to you even though I have experienced it 2 times and they were both in the same exact spot.... There you go talking out of your ass again....

And what do you mean the seem to take a hit? They didn't! And if you "supposedly shot them a few times" you would see that they aren't z87.2 rated ..... I don't care what those #s mean they don't work and they aren't safe for arisofting. Im just going to say I told you so when you get you eye shot out hot shot.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by The Flying Dutchman »
Logged

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2005, 11:10:48 PM »
I witnessed this firsthand.  After seeing it, I will not ever buy a pair.

Keep in mind busta, those tests are used as a guideline for ballistic eyewear.  The rating is achieved after passing a few high-velocity ball-bearing tests.  They were never shot by a BB!

Whether it's a product failure (ie: bad sample), or a flaw in the design that would be present in every sample, it doesn't matter.  They failed, and that's totally unacceptable in my book.

The conditions were something like this:
-temperature ~75 F
-.25g BB, semi auto single shot
-AEG shooting ~310 fps with .20g BBs
-single shot fired at center of lens from ~8 inches, perpendicular to lens surface

The lens survived with only a small discoloration in the tint and a 1-2mm diameter indent on the inside of the lens.  The discoloration was concentric in nature, and was approximately 5mm in diameter.  The lens did it's job, in my opinion!  

The problem lies in the frame.

Besides, these things are made in China!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »
Logged

Offline busta_cap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant General
  • *****
  • Posts: 3887
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2005, 11:15:33 PM »
If mine crack, Ill just put on my straightjackets or profile NVG's. If I get shot in the frame its going to still bounce off..And I doubt I will get shot from 8inches away either.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by busta_cap »
Logged

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2005, 11:22:22 PM »
I wouldn't use the Oakleys either.  They are not made for ballistic protection and the frame might do the same.  They may be ANSI-rated, but that doesn't mean they have been in the same conditions that will occur on the field.

M-Frames were designed and refined several times over for the best strenght possible for ballistic applications.  Straight Jackets are just for fashion.

On a related note, I saw Barts Half-Jackets after the lens cracked from a BB hit.  ANSI-rated, and that still happened.  Using anything but purpose-built dedicated ballistic eyewear is a gamble in my book, and my eyesight is worth more than the few cool points I'd score from my bros for having rad-dude sunglasses.  

My M-Frames are ass-ugly, but they have stopped BBs befre, and I am confident in them!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »
Logged

Offline busta_cap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant General
  • *****
  • Posts: 3887
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2005, 11:31:05 PM »
Yeah M frames are fugly, and they look pretty ghey on just about everyone. I have straightjackets because I wear them on a daily basis, I have yet to test them in the field. The lens on them is actually really thick, and the frame extremely tough(doesn't flex much AT ALL). Ill let you try them out at the game in April if you want C, I would trust my eyes with them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by busta_cap »
Logged

Offline stoneaglewolf

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
    • View Profile
    • http://www.tacticalmilsim.com
(No subject)
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2005, 06:31:06 PM »
I've been using a pair of $12 S&W shooting glasses for 2 two years as a sniper. I shot them point blank with my sniper rifle three times with a .43 bb at 343fps and they were fine. I also carry a back up pair no matter what I'm wearing.  Of course, on the 26 of this month it will be 13 years since I was a minor.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by stoneaglewolf »
Logged
-Stone

http://www.TacticalMilSim.com
  Honor the Fallen SPC Marc A. Anderson 1/75th Ranger KIA 3/8/02, AF

Offline busta_cap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant General
  • *****
  • Posts: 3887
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2005, 06:39:24 PM »
Yay for Mark, as soon as I get my AEG back together, or get some gas, Im going to take out my glasses, put them on a fake head and blast away. If they damage at all(did not last time) I will call wiley-x and tell them they can shove them in their a$$ and give me something better, if they are REALLY getting away with not having ANSI frames, then they are going to get in big trouble. The frame even says they are z87.2 rated on both sides of it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by busta_cap »
Logged

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2005, 08:40:15 PM »
Quote from: "busta_cap"
Yay for Mark, as soon as I get my AEG back together, or get some gas, Im going to take out my glasses, put them on a fake head and blast away. If they damage at all(did not last time) I will call wiley-x and tell them they can shove them in their a$$ and give me something better, if they are REALLY getting away with not having ANSI frames, then they are going to get in big trouble. The frame even says they are z87.2 rated on both sides of it.


They are ANSI-rated frames.

The point we're making here is that's not good enough.  Sometimes real-life, first hand experience is better than what you've read online on the Wiley-X website, busta.

CAG D Boys purpose in posting this was an FYI.  He did not ask if it happened to you busta, nor did he ask for a reply.  I really don't see the point in arguing with him over what we both witnessed firsthand.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »
Logged

Offline busta_cap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant General
  • *****
  • Posts: 3887
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2005, 08:43:07 PM »
Quote from: "azsarge"
Quote from: "busta_cap"
Yay for Mark, as soon as I get my AEG back together, or get some gas, Im going to take out my glasses, put them on a fake head and blast away. If they damage at all(did not last time) I will call wiley-x and tell them they can shove them in their a$$ and give me something better, if they are REALLY getting away with not having ANSI frames, then they are going to get in big trouble. The frame even says they are z87.2 rated on both sides of it.

They are ANSI-rated frames.

The point we're making here is that's not good enough.  Sometimes real-life, first hand experience is better than what you've read online on the Wiley-X website, busta.

CAG D Boys purpose in posting this was an FYI.  He did not ask if it happened to you busta, nor did he ask for a reply.  I really don't see the point in arguing with him over what we both witnessed firsthand.
I didn't say that it did not happen, just didn't happen to me is all. He told me about this even before posting and I was very astonished, because I own a pair! If they are supposed to withstand the impact of a .22 or metal bb traveling at a very high speed, how did a little plastic bb going 310fps do that? Thats the question I will ask when I talk to Wiley-X first thing Monday morning.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by busta_cap »
Logged

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2005, 08:55:47 PM »
Because they withstood that abuse in lab conditions.

They did not place a complete RomerII out and shoot it, they put the lens in a vise and hit it with a ball bearing.  

Like I said before, real-life conditions are alot different than what you read on the internet.  ANSI ratings are used as a guideline, but it's up to the individual to trust them regardless of firsthand accounts.

Call them and ask away, but the right thing to do would be to leave Anthony's info out of the conversation.  He has his own beef with Wiley-X, and does not require your intervention.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »
Logged

Offline stoneaglewolf

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
    • View Profile
    • http://www.tacticalmilsim.com
(No subject)
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2005, 09:29:14 PM »
Good point Sarge, lab tests almost never mimick real conditions. They are designed to meet a baseline quality to CYA.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by stoneaglewolf »
Logged
-Stone

http://www.TacticalMilSim.com
  Honor the Fallen SPC Marc A. Anderson 1/75th Ranger KIA 3/8/02, AF

Offline busta_cap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant General
  • *****
  • Posts: 3887
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2005, 08:37:39 AM »
Well.. Some of you saw me at the game on the 26th, a few of you shot me. I took direct hits to my romers about 5 or 6 times. A couple in each lens, one direct on my left side of frame, and one skipped off the left side. Yet no damaged has been shown yet. Maybe CAG got a couple of bad pairs, or I have really good luck, but now I am confident they will stand up. O and we shot them in the lens from about 4 ft away with a 290fps pistol.

This is a good read: http://www.opticsplanet.net/wiley-x-gog ... views.html
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by busta_cap »
Logged

Offline War savage

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2005, 05:58:04 PM »
These guys may have a positive opion. These are soldiers from the 82nd Airbourne Division in Iraq. Note the Wiley X logo on the soldiers goggles, plus they look odd the way they are sitting on his face. Hey, maybe thats what you need to do, wear them upside down for maximum performance he, he....just kidding.

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/ ... vision/4_G
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by War savage »
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »