# Shoot-off glasses?!



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Shoot Off shoting glassess are presently the most popular in Europe among top target recurve shooters. The brand belongs to a French company that has done a very good job in having several world class recurve archers testing and using them. French team members started using them with Plihon and Valladont, then Italian team followed with Nespoli and my son, then GB team with Pat Huston, and many others. At world Championship in Coopenhagen in the wind, they were the majority on the noses of the recurve archers. 
Not easy to find papers about them, most of the catalog can be found on Bignami website.


----------



## jg9020 (Mar 28, 2013)

Vittorio said:


> Shoot Off shoting glassess are presently the most popular in Europe among top target recurve shooters. The brand belongs to a French company that has done a very good job in having several world class recurve archers testing and using them. French team members started using them with Plihon and Valladont, then Italian team followed with Nespoli and my son, then GB team with Pat Huston, and many others. At world Championship in Coopenhagen in the wind, they were the majority on the noses of the recurve archers.
> Not easy to find papers about them, most of the catalog can be found on Bignami website.
> 
> View attachment 3429673
> ...


Could you please send us some pictures of what it looks like through some lenses?


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

There is UK Reseller for Pilla http://www.pillasport.co.uk if you are in the UK

if you have any questions, i can certainly point you in the right direction. 

You can also buy direct, but we usually recommend through a reseller.

Bryan

PS... if an eyewear company doesn't have even a web presence to promote or show off or tell people about their product, I would be skeptical. I have seen and tried their products first hand. The quality vs a Pilla... not even worth entertaining. Buy once.. cry once....


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

zephus said:


> I was gonna buy a set of Pilla Eyewear from alternative services eventually, but when I visited them tonight I noticed they stopped selling them. Instead they have this brand called "Shoot-off" that doesn't look as professional as Pilla.
> 
> So I went looking for a website that may have some information about these glasses. Yet, I found no website. No information. Nothing. And I know my Google searching skills are sharp enough so I was very surprised.
> 
> ...


Hi 

Nothing has happened to Pilla. Its a product you have to try on to see what it's really about and why it sells itself.

PM if you have any questions.


----------



## spogshd (Mar 14, 2014)

Im currently looking for some prescription glasses for shooting, the ones I have, the bridge gets in my sight line. Can these be made with a prescription?


----------



## TheElBow (May 18, 2015)

Also nice, poor man's Pilla, selfmade: http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?40891

Much less professional, of course.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

imcabby said:


> There is UK Reseller for Pilla http://www.pillasport.co.uk if you are in the UK
> 
> if you have any questions, i can certainly point you in the right direction.
> 
> ...


What kind of plastic are Pilla lenses made of?


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

Warbow said:


> What kind of plastic are Pilla lenses made of?


Hi! The lenses are made from ZEISS VIVX, which is exclusive to Pilla (Zeiss in other countries cannot purchase any VIVX materials. it is exclusive made for Pilla)

https://www.pillasport.ca/pages/zeiss-vivx-lenses

The lens material ZEISS uses for regular prescription eyewear is ZIESS TRIVEX


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

imcabby said:


> Hi! The lenses are made from ZEISS VIVX, which is exclusive to Pilla (Zeiss in other countries cannot purchase any VIVX materials. it is exclusive made for Pilla)
> 
> https://www.pillasport.ca/pages/zeiss-vivx-lenses
> 
> The lens material ZEISS uses for regular prescription eyewear is ZIESS TRIVEX


Thanks for the link. I can find no mention of a product named "VIVX" anywhere on www.zeiss.com. Vivx seems like it is just a name Pilla uses to obfuscate their use Trivex, which is an optical plastic by PPG Optical. Trivex is a shatter resistant alternative to polycarbonate with low optical dispersion, having an Abbe value of 43, which is better than polycarbonate's barely adequate Abbe value of 30. However, the ordinary, non-shatter resistant CR-39 plastic commonly used in glasses has much higher Abbe value of 58. So, Pilla lenses use a high quality choice for shatter resistant lenses, but when Pilla marketing claims that Pilla is "optically perfect" they are spouting utter BS. **Nothing** is optically perfect, not even multi million dollar telescope mirrors, though apparently they got this nonsense from Zeiss, who should know better. Also, same goes for the claim that only Pilla/Zeiss are up to "ophthalmic" quality. Remember how polycarbonate lenses have a low Abbe number of 30? Yeah, they are used in "opthalmic" lenses all the time and are "opthalmic" quality. Other non-presecription eyewear may not be tested by Zeiss, but that doesn't mean it is necesarily inferior to the quality standards used in prescription eyewear.

I think everyone can agree that Pilla makes a very high quality product with some excellent specs, but sometimes marketing material can make a simple discussion more complicated than it needs to be. And I think that Pilla does it's high quality products a disservice when they spout nonsense about them, and makes it harder for people such as yourself to simply tell your own impressions of the product, because even though you may be the most straight up guy on the planet I still have to process everything you say through a filter, checking for Pilla marketing nonsense first.

Now, as to Shoot-off eyewear? It likely is not as good as Pilla in terms of the materials. Shoot-off eyewear is made out of polycarbonate, the same material used in both good quality and cheap quality safety glasses. It has more chromatic aberration than Trivex, though that is only part of the story, and a part I'd think matters less in plano/plano lenses. What also matters is whether the material has a truly flat surface on both sides to avoid optical distortion, something that Pilla's Zeiss certification covers.

https://translate.google.com/transl...r.com/shoot-off-master-tir-a-larc/&edit-text=

Certainly people have been using polycarbonate safety eyewear for decades in shooting sports with much success. So I'd think people would want to compare these two brands side by side to judge the relative quality and prices.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

At the link imcabby provided, Pilla lists standards it meets:



> Pilla ZEISS VIVX Lenses pass the following standards:
> 
> ANSI Z87.1 2010, ANSI Z80.3, AS1067-2003, EN1836-2005.
> 
> *With respect to ANSI Z87.1 2010 ; Pilla ZEISS VIVX lenses exceed the High Mass Test.*


[emphasis added]

Sounds all fancy, but all those essentially mean is that Pilla eyewear meets the ANSI standard for basic (not impact) safety glasses and the minimum UV protection required of all sunglasses sold in the US, Europe and Australia.


*ANSI Z87.1 2010 - Safety eyewear standards:*



> The current edition of the standard is Z87.1-2010. In the standard, eye protectors are either non-impact or impact rated devices. Impact rated protectors must meet the established high mass and high velocity tests, and defined, continuous lateral coverage. The following “high” impact tests apply to lenses, as well as to the frames or product housing:
> 
> A lens retention test is conducted via a “high mass” impact. A pointed 500 gm (1.1 lb) projectile is dropped 50 inches onto the complete protector mounted on a headform. No pieces can break free from the inside of the protector, the lens cannot fracture, and the lens must remain in the frame or product housing. This test is a good measure of the product’s strength, simulating a blow such as from a tool that slips from the work surface or when the lens collides with stationary objects.
> 
> A high velocity test is conducted, at 6 specified impact points, where the projectile is a ¼ inch steel ball traveling at specific speeds depending upon the type of protector. For spectacles, the velocity is 150 ft/sec or 102 mph. The pass/fail criteria are the same as for the high mass test, plus no contact with the eye of the headform is permitted through deflection of the lens. This is meant to simulate particles that would be encountered in grinding, chipping, machining or other such operations.


Either you pass *both* of the required tests to earn the Z87+ "Impact" rating or you don't. Mentioning "With respect to ANSI Z87.1 2010 ; Pilla ZEISS VIVX lenses exceed the High Mass Test" is IMO disingenuous, irrelevant and misleading and falsely implies that Pilla eyewear qualifies as Impact resistant under ANSI Z87, when, as described above, failing the high velocity test would mean that Pilla eyewear only qualifies as _Basic_ protective eyewear under Z87.

The other standards listed are for primarily for basic levels of UV protection in the US, Europe and Australia. The US sunglasses standard also has a basic drop ball impact test.


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

imcabby said:


> PS... if an eyewear company doesn't have even a web presence to promote or show off or tell people about their product, I would be skeptical.


Maybe they rely on


imcabby said:


> Its a product you have to try on to see what it's really about and why it sells itself.


Not knocking you, just being sarcastic...... :tongue:


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

Warbow said:


> Thanks for the link. I can find no mention of a product named "VIVX" anywhere on www.zeiss.com. Vivx seems like it is just a name Pilla uses to obfuscate their use Trivex, which is an optical plastic by PPG Optical. Trivex is a shatter resistant alternative to polycarbonate with low optical dispersion, having an Abbe value of 43, which is better than polycarbonate's barely adequate Abbe value of 30. However, the ordinary, non-shatter resistant CR-39 plastic commonly used in glasses has much higher Abbe value of 58. So, Pilla lenses use a high quality choice for shatter resistant lenses, but when Pilla marketing claims that Pilla is "optically perfect" they are spouting utter BS. **Nothing** is optically perfect, not even multi million dollar telescope mirrors, though apparently they got this nonsense from Zeiss, who should know better. Also, same goes for the claim that only Pilla/Zeiss are up to "ophthalmic" quality. Remember how polycarbonate lenses have a low Abbe number of 30? Yeah, they are used in "opthalmic" lenses all the time and are "opthalmic" quality. Other non-presecription eyewear may not be tested by Zeiss, but that doesn't mean it is necesarily inferior to the quality standards used in prescription eyewear.
> 
> I think everyone can agree that Pilla makes a very high quality product with some excellent specs, but sometimes marketing material can make a simple discussion more complicated than it needs to be. And I think that Pilla does it's high quality products a disservice when they spout nonsense about them, and makes it harder for people such as yourself to simply tell your own impressions of the product, because even though you may be the most straight up guy on the planet I still have to process everything you say through a filter, checking for Pilla marketing nonsense first.
> 
> ...


I don't have much control on how it is marketed with regards to its specifications. Much can be said about many of the products in archery, and pretty much anything these days! (ie Best Bow in the world, most shootable bow, etc.) 

I do appreciate your view and opinion you've stated. The level of discernment and research into products, varies from person to person, and we cannot fault anyone for that 

I am pretty certain Zeiss is aware of the shoot off product and probably will do some sort of comparison / apples to apples with regards to each other's properties. 

it's hard to goto from a Zeiss spotting scope, to a Tasco spotting scope. Optics are certainly not equal. But if it helps you (either mentally, physically or both), who am I to dispute! lol

I appreciate your feedback!


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

ThomVis said:


> Maybe they rely on
> 
> Not knocking you, just being sarcastic...... :tongue:


no offense taken! :wink:

Gotta take care of those who take care of us!


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

Warbow said:


> At the link imcabby provided, Pilla lists standards it meets:
> 
> [emphasis added]
> 
> ...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

imcabby said:


>


I appreciate your taking the time to respond. Since you've responded with a 26 second video of an informal test from a TV show rather than documentation that Pilla passes the standard ANSI high velocity test I'm going to have to take this as a "No, Pilla is not Z87+ Impact rated."

So, here's the question in my mind. Is it better to have a website that lists no standards, as shootoff have, or to have a website that lists standards, but is apparently deliberately misleading, as PIlla seems to have?

Here's what we know: In terms of impact resistance, Polycarbonate is the best ophthalmic material. Period. Pilla are not made of polycarbonate. Shootoff, who *do* have a website, are made from polycarbonate.

That means Pilla may be superior optically, and shoot off, in spite of a lack of published standards, are likely superior in terms of impact resistance.


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

Warbow said:


> I appreciate your taking the time to respond. Since you've responded with a 26 second video of an informal test from a TV show rather than documentation that Pilla passes the standard ANSI high velocity test I'm going to have to take this as a "No, Pilla is not Z87+ Impact rated."


too early this morning.. not enough coffee.. but don't put words that aren't there or inferred ie: I didn't say yes or no. 

Pilla with regards to Z87 does meet and exceed the standards in ALL it's eyewear products (unlike Oakley where they only have a very select few). But even then, the certification process to become compliant, plus each country's own safety standards, can be a daunting and expensive task.

I have few other videos


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Warbow, I think you're constructing this huge strawman ... are there even 10 people who have bought Pilla glasses because they were motivated by 'shatter resistant' or 'protect my eyes from shrapnel'? I think most people (as in 'almost all people') who buy high end optics do so for the 'optical' qualities of those products - they enhance the visual experience in some way better than cheaper optics that delivery more intrusion or distortion. 

I own a Swarovski rifle scope. I bought it in 2001 (whether doing so was a reasonable expenditure or not is another discussion) because its optics, and my vision through those optics, are so exceptional as to be almost mystical. It's never occurred to me to wonder if the lenses were as shatter proof as a lesser scope.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

lksseven said:


> Warbow, I think you're constructing this huge strawman ... are there even 10 people who have bought Pilla glasses because they were motivated by 'shatter resistant' or 'protect my eyes from shrapnel'?


Probably not. But then I didn't buy my car for the shatter resistant windshield, either. I just assumed it has such a thing, as I think anyone buying high end *shooting* glasses would assume about impact resistance, or explosion resistance in a gun :wink:


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

the problem with Pilla is: they are way too expensive for archery as aiming is not that important as in (for example) rifle shooting.....so not many people see them as essential equipment IMO


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> the problem with Pilla is: they are way too expensive for archery as aiming is not that important as in (for example) rifle shooting.....so not many people see them as essential equipment IMO


Yes, that is my opinion, too.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

imcabby said:


> too early this morning.. not enough coffee.. but don't put words that aren't there or inferred ie: I didn't say yes or no.
> 
> Pilla with regards to Z87 does meet and exceed the standards in ALL it's eyewear products (unlike Oakley where they only have a very select few). But even then, the certification process to become compliant, plus each country's own safety standards, can be a daunting and expensive task.


Let me stop you right there. Yes, of course you exceed the Z87 standard. The "Z87" standard is the basic, non-impact protective eye wear standard under Z87.1-2010. The question at hand is whether Pilla pass the high mass *and* the high velocity tests needed for the Z87+ standard for Impact rated protective eyewear. Specifics matter.

As to Oakley. I'm not sure why you'd want to go there. They make a range of products and publish the standards they meet under each product. Here's what clear communication and high standards looks like:



> Barely more than an ounce in weight, this rugged design meets or exceeds the ballistic fragmentation impact standards of MIL PRF-31013, Clause 3.5.1.1, and the high mass & high velocity impact requirements of ANSI Z87.1-2003/2010.


http://www.oakleysi.com/Root/Eyewear/Ballistic/SI-Ballistic-M-Frame-3-0/p/700285621944


Here's what Pilla looks like: "With respect to ANSI Z87.1 2010 ; Pilla ZEISS VIVX lenses exceed the High Mass Test," omitting any mention of the high velocity test.

I'm curious, though, since Pilla specializes in high end shooting glasses how many Pilla products are ballistics eyewear rated, and meet the extremely tough 650fps, .15 caliber, 5.8 grain MIL-PRF-31013 impact standard that the oakleys I linked to do?

I'm happy to read your posts, but I'm not going to watch any more videos. If you have some documented facts for us, please, post them. I'm only going by what Pilla has posted on the web, so if Pilla wants to clarify on their websites, please do so.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Probably not. But then I didn't buy my car for the shatter resistant windshield, either. I just assumed it has such a thing, as I think anyone buying high end *shooting* glasses would assume about impact resistance, or explosion resistance in a gun :wink:


Multi-billion dollar automotive companies - whose products have a much higher shatter incident rate - don't (and aren't required to) go out of their way to rank the shatter-ranking of their windshields vs the competition's, ... but Pilla should do so?

Actually I think it's pretty common knowledge that all car windshields are required by law to break into little cubes instead of jagged shards. I guess archery glasses hasn't yet gotten enough population mass to get their own regulations.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

lksseven said:


> Multi-billion dollar automotive companies - whose products have a much higher shatter incident rate - don't (and aren't required to) go out of their way to rank the shatter-ranking of their windshields vs the competition's, ... but Pilla should do so?
> 
> Actually *I think it's pretty common knowledge that all car windshields are required by law to break into little cubes* instead of jagged shards. I guess archery glasses hasn't yet gotten enough population mass to get their own regulations.


Might be common knowledge, but it would be *wrong* knowledge. Windshields are *laminated* safety glass, so you don't get a face full of wind and sharp glass cubes if a rock hits your windshield while you are driving on the freeway. The *door* windows are tempered, non-laminated glass.

Your analogy to automotive glass standards, BTW, works in my favor, not yours. Automotive safely glass is heavily regulated, and people expect their new cars to conform to those standards, even if that expectation is subconscious. So far as I can tell, Pilla has *not* met the standard for impact resistance under ANSI Z87.1 2010.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

The one thing I didn't see anybody post so far is the comparison that matters most to me..

The "complete" Shoot-Off set with *9* lenses is $275 including shipping, vice the clearance *single* pilla lense for $252, that doesn't include frames. My eyes aren't that good anymore, and it is putting a circle around a circle... Crazy high definition optics won't help me near as much as practise.

All that being said, I use a $60 pair of clearance oakley that I am very happy with.

Cheers


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

imcabby said:


> I am pretty certain Zeiss is aware of the shoot off product and probably will do some sort of comparison / apples to apples *with regards to each other's properties*.


Are you saying Zeiss isn't just a lens supplier but that Zeiss owns Pilla? Otherwise, why would _Zeiss_ want to test shootoff, as opposed to _Pilla_ doing the test? I'd think if you are really a separate business you'd have to *hire* Zeiss to do testing.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Maybe I should ask this in the other thread, but...

Is Pilla the only company using the Vivx lens material through a Zeiss manufacturing method?


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

Beastmaster said:


> Maybe I should ask this in the other thread, but...
> 
> Is Pilla the only company using the Vivx lens material through a Zeiss manufacturing method?


That is correct.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

imcabby said:


> That is correct.


Is VIVX just a name Pilla uses for Trivex? I'm thinking that PIlla didn't get an entirely new kind of ophthalmic plastic invented for its sole use.


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

Warbow said:


> Are you saying Zeiss isn't just a lens supplier but that Zeiss owns Pilla? Otherwise, why would _Zeiss_ want to test shootoff, as opposed to _Pilla_ doing the test? I'd think if you are really a separate business you'd have to *hire* Zeiss to do testing.


Zeiss doesn't own Pilla. 

for their reasoning, i am not aware of what Zeiss is doing. 

I don't mind a healthy discussion based on facts, but I think you took the discussions in a direction that serves nobody but you trying to prove somebody wrong or making yourself sound like a know-it-all based on partial and implied facts. Not saying you weren't correct in some observations, but Sadly you have turned this discussion into many threads of misdirection, assumptions, incorrect statements and in the end, you really didn't help anyone make an informed decision.

There will be a response to all the items brought up, in a video direct from Zeiss to clarify and state things for the record. However, i can assume based on your posts, it will be your life's mission to spin it in a way to tear it down. This is sad. No one is trying to deceive anyone.


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

Warbow said:


> Is VIVX just a name Pilla uses for Trivex? I'm thinking that PIlla didn't get an entirely new kind of ophthalmic plastic invented for its sole use.


No.. it is not Trivex. It is VIVX. Made EXCLUSIVELY for Pilla by Zeiss as a partnership. Is it that hard to accept? It does happen.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

imcabby said:


> No.. it is not Trivex. It is VIVX. Made EXCLUSIVELY for Pilla by Zeiss as a partnership. Is it that hard to accept? It does happen.


Yes, it is hard to accept. 

There are a limited number of ophthalmic plastics. And only two considered impact resistant. Polycarbonate and Trivex, both of which have been extensively studied for both their optical qualities and impact resistance. A new material would not have such studies and would be a surprising choice for shooting glasses.

PPG's urethane based Trivex came on the market in 2001 and is sold under a number of brand names by different lens makers, each of whom may tweak the formula a bit. But it is still basically Trivex, with the high Abbe number, light weight and good machining properties. The development of Trivex has been a major deal in ophthalmic lenses world wide. It seems likely to me that VIVX (which just "happens" to sound a bit like Trivex) is a Trivex variant rather than a completely new ophthalmic material for the exclusive use of one niche sunglasses seller. Would Zeiss keep such a remarkable new invention away from all of it's world wide ophthalmic customers just for the sake of one little company? Not saying it is impossible, it just seems very unlikely. 

But, if it isn't Trivex, then what are the Abbe value, refractive index and specific gravity of "VIVX"?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Maybe I should ask this in the other thread, but...
> 
> Is Pilla the only company using the Vivx lens material through a Zeiss manufacturing method?


I think the more fundamental questions are "what *exactly* is VIVX. What are it's characteristics and how, specifically, does it compare to other ophthalmic materials?" 

So far, imcabby has been, I would sasay, less than specific. In fact, I would say that Pilla seems very cagey about details, whether it is what impact resistance Pilla actually is rated for or what they are made of other than an undefined brand name. In contrast, here's what up front looks like:



> All optional lenses are made of Plutonite®, Oakley’s high purity optical-grade polycarbonate


Wow. That was easy. Oakley gives their special brand name for their lens material *and* what its made of, polycarbonate - a known material with known specifics, including having the best impact resistance of any ophthalmic material. 

I'd love to see Pilla be as clear and upfront as Oakley. And rather than being cagey and dissing Oakley, shootoff and other products, maybe Pilla should try being forthright about their own products and materials.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Pilla has been around for a while, but if you look at their products compared to others (Oakley, Rudy Project, among others), they are a new kid on the block. So their marketing techniques will be a bit more....aggressive?

-Steve


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Pilla has been around for a while, but if you look at their products compared to others (Oakley, Rudy Project, among others), they are a new kid on the block. So their marketing techniques will be a bit more....aggressive?
> 
> -Steve




It they've been making grand claims for more than a decade and a half. Pilla Inc was founded in the 90's as HD Spex by Carlo Pilla. Now it is run by Philip Pilla, Carlo's son. 

in their 2010 product brochure, they touted their mysterious lens material as "Ballistx", saying it was patented and had greater impact resistance than polycarbonate. And greater clarity and lighter weight as well. And it is poured as a liquid and cured in a mold like, ahem, Trivex. In their product brochure Pilla explicitly say their Ballistx lenses pass both the high mass *and* the high velocity test:








In the 2015 product brocure, Pilla touted their mysterious lens material as VIVX HD2 by Zeiss. This material is clearer than polycarbonate and 15% lighter, uhm, like Trivex. However, the high velocity impact test? Gone :

(You may need to click on the attachment to read it clearly.)








So, Pilla used to claim to pass the required Z87+ impact tests. Then Pilla dumped that sometime between 2010 and 2015, keeping only the high mass test claim, a test which is irrelevant unless you also pass the high velocity test. Being impact resistant used to be an explicit selling point for Pilla, but they've dialed that back, even while IMO trying to give the impression that they are Z87+ Impact resistant when they are not, based on their stated test compliance.


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

Feel free to give Phil a call to help substantiate your claims against the product and get the FACTS straight, BEFORE you post your OPINION as gospel. But I think you've made it perfectly clear that nothing I can say, or even Pilla can shake you off this "burn them at the cross" mission you seem to be on, and that in itself shows you have very little regard for anyone else's opinion and shows clearly to people here that "Show me where the internet hurt you"

A company that has been around for this long, partnering with a Billion Dollar Brand company, with trusted sponsors, sport governing bodies, companies, wouldn't be around long if they put safety of its customers in jeopardy.

I originally had some respect for you in our original discussions. But clearly by your posts, that has gone, and any credibility you may have had, now just looks like a witch hunt, or something more personal.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

Could you then post some details about VIVX? What is it? I think Warbow's questions are legit.

If you have best product (that's what pilla claim) you should be proud of it and say that loudly and support it with tech. spec. no?


----------



## huckduck (Nov 24, 2014)

All he's asking for is hard proof. I don't see how that's an attack. He's providing his opinions, and substantiating them with evidence.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

huckduck said:


> All he's asking for is hard proof. I don't see how that's an attack. He's providing his opinions, and substantiating them with evidence.


And what evidence, exactly, would that be? Warbow's viscous attack is based entirely on lack of proof, which can mean Pilla either does or does not meet certain standards. Since Warbow can't produce a single incident of the product failing under normal use, I have to go with the conclusion that they do.


----------



## huckduck (Nov 24, 2014)

Being confrontational doesn't equate to being viscous. Just because something hasn't failed, doesn't me it won't. Quoting a brochure seems pretty straightforward in referencing published materials, while the Pilla camp has done nothing to bring any evidence of anything.

Based on the stated literature, I believe, in a not so clear way, Warbow is asking, are the current VIVX lenses rated for High Velocity impact? A secondary question, at the bare intent, asks "of what material are VIVX lenses made of?. Yes I personally verified what is currently stated on Pilla's website.

I'm not picking sides, but the only thing I'm seeing out of the Pilla camp is some variant of "believe me because I said so".


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

imcabby said:


> Feel free to give Phil a call to help substantiate your claims against the product and get the FACTS straight, BEFORE you post your OPINION as gospel. But I think you've made it perfectly clear that nothing I can say, or even Pilla can shake you off this "burn them at the cross" mission you seem to be on, and that in itself shows you have very little regard for anyone else's opinion and shows clearly to people here that "Show me where the internet hurt you"
> 
> A company that has been around for this long, partnering with a Billion Dollar Brand company, with trusted sponsors, sport governing bodies, companies, wouldn't be around long if they put safety of its customers in jeopardy.
> 
> I originally had some respect for you in our original discussions. But clearly by your posts, that has gone, and any credibility you may have had, now just looks like a witch hunt, or something more personal.


*Yes or no, are Pilla shooting glasses currently Z87+ Impact rated under ANSI Z87.1 2010 (a standard that requires passing both the high mass *and* the high velocity test)?*

I see a lot of indignation in your post and personal attacks against me, but the one thing that actually matters is missing, whether or not Pilla shooting glasses are Impact rated under ANSI Z87.1 2010.

I've been very upfront about what I'm asking, and on what basis I'm asking it, providing links, direct quotes and screen shots. I've also been clear that Pilla are high quality shooting glasses. But so far the "FACTS" have been less than forthcoming from you or Pilla literature about whether Pilla pass the ANSI Z87.1 2010 Impact rating and what Pilla lenses are made of, exactly.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

While I find it to be an entertaining subject, I doubt as a staff shooter imcabby speaks actually for Pilla. 

I read the comment at the bottom of their page a little differently Warbow, but I guess like any other text, intent can be lost AND/OR information can be purposely obfuscated by well/poorly written media material.

I read it as they passed the requirments for standards indicated, and they exceeded the mass requirement.

Two things make this mostly moot. 
The majority of us will never drop that much cash on a light management system... AND
The standard was superceded by the 2015 version.

Cheers


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bobnikon said:


> I read it as they passed the requirments for standards indicated, and they exceeded the mass requirement.


That wouldn't make any sense, though, because there is no extra "plus we passed the high mass test!" that is applicable . If you pass the the Z87+ Impact rating the high mass and high velocity tests are _included_ in that standard.

ANSI Z87.1 2010 is a collection of standards for different types of protective eyewear. Passing the high mass test is irrelevant unless a product *also* passes the high velocity test. A product earns the Z87+ Impact rating or it doesn't. Mentioning passing the high mass test, and only the high mass test, has zero relevance to ANSI Z87.1 2010 standards. It would be like your kid saying, "With respect to the CDL test, I passed the pulling up to a curb test" when what you want to know is whether they got their license. If your kid did that you'd immediately surmise they were being evasive and that they failed the test but were trying to pull a fast one on you.

I wondered if the omission of the high velocity test was a typo. However, the inclusion of passing both the high mass and high velocity tests in their 2010 product brochure and their 2011 website, followed by the exclusion of the high velocity test from their 2015 product brochure and their 2016 website strongly suggests that something has changed and that the current omissions are deliberate, not accidental.

I've tried to pin down what year this change happened, unfortunately the Wayback machine doesn't have the impact resistance page archived (they used to have a page dedicated to impact resistance back in 2013).



bobnikon said:


> The standard was superceded by the 2015 version.


I'm going by the version that Pilla themselves cite, ANSI Z87.1 2010.


----------



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

spogshd said:


> Im currently looking for some prescription glasses for shooting, the ones I have, the bridge gets in my sight line. Can these be made with a prescription?


The outlaw X works


----------



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

All these trash talk about impact proof, shatter proof material about Pilla is just so thick and goes on and on. I just received my purchase of the Pilla Panther X which will be used for both Target shooting and Archery and having just used it once tonight I am absolutely loving it. I've not experienced such a good shooting glasses in a very long time. £700 to the Pilla dealer, no problem! Absolutely enjoyed the shooting experience with the 35DC and 94HC lenses.

I just can't give a damn about whether the lens will block an explosion from the back of my rifle. 

If you want impact resistance glasses why not just get some bulletproof glasses then.

Im not taking sides, but I just want to raise my opinion that I'd rather have better optics over safety standards.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

DarrenHJA said:


> Im not taking sides, but I just want to raise my opinion that I'd rather have better optics over safety standards.


I think that is a totally legitimate position to take, and it is a big part of my point. Pilla should be clear about what you are getting so you can make an informed choice about how much optical quality you get and how much of a trade off on impact resistance there is, if any, for that optical quality. Instead, Pilla seem to be kind of cagey about A) what standard of impact resistance they pass and B) what their lenses are actually made of. ("What are Pilla lenses made of?" "They're made of VIVX!" "What's that?" "It's EXCLUSIVE!" "Sigh...")

Meanwhile, makers like Oakley make a range of products with different, clearly stated impact resistance ratings and lens materials so you can make informed choices. It's not hard to be clear. It just seems Pilla doesn't want to be, perhaps because then people could compare Pilla on the merits rather than on marketing hype. Pilla makes world-class shooting glasses, so I'm not sure why they can't be more upfront.


----------



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

I agree with you on that part of Pilla not fully explaining the whole information on Zeiss VIVX lenses. But then again, there could be certain sensitive and top secret information regarding their lenses that the dealers are not told about..

Before I made my purchase I was sure to check out what VIVX was, didn't get much though.

But Pilla was the only shooting glasses manufacturer that offered prescription glasses for me through RX inserts. Plus they were using Zeiss technology as well. That was a +1 for me. I did check out Rudy Project, Oakley and so on but those lenses were built in with prescription; In the future event that I might want to go for LASIK treatment I wouldn't be wasting the money from those lenses with corrective vision.

By the way Warbow, what brand of shooting glasses do you use? Just curious.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

DarrenHJA said:


> Before I made my purchase I was sure to check out what VIVX was, didn't get much though.


Seems likely that it is a Trivex variant, just as Pilla's previous offering, Ballistx, seems to be:

From their 2011 website:

Pilla:



> ...The patented Ballistx urethane technology was originally developed for military applications as ballistic armor...
> ...Ballistx has lower refractive index, internal stress and chromatic dispersion than polycarbonate...
> ...Ballistx has superior anti-scratch properties...
> ...Ballistx is 20% lighter than CR-39 and 10% lighter than polycarbonate.
> ...Pilla Ballistx lenses exceeds the High Velocity impact test and the High Mass Test...


Trivex:



> ...Trivex was originally developed for the military, as visual armor... Trivex is a urethane-based pre-polymer...
> ...Trivex has a slightly lower refractive index [than polycarbonate]...Trivex has an Abbe value of 45 [lower chromatic dispersion], making it optically superior..[to polycarbonate]...
> ...Trivex lenses are also very scratch resistant...
> ...Trivex is 16% lighter than CR-39...and 8% lighter than polycarbonate...
> ...Trivex is able to pass the ANSI Z87.1 High Velocity Impact Test...


Pilla partnered with Zeiss around 2013, calling the new lenses as being "VIVX." Pilla still mentions essentially the same characteristics for their new mystery material as they did the old, though in less detail, so it seems like essentially the same or similar material by a different brand name. :dontknow:





DarrenHJA said:


> By the way Warbow, what brand of shooting glasses do you use? Just curious.


For archery? Just my prescription polycarbonate glasses 

So, 

A) I do think the level of protection you are comfortable should be a choice, but it should be an informed one.

B) No, I'm not asking these questions of Pilla based on any love for, or involvement with, any competing optical company.


----------



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

Warbow said:


> A) I do think the level of protection you are comfortable should be a choice, but it should be an informed one.
> 
> B) No, I'm not asking these questions of Pilla based on any love or involvement with any competing optical company.



Nah mate I know you don't have any involvement towards any other competing optical company. I was just wondering whether you did use shooting glasses or not. I was just going to make normal single vision prescriptive glasses solely for shooting, but my vision started to blur shooting indoors in low light conditions. The Yellow X ring seemed to be fuzzy, then I found Pilla that makes these great Dead Center filters...the story goes on.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

DarrenHJA said:


> Nah mate I know you don't have any involvement towards any other competing optical company. I was just wondering whether you did use shooting glasses or not. I was just going to make normal single vision prescriptive glasses solely for shooting, but my vision started to blur shooting indoors in low light conditions. The Yellow X ring seemed to be fuzzy, then I found Pilla that makes these great Dead Center filters...the story goes on.


Indeed, and I think that sounds like a great reason to go with the Pilla if they fit your budget. There is no question, they make high quality products. And they are really working on innovating in terms of color filtration. They've even applied for a patent on filtering for just the inner 3 target colors, with varying luminance values to make a visual funnel towards the center.

Something to consider with archery is that archers are probably more prone to looking through their glasses lenses off axis, across the bridge of their nose. Off axis vision is exactly where chromatic aberration can degrade clarity, especially in high diopter lenses. I've got a fairly low correction in my right eye, so I don't worry about the dispersion value (Abbe number) of the lens materials too much, but for archers with higher diopter corrections, Trivex has lower chromatic aberration than polycarbonate, and CR39 has the lowest chromatic aberration of the ophthalmic plastics, though it isn't great in the impact resistance department.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I just wonder about the marketing aspect of this. There are very few companies that make plastics for optics. Obfuscation of who makes the base plastic is nice marketing, but nothing else.

And, it's not that any of these companies can afford to contract and make their own thermoplastic only for them. The big boys can't do it and won't.


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

I would have had NO PROBLEM taking a bunch of properly asked questions to Pilla in an organized manner, and presented them here with no issue.. However Warbow, your approach was unprofessional and scattered over this and other threads making it / taking it to points where you just keep on ranting and "Google searching". Pilla will have details on some aspects of their products that are relevant to their intended uses and industry and sporting needs. you even said in a thread, "I have a hard time believing...."... but that doesn't mean it isn't true either, by your own inference (which you seem to revel in). 

Again you had some interesting (and valid points) but the way you approached it and your inferred Google Know it all, hardly makes this a good forum now for a health discussion. Your statements about failures within the Pilla products are untrue. Pilla will address these terms at the appropriate time, not dictated by yours. You blew your chance to do it right. If you were really that informed, you would have contacted Pilla and got the answer straight from them /us . But you seem to be a big man behind your keyboard. Classy.

You think you are helping people, but you just make things worse.


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

Back to the thread, we hope to have a comparison with Pilla vs Shootoff sometime this year. I will post something here when it becomes available for distribution.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

imcabby said:


> I would have had NO PROBLEM taking a bunch of properly asked questions to Pilla in an organized manner, and presented them here with no issue.. However Warbow, your approach was unprofessional and scattered over this and other threads making it / taking it to points where you just keep on ranting and "Google searching". Pilla will have details on some aspects of their products that are relevant to their intended uses and industry and sporting needs. you even said in a thread, "I have a hard time believing...."... but that doesn't mean it isn't true either, by your own inference (which you seem to revel in).
> 
> Again you had some interesting (and valid points) but the way you approached it and your inferred Google Know it all, hardly makes this a good forum now for a health discussion. Your statements about failures within the Pilla products are untrue. Pilla will address these terms at the appropriate time, not dictated by yours. You blew your chance to do it right. If you were really that informed, you would have contacted Pilla and got the answer straight from them /us . But you seem to be a big man behind your keyboard. Classy.
> 
> You think you are helping people, but you just make things worse.


*Yes or no, are Pilla shooting glasses currently Z87+ Impact rated under ANSI Z87.1 2010 (a standard that requires passing both the high mass *and* the high velocity test)?

What, specifically, is VIVX made of?

Why did Pilla drop the claim that Pilla lenses pass the ANSI Z87.1 2010 high velocity impact test?*

I'm seeing lots of personal attacks against me but I'm not seeing any the answers to any of the rather basic questions above.

As to Googling, of course I'm googling, because the Pilla literature is rather cagey about A) what standard of impact rating Pilla lenses pass and B) what, specifically, VIVX is made of. Straight answers rather than personal attacks would be helpful.

And, yes, I still have a hard time believing VIVX is anything other than Trivex or a variant - not surprising since you cannot or will not say what VIVX is, other than to repeat the brand name.

(PPG's Trivex and Intercast's NXT are the same basic material, both licensed from Simula.)


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

imcabby said:


> I would have had NO PROBLEM taking a bunch of properly asked questions to Pilla in an organized manner, and presented them here with no issue.. However Warbow, your approach was unprofessional and scattered over this and other threads making it / taking it to points where you just keep on ranting and "Google searching". Pilla will have details on some aspects of their products that are relevant to their intended uses and industry and sporting needs. you even said in a thread, "I have a hard time believing...."... but that doesn't mean it isn't true either, by your own inference (which you seem to revel in).
> 
> Again you had some interesting (and valid points) but the way you approached it and your inferred Google Know it all, hardly makes this a good forum now for a health discussion. Your statements about failures within the Pilla products are untrue. Pilla will address these terms at the appropriate time, not dictated by yours. You blew your chance to do it right. If you were really that informed, you would have contacted Pilla and got the answer straight from them /us . But you seem to be a big man behind your keyboard. Classy.
> 
> You think you are helping people, but you just make things worse.


I'm sorry but you not helping yourself at all. Easiest way how to silence critics is to show some facts. So few people here asked simply question: what material is VIVX? You seems to ignore it completely....


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

imcabby said:


> Back to the thread, we hope to have a comparison with Pilla vs Shootoff sometime this year. I will post something here when it becomes available for distribution.


Why you want to do that? Why consumer should pay attention to test between Ford and GM when "tester" is Ford? This comparison will be biased by it's definition.


----------



## huckduck (Nov 24, 2014)

@imcabby

If not google, where does the average user find information nowadays? Granted, Warbow may seem off the handle to some users, but I don't believe calling anyone out for information they find on google and making assumptions based on that is warranted. That is how people work. People read information, people form opinions. He is but one person who may or may not come to the same conclusion of many.

As for the test, I'd also be inclined to put more weight into it if it was done independent of Pilla.


----------



## imcabby (Sep 28, 2012)

huckduck said:


> @imcabby
> 
> If not google, where does the average user find information nowadays? Granted, Warbow may seem off the handle to some users, but I don't believe calling anyone out for information they find on google and making assumptions based on that is warranted. That is how people work. People read information, people form opinions. He is but one person who may or may not come to the same conclusion of many.
> 
> As for the test, I'd also be inclined to put more weight into it if it was done independent of Pilla.


I agree with your statements and I appreciate the way you word it.. I will do what I can to get the appropriate info out there. Please excuse if I don't respond right away with the info.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

imcabby said:


> I agree with your statements and I appreciate the way you word it.. I will do what I can to get the appropriate info out there. Please excuse if I don't respond right away with the info.


ttt


----------



## bigbadwoolfe (Jan 1, 2013)

You are like a dog with a bone dude... Only the dog gets the bone in the end. What do you get the out of this? If you don't like the glasses, it's easy, just don't buy them... Or, if you want to prove some point, start a thread, don't hijack one...


----------



## Lostnthewoods (Jan 24, 2013)

Would love to hear anyone's experience with these. Do the blue lenses make the gold pop like the Pillas?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

bigbadwoolfe said:


> You are like a dog with a bone dude... Only the dog gets the bone in the end. What do you get the out of this? If you don't like the glasses, it's easy, just don't buy them... Or, if you want to prove some point, start a thread, don't hijack one...


Trolls, especially those of a malicious nature, do nothing to advance the sport. Don't encourage them.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Trolls, especially those of a malicious nature, do nothing to advance the sport. Don't encourage them.


Says the person making a post that does nothing to advance the sport, or the thread. Please consider healing yourself before casting aspersions on others.

imcabby promised to post answers about Pilla shooting glasses. After waiting nearly a week for him to post as promised, I finally bumped the thread in the most low key manner I could think of to see if any of those answers are forthcoming. And for that you are casting aspersions, making a personal attack (disguised as a general statement). imcabby also made personal attacks in this thread. I, on the other hand, have not. Please think on that.

I have a genuine curiosity about Pilla shooting glasses and shoot-off shooting glasses. So does the OP, who wanted to know how shoot-off shooting glasses compare to them. I expect that Pilla are superior in many ways, as one would expect for the price. But, I think many want to know if Pilla are worth the high price - to them, which is a personal preference and a personal decision. And for making an informed decision, impartial facts are vital. So, some more facts about both would be nice, from both Pilla and shoot-off. Facts, not marketing. I really don't see wanting facts as a bad thing, especially facts as basic as the ones I've asked, such as what are the lenses specifically made out of and whether are they industry standard Z87+ Impact rated. Those facts won't make the shooting glasses good or bad, but they will give people more of an objective basis to decide whether Pilla or shoot off are worth the price to them.


----------



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

Just call Pilla HQ and ask them directly. Imcabby will just ignore your question.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Says the person making a post that does nothing to advance the sport, or the thread. Please consider healing yourself before casting aspersions on others.
> 
> imcabby promised to post answers about Pilla shooting glasses. After waiting nearly a week for him to post as promised, I finally bumped the thread in the most low key manner I could think of to see if any of those answers are forthcoming. And for that you are casting aspersions, making a personal attack (disguised as a general statement). imcabby also made personal attacks in this thread. I, on the other hand, have not. Please think on that.
> 
> I have a genuine curiosity about Pilla shooting glasses and shoot-off shooting glasses. So does the OP, who wanted to know how shoot-off shooting glasses compare to them. I expect that Pilla are superior in many ways, as one would expect for the price. But, I think many want to know if Pilla are worth the high price - to them, which is a personal preference and a personal decision. And for making an informed decision, impartial facts are vital. So, some more facts about both would be nice, from both Pilla and shoot-off. Facts, not marketing. I really don't see wanting facts as a bad thing, especially facts as basic as the ones I've asked, such as what are the lenses specifically made out of and whether are they industry standard Z87+ Impact rated. Those facts won't make the shooting glasses good or bad, but they will give people more of an objective basis to decide whether Pilla or shoot off are worth the price to them.


You are like the cat that plays with a mouse until it is nearly dead, only to let it revive so it can torture it some more. 

You have directed your attack at imcabby who has tried to be responsive to your *demands*, including saying he does not know. Your ttt also is directed at imcabby, not to Pilla’s management, but imcabby who you expect to be the one responsive to your demands here on AT. You have used phrases that are presumptive and accusatory in intent and directed at imcabby who here, at least, appears to be representing Pilla: “…obfuscate…”; “…they are spouting utter BS”. “…spout nonsense…” “…falsely implies…” “…apparently deliberately misleading…” . These are injurious accusations to which you fully expect imcabby to respond. 

When presented with possible valuable data, you refuse to watch demanding that Pilla post the information on their website: “…but I'm not going to watch any more videos. If you have some documented facts for us, please, post them. I'm only going by what Pilla has posted on the web, so if Pilla wants to clarify on their websites, please do so.” This pompous nonsense is a dodge in order to continue maliciously attacking imcabby who obviously either doesn’t know the answer or might not have proprietary data. 

When you are presented with a response, you say “Yes, it is hard to accept.” “Not saying it is impossible, it just seems very unlikely.” In other words, you admit that it is fully possible that the standards in question have been met, but imcabby isn’t bleeding yet, so let’s ttt, eh? 

And this: “…bumped the thread in the most low key manner…” is laughable. It’s like saying you only shot a .22 to re-ignite a gasoline fire you started previously. So imcabby hasn’t met your one week deadline? Ever heard of “pm’s”? Not enough show time? 

I’ve known you from your early days of demanding obsessively and visciously that Coach Lee must prove to you that NTS is “biomechanically efficient” or else it must be concluded that none of NTS (BEST) can be trusted. It’s your style. It’s what you do. And occasionally you need to be called out on it. Have a nice day.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

imcabby promised huckduck that he would follow through and post more information about the Pilla shooting glasses. My sincere hope was that bumping this thread in a low key manner would give him a chance to fulfill that promise. I think facts are vital to making informed choices, and I think wanting to know specifically what Pilla are made of is reasonable, especially given the price of Pilla shooting glasses. And I still have hope that imcabby was sincere and plans to live up to his promise to huckduck. Do you think otherwise, SP?

I'm pretty disappointed that you have chosen to use this thread as a vehicle for your personal animus towards me. I find your vendetta against me ironic. Please feel free to start a thread about it where I can respond to your personal attacks in detail.

And, yes, I have questioned imcabby's claims, and done so based on the evidence in Pilla's own varied claims about their products over the years and from other industry sources, as I have extensively documented. I don't see you bringing any actual facts about Pilla or Shoot-off shooting glasses to the table, rather your objection is not to the facts, but to me, personally. I don't really see you as being someone who is against questioning corporate marketing claims, or archery orthodoxy, unless it is me doing the questioning.


----------



## Dakota10 (Jan 16, 2014)

tagged


----------



## lacampbell2005 (Feb 17, 2015)

http://www.clay-shooting.com/features/shot-glasses/

Here's an article from some field testing on safety glasses at a shotgun range.
Pilla looks bad, BUT the writer states these was due to some odd circumstances...
So take a look and see if this eases your mind a bit.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

lacampbell2005 said:


> http://www.clay-shooting.com/features/shot-glasses/
> 
> Here's an article from some field testing on safety glasses at a shotgun range.
> Pilla looks bad, BUT the writer states these was due to some odd circumstances...
> So take a look and see if this eases your mind a bit.


Thanks for that. It is an entertaining link. Homebrew science can be a lot of fun and I'm a big fan of it. However, this kind of test, where the various glasses were hit with as few as 1 pellet and as many as 11, and where excuses were given for why the Pilla lenses sheered off in multiple areas, are exactly why there are _standardized_ tests, with regulated projectile size, speed and areas to be hit. Under the Z87+ Impact rating standard for protective eyewear the high velocity test requires 6 different 150fps impacts by a .25 caliber steel ball on 6 specified impact points, so that all protective eye wear gets the same apples to apples test for high velocity impact. It isn't really possible to form any comprehensive conclusions about the relative protectiveness of the various shooting glasses with the bird shot test in the link because the shotgun test uses such a small sample size and such a highly variable number of impacts, hence why it would be useful for shooting glasses comparison shopping to know why Pilla used to say Pilla passed the ANSI Z87.1 2010 high mass test _and_ the high velocity test, but now only say they pass the ANSI Z87.1 2010 high mass test.


----------



## PaulME (Jun 11, 2014)

Waded through the thread and found a lot of it entertaining (where's the popcorn);-)
The facts Warbow is asking for are not unreasonable - and especially for a smaller specialized company should be available.

But lets face it sunglasses (and glasses in general) are one of the highest profit items out there. Much easier to justify the price if you can obfuscate using marketing speak, and marketing is critical to the glasses industry - hey they are on your face after all. 
Luxottica owns the majority of the high end brands people pay for (including Oakley which is an interesting story on its own), and they admit to a 60+% gross profit margin and I think a 50+% net profit. Look these guys up, they own the manufacturing, brands, and distribution. Your sunglasses (any of them) cost only a few dollars to make, couple dollars for the frames, couple dollars for the lens/s, and a couple dollars for any coatings, then market them like crazy charge a couple hundred $/pair or more.

Buy what makes you happy. If you think it will make you a better shot and you can afford it - go for it. If not get a cheaper option. But dont believe that your $500 glasses cost hundreds more to make than a pair of discounted Oakleys, Smith, Optic nerve, nashbar.....

Anyone else remember when Oakley had a lifetime warranty? 
Enough digression - back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Paul


----------



## lacampbell2005 (Feb 17, 2015)

I bought my Pilla's used from AT as I would not spend $450 on glasses. I bought them for the Zeiss name, as I know they are known for great optics in binoculars of which I already own a pair. I also liked the lack of a nose bridge. With my anchor, I was having trouble finding sunglasses I could use at all, so I had to live with sun glares and sun blinding.

I understand and appreciate Warbows point on the safety rating. Had I bought these Pillas for safety reasons, I would be more concerned. (But probably would have done more research on safety as apposed to just clarity and sight obstruction) So to imcabby, if Pilla's answer is that they had to sacrifice the Z87+ rating to get better clarity, I don't feel those of us in the archery world are going to be overly upset. But the shotgunners may take issue...

After doing some research due to this thread, I would probably not stop at the Z87+ rating were I buying glasses for shooting at a gun range. I would probably move up to the military rated glasses.

Here is a cool video from ESS showing how the military level of testing is done. Just thought I'd share as I found it interesting. (I enjoy seeing things tested and destroyed...but it makes me cringe thinking my eyes are what are at risk with a total failure at a gun range)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZoLv-MMQTo


----------



## collider (Nov 3, 2015)

Is there any kind of record of archery related eye injuries? And what would cause an archery eye injury? Limbs breaking? Ricochet arrow? I guess my question is what kind of impacts could be expected, and do shoot-offs or Pillas handle those types of impacts? You wouldn't wear a bicycle helmet on a motorcycle, and vice versa. I would imagine completely different impacts from a catastrophic bow failure to a gun failure. An arrow is much slower and much heavier than a bullet, same with crumbling limbs.

I have to say, I agree with Warbow about the advertising here. Consciously or unconsciously, they're labeling these as "shooting" glasses, thereby sending a message that they do something special to protect the wearer. In reality they're tinted, and have clear glass. We know next to nothing about the safety features, if any.


----------



## bigHUN (Feb 5, 2006)

So, these "Shoot Off shooting glassess",
only online sources I could find charging Euros for these and as always-and-everywhere I have found prices inconsistent...
Anybody can lead me to some discount webstores? or even better a NorthAmerican source?


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

bigHUN said:


> So, these "Shoot Off shooting glassess",
> only online sources I could find charging Euros for these and as always-and-everywhere I have found prices inconsistent...
> Anybody can lead me to some discount webstores? or even better a NorthAmerican source?


You'll probably be best off going with Altservices.

I know couple of guys using Shoot-Off glasses (one of which is sponsored) and they seem generally happy. Personally I don't see the hassle, and normal prescription sunglasses have always worked for me.

As far as protection goes, only eye injuries I've ever seen or heard have been from pulling arrows from targets (personally I got one nock imbedded into my brow some years back), but I'm not quite sure that would be enough for me to look for protective lenses.


----------



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

If you got a nick in your eyebrow, you're just pulling the arrow out from the target wrongly. You're standing in front of the nock.


----------



## bigHUN (Feb 5, 2006)

I am shooting both FITA and Field, the lighting conditions are all over the spectrum from bright sunlight or deep shades in the forest to heavy rain or fog...
Speculating about dropping my cash on some glasses, unfortunately can't reach to Pilla's


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

DarrenHJA said:


> If you got a nick in your eyebrow, you're just pulling the arrow out from the target wrongly. You're standing in front of the nock.


Or someone else is yanking an arrow from a wooden frame, and pulls it half a meter back.

I've pulled perhaps half a million arrows from targets/frames/whatever, and never hit myself, but I've been hit several times by someone else who has been less careful.


----------



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

And that is why we should stand away when someone is pulling their arrow.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Pretty hard to do when scoring and someone in the next bale decides to show his woodwork skills.

But we are getting off topic. It's just funny to see how new companies create markets that couple of years didn't exist. I pretty much doubt that any of these glasses have any positive impact to scoring. But if it floats your boat, why not get some, it'll keep Zeiss factories in Germany and Japan working.


----------



## Lostnthewoods (Jan 24, 2013)

Any good firsthand feedback on these glasses yet?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Still no follow up, months later.

imcabby's profile says he's merely "Pro Staff" for Pilla but it turns out that there is a bigger reason why imcabby heavily promoted Pilla on AT, he's the Canadian distributor for Pilla. 


His linked In profile:


> Executive Director - Business Development
> Pilla Sport Canada
> May 2015 – Present (1 year) | Canada
> To develop and grow brand recognition, awareness, sales and operations of Pilla Sport Eyewear within the Canadian Marketplace.
> ...


 (pillasport.ca was first registered in April 2015)


Pilla's dealer page says he is the "Main Contact" for "Top Flight (DISTRIBUTOR)"/pillasport.ca.

This is all public information posted by Pilla and imcabby (which is also his public twitter handle) that he somehow forgot to mention when promoting Pilla on AT.


----------



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

Lostnthewoods said:


> Any good firsthand feedback on these glasses yet?


I own a pair of Pilla Panther specs. It's really good as it has a prescription insert for me. Well it worked for me, the Zeiss Filters may have cost a bomb but they're worth it - for now the 35 DC and 94 HC, haven't put the 10 ED on yet due to cloudy weather. The Panther X7 works better for Asians due to our cheek bones and Asian face features. 

The Outlaw is the more popular range imho. Looks COOLER as well.

*Note: I found these glasses from my own research and had no idea of them beforehand. Even with the crazy amount of promotion from Pilla promoters, I never heard of the brand.

Try them out at your nearest dealer. You will love it. But maybe not your wallet though.


----------



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

Warbow said:


> Still no follow up, months later.
> 
> imcabby's profile says he's merely "Pro Staff" for Pilla but it turns out that there is a bigger reason why imcabby heavily promoted Pilla on AT, he's the Canadian distributor for Pilla.
> 
> ...



@imcabby on Instagram as well. You can find him wearing his Pilla's day in and day out.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

I just ordered these. With all the lenses and extra nose pieces.

http://www.heritagelongbows.com/Shoot-Off_Master_4_Lens_Kit_-_Kit_3/p1020824_14671952.aspx

After the exchange rate and additional shipping I'm all in for about $230. 

About 1/3 the cost of the Pillas.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Pilla, B-Stinger... What's next? I sometimes think USArchery needs to be a little more selective of which sponsors they accept. Companies like Sure-Loc, AAE/Cavalier, Lancasters and Doinker have long track records of support and service in this sport, plus they are/were run by people who are truly devoted to archery and are nice people to boot.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Pilla, B-Stinger... What's next? I sometimes think USArchery needs to be a little more selective of which sponsors they accept. Companies like Sure-Loc, AAE/Cavalier, Lancasters and Doinker have long track records of support and service in this sport, plus they are/were run by people who are truly devoted to archery and are nice people to boot.


Fairly unrealistic. USAA has to be like Willie Sutton and go where the money is. Having said that, Ford, JPM, or other deep pockets should be courted.


----------



## Lostnthewoods (Jan 24, 2013)

XForce Girl said:


> I just ordered these. With all the lenses and extra nose pieces.
> 
> http://www.heritagelongbows.com/Shoot-Off_Master_4_Lens_Kit_-_Kit_3/p1020824_14671952.aspx
> 
> ...


Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions on these. Please post back when you have had some time to evaluate them.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

Lostnthewoods said:


> Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions on these. Please post back when you have had some time to evaluate them.


I sure will. 
I communicated to them through email and was having trouble getting a confirmation to my ship address, kept saying they were not able to ship to me. I sent them an email and received a friendly response. After I got a quote on the shipping amount to USA, the guy sent me a link to purchase with my Paypal. Shipping was only $25 extra which I didn't think was too bad coming from England.
I'm really excited to try them.


----------



## gary royce (Feb 5, 2009)

Beretta has a pair of interchangeable lens glasses for 39.95..3 lenses included...same thing I promise you..theres only so much you can do with polycarbonate


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

gary royce said:


> Beretta has a pair of interchangeable lens glasses for 39.95..3 lenses included...same thing I promise you..theres only so much you can do with polycarbonate


I know, I love my Berettas. But the colors are not optimum for Archery. At least that's what I'm gonna tell myself so I don't feel bad about spending the $$.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

XForce Girl said:


> I know, I love my Berettas. But the colors are not optimum for Archery. At least that's what I'm gonna tell myself so I don't feel bad about spending the $$.


Not just you...


----------

