2
2
0
I'm actually a little excited about this. The reg now removes the ridiculous hypocritical "no logo" rule and simply says it can't have "conspicuous" things or adornments on there. Leaving it open to interpretation. Meaning a tiny ray ban writing on the corner of the lens could be considered conspicuous by some but not others. Especially since you can't see it with head gear on. Or a tiny logo on the side should be fine.
Since the Army for years was issuing giant logod glasses but telling Soldiers they couldn't wear their own logo glasses. Stupid.
Much better now I think.
Thoughts?
Since the Army for years was issuing giant logod glasses but telling Soldiers they couldn't wear their own logo glasses. Stupid.
Much better now I think.
Thoughts?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
1
1
0
The old 670-1 said no logos but everyone and their grandmother has been wearing Oakleys for years, but no one said anything about it even though we knew it was wrong. Seems like the Army is just accepting this standard now. (I'm not saying this is bad by the way)
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I wear a pair that has a small name brand on the upper left corner lens. Like you mentioned, you can't see it with head gear on.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google