Oakley Sunglasses

[bomb-int]

hi all,

we are now stocking a full range of Oakley Sunglasses, all at very good prices.

We do free postage to BFPO (we also sell Ballistic Oakley's, but i dont think that you guys are aloud to wear them - even thou they are better than what you are issued!)

 

[strima]

We do free postage to BFPO (we also sell Ballistic Oakley's, but i dont think that you guys are aloud to wear them - even thou they are better than what you are issued!)

Are they better? Even better than the new issue ones being procured at the minute?

 

[bomb-int]

We do free postage to BFPO (we also sell Ballistic Oakley's, but i dont think that you guys are aloud to wear them - even thou they are better than what you are issued!)

Are they better? Even better than the new issue ones being procured at the minute?

Well the US Army use Oakley, as do most SWAT Teams worldwide. I understand that the British Army have done a deal with ESS and Oakley's are not aloud to be worn, even they are the same "Ballistic" standard.

I may be wrong about this, but this is what i understand....

 

[incendiarycutlery]

[Mr. Picky]
"Allowed" = Permitted
"Aloud" = Audible
[/Mr. Picky]

And which is it? Are the Oakley's better, or the same spec?

 

[strima]

We do free postage to BFPO (we also sell Ballistic Oakley's, but i dont think that you guys are aloud to wear them - even thou they are better than what you are issued!)

Are they better? Even better than the new issue ones being procured at the minute?

Well the US Army use Oakley, as do most SWAT Teams worldwide. I understand that the British Army have done a deal with ESS and Oakley's are not aloud to be worn, even they are the same "Ballistic" standard.

I may be wrong about this, but this is what i understand....

You'll find its about insurance and liability. Nothing to do with what's better.

You claim they're better but some one may buy these on your recommendation only to find they lose an eye and have no right to claim compensation due to your advice.

 

[Bugsy]

I don't suppose you've a "speshul" one-sided pair for Brown the Clown, have you, mucker?

MsG

 

[bomb-int]

We do free postage to BFPO (we also sell Ballistic Oakley's, but i dont think that you guys are aloud to wear them - even thou they are better than what you are issued!)

Are they better? Even better than the new issue ones being procured at the minute?

Well the US Army use Oakley, as do most SWAT Teams worldwide. I understand that the British Army have done a deal with ESS and Oakley's are not aloud to be worn, even they are the same "Ballistic" standard.

I may be wrong about this, but this is what i understand....

You'll find its about insurance and liability. Nothing to do with what's better.

You claim they're better but some one may buy these on your recommendation only to find they lose an eye and have no right to claim compensation due to your advice.

Oakley SI Ballistic M Frame 2.0 Sunglasses - Specifications
Fully compliant with all ANSI Z87.1-2003 protection requirements
Fully compliant with MIL-PRF-31013 Vo Ballistics

Is this not better than the issues ones?

 

[Peter_Skellen]

We do free postage to BFPO (we also sell Ballistic Oakley's, but i dont think that you guys are aloud to wear them - even thou they are better than what you are issued!)

Are they better? Even better than the new issue ones being procured at the minute?

Well the US Army use Oakley, as do most SWAT Teams worldwide. I understand that the British Army have done a deal with ESS and Oakley's are not aloud to be worn, even they are the same "Ballistic" standard.

I may be wrong about this, but this is what i understand....

One of the RM staff on optag was telling us that they were allowed to wear them as long as they cleared it with insurance company first

 

[really?_fascinating]

don't do it! Wear the issued stuff, the insurance company will be able to weasel out of it through 'lost correspondence', inappropriate advice, subsequently issued corrections etc etc.

Furthermore, scope for not getting right level of payout if choose not to wear issued PPE.

 

[Gearspotter]

We do free postage to BFPO (we also sell Ballistic Oakley's, but i dont think that you guys are aloud to wear them - even thou they are better than what you are issued!)

Are they better? Even better than the new issue ones being procured at the minute?

Well the US Army use Oakley, as do most SWAT Teams worldwide. I understand that the British Army have done a deal with ESS and Oakley's are not aloud to be worn, even they are the same "Ballistic" standard.

I may be wrong about this, but this is what i understand....

You'll find its about insurance and liability. Nothing to do with what's better.

You claim they're better but some one may buy these on your recommendation only to find they lose an eye and have no right to claim compensation due to your advice.

Oakley SI Ballistic M Frame 2.0 Sunglasses - Specifications
Fully compliant with all ANSI Z87.1-2003 protection requirements
Fully compliant with MIL-PRF-31013 Vo Ballistics

Is this not better than the issues ones?

No - they are exactly the same specfication. However, the in-service glasses were selected on performance. All contenders for the contract had to meet the minimum specification above however the ones selected exceeded it. So, if you buy these very nice Oakleys, are you getting the same protection as the issued ones? No. Will they fit the corrective lens inserts? No. Will you be able to get them changed if they get trashed on ops? No. Can you be sure about the quality control - is an independent organisation, responsible for providing you with the best protective kit, checking manufacturing quality, factories, batch testing of these off-the shelf glasses? No. Do you want to waste your hard earned money on something that may or may not do the job when you get issued something that does work, for free? No doubt somebody will cos they look ally. Will the system refuse to help such an individual when he loses an eye because his glasses failed? No - of course not, but what about the expense to the MoD, the ruining of his life, the risk his friends, the MERT team etc were put to to get him back to medical treatment? And all because he wanted to look a bit different and ally!

Bomb-int: your role as a site sponsor is much appreciated. But please do not try and trash the issued kit with half-truths and rumour over something that is of life-saving importance in order to secure a profit. The suggestion that "a deal has been struck" between MOD and ESS in order to prevent Oakley's being worn is unworthy.

 

[adastra]

Hmmm, I'm just a bit worried that that there might be a danger of an MoD procurement success story leaking out into the media here. Bomb-int, when you say "a deal", do you mean an open and fair competition within UK Government procurement rules?

Have you asked Oakley if they expressed an interest in the competition and if they did, have they had any feedback from our MoD? Would they like to share it with us?

This could lead to delays, even cancellations, by the outrage omnibus company!! Will the readers of the Daily Mail be told?
Yours

Gp Capt DI Sgusted Ret
Gray's Lane, Ashtead, Surrey

 

[tearsbeforebedtime]

I think Kitmonster (issue kit guru) pointed out that while private purchase PPE might meet the specs the issue kit exceeded it.

There is enough that can fcuk you up. Being screwed over by an insurance company after the event is something you probably don't need.

 

[bomb-int]

We do free postage to BFPO (we also sell Ballistic Oakley's, but i dont think that you guys are aloud to wear them - even thou they are better than what you are issued!)

Are they better? Even better than the new issue ones being procured at the minute?

Well the US Army use Oakley, as do most SWAT Teams worldwide. I understand that the British Army have done a deal with ESS and Oakley's are not aloud to be worn, even they are the same "Ballistic" standard.

I may be wrong about this, but this is what i understand....

You'll find its about insurance and liability. Nothing to do with what's better.

You claim they're better but some one may buy these on your recommendation only to find they lose an eye and have no right to claim compensation due to your advice.

Oakley SI Ballistic M Frame 2.0 Sunglasses - Specifications
Fully compliant with all ANSI Z87.1-2003 protection requirements
Fully compliant with MIL-PRF-31013 Vo Ballistics

Is this not better than the issues ones?

No - they are exactly the same specfication. However, the in-service glasses were selected on performance. All contenders for the contract had to meet the minimum specification above however the ones selected exceeded it. So, if you buy these very nice Oakleys, are you getting the same protection as the issued ones? No. Will they fit the corrective lens inserts? No. Will you be able to get them changed if they get trashed on ops? No. Can you be sure about the quality control - is an independent organisation, responsible for providing you with the best protective kit, checking manufacturing quality, factories, batch testing of these off-the shelf glasses? No. Do you want to waste your hard earned money on something that may or may not do the job when you get issued something that does work, for free? No doubt somebody will cos they look ally. Will the system refuse to help such an individual when he loses an eye because his glasses failed? No - of course not, but what about the expense to the MoD, the ruining of his life, the risk his friends, the MERT team etc were put to to get him back to medical treatment? And all because he wanted to look a bit different and ally!

Bomb-int: your role as a site sponsor is much appreciated. But please do not try and trash the issued kit with half-truths and rumour over something that is of life-saving importance in order to secure a profit. The suggestion that "a deal has been struck" between MOD and ESS in order to prevent Oakley's being worn is unworthy.

Please forgive me if you think that i am trying to trash the issue kit, i am not. i do fully as a member of the DMA/APPSS understand the procurment process.

 

[kitmonster]

I'm going to wade in here with some home truths. I left the corridors or power that Gearspotter now stalks a few months ago, left the Army and immigrated. I went to work for an eyewear company who shall remain nameless and I won't be promoting their kit on this site. I have spent a good couple of months now immersed in this industry and know what I am talking about.

There are minimum performance specs that must be achieved and due to a lack of a single common regime standards are selected as required from across the board and inserted into a tender document. This is what happened when the UK procured ballistic eyewear, its what the US does and its what we are doing again now as the next tender cycle comes around.

One of those tests is the MILPRF standard which is a US military spec that sets a 'must pass test' for fragments. If a piece of eyewear passes the tests its to a MILPRF. But there are other standards including ANSI (US civvy), En (European) and BS (British). Oakley passes these tests as do many others.

As for the US Army using Oakley's they do indeed. The US uses a system called APEL where a number of versions of ballistic eyewear are tested, passed and inserted into a catalog from which units demand and draw the eyewear of their choice when warned for deployment.

But to say the US Army uses Oakley places the fact out of context. By far and away the most selected pieces of eyewear from the APEL list are from ESS and Revision. I'm not going to say whose is top nor where Oakley comes but annually they are not in the top 2. Thats not to say their product is not good as we all know that Oakley produces good stuff.

I also know and have seen tested to destruction all the eyewear currently on the market as part of a review of competition. Again no names no pack drills but the Oakley are not 'better' than the rest.

As for a deal with ESS!!!! Some months ago Oakley bought ESS so they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Oakley.

If the Oakley's are compatible with UK headsets, hearing defence, helmets, if the lens colours have been agreed on, if the Rx carrier passes the new tests I have no idea because most of the Oakley's came out after the lasts UK tender.

When the next UK tender comes around they will no doubt we put forward by the UK distributor and if the are 'better' we should assume they will win. Meanwhile in the same vein as 'buy your own armour' threads take any recommendation by a supplier who has a vested interest in selling something to you for profit with a pinch of salt.

 

[vandyke]

I will be buying a set of Oakley SI's from you, but for Clay pigeon shooting
I lost my set of ESS, so now left with 2 lenses and a case. I never really liked them anyway as they kept slipping off.

I do agree with the above posters though, If on ops wear the Issue gear

 

[Joe_Private]

...I lost my set of ESS, so now left with 2 lenses and a case. I never really liked them anyway as they kept slipping off.

I do agree with the above posters though, If on ops wear the Issue gear

If they kept slipping off, then they were hardly suitable PPE, despite being the officially approved kit. Write your own risk assessment for pinheads, and get your boss to approve it.

 

[tearsbeforebedtime]

...I lost my set of ESS, so now left with 2 lenses and a case. I never really liked them anyway as they kept slipping off.

I do agree with the above posters though, If on ops wear the Issue gear

If they kept slipping off, then they were hardly suitable PPE, despite being the officially approved kit. Write your own risk assessment for pinheads, and get your boss to approve it.

Joe, tell your boss by all means. He'll then know what a complete muppet you are.

Or use the issued elastic strap that goes round the back of your head to keep them on.

Not rocket science is it?

 

[Queensman]

I don't want to go to war in sunglasses, just sailing. Do you do marine sunglasses?

There's scope there for some foolishness..........................