# Pilla Archery Sun glasses



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

I think the outlaw and magneto glasses are way over the top in price but the 560s are in the range of many other performance/high quality sunglasses. 

It's been several years since I've bought a nice pair of sun glasses And I've considered getting the 560 outdoor lens.


----------



## FlyingWatchmake (Apr 15, 2012)

Bought them (outlaw), love them.. I use the 42ed lens for field and the 10ed for target, with noticeable reduction in eye fatigue over the day (especially over the harsh summer light we've just had) and for field the changes from bright to shadowy conditions are almost completely negated, with targets still showing bright... 

YMMV, but having sunglasses down here (Australia) should almost be mandatory for the amount of uv you get exposed to..

Tom


----------



## shawn_in_MA (Dec 11, 2002)

They are definitely gaining popularity. In the compound realm Braden Gellenthien, Martin Damsbo, Bridger Deaton, Peter Elzinga and others are all wearing them. On the Recurve side of things there were a few archers wearing them in vegas. Van der Ven comes to mind off the top of my head.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I'd have to see if the lens bend the light and make the target point of aim change. Every pair of sunglasses I've tried (expensive and cheap) bent the light and changed the visual point of aim. So I went to a baseball solution, using flip up sunglasses. I flip them up to shoot bare-eyed, then flip them down the rest of the time (and it gives Gabe and John one more thing to tease me about - not that there isn't plenty already).

http://favimages.net/image/309713/


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Well they are certified optically perfect so if Zeiss did their job there shouldn't be any distortion.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Dacer said:


> Well they are certified optically perfect so if Zeiss did their job there shouldn't be any distortion.


Agree that Zeiss is topnotch and obviously are good at what they do. 

But, as I get older I get more 'Missourian' in my approach to things - if it's over $20 or $30, don't tell me ... show me.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

You know I've lived in Missouri for 20 of my 26 years and I've never heard a Missouri native actually use that little gem. As I understand it comes from some congressmen from ~ 100 years ago. 

That said - never hurts to try before you buy.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Dacer said:


> You know I've lived in Missouri for 20 of my 26 years and I've never heard a Missouri native actually use that little gem. As I understand it comes from some congressmen from ~ 100 years ago.
> 
> That said - never hurts to try before you buy.


haha - that's funny. Oklahoma's moniker ('sooner') is a little long in the tooth, too - the Land Run was a long long time ago.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Larry, your baseball sunglass idea is a pretty practical, and clever one. I have for years worn sunglasses while scoring and waiting on the line, then removed them to shoot. I discovered years ago that I shot better scores without glasses on than with them. My vision is, or at least was, 20/10 or 20/5 depending on who was measuring it, and I couldn't tolerate any lenses in the path of my eyesight. As important as our eyes are in this sport, surely there is potential for an optics solution that will benefit the archer. I just personally haven't used one yet and I'm not willing to dish out the kind of money these folks want to experiment. Now, if they would be willing to loan me a pair before I have to buy them, that might be something I'd consider.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Larry, your baseball sunglass idea is a pretty practical, and clever one. I have for years worn sunglasses while scoring and waiting on the line, then removed them to shoot. I discovered years ago that I shot better scores without glasses on than with them. My vision is, or at least was, 20/10 or 20/5 depending on who was measuring it, and I couldn't tolerate any lenses in the path of my eyesight. As important as our eyes are in this sport, surely there is potential for an optics solution that will benefit the archer. I just personally haven't used one yet and I'm not willing to dish out the kind of money these folks want to experiment. Now, if they would be willing to loan me a pair before I have to buy them, that might be something I'd consider.


I used to wear conventional sunglasses at competitions and the plan was that I'd take them off and put them on my hat just before/as I was approaching the line. But half the time, with my finger sling tying my bowhand to the bow, I couldn't deftly snatch off my glasses with one hand and slip them smoothly/securely onto my hat (and sometimes I don't wear a hat, which just confused me even more), so I'd end up just throwing them behind me on the ground (don't ask me to do surgery on you or people you like!)). The flip-up idea works just great, though.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Perhaps I'll buy a pair and let you know how awesome - or not - they are.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Larry, I always just hung my sunglasses on my shooting belt. I could do that with one hand, and my tab on, so it worked for me. As soon as I'd shoot my last arrow, I'd grab them and put them back on.


----------



## FlyingWatchmake (Apr 15, 2012)

For me the lack of distortion was a major pull, that and the fact that I can put them on at 7 in the morning on a shooting day, and keep them on all day, even indoors if need be without noticing that they're on ;-)

I regularly do take them off for other people to try, unfortunately I'm on the wrong continent to lend them to you John ;-)

T


----------



## Kristjon (Feb 19, 2013)

I bought the Outlaw X7's. I just mailed them back for a refund as my prescription for the glass inserts was too strong. Nice glasses took a $300 loss on trying them out as the RX insert is $90 and my local eye doctor charged 210 to put lenses in them, only to find that because these glasses wrap around so much that for me my field of vision was basically right at the edges. 

Phill at Pilla did say he could try and work my field of vision farther right but of course that meant when I was not looking down field it would be all blurry looking straight ahead. He also suggested doing a thing called "French split" where the upper 1/2 of the glasses would be for target and lower 1/2 for normal view but it would be around $500 for that type of prescription insert on top of the cost of glasses. He told me that a top female archer from somewhere in Europe just had a pair done like that.

I myself am going to try this type of shooting glasses. Its made for tennis players but it is supposed to help get the yellow to pop and seeing as how outdoors I want to see the yellow better I think of giving them a try.

http://www.tennisexpress.com/bolle-vigilante-competivision-sunglasses-1834


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Liz bought me a pair of their "cheap" glasses. I am impressed after trying them a bit today. No nose piece to screw up my view of the target. a step up from the Old pair of Easton's I got from a rep years ago. Of course those Eastons were free and I can buy them for under one eighth what these new glasses cost. will add to this report after I get some more experience with them


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

If I could afford them, I'd probably have a pair. My eyes are pretty sensitive to sunlight, and in Texas, they get more than their fair share of it. Because of the high bridge of my nose, most sunglasses don't work for me in any sport - golf or tennis or archery. However, to this day, my highest double-70 score in competition was shot while wearing a pair of $15 sunglasses. The "optically perfect" question to me at least, isn't that much of an issue. I mean, you're looking through the same point on the lens for every shot, so even if it's not "perfect," it's perfectly the same every time which is all that matters.

The biggest issue I have with an extremely expensive piece of technical gear like this is that when the well-known archers get them (whether given, or purchased) it sends a message down the line to the younger archers that they "need" them to be competitive. As a JOAD program leader, I don't care for that at all. It's the wrong message.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Because of the high bridge of my nose, most sunglasses don't work for me in any sport - golf or tennis or archery.


That is where the Pilla "light management system" seems to fall short, in versatility. I could be wrong about this, but it looks from the pictures like you have to have the right nose for them given how tightly the glass is cut around the nose. 









Do they offer custom cutting? :dontknow:


----------



## indebtmd (Dec 21, 2013)

I was originally planning on buying a pair a few months ago, but then I thought about how practical they'd be as just normal sunglasses if I just wanted sunglasses to wear out and about. Outside of an archery range I personally think they look a little silly. I opted to get a pair of Oakley Radarlocks so I could switch the lenses out - yellow for shady days and indoors, and whatever color I felt like wearing if I was just going out and about in public since they're rather stylish.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> That is where the Pilla "light management system" seems to fall short, in versatility. I could be wrong about this, but it looks from the pictures like you have to have the right nose for them given how tightly the glass is cut around the nose.
> 
> View attachment 1947634
> 
> ...


They'd need a big saw for mine. ha, ha.


----------



## Mika Savola (Sep 2, 2008)

Have you guys heard of Im Dong-Hyun, who reportedly don't see that well and still shoots great scores...?


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

I recently purchased a pair of the Pilla Panther X2As with the 42ED and 78HC lenses and I must say, although I found them to be pricey, I am very impressed with their quality and functionality. As was mentioned above, I can put them on at 8am for the start of a shoot and not take them off until the completion and there is no eye fatigue, no pressure on the face, and no noticible difference in target appearance (during a field round) throughout the entire day. I also very much like not having to dip my head to see around a nosepiece. 

The glasses are also optically centered from edge-to-edge and I can perceive no visual distortion at all when looking through the center of the lens or when looking through the corners. There was also no POI change at the target when shooting with or without the glasses and the frames are completely out of my line of sight while shooting. 

I feel the idea of using shooting glasses for archery is going to take off in popularity much like using stiff rods did a few years back--this has the potential to enhance the comfort and performance of many archers across many performance levels.


----------



## ksarcher (May 22, 2002)

http://shop.randolphusa.com/ranger-falcon-kit-p5878.aspx

Another alternative to Pilla. Still expensive but a three lens option makes it a good option. Oakley has some "Unobstructed" options as well.


----------



## LittleJP (Nov 4, 2012)

I use prescription sunglasses and shoot with them all the time. Otherwise, *shrug*


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

ksarcher said:


> http://shop.randolphusa.com/ranger-falcon-kit-p5878.aspx
> 
> Another alternative to Pilla. Still expensive but a three lens option makes it a good option. Oakley has some "Unobstructed" options as well.


Pretty nice. A lens that highlights the yellow portion of the target might be especially useful to an archer.


----------



## Soundboy (Aug 29, 2013)

My question is, the 35DC and 60DC lenses have a chrome shift technology, changing the red to a grey, is this legal under Archery GB or World Archery?

I have seen that the 10ED, 42ED and 78HC lenses being used at top level competition so are the above two lenses allowed?


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

Only one has mentioned the prescription lens insert capability. Anyone else?? I need astigmatism correction and only lined trifocals "cut the mustard" anymore. Just wondering if anyone else has tried that feature. I am very interested in these but for the price, would rather not gamble without more information. thanks.

Arne


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dacer said:


> Well they are certified optically perfect so if Zeiss did their job there shouldn't be any distortion.


Funny thing, as far as I can tell Zeiss does not certify things as being "optically perfect." There's no such thing. That seems to just be a term used by the sunglasses manufacturer to characterize the Zeiss cert. Pilla sunglasses are excellent, but "optically _perfect_"? No.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

My son and I inquired about the prescription inserts. By the time we were all said and done, the Oakley or Rudy Project option was cheaper and far more effective. 

This is the third year Spencer's used Oakley. It works very well.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

Nope they don't. I use microscopes costing upwards of 6 digits using Zeiss optics and even those aren't optically perfect.




Warbow said:


> Funny thing, as far as I can tell Zeiss does not certify things as being "optically perfect." There's no such thing. That seems to just be a term used by the sunglasses manufacturer to characterize the Zeiss cert. Pilla sunglasses are excellent, but "optically _perfect_"? No.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

montigre said:


> I recently purchased a pair of the Pilla Panther X2As with the 42ED and 78HC lenses and I must say, although I found them to be pricey, I am very impressed with their quality and functionality. As was mentioned above, I can put them on at 8am for the start of a shoot and not take them off until the completion and there is no eye fatigue, no pressure on the face, and no noticible difference in target appearance (during a field round) throughout the entire day. I also very much like not having to dip my head to see around a nosepiece.
> 
> The glasses are also optically centered from edge-to-edge and I can perceive no visual distortion at all when looking through the center of the lens or when looking through the corners. There was also no POI change at the target when shooting with or without the glasses and the frames are completely out of my line of sight while shooting.
> 
> I feel the idea of using shooting glasses for archery is going to take off in popularity much like using stiff rods did a few years back--this has the potential to enhance the comfort and performance of many archers across many performance levels.


Have you compared them to a pair of cheap shooting glasses? Are they really THAT much better? It's not like they are prescription, they are just colored glass. I shoot with cheap plastic shooting glasses, they work great. No glare, I dont have to squint, my eyes dont get fatigued, I have 4 different lenses, I paid $75. Is it really worth $600 extra dollars to have your lenses be "optically perfect?" What does that even mean? I put these cheap glasses on, I shoot tens all day. they don't change the aiming point or anything like that, I still aim the sight at the ten ring and shoot just like before. 

Seriously whats the big deal?


----------



## Varza (Sep 11, 2014)

Ten_Zen said:


> Have you compared them to a pair of cheap shooting glasses? Are they really THAT much better? It's not like they are prescription, they are just colored glass. I shoot with cheap plastic shooting glasses, they work great. No glare, I dont have to squint, my eyes dont get fatigued, I have 4 different lenses, I paid $75. Is it really worth $600 extra dollars to have your lenses be "optically perfect?" What does that even mean? I put these cheap glasses on, I shoot tens all day. they don't change the aiming point or anything like that, I still aim the sight at the ten ring and shoot just like before.
> 
> Seriously whats the big deal?


Well, I'm only considering them because I am nearsighted and have very specific requirements for prescription glasses, now that I got into archery. But other than that... no big deal, just expensive. I don't yet know if they'll work for me, but I'll give them a try and if they fit my face and needs, I am considering shelling out for a pair and some lenses.


----------



## Soundboy (Aug 29, 2013)

The outlaw x2 can have a prescription insert put in them as shown in the link move to 5:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3iWa2Zyigg


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

Soundboy said:


> The outlaw x2 can have a prescription insert put in them as shown in the link move to 5:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3iWa2Zyigg


Ok so they have some improved functionality for visually impaired archers. But what about those of us who don't normally wear glasses? Where is the dramatic benefit to these glasses over a pair of regular shooting glasses?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ten, you got this all wrong. Think about how they would make you feel if you were wearing them. You would feel invincible.


----------



## gif (Jul 14, 2012)

Ten_Zen said:


> Where is the dramatic benefit to these glasses over a pair of regular shooting glasses?



Apparently they change the colors of the target so that the gold sticks out more. I've never used them, and don't know if it's true, but if it is then it could definitely give an advantage.


----------



## Mormegil (Jan 26, 2012)

Moebow said:


> Only one has mentioned the prescription lens insert capability. Anyone else?? I need astigmatism correction and only lined trifocals "cut the mustard" anymore. Just wondering if anyone else has tried that feature. I am very interested in these but for the price, would rather not gamble without more information. thanks.
> 
> Arne


The only review I've read that mentioned the inserts didn't rate them well (but was overall quite impressed with them as sunglasses).


----------



## Varza (Sep 11, 2014)

Soundboy said:


> The outlaw x2 can have a prescription insert put in them as shown in the link move to 5:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3iWa2Zyigg


NO WAY am I getting an insert. Tried it once in my snowboarding goggles. Never again! Basically, I hate inserts. I'm looking at the 580 Pillas, since those can take prescription lenses directly. 

I tried some (prescription) sunglasses at my eye doctor's office the other day and found that I have the same problem a lot of folks have been talking about on these forums (yes, I searched threads, OMG!): when I look to the side, all I see is black. The nosepiece is in the way. So yeah, I have very specific, somewhat hard to match criteria... I'm picky:shade:


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

gif said:


> Apparently they change the colors of the target so that the gold sticks out more. I've never used them, and don't know if it's true, but if it is then it could definitely give an advantage.


That is not a $600 upgrade. do they give me 4800Megapixel Ultra HD Zoom with night vision? That might be worth 600 bucks. As it stands right now my $15 orange regular HD lens will have do to.


----------



## gif (Jul 14, 2012)

It might not be worth $600 to you, but to plenty of other people it is.


----------



## ksarcher (May 22, 2002)

If you want the GOLD to "stick Out"... Get a pair if Bolle' sunglasses with the Sports "Tennis" lens. $120.00... The gold will jump out so bright you will never miss it!!! 


OR,,, save your money and go practice and forget about some miracle "GIMMICK" that some pro is using... 

:zip:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

gif said:


> It might not be worth $600 to you, but to plenty of other people it is.


That's true of all sorts of things but it isn't objective proof that the Pilla "light management system" increases scores. Archers are no more immune to marketing voodoo than anyone else and popularity only proves a fad, not efficacy.


----------



## Fiferguy (Apr 16, 2009)

One of the things that makes me consider them is the fact that there's no nose piece. Every pair of sunglasses I've ever tried when shooting, the nose piece gets in the way of my peep. I've tried some cheap, no-nose-piece safety glasses from the hardware store, but those were so distorted that I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn--it was like a wavy line right through where I wanted to shoot. That's what makes these so attractive. They're specifically designed without a nose piece.

As for optically perfect, nothing is. The human eye isn't even optically perfect. The only thing that would be truly optically perfect is a perfect vacuum, which doesn't exist to my knowledge. There is always something to absorb, reflect, refract, or block the light. But if the refraction is consistent, it won't matter.


----------



## archeryking (Aug 3, 2002)

Doing some looking into the Pros/Cons of shooting with glasses, I think that gun shooters are years ahead of where archers are on this topic. The interesting thing is that from what I can find they mostly use them to make the targets stand out. This seems especially true for either the situation where the target or the shooter is moving. I even asked some pretty good shooters that I know, but they both shoot in that moving target or moving shooter scenario and both had the same objective of making the target stand out against the background so it is easier to pick up. Archery in contrast does not have either of those moving components, both the target and the archer remain stationary. The only person I personally knew that did some gun shooting with stationary targets and shooter did an indoor pistol league in the winters and they wear clear lenses because the league requires eye protection. 

So I guess the real question here is what is the objective of wearing these glasses in archery. Is there an advantage to making the target stand out more? Are they just sunglasses to keep you from having to squint in bright conditions? 

I know what the advertisements say, but I am curious about those who have made a purchase or are thinking about it. As an archer what is your goal for using this product?


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

archeryking said:


> Doing some looking into the Pros/Cons of shooting with glasses, I think that gun shooters are years ahead of where archers are on this topic. The interesting thing is that from what I can find they mostly use them to make the targets stand out. This seems especially true for either the situation where the target or the shooter is moving. I even asked some pretty good shooters that I know, but they both shoot in that moving target or moving shooter scenario and both had the same objective of making the target stand out against the background so it is easier to pick up. Archery in contrast does not have either of those moving components, both the target and the archer remain stationary. The only person I personally knew that did some gun shooting with stationary targets and shooter did an indoor pistol league in the winters and they wear clear lenses because the league requires eye protection.
> 
> So I guess the real question here is what is the objective of wearing these glasses in archery. Is there an advantage to making the target stand out more? Are they just sunglasses to keep you from having to squint in bright conditions?
> 
> I know what the advertisements say, but I am curious about those who have made a purchase or are thinking about it. As an archer what is your goal for using this product?


I wear shooting glasses outdoors (not Pillas) so I dont have to squint, and so I can see the target clearly if the light conditions are not good. At my personal 70m range i have lots of trees shading the target and the shooting line, so depending on what time of day it is it could be either too bright or too dark. So having a regular sunglass lens in addition to a couple different colored lenses for low light is helpful. The reason I use shooting glasses as opposed to some other kind is because they have a removable nosepiece so it doesnt obstruct your line of sight. Wraps sells a set of 4 lenses, the frame, a hard case, and a soft case for the other lenses that fits in the hard case for $75. Yea they are cheap plastic lenses, but again, they aren't prescription so that's not really important to me. They serve the function for which they are intended.


----------



## trajanbeil (Mar 30, 2014)

I'm wondering a bit more about prescription options.

I'd need -8 AND astigmatism correction. Would that be doable? Whether in inserts or direct prescription lens?

Because my glasses are quite thick to get that concavity needed for the correction. In fact, a few years ago, when I tried to get prescription sunglasses, my options for frames were limited because of that. But maybe technology has come further?

If anyone has any personal experience or knowledge of this, I'd be interested to hear. Thanks!


----------



## Ellipsis (Jul 26, 2013)

Yes, the inserts work and they're fantastic. You have no obstruction at full draw and when you combine that with lenses that manage light better than any 'high end' sunglass I've ever tried, they are worth the investment. I shoot the Outlaw X6A as they're a bit wider than the X7A and that provides more room for the Rx insert. I stare at a computer all day and my eyes are fried by the time I get to the club or range to shoot. The lenses relax your eyes and allow you focus on shot sequence and execution rather than managing uneven lighting and struggling to get a good target picture.

Both the 35 and 60DCs do a great job to mute the red and make the yellow 'pop' on a multi-color face and the 78HC is a great option shooting a wooded field course when light is poor. I deal with skeptics every time they see me shooting in them and I constantly hear "Can they really be that much better than other colored sunglasses?". The answer is yes. I brought six different lenses out so a friend could try them, and he was sold and placed an order. Until you actually try them out, you may not want to compare them to Rudy's or even Oakleys...because there is no comparison.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Ten_Zen said:


> That is not a $600 upgrade. do they give me 4800Megapixel Ultra HD Zoom with night vision? That might be worth 600 bucks. As it stands right now my $15 orange regular HD lens will have do to.


I'll finish your sentences for you ....
"That is not a $600 upgrade_, in my estimation._ do they give me 4800Megapixel Ultra HD Zoom with night vision? That might be worth 600 bucks. As it stands right now my $15 orange regular HD lens will have do to_, for me_.

Most probably everyone on this forum has 'some product for which they paid a premium price that someone else on this forum finds unwarranted. A Walmart no-name flat screen vs a [email protected] at higher price, a no-name smart phone vs the Apple i6, a $17K car vs a $40k car, etc etc etc. It's not a 'right or wrong' kind of dilemma. You're working the 'anti' position so hard (said reaction being _your_ choice of overspend where the [email protected] is concerned) it sounds like Varza is getting ready to spend _your_ money :mg: And let me readily admit that I do the same thing on some issues ... 

Back in a minute - gotta go refill my popcorn bowl ... :darkbeer:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I like how we are now using the term "light management."


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I like how we are now using the term "light management."


Ooooh, 'light management'! I like that! Maybe I'll take another look at those Pillas. :shade:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I like how we are now using the term "light management."


Pretty brilliant marketing term. I'm gonna go practice with my "kinetic energy management system" out at the range...


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I'm going to bring up two perspectives. People can beat up on me all you want, but I'm bringing it from a real life view.

1) prescription lenses. The Pilla rep at the Arizona Cup only recommends two frames for prescription wearers. That the Outlaw and the 580a. The Outlaw preserves the wraparound theory. The 580a does not, since it's more of a traditional pair of glasses that can swap lenses.

The Pilla rep also did not have a 580a with him.

2) Asian fit. Sorry, but there isn't a good fit for too many Asians with the Pilla lineup. Now, in the compound world, I can count on one hand how many competitive Asian archers there are in the United States. The market isn't there because they don't acknowledge they exist. The recurve market and Asians? Huge. Yet there isn't any attempt to go for that part of the market.

This is where other people (yes, I will bring up Rudy Project and Oakley) get it. This is a world sport, you need to offer products to the world.

So, just like bows, glasses are something that you go for if it fits you well.


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

the 580's are for people with a prescriptive index less than 3.25. Anything higher, you would need to use either a Panther post Prescriptive insert, the Outlaw series with the Prescriptive Insert, or (unmentioned here) is the 540A frame. The 540 Frame will handle high index lenses, and prescriptions where the prescriptive index is higher than 3.25+.

I am asian with the asian nose. i wear all the products just fine. If you are using the archery setup (not the shooting sports with nose bridge), the lens is supposed to sit on your BROW, not your nose. The Megol rubber vent on top, is what should be touching your brow/forehead, and the top fork of the temple arm, wraps around the back of your head. If you want a nose fit, then get a shooting sports version which has a nose piece. (ie Outlaw X7 instead of X7A)

Pilla is the official eyewear provider for World Archery now.


----------

