Paintball eye injuries

[steveg]

Being one of those people who has recommended safety glasses or mask ANY time you fire a PBmarker (and was called a fascist for my efforts) this might be of interest to those that do wear eye protection


Background. We studied ocular injuries and visual outcome after blunt trauma from paintball pellets.
Methods. We retrospectively reviewed cases of ocular injury from paintball pellets occurring over 32 months.
Results. Ten cases of ocular injury from paintball pellets were recorded. Most patients (9) were injured at home or at a friendÕs home; only 1 was injured at a war game facility. Six patients had surgery. Final visual acuity was 20/25 or better in 6 patients, 20/30 to 20/50 in 2 patients, 20/60 to 20/100 in 2 patients, and 20/200 in 1 patient. Traumatic maculopathy and epiretinal membrane formation were determinants of worse final visual acuity.
Conclusions. Paintball pellet ocular injuries occur more frequently at home than at war game facilities. Advanced surgical techniques offer decreased ocular morbidity and improved visual acuity. Decreasing visual morbidity from paintball pellets requires public education, proper product labeling, and packaging of eye protection with all paintball-related products.

That is an abstract from an article published by the Southern Medical Journal. http://www.sma.org/smj/

p.s. found this posted by amog over at tinker's guild

[BradPalooza]

Good reading, everyone should see this
-Brad

[FrAuStY]

Wether I'm at home or at a field.. if I have paint in the gun and the saftey is off I have a mask on and so do the ones around me. I guess its just morals I was brought up with. Anytime there's a firearm loaded... wether safety's on or off, YOU DON'T POINT IT AT SOMEONE! (Unless you're trying to kill them i.e. defending home and loved ones)I took these beliefs over to paintball when I picked it up.

I was always taught that personal safety and preservation should come first in any instance there is a weapon involved, be it a knife, sword, gun, or yes.. a paintball marker. I've gone to some fields that were privately owned (buncha rednecks in the woods) they had no chrono, no barrel plug rules or regulations. They were shooting in the staging area.. I was like WTF are you people thinking?! Just because you wouldn't intentionally shoot someone in the face doesn't mean it couldn't accidentally happen. Think about that next time you're at your field or at home and just wanna shoot some.

[cledford]

This opinion is based ONLY on what was posted in the excerpt...

I'm frankly surprised at the results, and while I'll continue to wear goggles just in case – I think that this shows that a lot of the concerns of insurance industry and watch dog types are over blowing the eye issue.

Let me start out by saying that I assumed that if hit with a paintball you lost the eye - I mean to say blind - period. Instead it appears (if these meager statistics can be extrapolated to a large scale) that getting shot in the eye isn't near as big a deal as I thought.

A full 60% of the injured came back with (uncorrected) vision at the top end of the spectrum. 20/25 is SLIGHTLY less then 20/20 (perfect) and usually means that you only missed a letter on the 20/20 line.

20% came back with vision that was easily correctable to 20/20. (40-60s) And the 40 range isn't even considered bad.

20% can back with vision that is fairly easily correctable to 20/20. (The 60-100s) I have an eye at 20/70 uncorrected which is 20/20 corrected.

10% had vision that could be corrected to reasonable levels, although not likely 20/20.

Keep in mind that it is likely that most did not/could have 20/20 in the first place. Taking that into consideration you (based only on the figures above) are 60% likely to not receive enough eye damage to reduce you uncorrected vision at all. (or just slightly). 80% likely to not have vision that is damaged to the point that can't be restored to 20/20 with correction, and 100% likely to not be damaged more then what could be corrected to reasonable limits. Again, bear in mind that these individual may not have had perfect 20/20 to begin with - so some might possible have received no damage at all!

I'm not trying to advocate against eye protection, or condone those who don't use it. I'm just using some very LIMITED info to make a point that even though it's always a good idea, I think that the case can be made (again just based on these figures...) that the chance to lose your vision (go blind) is highly inflated.

I started playing paintball back in '87 when we didn't even chrono guns, and used shop goggles for eye protection. I've seen field FPS limits march down from 350 (the limit that started out when chronos finally came into use in my area) to 285, and sometime less - for "insurance" reasons. I'm also a big advocate of full auto paintguns (although not to be used during actual play), which some companies refuse to sell/distribute in part due to the eye issue. I made the above argument to stir up the issues a little bit. Personally, I know that fields and manufacturers are trying to keep things safe out there - but all to often they are also bowing to the wishes of entities outside the game it's self. I'm personally tired of appeasing people whose real addenda probably isn't to make our sport "safer" as they claim, but in reality do away with it. It's a proven process used extensively by the those who typically detest ANY type of pastime which involves something resembling a fire arm, and pisses me off when it intrudes. I respect Tom for his feelings on the voluntary full auto ban, and don't know the real reasons for his choice - but I know that the 13bps limit in general (industry wide) was proposed to appease doctors and other protractors, so that they wouldn't push for LEGALLY mandated limits. I know the eye issue was the big "gun" they used in their assertions. Anyhow, just like "gun safety" is a code word that doesn't have anything to ultimately do with gun safety, but instead has to do with BANNING guns (funny how those most opposed to firearm ownership also seem the most eager to pass "common sense" safety rules) - I don't think "eye safety" is as much about peoples vision, as it is about those who might like to ban our sport one day exercising their control over it now. If we allow them to/"cave-in" now then they'll have the advantage later.

I know that I'm really stretching some things here, and ranting about others - but I intended to stir up some lively debate




And the

[FrAuStY]

With that point being very well noted (I agree alot with what you have said about officials interfering with the growth of the sport) I would like to point out what I posted about

Results. Ten cases of ocular injury from paintball pellets were recorded. Most patients (9) were injured at home or at a friend's home; only 1 was injured at a war game facility.

With that info.. 10% of injury's occur where the insurance would be covering! The other 90% occurs off the field and because of the Marker Owner's mistake/stupidity. What are these poeple thinkin? Jeeze

[FatMan]

Well, first off they had 10 cases, but reported 11 results. Throws off the percentages. 10 cases isn't enough to draw any conclusions at all about the frequency of damage. None at all.

But the biggest flaw in your logic is that somehow this means full-auto or high ROF isn't a safety issue. With full auto and high ROF the likelyhood of MULTIPLE impacts goes way up. The likelyhood of more damage goes up with it.

There's no place for full auto in normal paintball. It is simply overkill. There really no need for over 13bps either. No problem if the mechanism is faster than that, but the trigger and/or feed rate doesn't need to be any higher than that.

Safety is certainly a big part of that - and not just to the eyes. But even more so the play just doesn't need it.

FatMan

[Bartleby]

it's just a matter of responsibility and i think i agree that eye protection must be sold with markers. i think that's an excellent idea.

[steveg]

Cledford a ball in the eye costs the insurance companies
money, most likely more to repair,than to deal with a ruined eye.

Without reading the full report (paid subscription site)
It's impossible to know if the 9 had lingering pain
or what other side effects might have been suffered. maybe
they were 9 Damned lucky people to keep their eye. maybe
they had the best eye surgeon in the country.

There is just no reason in the world to not put on a pair
of safety glasses or goggles

the way I read it is goggles= no chance of ball in the eye

no goggles=what IS going to stop the ball

I do wonder were balls 20>40 of a close 20bps 2sec. string
will stop, not at the skin, would be my guess

[MrShutter]

They use the word "ocular" too many times in that article.

[tarrasque]

I think the closest i came to getting hit in my eye was in april. i was wearing a proteus mask and i was hit near my eye and the paint started to leak into my eye. that was the nastiest feeling ever it stung so bad that i was yellin about it and everyone thought i was hit in the eye...this is just a reminder that if i wasnt wearing googles i would not just be complaining about a sting but a nice crater wear my eye was!!!!

thankyou goggles!!!!!!!!