"The stuff the army issues is useless" and "no non-issue kit over seas!"

[McG]

Rated by who, and against what standard?  DRDC Valcartier did ballistic tests against many types of ballistic eye wear last year.  I've not seen the reports but have heard anecdotally, from someone involved, that a certain popular brand name performed poorly.  I don't specifically recall the brand, but I'd be cautious of dismissing any official warnings that are out there right now. 

 

[Bzzliteyr]

But the point is that the warning was Wiley-x in general.  Not a certain type or model.  I can't expect eyewear that is on the US BEW list (http://peosoldier.army.mil/pmseq/eyewear.asp) to be that big a failure, can I?  Not only that, but we are talking about eyewear the boys bought from the PX during our visit to Fort Bliss.

 

[Farmboy]

Rated by who, and against what standard?  DRDC Valcartier did ballistic tests against many types of ballistic eye wear last year.  I've not seen the reports but have heard anecdotally, from someone involved, that a certain popular brand name performed poorly.  I don't specifically recall the brand, but I'd be cautious of dismissing any official warnings that are out there right now

So you heard rumors?!?!  About Wiley X, please, by all means post the tests.

They pass the MIL-V-43511C, MIL-PRF-31013, all shatterproof changeable styles meet or exceed ANSI Z87.1-2003. 

Shall we start a long list of who is issued Wiley X, Oakley, ESS compared to Revision?

God forbid our guys use gear that is approved for use with US Special Forces.  This whole fucking concept of the CF having a approve everything again is stupid.

Take for example the BLSS / Skydex pads.  Approved for use in the US and is helping to prevent huge numbers of head injuries, but no not in Canada, we have to wait for it to be tested again, BUT, it won't be tested until a unit buys it, BUT WAIT, the units won't buy it until it's approved!!!!

 

[medaid]

There needs to be a soft case. I don't mean a soft case like the lens protector, but a non rigid case for people to quickly throw into and then dump it in their kit.

 

[Farmboy]

Even doing that will scratch the lens.  We were going to carry them, however when the arrived in the hard case with the lenses already scratched.......

 

[medaid]

Even doing that will scratch the lens.  We were going to carry them, however when the arrived in the hard case with the lenses already scratched.......

Bah... give up. I'll buy Oakleys...

 

[dangerboy]

Oakley has prescription lens available - not an insert per say (unless your calling replacement lens an insert)

Infidel 6 - If you don't mind could you post a link or info on prescription lens as I wound love to have a set of BEW that don't scratch when I look at them like my issue ones do.  I have tried to find the info with no luck, (I guess my google skills are not working lately).

 

[COBRA-6]

Infidel 6 - If you don't mind could you post a link or info on prescription lens as I wound love to have a set of BEW that don't scratch when I look at them like my issue ones do.  I have tried to find the info with no luck, (I guess my google skills are not working lately).

https://usstandardissue.com/prescriptions.aspx

http://oakley.ca/search/men+rx+sunglasses

 

[McG]

I can't expect eyewear that is on the US BEW list to be that big a failure, can I?

Are you willing to gamble your eyes on that? 

So you heard rumors?!?!  About Wiley X, please, by all means post the tests.

Because you've not made the effort to read my post I'll spell it out a little more in depth.  I have not seem the report (already stated). I did observe a brief moment of the tests, and one of the pers conducting the tests indicated that a popular model (being purchased by the troops) was failing.  In the room there were several brands of ballistic eyewear & in some cases multiple models from single makers.  The test is not a rumour.  The test report (again, something that I have not seen) most certainly does not belong on Army.ca. 

They pass the MIL-V-43511C, MIL-PRF-31013, all shatterproof changeable styles meet or exceed ANSI Z87.1-2003. 

At least a handful of accepted Mil-Standards have shown not to meet the requirement since combat in Afghanistan started (2001).  Who's to say that we've not moved to a higher standard ahead of the US?

What's ANSI?  A civi standard?  Like the Civi standards that I6 & I explained to you were junk for a military environment WRT body amour?

[Edit to correct link following a thread merge]

 

[Bzzliteyr]

it was a memo that got sent around...

 

[Spartan]

Infidel 6 - If you don't mind could you post a link or info on prescription lens as I wound love to have a set of BEW that don't scratch when I look at them like my issue ones do.  I have tried to find the info with no luck, (I guess my google skills are not working lately).

I'm currently using these http://www.essgoggles.com/CDI_14_detail.html - the High Adrenaline - interchangeable lens because the issued ones with inserts give me a headache.

 

[PuckChaser]

it was a memo that got sent around...

Was/could still be in the Theatre Standing Orders.... funny part is the "issued" tan gloves (akin to the cadpat Temp Weather ones) are not supposed to be used in vehicles as they can melt like the foam pad around the Wiley-X glasses.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

That's true.. the ones we got issued.. mortar gloves too are a no go...

 

[Shamrock]

While we're on about gloves, anyone remember the driver gauntlets?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I still got a pair of those and I love them lol

 

[Shamrock]

Yes, but have you ever tried driving an AVGP or coyote with them?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

No, but I did use them to drive M-113's and T-LAV/MTVL

 

[Shamrock]

The AVGP and old coyote steering wheel required an underhand grasp and the gear selector was very close to the steering wheel; hand-over hand steering was impossible, so drivers had to do a lot of hand-to-hand.  The gear selector was also very close to the steering wheel, and when in reverse, the rigid gauntlet would catch during turns. 

I had no such problems when driving a leo, but the Darth Vater sized gauntlet felt more than a little goofy.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Gotcha 

:cheers:

 

[Edward Campbell]

I thought I would add this just to remind us all of how far we have come in 50 years.

This picture, taken in 1956, shows soldiers from an operational, combat ready unit, in the field - dressed for training as they planned to fight. The rifle is the good old SMLE .303 bolt action, 10 round mag; I'm less sure of the SMG - I though we got the 'new' Sterling SMG around then but the folding stock looks like the 'old' Sten.

I dressed much the same up until about 1965 except that, by circa 1960 we no longer had to wear ties in the field.

BTW, for other old timers, Art Tompkins (2nd from the left, then a pte) was my platoon sergeant in 2RCR in 1967.