Armslist: We Don’t Need No Stink’n Eye Protection!

In what I am not sure is click-bait or a true rant against all the backseat Range Officers, Armslist’s media folks has taken a rather un-mainstream opinion on the wearing of eye protection. In many of their videos, the Armslist staff is shown not wearing eye protection, which has certainly garnered the attention of the internet. Rather than acquiesce to always wearing protection, the team has posted a video explaining that they will continue to not wear eye protection stating that its their own personal risk…

And I agree.

Being similarly Libertarian-minded, it is very much a personal choice to wear or not wear the level of protection that one deems appropriate for the risk involved. The chances of a detonation that causes catastrophic damage to a firearm is small and further reduced by the likelihood that debris will be thrown at the eye, making their opinion make sense for those who believe that safety is a personal choice.


Yes, being a public gun channel those that want to show best practices tend to chime in on a regular basis. And to that, I agree that it is best practice to wear eye protection. Having watched and been involved in the aftermath of an accident that caused eye damage, to me the relative discomfort of eye pro is well worth it.

So, if they choose to not wear eye pro, that is their choice, as it is for one to not watch their videos.

I, for one, will always recommend one wears eye protection, but if they don’t, I certainly won’t feel bad for the aftermath.

What are your thoughts? Is Armslist right or as a public channel should they embody acceptable safety practices?

Nathan S

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


  • imachinegunstuff

    I agree. I always make people who shoot on my private range wear eye protection because of liability. I stopped wearing it after a range trip and night shoot in the military. A piece of brass got caught between my eye pro and face. Burned me pretty bad and the oil/carbon got in my eye.

    • Big Daddy

      That happened to me a few weeks ago. Hot brass .223 got stuck between my glasses and my eyelid. It has since healed but that was dangerous. I had a nasty burn on my eyelid. It was some Tula which seemed like it did not burn as hot as hotter 5.5mm brass. The worst burn on my arm was from .357 SIG brass.

      I guess I have to get wrap around googles of some kind that goes over my glasses.

      I have no answer to this. Sometimes I wear my glasses with scopes, sometimes I just wear eye pro, sometimes I wear nothing with handguns since at 3AM or coming out of wally world I do not have my glasses on and practice shooting that way.

      • Tritro29

        “Ballistic” ski-mask. Looks stupid though. Caught a 7.62R case from PKM my time while wearing winter ski-mask. It was nice by -12 C°, but when it pulled the goggles, the upper plastic had melt a little.

      • imachinegunstuff

        What people forget is how hot brass gets when being ejected from a rifle that is firing for an extended period of times. I know at least a dozen Marines with brass scars on their necks and backs from round getting caught between body and flak.

      • Longhaired Redneck

        “sometimes I wear nothing with handguns…”

        Aren’t you worried about other body parts being ? burned?

    • JASON B

      Maybe the problem was the eye pro you were wearing? I have several pairs of eye pro, given the design it would be next to impossible for a piece of brass to get in.

      • imachinegunstuff

        I had to use Marine Corp issued gear, so I had the choice between clear ESS glasses, or ESS Goggles.

    • TheNotoriousIUD

      An entire case?
      Damn, that would suck.

    • Jwedel1231

      Summary: “I had inadequate safety gear, and when it failed I stopped using safety gear altogether. I make everyone else use it, though.”

      • imachinegunstuff

        I was stuck using issued gear, we had the option between our issued goggles, and our issued ESS glasses. Goggles suck, and they’re even worse with a PVS 14 in front of your face.

        • Jwedel1231

          Sorry, didn’t think about people using issued gear, which sucks. Still, bad performance of bad gear doesn’t mean that the entire concept sucks.

    • Bill

      I hate ball caps, but they are mandatory safety wear along with eye pro. Pulled low over the glasses it will prevent exactly that. Caps wont always work with longs guns, but but properly fitting eye pro should have a gap anyway.

      • imachinegunstuff

        Couldn’t do that, I had to wear my helmet on the range, and a set of pvs 14s

    • Badwolf

      I don’t get it. I know both are bad. But given a choice wouldn’t you rather get burned near the eye than get struck directly in the eye?

      • imachinegunstuff

        Well I don’t shoot metal targets, or at an indoor range. I shoot into a 8 foot thick sand berm. So its not going to ricochet. I also don’t reload and I don’t shoot re-manufactured ammo so I’m not worrying about ammo exploding. I can recognize a squib load.
        A lot of people believe eyepro to be invulnerable, however in Afghanistan on a night patrol my bumbling self jumped across a canal and had a tree branch hit my PVS 14s and send them straight into my Oakleys, destroying the lenses over my eye. I just don’t feel I need them.
        My range liability insurance requires the use of appropriate safety gear when shooting, so guests have to wear eye pro and ear pro.

      • Longhaired Redneck

        I always keep my eyes closed when I pull the trigger. That’s how I stay safe.

        • politicsbyothermeans

          That would be the Daesh technique.

    • raz-0

      So you had the worst case of eye pro and your eyes were ok right?

      Catch a piece of spall in the cornea, and it’s going to suck. I’m well north of 100k rounds down range at this point. In that time I have had one instance of having .357 branded on whatever that part of your face between the eyelid and eyebrow is actually called, several dozen instances of keeping CPL out of my face from weapons with a bit too much lube on them, about a dozen incidents of blocked splatter, and a few sets of totally trashed eye pro.

      • imachinegunstuff

        I’m probably north of 100K just on machine guns and have never had eye pro save me from anything.
        I’ve had it catch a piece of brass and burn me and had it crack in half a when PVS 14 was pushed back onto them.

        YMMV but my eyes are mine and they are doing pretty good.

  • Pedro

    I think they are stoned or drunk.


    If you are going to be out there in the public advocating for a sport, you should do it properly. It is like a football player on an NFL team not wearing a helmet. Not a good example to set for kids and fans.

    If you are at the range by yourself and don’t want to wear eye pro, fine, that’s your right. But if you are going to put yourself out there as an advocate, do it properly. We already have image problem. Does anyone really need to make themselves a martyr for not wearing eye pro? Stupid. If you are going to take a stance on something, make it something important.

    • Bill

      “It is like a football player on an NFL team not wearing a helmet. Not a good example to set for kids and fans.”

      That is just a perfect analogy, and statement. Well said.

      • SemperFlyBoy

        Shot steel targets yesterday and had a piece of lead ricochet and lodge under the skin one inch from my eye. I had eye protection on but obviously could have done without it since it missed by such a wide margin.

    • flashoverride

      Like a football player on an NFL team playing in an NFL game? Because that’s not going to happen, the league has rules to prevent that, and if you participate in the League you agree to follow the rules. An NFL player playing football at a park, flag or two-hand touch? There’s no helmets involved.

      You don’t get issued eye-pro in basic, and I don’t ever remember any time training on weapons systems (rifle, pistol, crew-serveds) where eye-pro was mandatory. Ear pro, yeah for sure.

      Of course I had BCGs, but that’s another story….

      • Bill

        I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but when the military mandated the use of eye pro in the combat arms the number of eye injuries that rendered a soldier combat ineffective dropped from “common” to drastically reduced. Granted, that includes a lot of other options for flying debris, but blinded is blinded.

        EVERY LE firearms training I’ve ever attended, back to my basic academy well back in the previous century mandated eye, and ear, protection. I push for it’s use in general patrol, along with special operations. Having someone spit in your face, breaking out a window to make entry on a medical emergency, blood borne pathogens, even getting corneal scratches from brush during a foot pursuit can all be mitigated by eye pro. That’s probably a carryover from jr high shop class.

        Add in soccer and rugby if you’re going to stretch the definition of “football” beyond the original writer’s intent. As for rules, if you’re shooting on my range, the rule is eye and ear pro, all the time, every time. That’s the rule.

        • infantryjj

          Your comparison of combat to football is flawed. Combat and shooting at the range are two different things. It is similar to the difference of playing in a football game and throwing the ball in your front yard. Do you wear a helmet and pads playing catch with your brother/son? Pretty sure your LE firearms training eye pro requirements are insurance related and not from guns blowing up in trainees faces.

  • TVOrZ6dw

    Having had a tiny glass shard pulled from my eye, I will wear eye protection when appropriate. As long as you are responsible for yourself, do what you want.

  • Sianmink

    In a nutshell:
    We do what we want, BTW you are fat.
    Stay classy, Armslist.

  • Austin

    While I agree that they have a choice in wearing eyepro. They should always wear it in the videos posted on YouTube or other public outlets. We all need to make sure to put our best foot forward in public with the ever waiting gun grabers watching.

  • Green Hell

    Yeah, I’m glad I’m not alone in this thought about stuff like “eye protection”, it always seemed like a purely American fad based on a heavy marketing by Oakley and action movies, IMO it goes unreasonably beyond any nesessary safety measures, you might just as well wear racing helmet every time you drive a car or a full IED suit when doing anything with your firearm (and some probably will if the Military starts doing it, just look at the “tacticool” crowd). My grandad walked with a rifle from Moskow to Berlin and never even used any fancy earplugs, I swear he had even better sight and hearing than me even in his 70’s.

    • Risky

      Eye pro is much more like a seatbelt than anything else. Your eye balls are really soft, squishy things that are easily damaged and VITAL to most people’s livelihood and survival. It makes a lot of sense to wear eye pro when shooting as often as you can. I don’t believe that it should be an all or nothing approach, but to try to insinuate their use is simply ‘marketing’ is pretty ignorant.

    • Drew Coleman

      I don’t know how it is in other countries, but a lot of American shooters like to shoot steel targets. I enjoy shooting steel. I am not worried about my guns or ammo failing as much as I am about ricochets.

      • Bill

        I’ve been hit, including in the face with splatter from steel targets numerous times – it isn’t a question of if, but when. On at least one occasion I had to take a trainee to the ER to have a shard removed.

        When doing actually training on steel I’ll typically wear long sleeves and gloves in addition to the usual PPE.

    • Austin

      Having seen a pair of oakley’s after a gun failure I don’t question their quality at all. Anyone who doesn’t wear appropriate eye protection is rolling the dice on a serious debilitating injury for no reason.

  • Kefefs

    I’m not surprised they don’t worry about eye protection. Just look at what they did to the website layout; it’s obvious they’re all already blind.

    • Austin

      Shots fired

    • John Yossarian

      The old website was so far superior – I can’t understand why they trashed it.

    • Sianmink


    • will_ford

      Maybe you shouldnt open the page, if SO terrible. Maybe when you see who sent it, just delete it to save yourself such terrible view.

      • Kefefs

        Or I can keep complaining about it since it’s such an abomination.

  • Cal S.

    I wear eye pro anyhow. I shoot indoors frequently, and I’ve had hot chunks of metal slung my way multiple times, once upside the glasses. But, if I were just shooting by myself, then I don’t think I’d lose sleep over not wearing them.

  • I agree its their choice to wear PPE or not but its my prerogative to make fun of them when they get hurt due to not wearing the proper PPE.

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      As both if us are completely free to do. Thats what America is all about.

  • KestrelBike

    I wear eye-pro when I’m cleaning my weapons. I do this because I once cut open the sealed plastic tip of a tube of blue loctite. It amazingly shot out of the dispenser straight into my eye, and into the shower I immediately jumped to run water over it for a good 5+min.

    Also: I can hit the gym for a few days to undo the cheeseburger. All the doctors in the world can’t repair/replace a destroyed eyeball (yet).

    • iksnilol

      This man disagrees:

      • Pontificant

        Clothes pinning white PMAGs to a track suit? That’s so Steve Austin…

        • Mike11C

          No, those are filled with AA batteries to power his bionics.

          • Winter

            I thought he was recharging all his friends cell phones.

          • RickOAA .

            Everything used nine volts back then.

        • CountryBoy

          I believe they’re training weights.

      • Core

        Million Dollar Man.. He’d be the 35 billion dollar man with current inflation.

        • Lyle

          For the record he was the Six Million Dollar Man. Sure; with the current inflation level, plus graft, plus nods to “green” and “sustainable” technology, plus the Muslim Outreach aspect of the project, it would run into the billions, fail to produce, and then the private firm contracted to run the program (friends or relatives of politicians) would file bankruptcy. Most of the money would have been found later to have been funneled to Democrats’ campaign funds and trust funds, or simply disappeared, and no one in either party would care. You’d only hear about on The Blaze network.

    • Bill

      Between flying springs and spraying chemicals, wearing eyepro during cleaning is the smart play. There’s a dent in a training room drywall courtesy of a 1911 recoil spring plug.

    • Joeshmo

      While disassembling my HK vp9 a couple days ago I dropped the captive recoil spring from 3 feet onto a hardwood floor. The assembly busted sending the guide rod flying into a wall and the small washer the other way…. I’m starting to think you’re approach is a good one.

    • doug

      I’ve been shooting for close to sixty years now and have NEVER seen a gun cause an eye injury, [tree branches cause MANY more] I wear eye protection [sometimes], but not while shooting handguns, I would also [choose] to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but some don’t, I don’t wear seatbelts, but some choose to.
      Bottom line, I don’t like people trying to FORCE me to do things to protect me, if told I have to, I don’t !!!!

      • steve

        I agree on not like
        Wanting people to force others to follow safety rules that won’t harm anyone but themselves (with the exception of private property, like gun ranges where the owners could easily get sued or something.)
        That being said, as for not wearing a seatbelt, I recommend spending one night in an ER, or doing some ride-alongs with the police or EMTs, and see the severe damage done and lives ruined from the incredible forces at work in car crashes. Bracing your arms against the steering wheel when someone crashes into will do literally nothing (except possible make things worse, such as ripping your arms out at the sockets, shattering your hands/wrists, breaking your elbows, etc.)

  • TJbrena

    I wear glasses. Not glass ones, polycarbonate or whatever impact/shatter-resistant stuff is used as an alternative. It’s pretty much all the eyepro I’ve ever used outside of labs in school. Since they’re photochromatic lenses on top of that, I don’t need sunglasses either.

    I’m not sure of how well my glasses actually act as eyepro, though.

    • Anonymoose

      Same. I usually wear contacts, but I make sure to wear my glasses whenever I go to the range.

    • Nigel Tolley

      I can confirm it’ll stop impacts that would otherwise stop you seeing ever again. And also prevents arc eye.
      The main weakness is the lenses could be punched through the frame by a heavy impact. Still better than nothing, under any circumstances I’ve encountered.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Its a free country, they can do what they want.
    Everybody with half a brain knows that wearing eye pro is the safer option and not wearing it is more comfortable.
    Those are the choices. Pick one and live with it.

  • C. Her

    It’s your decision to wear eye pro or not. What bothers me more is seeing motorcyclists and moped riders out buzzing around with no eye protection whatsoever!

  • It’s unprofessional as fuqq and it lessens their credibility.

  • Evan

    I rarely wear eye-pro when I shoot. When I do, it has more to do with glare than anything else, as my eye-pro are my WileyX glasses from the Corps with dark lenses. I always wear hearing protection though. Plus, cause I hate muffs. My hearing is bad enough as it is.

  • Tyler McCommon

    Honestly just depends on the gun I’m using. Iron sighted bolt action rifles? No. AR15’s and handguns yes. Because the AR15’s gassy nature and a lot semi automatic handguns will occasionally eject to the 6 o’clock at your face. I had one time a Steyr M40 eject the brass and have it land inside my shooting glasses. It left a nice little burn on my eyebrow and cheek.

    • Bob

      You know, I didn’t even think of empties hitting my face. I’m so used to it from my 1911 and wear glasses because I’m practically blind, so I didn’t think of it until I read your comment. I bet the rim of a .45 ACP case would not feel nice in your eye…

  • Suppressed

    While we’re on the subject, can anyone recommend a manufacturer of prescription eyeglasses that offer ballistic protection AND look good? I just want regular clear lenses, no sunglasses.

    I’m a safety guy by trade, so I think I can justify expensing them to my company…

    • Oakley—— Just check the website

      • Suppressed

        Prior to seeing your post here, I went on oakley’s SI site and saw several models where they said they were ballistic-whatevered and you could enter your Rx info. I saw 3 out of ~65 frames that I really liked. I called Oakley SI and the guy on the phone told me they weren’t actually ballistic-rated and that you need a lens attached behind the Rx lens to achieve that protection. And they didn’t make a lense for the 3 frames I had selected. It seemed to contradict the website and left me kinda confused.

      • gabriel brack

        Depends on your prescription.

    • billyoblivion

      Did this setup just eat my post?

      • Suppressed

        No, you posted a link which requires a mod to approve. (I can see it in my disqus dashboard)

    • Limonata

      Checkout .rudyprojectusa — you can search for that phrase. They have all kinds of styles as well and colors. They will RX any lens they sell. Another option is Wiley X. They will do RX for any lens type.
      The Rudy’s are definitely more expensive but they are the clearest non-distortion lenses I have worn. The Rudy’s are also light and work so well I often forget I have them on and they double as car driving sunglasses and for working in the yard.
      I have RX for both brands

    • raz-0

      Rudy project does sunglasses where you can get the RX actually in the primary lenses now. look at their site, there’s ways to get significant discounts.

      Decot are more day to day looking.

      For just regular daily wear glasses, mostly it’s just beefy aviator frames or thick plastic frames, and side shields. Their is some weird specialty stuff out there too. Like arc safe ansi rated RX safety glasses.

  • Roy G Bunting

    I wear glasses. After all the times my glasses have stopped dust, hot liquids, shavings, bugs and other things just in my daily life, I don’t understand how people can live without wearing eye protection all the time.

    I double up at the range because my prescription glasses don’t cover my entire eye socket.

    If people don’t want to wear them, fine, 99% of the time their be fine. But keeping our best face forward and showing that we take every reasonable safety precaution can only help the sport.

    • Nigel Tolley

      I agree.
      The glasses I’m wearing now are, aside from edge protection, rated for impact and stop UV etc.Why wouldn’t you spend an extra £50 on it?
      This saved my sight when a .22LR exploded on me. The powder burn wasn’t too bad as my eye was protected, and my forehead was left bleeding from the base of the case hitting hard.
      That’s the most notable one, certainly. And also, a ball bearing that left a dent in the middle of the safety glass after being powered by the spring behind it after grease held it during disassembly only to ping out a few seconds later!

    • Prescription safety glasses with fitted side shields are available. There are some good looking frames that cost way less than regular designer frames. I find that I save money by buying SG frames and having lenses ground to fit.

      • Roy G Bunting

        My prescription in safety glass (polycarbonate) is 3 times the weight and twice the cost, both of which are pretty hefty already. I’m looking for a store the sells shooting glasses with prescription inserts behind the wraparound *and* grinds lenses to fit. My local shops don’t offer custom lens grinding beyond the frames they carry and most online shops have the frames but don’t grind lenses.

        For daily protection, these lenses work, and they are splinterproof, just not ANSI rated.

  • John Yossarian

    Well – I for one am glad to have been wearing eye protection while shooting a scoped, bolt-action rifle at the range two weeks ago. Otherwise, burning powder from the flintlock shooting next to me might have burned a hole in my eye the way that it did the skin just below it.

    Word to the wise: If you’re going without eye pro, be careful still of the shooter next to you.

  • OJS

    Ear pro isn’t really necessary either, what??? I SAID…!

  • Lemdarel

    It’s ultimately the responsibility of an individual to look after themselves, but I reserve the right to think you’re a dingus if you don’t.

    Speaking for myself, I wear eye pro all the time, and I was very glad I did the day I had a blown primer on an improperly headspaced Lee-Enfield. I wound up with enough carbon on my face that you could see the outline of where the eye pro had been.
    I learned two lessons that day.
    1. Don’t trust people who say they checked the headspace, check it yourself.
    2. Wear eye pro.

  • OJS

    I, for one, wear eyepro anytime I swing a hammer or turn a drill; not even a consideration to shoot without sunglasses on at the very least. I’m not worried about either tool flying apart, but it doesn’t take a large chunk of anything to do serious damage to an eyeball.

  • Jwedel1231

    They should wear eye pro. Titling a video “..and maybe your fat ass should hit the gym.” doesn’t make you look like a smart, intelligent, level-headed individual who has thought out his/her position and come to a conclusion. We get that safety nazis are annoying, but if they are right then they are right. There are more things that can damage your eyes than just a kaboom, and the denial of the possibility of such unforeseen damage is concerning. It is their choice, but if/when someone gets a damaged eye I’ll be saying “Eye told you so.”

  • I agree that wearing eye pro on your own private range is a personal decision.

    But for many public ranges the insurance carriers require not only eye pro, but some insurance carriers want everyone to wear ear muffs.

    Also shooting steel without eye pro is monumentally stupid. The chance of frag coming back at you is dramatically higher.

  • I’m all for letting other people do whatever they want, but I’ll wear eyepro because my uncle has a glass eye from his mechanic days. You can’t fix that kind of stuff with modern medicine.

  • gusto

    I wear regular glasses and never bothered with safety glasses,
    not many people at all wear them over here

  • Pod

    I point cameras at things for a living on occasion. You bet your ass I’m wearing eyepro at the range.

    And if you consider eyepro uncomfortable, what the heck are you doing shooting to begin with?

  • iksnilol

    Depends, when shooting precision rifles and stuff eyepro is a no no. Doesn’t help having a rifle that cost more than my car if the eyepro smudges up the sights.

    When shooting autoloaders (especially suppressed) and steel (or other ricochet-risk targets), often and always, respectively.

    • Tassiebush

      Good points. I think the types of firearms are pretty relevant. I think self loaders and high volumes of shooting really are a different risk to manual repeaters. Any eye protection on my part is incidental to it being sunny or suddenly being a bit older and needing glasses to resume seeing stuff like a teenager.
      One thing that surprises me is the comfort level I see with daily carry with a c0cked and locked contrasted with this holy shi7 no eye protection sentiment. For me the perception of risk is opposite.

  • MadMonkey

    Any person I take to the range will either wear eyepro or not shoot any of my guns, and I will always recommend eyepro.

    I’ve had two instances in which my eyes would have likely suffered damage while shooting, and I’m hit with spall on probably 50% of my range trips. It is NOT worth it.

  • Bill

    This shouldn’t even be a thing. I guess life jackets/PFDs on watercraft are for pu**sies also. Can you actually be a true Libertarian if you are dependent on a Golden Retriever to walk you through the grocery store?

    Try driving yourself to the ER without binocular vision and depth perception.

  • Ax

    I have never seen anybody wear eye protection on a firing range over here in Europe.

    • DannyBoyJr

      Here in the Philippines, the range officer will not let you shoot without adequate ear and eye protection.

    • James Kelly

      I understand that the Prussians have long made the best glass eyes

  • Dracon1201

    Eye pro sucks to wear. Especially if you already wear glasses. I just don’t bother.

    • ozzallos .

      Exactly. I figure if something goes through standard lenses I was pretty much screwed anyway.

    • R H

      Some removable side shields would be a cheap, reasonable addition that could possibly save your eyesight. Plus it’s not like it’d take up much room in your range bag. I shoot lots of different places including private land, outdoor ranges, and indoor ranges. I’m more worried about what’s going on beside me, so I will occasionally shoot in just my glasses when I’m alone. But I will always wear some kind of eye pro when I’m with others.

    • raz-0

      SO get prescription eye pro. It is way worth it.

      If that’s too pricey, at least get the polycarbonate lenses and side shields. If you ask, the place you get your glasses should be able to hook you up with decent side shields that clamp on. Not the best idea if someone shoots you in the face with bird shot, but sufficient for the much more common hazards.

      • Nigel Tolley

        The glasses with polycarbonate lenses will likely save your eye, & if not, at least it stopped it going through your eye into your brain!
        Plastic surgery can solve a hole in your tooth or cheek, it can’t replace your eye.

      • There are some pretty nice safety glasses that cost way less than designer frames, it can be cheaper to buy them and get SG lenses ground to fit than buying regular frames with non-SG prescription lenses.

  • Connor Yadon

    I was at a concealed weapons live fire training, when the guy next to me, his Beretta 92 discharged out of battery and a piece of metal put a nice little dent in his safety glasses. (also messed up the area just behind the chamber)

  • kyphe

    It has got to be a bit oppressive and over the top. Lets face it there are many activities where your eyes are at a statistical risk of damage such as frying with hot oil or riding a bicycle where cars can kick up stones. TBH wearing helmets for most casual cycling is a bit of a con to sell helmets as a lot of this safety kick turns out to be. Protection has become an industry with all that entails.

  • Disillusioned

    I don’t know how many times I have been in an indoor range and the goober in the lane next to me bellies up to the counter as far as they can and extend their arms out so far that their ejected cartridges come flying into my face. Eye-pro was the only thing that kept me from an eye injury.

  • Edeco

    Woot for Armslist. I got used to wearing eye-pro for other reasons, and I use indoor ranges a lot, and I don’t wear corrective lenses, so I choose eye-pro. But good vid, I agree with the thrust, if someone doesn’t eye-pro that’s OK.

  • Tom Currie

    Wearing eye protection is just like any other sort of protective equipment such as a motorcycle helmet — if you have nothing worth protecting, there is no reason to wear protection.

    Ranges, on the other hand, require users to wear protection, not to protect the users but to protect the range from lawsuits by the idiots who manage to hurt themselves or others.

    In the case of the geniuses at Armslist, I wonder how long their We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Eye Protection policy would last after an OSHA inspection of their worksite and a few thousand dollars in fines.

  • Phil Wong

    It’s not merely the individual shooter’s personal eye safety at risk – if a hot spent case gets anywhere near a shooter’s unprotected eyes, he WILL flinch. If he flinches while holding a gun, will he be as able to concentrate on muzzle orientation discipline as he would be had his eyes been safely protected by shooting glasses?

  • Iblis

    You only cover the eyes you want to keep.

  • stephen

    “cheeseburgers are more dangerous than not wearing eye protection”

    Seriously? I have never seen a burger fragment ricochet back and damage a person’s eye or blow up and blind them but I guess it is possible… I mean you can also balance an elephant on the head of a pin too that is not reality.

    Just saying the reasons they gave are stupid – they only wear when for gas blow back? Seriously? Then comparing it to not wearing seat belts? Its unfortunate but I know some folks that ended up as quadriplegics because they didn’t wear seat belts. If you ask him there is not one day he regrets the decision to NOT wear his seat belt for a quick trip to grocery. And then these idiots talk about unprotected sex? Having unprotected sex these days is like playing Russian roulette – its all fun and games till someone get HIV, the bullhead clap or some of those new super-resistant STDs.

    What idiots.

    Then they say as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else… sign. Just because you can be stupid doesn’t mean you have to act that way. Its common sense but I guess we are getting more and more people who missed that memo.

    Now I spent a career in the Army doing grunt stuff and back then we didn’t wear eye pro (and sometimes ear pro). However I know of number of guys who had injuries to their eye/s and they were scarred for life. One guy was blinded in his right eye (if he wore eye pro it could have saved his eye). Then they started using eye pro – then when one of those 1 in a million accidents happened those people were protected (granted there are not that many types of injuries) but imagine that. I can tell you that yes it doesn’t hurt your family but watching your kids grow up with two eyes is way better than one.

    Yes its your own choice but to choose NOT to is stupid IMO (exercising my freedom of speech). It protects you against the worst case scenario but stupid is as stupid does.

    But wait, it gets worse… at the 3 min mark Mr. Redhead says its up to the individual to where eye and ear pro. Yes it is but then again just because you can be stupid doesn’t mean you should be. We should learn from others – especially those that incurred eye injuries. Apparently this yahoo does not understand anything about hearing loss either (and that shows even more stupidity). I know of lot of guys who wished they wore ear pro but its too late now, the damage has already been done.

    I just pray that these guys don’t have an accident and one of them losses an eye. Of course the probability is small but if it does happen, why take that chance? The reason you wear eye & ear pro is to protect against that worst case, 1 in a million accident.

    Of course if one does lose an eye they will probably say ‘I knew the consequences’ but then again I guess I value my eyes WAY more than they do. These guys take the stand that because the probability of an accident is low that their lives are somehow less valuable.

    We have all heard this type of discussion… “Would you take a million dollars for one of your eyes?” Many people would say yes but no one would take 25 million for both of their eyes. Why? Because our sight is precious but its unfortunate that people don’t value their entire life until its totally gone. To me it seems these guys have fallen into the ‘throw away’ mentality that this generation had grown into and its sad to see.

    If they don’t want to wear eye and or ear pro they are 100% correct they don’t have to, but common sense dictates that we should just in case. Common sense dictates that we should because we should be a good example for those around us. Every time there is a gun related accident the liberal lefty progressive socialists go up in a rage and try to advance their agenda of taking away our guns and strip us of our rights. BUT these idiots don’t take that into consideration. No they are libertarians and they do what they want despite the bad message they are encouraging.

    Sorry Armslist but as I said before just because you can be stupid doesn’t mean you have to.

    Thats my 2 cents and I’m sticking to it.

    • Bill

      This bizarre disregard of common sense safety gear reminds me of all those guys who say it isn’t manly to wear a motorcycle helmet. I once knew a girl who subscribed to this belief until she dented a light pole with her head. Last I heard she’d finally died of pneumonia after a record two decades on a ventilator. At least there’s much less chance of becoming a casket insert on the range…although one shouldn’t rule anything out for some people. I for one still have a mangled .38 wadcutter that bounced off a range wall right next to my head and hit my safety glasses hard enough to shatter the old style frames right at the hinge. Not much guessing as to what would have happened had I been exercising my freedom to ambulate without benefit of a brain. For those of you who still want to exercise your freedom to be a pirate, avast!

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    I almost never wear eyepro. The only time I regret it is when I shoot my friends M&P22. Im not sure what it is but I keep getting gas or dust or something in my eyes.

  • Goody

    I load for one caliber. I use two powders, both of which are ‘safe’ at compressed loads. Not a lot to go wrong, here.

  • Eric X Ericx

    While this might be a CHOICE of the staff not to wear eyepro, they have an OBLIGATION to do so since they are representing the community in their work and thus “lead by example” with every “official video” they put out. That said, it’s up to them as it’s up to us as to whether or not to wear protection but they do more than that, they set example to all other shooters, especially the young and beginners.
    In my personal opinion, they should wear eyepro for all official videos; if not for safety, but to set example.
    FTR, I only wear eyepro half the time at most. If I’m plinking with a well-trusted firearm using quality ammo, I rarely ever use it. However, when testing handloads or using ammo and weapons I don’t trust 101%, I have some very expensive ESS, Wiley-X and Peltor eyepro I ALWAYS have on hand.
    Personal choice… we get it and respect it… but these videos inform and set example to other shooters… time to man up and set that example.

  • Randy

    I shoot two arms that regularly can throw off burning debris, a .357 mag revolver and a single shot .22. Many’s the times that I have been struck in the face with burnt powder. Ricochets from close walls of firing benches of several local ranges have caused hot shells to end up in dangerous places and I am thankful for the protection that kept all this out of my eyes. Common sense yes. Point it out to others? Yes. Make them do it “for their own good”? Nope. People don’t learn when they are ordered to do things. They learn when the experience shows them what they should do, and some don’t get it even then. All you people who know best about others – I am so glad you are not in my life. I’ll let you have your better than thou opinions, and you let me make my own choices.

  • ft

    Its like wearing a seat belt. You hope you won’t need it but its better to have it on. As one who has been at a lot of auto accidents, I know seat belts make a difference.
    I had a shotgun blow up on me once in a match when the bolt failed to lock and it still fired anyway. I didn’t have glasses on. I didn’t get anything in my eyes but stuff flew everywhere else.

  • silentfor56years

    You, I, we have been conditioned into treating guns as if they were inherently dangerous. Obama believes that gun are inherently dangerous. The eye protection drama is no different than bicycle helmets or seat belt laws. Remember this if OSHA had been around in the 18 and early 1900s the Street Cleaners in your city would still be cleaning up Horse poop instead of what ever it is they clean up now.
    ps, Inherently dangerous means the gun will just start shooting people by itself.

    • Nigel Tolley

      A ricochet is the closest that a regular gun will ever come to that. And guess what thing eye pro can stop from blinding you?

  • durabo

    I don’t care what you do in combat, or hunting, or plinking…but when I’m the RSO, thou shalt wear eye protection because of liability laws and an army of scum-sucking tort lawyers just a-waitin’.
    “At the end of our existence,
    And of the ecological chain,
    Vultures, maggots and attorneys
    Are the only ones who gain.”

  • Tp

    When I was in my early 20’s I had a .22 lr case blow the back of it half off when shooting a semi auto pistol, luckily I only got powder blasted into my eye, which of course hurt like hell, no eye protection of course, and also throughout my years no ear protection through over a hundred thousands rounds of various calibers. Needless to say I am half or more deaf, I have been wearing ear protection now for the last 10 years now (in my 50’s) , and it hasn’t got any worse at least.
    So no eye protection, you may pay for it, no ear protection, you WILL pay for it. When you are young, you say ya whatever, when you get older, you pay for that attitude the rest of your life.
    When your in the woods with one of your kids, or Grand kids, and they say did you hear that bird, ah no, or your deer hunting, and they say did you hear that deer, ah nope, IT REALLY SUCKS.

  • stu gotz

    so your ears are more important than your eyes? where’s the logic?

  • Gary Hoffmann

    I have been wearing eye protection daily for about 50 years. Lineless bifocals for the last 20 years.

  • itsmefool

    Who are these guys again?

    • cisco kid

      good question

    • Blinky and One Eyed Pete….

  • cicso kid

    I always wear eye protection and hearing protection.

  • Fernando Urrutia

    Each one is free to wear or not, to me common sense dictates that wearing eye and ears protection on the range is a must, people who don’t wear it falls on two categories Ignorant (the ones who has not being teach of the dangers and possible consequences of accidents) and stupids (the ones who refuse to because they believe they know more).

    I loose sight of my right eye long time ago, and I wear safety glasses almost all the time and always at the range…

  • DwnRange

    I have never regretted the fact that I wore glasses to see 20/20 and that poly-carbonate lenses have protected my eyes 24/7 for 60+ years……..

  • Having been hit by debris from people next to me (thank you side shields), including brass, at the range, and having had my eye saved with safety glasses from a cir-clip when doing a UJ on a heavy truck that hit hard enough to snap my neck back and bruise the nose, I think it it stupid not to wear safety gear if you have the access to it.

    Same with hearing protection.

  • Mike11C

    I wear my polycarbonate prescription glasses when I shoot. The lenses are the ONLY thing about me that is “progressive”.

  • CD Morrissy

    I was watching a fellow demonstrate his new Bushmaster LR-308 on Youtube, and as he was firing rounds [no eye protection] he had a hang-fire; he immediately brought the breech right up to his face and looked directly into it saying “I don’t see anything wrong”. He then ejected the round and again held it up to his eye to look at it. I posted a “colorful comment”, [and] not only did he have no eye protection, but if that bad round HAD gone off it really wouldn’t have mattered anyway – what an idiot.

  • Kebab_Remover

    Why is TFB being so nanny state? It’s his eyes, if he wants to risk them- that’s his business.

  • RWP

    The cornerstone of any free society should be the freedom to make choices good or bad to smoke or not wear eye pro or not to own guns or not the list goes on.

    What a fee society does not need are people who think they know what’s best and even worse people who think they know best and have power to impose there view on others then before you know it no more free society.

  • SM

    I shoot at an outdoor range, so I have sunglasses on 90% of the time I’m shooting. The other 10% I have my eyeglasses on. I always have ear protection though. My Dad shot his entire life without ear protection and has permanent hearing loss because of it.

  • Seve Bertolone

    while im big believer in personal choice, im a major believer in ppe, if you are on my range or shooting on my property you will have it on, or you will not be shooting or at the firing line. on a couple of occasions it has kept me from getting scope eye. i always shoot ar’s with eye pro just because i hate getting all the gas and lube getting shot into my eye. once upon a time eye pro wasnt required in iraq, after having to have glass cleaned out of my eye i started wearing it all the time.

  • throwedoff

    When I joined the Texas Army National Guard, I was also enrolled in Army ROTC under the simultaneous membership program. This was also the time before eye protection was required on ranges and no one really checked to make sure you had your ear plugs in either. Most of the time I shot wearing my contacts along with a pair of sun glasses that were impact rated. However, on one trip to the range while attending my Officer Basic Course I failed to bring along my sun glasses. It was a Saturday which was unusual. However, we soon learned we were taking part in a test. Half of my undersized class were issued M16’s with early Elcan optics on them while the other half received old worn A1’s to attempt to qualify with. Since my name is at the bottom of the alphabet, I received a veteran A1. On my first zeroing shot it spit a was of oil out of the charging handle slot that landed right in the middle of my contact lens! When I blinked, It left a smeared blurry spot right in the middle of my line of sight. I ended up having to shoot for qualification with that smear on my lens. Between the smudged vision and the worn out A1 I missed expert by one point. After that, I always made sure I had eye protection that was cleanable.

  • Markbo

    Their choice. I just hope they are filming when something goes wrong. It is a matter of when, not if.

  • DaveGinOly

    I don’t wear eye protection other than my (very thick/strong prescription) polycarbonate eye glasses. However, if I was really concerned with safety, I wouldn’t shoot guns. They’re dangerous, as are many things in the world. We make choices to accept some dangers and avoid others. Any given shooter is probably more likely to be seriously injured driving to or from a range, rather than while shooting at one. But we choose to expose ourselves to that level of danger to do something (shooting) that’s almost certainly less dangerous. No sense in wigging out about the danger to someone’s unprotected eyes at the range when they’re far more likely to be outright killed on their way home.

  • CountryBoy

    I was at an indoor range many years ago when I first got into shooting as a young adult (I’m not THAT anymore!). The range’s outside lanes had angled steel beams, apparently to deflect bullets away from the walls, or perhaps there were wires/conduit inside the beams.

    I was in the second lane from the left, while a couple was in the far left lane near the wall. The man was teaching his wife how to shoot, and for the life of her she couldn’t “get” how to sight the gun and shoot downrange, but instead kept hitting the angled beams.

    At first I didn’t think anything about it, but I soon felt small “raps” on my face – cheeks and chin – and figured they were powder particles from my own gun, a single-action .22LR revolver.

    I was wrong. They were “splats” of lead, sometimes sharp, having turned instantly molten when they hit the beam and ricocheted back, the angle of the beam quite reliably sending them back to ME. I stopped shooting for a few seconds and then started again when I was hit by a rather large piece in my polycarbonate glasses lens. I looked down to see a shard of lead about an inch across; it had smacked me right in the eye, and except for my glasses it would have hit my eyeball.

    I stopped and spoke to them, and offered to trade lanes with them, since I could avoid shooting the beam consistently. They agreed, and later asked my why I offered that. I told them what had happened and the woman turned pale, as her husband wasn’t wearing any eye protection, though she was (likely HIS glasses).

    I’ve never regretted wearing eye protection, ever.

  • Chuckwagon524

    I think it depends what you are shooting and where. Eye pro with pistol at close range, in an indoor range, and/or against steel? Absolutely! Shooting a bolt action at 100yds+, not really needed. Unless you don’t trust the gun, and then you shouldn’t be firing it in the first place.

  • Vince

    Let’s just deal with one person, two rifles, one caliper.
    Rifles= Rem552 and Ruger 10/22
    Of course both are 22 but because of variations both 22 lr from Federal
    1. Sitting next to, at right angle and to the right of my best friend trying to diagnose a problem with his 552. Bang, Bang, KABOOM….my face stings. A very hard ring of lube, lead and carbon forms in the leade to the rifling on virtually ALL 22lr. Regular cleaning will not always get rid of it (back to that later) this ring causes problems like first round fliers even in bolt guns but EVERY 22 semi I have tested (now over 20 models) will fire Out of Battery giving you a OBD (Out of Battery Discharge). This usually blows the head and rim off the case and dumps a lot of tiny pieces of brass and burning powder out of the ejection port. My buddy had taken his 552 shell deflector off. Much of this crap ended up in my face. I was, thankfully wearing my yellow glass Remington shooting glasses. I was picking stuff out of my face for over 24 hours but my eyes were fine.

    2. Shooting my very modified SuperStock 10/22 at golf balls in the Mojave Desert. Wind in face. Dusk. I could see burning specks of powder coming out of the ejection port. Wind was sort of blowing it my way and I thought “After this mag I am putting on my yellow shooting glasses as I will see better and I do not like these little fireballs”……yup…the very next round said fireball hit me square in right eye. This eye ALREADY had a scratched cornea from industrial accident long before we were required to wear safety glasses. Eye burned like heck well into the night and was irritated for about 4-6 days later.

    Quick Safety/Accuracy Lesson.
    EVERY 22lr will build a ring this crap and the only sure means I know is a brush (I prefer brass) I bend one into an “L” so I can reach in ejection port and scrub the chamber and leade with brush & solvent. A 22 round can hit this hard ring and hold the bolt open just enough to blow the case. EVERY 22 semi tested will fire out of battery. On bolt actions and semis this hard ring can resize the soft lead bullet and send the first round well out of the intended group or squirrel’s eye.

    Two cheap lessons. Clean the rifling leade of your of your 22lr barrel. WEAR EYE PROTECTION. DO IT!

  • Silverado

    I think that risk is very small, especially in modern weapons shooting modern ammo. Small enough that personal choice should be respected UNLESS you’re required to wear such protection because you are using the range facilities at a place of business. So if they say YOU ARE wearing eye protection here or you won’t be shooting, I think they are well within that right to require that…

  • Core

    I fired enough rounds in the military with machine guns without eye pro, and I have to say I’m surprised my vision is as good as it is. The GSR and debris is brutal on the eyes. I switched from sunglasses to goggles after lead blasting my eyes while wearing standard eye pro during a seven day small arms course. I was wearing standard wrap around protective glasses and the gsr gets in and around them into your eyes real quick. A separate incident with no protection my vision was effected for at least two weeks afterwards. I’m okay with folks choosing to do stupid stuff to themselves but, when they could have used $5 glasses and they blind themselves and end up using millions in tax dollars for medical support, I’m guessing that the insurance coverage is going to be funded by tax dollars.

  • Aardvark

    I’m a relatively new shooter, but have already had a few instances that had the potential to damage my eyes if they hit there. I had what appeared to be a ricochet from about 15 yards slice my pinky knuckle one day, some shattered rock from behind the target sprayed me from about 10 yards, and something burning hot popped out of my .22 pistol and landed on my arm one day. I’ll wear the safety glasses, thank you.

  • kcshooter

    But I strongly agree that free men can choose to be dumbasses or not.

  • Thomas Hopper

    I have to say that eye pro probably saved my right eye. I was shooting a 7mm Rem Mag. The round I was shooting suffered a case rupture jus aft of the band. When it ruptured, I felt the gas jet strike my eye pro and cheek. I feel that if it was not for range safety protocol, I would have suffered a nasty eye injury.

  • dreadnought61

    At a public range I am required to wear eye and ear protection. When plinking and having fun with the family, I wear them, too. When I’m training or practicing on the private range I wear what I would most likely be wearing in the scenarios I’m training for, which often means no ears or eyes.

  • Matt W.

    All I can say, is good for them, but I hope nothing catastrophic ever happens. I was shooting a restored Stevens pump gallery gun when I had the rim blow off a Remington golden bullet .22, which blew open the rear sliding breach, and rendered me deaf for two days. My hands got burnt up, and if it weren’t for my glasses (which I need to see to shoot anyhow), I would have been even more of a mess. You should have seen the glasses afterwards; the right lens was a total right off, and the left not much better. There’s a good chance I may have lost my right eye, as there were pieces of brass shrapnel embedded in the lens. Since then, I ALWAYS wear eye protection, and now DEFINATELY remember to don my ear plugs. I can imagine had it been a failure with anything larger than the little .22 that it was.

  • James Kelly

    Anyone store their brass-case ammo in the same room as the kitty litter? You might learn something about eye protection.
    30,000 + psi in front of your face, sealed by a little piece of 70% copper 30% zinc brass and you don’t use eye protection? Your intellect is most impressive. Y’might wanna stop by Rochester Michigan, we have a wonderful organization called Leader Dogs for the Blind.

    • Doom


      • James Kelly

        Ammonia cracks brass
        Kitty litter, mouse pee and horse urine all crack brass
        The Brits in India used to store their .577 Snyder ammo in the horse barn during the monsoon season. That is where they learned about “season cracking”
        Mice cause a lot of brass items in storage to crack
        I know these things because I am a metallurgist
        And because I ignored what I knew, and kept some .22rf in the same room as the cat litter
        Wondered why my .22 revolver was spitting, and cases hard to extract
        Oh, yeah . . . the kitty litter fumes
        That was .22rf Think it could have been a lot worse with high pressure centerfire.
        Doesn’t matter. No one believes this stuff. Just be surprised when it happens.

        • Doom

          Fresh cat litter shouldn’t have ammonia in it. and I wouldnt think having it in the same room would effect it unless there were some serious fumes in there, like make your eyes water and you gag from ammonia smell fumes. .22 was probably just a coincidence, it isnt exactly the best made ammo.

          • James Kelly

            As I said earlier, no one believes this stuff.
            Somewhere I have a 1940 British metallurgy book that warns people against storing their cars in horse barns. Autos used to have nickel plated brass hardware. &c, &c.
            Mice cost $$$$ also, when they scamper over brass items in storage. Doesn’t happen right away, takes time.
            Coincidence? I’m with Harry Truman on that one, except this is not politics.
            With respect, I just don’t feel like providing another metallurgical education.

  • Michael Valera

    I agree with you.

    Please don’t wear any eye protection… ever. Then when you are blinded, you will no longer be able to “aim”. Lessening the chances of passing on your defective genes, and thereby measurably improving the human race.

    Darwin by eyepro.

  • Twenty some years ago I took my ex-wife to a range to teach her to shoot. We only had one pair of safety glasses, so I let her wear them and I stood about five feet over and thirty feet back to her left. The first round of .38 Special she fired from a brand new Rossi revolver sheared something off of either the round or the gun and sent it in a perfect course for my eye! It was embedded deeply enough that I had to go to the ER and have it removed. It was a rather horrifying experience. Had it been another millimeter or so deeper, I would have had permanent vision loss or lost the eye.

    Don’t screw around with gun safety and if you want to make firearms videos and be taken seriously always demonstrate consistent safety protocols!

  • uisconfruzed

    On your own time, enjoy your poor technique. Don’t publish it as an acceptable practice, you’re setting an example. Like carrying a gun with you’re finger guard, it’s not wise.

  • flyfishr

    I took a piece of shrapnel to my glasses when shooting a 22 at an outdoor range.

    During a uspsa match I shot at a target 45° to my right and a piece of 9mm shrapnel came back and hit a bystander just under his safety glasses.

    So I guess my experiences have been different than these two.

  • James Kelly

    Stephen, I have looked at a number of burst muzzle loaders & been expert witness (metallurgist) in a couple of lawsuits.
    Ass-u-ming the guy is really using good old-fashioned black gunpowder, the most dangerous thing he can do in loading is to leave a space between powder and ball.
    The most dangerous thing he can do in the first place is to fire an American made muzzle loader. Most of these use barrels of 12L14 steel, which ie the very worst steel from which one could make a barrel. But it machines easily (its brittle) so that’s what the barrel makers use.
    I used to build and shoot flintlock rifles. Until i did an analysis of a scrap piece from one of my barrels. And shook hands with a (former) pipefitter who had only his ring and little finger still on his half of a right palm. That barrel maker, by sheer coincidence I suppose, ceased advertising muzzle loading barrels about the time of the lawsuit.
    Go back to your .22 and clean it like Vince says.
    And thank you, Vince, for the education. I did not know this about my .22rf.

  • Aldo1887

    I am less likely to listen to a person (and less likely to believe they are a professional) who willfully refuses to take a very simple and inexpensive safety precaution.

    And when burnt powder blows in their eye, or a hot shell bounces off a barrier and then off their cornea, I am going to make it a GIFF and use it as my background to show everyone what dumb@sses these chuckleheads are..

  • Outlaw

    It’s their sight and if they choose to be careless with it the so be it. I have always thought a free country meant a free country and that means if you want to take chances with anything that is yours it is your right in a free country. Just don’t expect my tax dollars to pay for your freedom to make mistakes.

  • jerseydave

    People can ditch it if they want, but I highly recommend reading Dean S’s account of his Colt “Double Beagle” incident on The Gun Zone. Eye protection can be a nice thing to have when you really need it, and you’ll never know when you’ll really need it. No harm in having it. Possible harm in not.

  • Lyle

    Well, if you follow the money I bet you find that those who run public shooting events and those who operate ranges, and those who manufacture firearms, are concerned about getting sued after an injury, and that THAT is a major driving force in the “safety Nazi” phenomenon.

    Litigation. People get all pissy when they’re afraid of being sued out of business. Fear. And then we begin to emulate that fear and think of it as intelligent behavior.

    It has gotten entirely out of hand when you buy a new ladder, or a hammer, and it has a thousand words of safety warnings pasted on it. You can’t get any information from your new firearm’s user manual until you get past ten pages of red-lettered, all caps safety warnings. That’s all due to lawsuits. Careful you don’t look at that computer monitor too long or you could get eye cooties or something. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. I warned you so you can’t sue me.

  • GreyGeek77

    It’s not about protection, it’s about recognition. Wearing eye pro is like wearing a mask, which reduces the chances of facial recognition. How will your fans recognize that it is you throwing those highly accurate off hand shots down range if you cover half your face? Might as well use the best pro of all: a look-a-like stand in to do your shooting. Did you ever see John Wayne wear eye pro while shooting all those blanks in his movies?

  • Ray Underwood

    As a range officer.I am responsible for every shooters wellfare. If something happens I would be responsible.

  • meastwood

    And sometimes I don’t wear a belt!
    Having said that, I’ve been hit on my glasses by flying brass.
    I wonder if, like employers, ranges risk liability for an eye injury if they don’t enforce eye pro.

  • ScribblersDad

    Same as motorcycle helmets – your choice, but then don’t ask the rest of us to pay for your hospital bill.

  • nick

    when running the range with my staff and museum volunteers, then its mandated, as we carry the liability as a range + they work for us, and , I shoot a lot of black powder , rifle and handgun, and there is mucho debris from that , so , to me, the kind of firearm plays a role. I choose to wear it.
    However, I advocate something very un – Canadian, that is, assess the risk to yourself, figure out how much risk you choose to accept, and act accordingly. You are free to make grown up choices

  • will_ford

    It is ones choice.IMO

  • Robert V Martin

    Friends, Lets put this in perspective. Shooting without safety glasses MAY damage your eyesight (and so I always wear safety glasses.) Shooting without hearing protection WILL damage your hearing. Every sound above a certain threshold causes a small but permanent loss of hearing.

    • Richard Lutz

      Generally true, though some firearm rounds are very quiet (the ‘Quiet-22’ ammo from CCI only produces 68 decibels) so can be safely used without hearing protection. A defective gun or ammunition, or a ricochet, could cause a serious eye injury even in the case of low power .22 rimfire guns. Why take a chance?

  • Cobranut

    Not too smart!!!
    Years ago I was shooting a MAC-11/Nine, and a bit of debris or jacket material flew back and hit me just above the eyebrow, drawing blood via a small cut. I wasn’t wearing eye-pro at the time, but you can bet I did from then on.

    A couple years ago I was trying out a suppressor on another of my sub-guns, and since I didn’t need ear-pro, I forgot my glasses as well. After the first short burst, my eyes were full of powder debris and stinging so bad I had to stop shooting and go wash them out. Sometimes we need a new reminder. LOL

  • jimpeel

    Revolvers spit copper/lead. If you are shooting next to someone shooting a revolver, you should wear eye protection.