Eye injuries from flintlock?

[Kansas Jake]

I’ve volunteered as an RSO at a public range run by an association. The range requires glasses and hearing protection. Two reasons, to protect the shooters, and for liability reasons. It’s that simple. If you can’t abide by the rules you will be asked to leave.

In this day and age an injury or lawsuit could easily end this place being available to many who have limited options to shoot in our area. Especially with long guns and muzzle loaders.

 

[Harry Marinakis]

I assured her that I'd be protected by safety glasses and I hadn't really heard much about shooters getting injuries from the pan flash.
Any thoughts/experiences with this?

I was at a local shoot with a friend. He was not wearing safety glasses.

On his third shot of the day, the pan flash shot a small jagged fragment of flint into his right cornea.

I could see the flint particle with my bare eye, but we couldn't get it out with an eye wash or Q-tip.

We drove an hour to the nearest ER. The eye doctor on call couldn't get the piece of flint out of his cornea with a needle. The doctor said it was jagged and hook shaped, and it was deeply embedded. He referred us to the cornea specialist at the university hospital.

We drove three hours to the university hospital ER, and waited 4 hours for the on-call cornea specialist. The first cornea specialist couldn't remove the flint without surgery under sedation. He called a back-up cornea specialist, who also couldn't remove the flint. The third eye doctor also couldn't remove the flint.

They were preparing him to go to the operating room when the flint dislodged and fell out.

So..... Would you rather shoot all day with safety glasses, or spend 14 hours driving between emergency rooms and waiting for doctors?

 

[wiscoaster]

....

So..... Would you rather shoot all day with safety glasses, or spend 14 hours driving between emergency rooms and waiting for doctors?

I SHOOT wearing prescription safety glasses, I just don't have them on all the time I'm at the range.

 

[Harry Marinakis]

I SHOOT wearing prescription safety glasses, I just don't have them on all the time I'm at the range.

At Friendship in June, I had set down my safety glasses and was standing behind the shooting bench at the offhand range. I got blasted in the eye by someone's pan flash.

 

[wiscoaster]

At Friendship in June, I had set down my safety glasses and was standing behind the shooting bench at the offhand range. I got blasted in the eye by someone's pan flash.

I think that's as good of a case for situational awareness as it is for strict 100% wearing of safety glasses.

If a person isn't paying attention to WHEN they should be worn then maybe it's good they wear them the whole time they're at the range.

When you get to a point in your life when prescription glasses are sometimes needed for your vision and sometimes not and you find yourself switching out between various glasses with different prescriptions and no glasses, then you'll understand where I'm coming from.

I've got three different pairs of glasses that go with me to the range: standard plano safety glasses, prescription safety-rated shooting glasses, and prescription near-vision glasses (for adjusting sights and scopes and dealing with malfunctions and such). When I'm not shooting and I'm not near anyone else shooting and when I don't need the near-vision clear focus, I prefer to wear nothing.

Age-related presbyopia will happen to everybody. Dealing with it is a PIA.

 

[Harry Marinakis]

I think that's as good of a case for situational awareness as it is for strict 100% wearing of safety glasses.

Yes, I am much more tuned to avoid standing to the right of anyone on the line.

 

[Tenring]

The club I belong to couldn’t care if both eyes got blown out as long as you pay your dues, OH wait you can’t shoot steel because of there insurance liability go figure…

 

[Louisk]

I think that's as good of a case for situational awareness as it is for strict 100% wearing of safety glasses.

If a person isn't paying attention to WHEN they should be worn then maybe it's good they wear them the whole time they're at the range.

When you get to a point in your life when prescription glasses are sometimes needed for your vision and sometimes not and you find yourself switching out between various glasses with different prescriptions and no glasses, then you'll understand where I'm coming from.

I've got three different pairs of glasses that go with me to the range: standard plano safety glasses, prescription safety-rated shooting glasses, and prescription near-vision glasses (for adjusting sights and scopes and dealing with malfunctions and such). When I'm not shooting and I'm not near anyone else shooting and when I don't need the near-vision clear focus, I prefer to wear nothing.

Age-related presbyopia will happen to everybody. Dealing with it is a PIA.

I'm getting there. I need reading glasses and am required to fly with corrective lenses and am getting so I feel better using them for driving too, although I can still pass the dmv eye test without them.

Using non prescription safety glasses for shooting now but have a hard time focusing on the rear sight and target is fuzzier than it used to be. I can really use reading glasses for close in tasks, like capping my percussion rifle and priming the pan on the flintlock. I have a pair of safety glasses with a bifocal reading glass lens that I'm planning to try next shooting session. I don't know if the bifocal lens is high enough it's going to mess up my view of the target, however.

 

[Leadball loader]

I'm getting there. I need reading glasses and am required to fly with corrective lenses and am getting so I feel better using them for driving too, although I can still pass the dmv eye test without them.

Using non prescription safety glasses for shooting now but have a hard time focusing on the rear sight and target is fuzzier than it used to be. I can really use reading glasses for close in tasks, like capping my percussion rifle and priming the pan on the flintlock. I have a pair of safety glasses with a bifocal reading glass lens that I'm planning to try next shooting session. I don't know if the bifocal lens is high enough it's going to mess up my view of the target, however.

I shoot with trifocal safety glasses and do not have a problem seeing my sight with them. I wear them all day every day as matter of practicality.
I shoot strictly flintlock and have only had one time that a gust of wind blew the pan flash under my glasses. Have been very careful when shooting in windy conditions since. The glasses did the job though my eye was irritated for a few days.
LBL

 

[Spud17]

I think that's as good of a case for situational awareness as it is for strict 100% wearing of safety glasses.

If a person isn't paying attention to WHEN they should be worn then maybe it's good they wear them the whole time they're at the range.

When you get to a point in your life when prescription glasses are sometimes needed for your vision and sometimes not and you find yourself switching out between various glasses with different prescriptions and no glasses, then you'll understand where I'm coming from.

I've got three different pairs of glasses that go with me to the range: standard plano safety glasses, prescription safety-rated shooting glasses, and prescription near-vision glasses (for adjusting sights and scopes and dealing with malfunctions and such). When I'm not shooting and I'm not near anyone else shooting and when I don't need the near-vision clear focus, I prefer to wear nothing.

Age-related presbyopia will happen to everybody. Dealing with it is a PIA.

Replying to a 6 mo old post here but I know exactly what you mean. I wear a reading lens for correction (front sight is a blur otherwise). I have a pair of custom shooting glasses but have had a little concern about how good they were for impact protection. I found these full lens readers on Amazon for $11. They are ANSI Z87 come in various powers and even tints. Lenses are very clear. I highly recommend these.

Pyramex Safety - SG9810R20 Emerge Plus Readers Safety Glasses​

 

[BuffaloSoldier]

Though you have a valid point, an injury to an individual due to their own disregard of the range rules doesn't accrue to the range's liability, it accrues to the individual as personal consequence for their disregard.

There has to be some flexibility and common sense in range rule enforcement. If that deaf individual I mentioned in a previous post had been kicked off the range for not wearing hearing protection I would have considered going elsewhere to do my shooting.

As an example of common sense rule enforcement, it's the rule about not shooting over the berm. That's common sense because who knows where the projectile goes and ends up and so could easily adversely affect some other person than the shooter or some other person's property. Someone that shoots over the berm should be kicked off the range. It's not a matter of a choice that affects only the shooter.

WRT to seat belts, that's a law, and laws are to be obeyed. IMO it's a stupid law as whether or not someone wishes to have their skull crushed in a crash should be a matter of knowing the facts and making a personal choice to wear seat belts or not. Personally, I wore a seat belt long before it was required by law because I chose to protect myself as best I can. But because wearing or not wearing only affects the individual, I think making it a law is an overreach. The law should require seat belts be installed, yes, but usage should be an individual choice.

There's too much shifting of blame from individuals' responsibilities to any other insured targets of litigation opportunity in today's world. It's nuts.

I used to be a Colorado State Trooper many years ago. One of the first fatal accidents I covered was a young woman who's compact car went up under the overpass and rolled. She went out the sunroof and the car rolled over her head. Was the only injury she sustained, but that was all that was needed. Wear your seatbelt!!!

 

[Louisk]

Replying to a 6 mo old post here but I know exactly what you mean. I wear a reading lens for correction (front sight is a blur otherwise). I have a pair of custom shooting glasses but have had a little concern about how good they were for impact protection. I found these full lens readers on Amazon for $11. They are ANSI Z87 come in various powers and even tints. Lenses are very clear. I highly recommend these.

Pyramex Safety - SG9810R20 Emerge Plus Readers Safety Glasses​

Thanks. I did try shooting the Bess after I started this thread with a pair of bifocal safety glasses and they worked great. My long range vision is close to 20/20 but near vision not so good. Without the bifocals I could see fine downrange but was having trouble seeing how much powder I was putting in the pan. The bifocal lens did not interfere with my long range vision while aiming. I was thinking I need a few more pair of those glasses and what you posted looks like a great source.

 

[wiscoaster]

..... I found these full lens readers on Amazon for $11. They are ANSI Z87 come in various powers and even tints. Lenses are very clear. I highly recommend these.

Pyramex Safety - SG9810R20 Emerge Plus Readers Safety Glasses​

Thanks for the recco.

 

[Colonial Boy]

As far as that goes, I think personal protection is a personal responsibility, it has no adverse effect on any other individual, and any range with an RSO who would kick me off the range for not wearing safety glasses would be a range I wouldn't patronize again.

I generally wear prescription glasses with lenses that are "safety" rated, but they may be on or off at any given time depending on whether I need them on at the moment.

Depends on the status of the range, if it is a club or individually owned range then you have a responsibility to make sure that you don’t cause the insurance premiums to go up.

 

[Kansas Jake]

At the range where I volunteer as an RSO occasionally you are required to wear eye and hearing protection. It makes good sense and public ranges are always one serious accident away from being shut down.

What someone does on their own property is their business. I wear glasses when shooting and require my grandkids to do the same if they are with me. It is especially important with muzzleloaders.

 

[wiscoaster]

Depends on the status of the range, if it is a club or individually owned range then you have a responsibility to make sure that you don’t cause the insurance premiums to go up.

No, I don't think that's MY responsibility. That's the responsibility of the range management, owners and officers. If their means of insuring their insurance premiums don't go up is to kick me off the range if I don't have safety glasses on at all times, then that's within their rights to do so, as per the range rules I agreed to in order for membership and/or range use. It's a fine distinction as to personal responsibility, yes, but don't conflate to whom that particular responsibility belongs. My responsibility is to obey the range rules. Don't assign reasons for those rules to be my responsibility. That's the responsibility of owners, officers and management.

 

[Colonial Boy]

No, I don't think that's MY responsibility. That's the responsibility of the range management, owners and officers. If their means of insuring their insurance premiums don't go up is to kick me off the range if I don't have safety glasses on at all times, then that's within their rights to do so, as per the range rules I agreed to in order for membership and/or range use. It's a fine distinction as to personal responsibility, yes, but don't conflate to whom that particular responsibility belongs. My responsibility is to obey the range rules. Don't assign reasons for those rules to be my responsibility. That's the responsibility of owners, officers and management.

Agreed, a fine distinction but if you agree to abide by the range rules why would you never go back if they are enforced?

 

[snakebit]

Only thing my flintlocks ever hurt are my feelings. I do wear shooting glasses BTW.

 

[Caterpillar Hunter]

"IMO it's a stupid law as whether or not someone wishes to have their skull crushed in a crash should be a matter of knowing the facts and making a personal choice to wear seat belts or not. But because wearing or not wearing only affects the individual, I think making it a law is an overreach. The law should require seat belts be installed, yes, but usage should be an individual choice. There's too much shifting of blame from individuals' responsibilities to any other insured targets of litigation opportunity in today's world. It's nuts. "

Whether there's a law or rule prohibiting something we'd rather not do, does not just affect the individual. Injured individuals not wearing seat belts and shooters not wearing shooting glasses do affect other people and society in general. What do hospitals do with those uninsured/underinsured people? Who eats the bills? Should a spouse and kids care that Daddy thinks a seat belt law is overreach? If you have to go on 100% disability, you might just involve the rest of society to help pay for your care--for your lifetime.

 

[morehops52]

The person most like to be harmed is the bystander standing/sitting on the side of the touch hole. In our Y&S (young and stupid) days one of our flinty guys (a newbie) let of his CVA and his buddy (also a newbie) was standing about 4 or 5 ft away. The buddy got a black piece of powder embedded in his cheek about 3 in below his eye. It was there for many months and he was lucky it wasn't worse.