Range / Head to head
Oakley SI Ballistic M Frame 3.0 vs ESS Crossbow: the two issued eyeshields, for a civilian range
Soldiers get both. On a public range the question is simpler: which one's page tells you more, and which one sits better under your muffs.
By Mike M.Updated Spec-page researched, not worn by us
#adLens & Lead earns from qualifying Amazon purchases. Prices are set by the retailer and change. A commission never decides a ranking. How we rate · Disclosure
The contenders
Side by side
Stock photoOakley: the thin-temple shield
Oakley SI Ballistic M Frame 3.0
MIL-PRF-324328.0 /10Thin Stem for muffs and comms, Plutonite, modular lenses; ratings from a retailer listing, APEL not marked.
Check price · Amazon#ad · Price set by Amazon · Disclosure for the link to Oakley SI Ballistic M Frame 3.0
- Stock photo
ESS: the documented kit
ESS Crossbow 2LS Kit
APEL8.6 /10APEL and MIL-PRF-32432A on the maker's page, DedBolt swaps, named coating, three inserts.
Check price · Amazon#ad · Price set by Amazon · Disclosure for the link to ESS Crossbow 2LS Kit
Side by side
What each page states
The Crossbow APEL kit page says "ANSI Z87.1+ 2015 Edition", "U.S. MIL-PRF-32432A" and "APEL (Authorized Protective Eyewear List) approved" on esseyepro.com. The M Frame's "ANSI Z87.1" and "MIL-PRF-32432" come from a Shellback Tactical listing, because oakley.com and the Army's APEL page for the frame both refused our reader. Both frames are, by every account, issued eyewear; only one of them proves it on a page we can cite. That difference is the rating column, and it is why the Crossbow shows APEL and the Oakley shows MIL-PRF. How we read pages is on how to tell if glasses are ballistic rated.
Thin Stem vs Tri-Tech Fit
Oakley's listing: "Thin Stem Technology — designed for compatibility with over-ear protection and communication systems without pressure points." ESS's page: "Tri-Tech Fit ergonomics offer universal comfort and stability." One is a specific claim about temple thickness under a muff cup; the other is a general fit claim. ESS answers the muff problem with a different frame — the Crossbow Suppressor and the telescoping-temple ICE — rather than with the standard Crossbow. Within this matchup, muffs go to Oakley. The ranking is on shooting glasses for ear muffs.
Modular vs DedBolt
Both frames swap lenses. Oakley's modular system takes clear, gray and Prizm gray; ESS's patented DedBolt Lens Lock swaps the Crossbow's clear and smoke lenses and, in the 3LS kit, Hi-Def yellow. ESS names its anti-fog and anti-scratch coating (ClearZone FlowCoat); Oakley's listing says "anti-fog coating" and gives the lens material (Plutonite) and a 400 nm UV and blue-light cutoff. On optics neither publishes a class; Oakley claims HDO, ESS claims ESSOPTICS. Call it a draw with a named coating on the ESS side.
Inserts
ESS: U-Rx, Vice and UPLC inserts documented on the Crossbow page. Oakley: nothing on the listing we cite. A prescription wearer choosing between these two has been given the answer by the pages. The routes are explained on Rx inserts vs prescription lenses.
Verdict
In detail
The contenders, in full
Stock photoOakley: the thin-temple shield
Oakley SI Ballistic M Frame 3.0
Thin Stem for muffs and comms, Plutonite, modular lenses; ratings from a retailer listing, APEL not marked.
EvidenceResearched · not worn by us
| Rating tier | MIL-PRF-32432. The maker states a MIL-PRF-32432 (or MIL-PRF-31013 / military V0) ballistic pass: a fragment simulator at several times the energy of the ANSI high-velocity test. Not on the Army list. |
|---|---|
| Impact rating | ANSI Z87.1 (as listed by the retailer) |
| Ballistic standard | MIL-PRF-32432 (as listed by the retailer) |
| Lens material | Plutonite |
| Lens system | Modular lens system; Clear, Gray and Prizm Gray lens options |
| Temples | "Thin Stem Technology — designed for compatibility with over-ear protection and communication systems without pressure points" |
| Coatings | Anti-fog coating |
| UV | "Filters 100% of all UVA, UVB, UVC, and harmful blue light up to 400nm" |
How the 8.0 score breaks down
- Protection rating (30%)
- 8
- Optical clarity & tint options (20%)
- 9
- Fit & ear-pro compatibility (20%)
- 9
- Fog & scratch resistance (15%)
- 7
- Value (15%)
- 6
What the spec page supports
- Thin Stem temples described specifically for over-ear protection and comms
- Modular lens system with clear, gray and Prizm options
- High Definition Optics claim and a 400 nm UV cutoff
- Long service history as issued eyewear
Where it falls short
- We could not read Oakley's own page or the Army APEL page — ratings are quoted from a retailer listing and we do not mark it APEL here
- Rx insert availability not stated on the listing
- Premium price for the same MIL-PRF tier as the Saber Advanced
Skip this if…
…you want the rating and APEL status straight from a page you can read yourself — the ESS Crossbow APEL kit states both on the maker's site.
#ad · Price set by Amazon · Disclosure for the link to Oakley SI Ballistic M Frame 3.0
Stock photoESS: the documented kit
ESS Crossbow 2LS Kit
APEL and MIL-PRF-32432A on the maker's page, DedBolt swaps, named coating, three inserts.
EvidenceResearched · not worn by us
| Rating tier | APEL. Listed on the U.S. Army's Authorized Protective Eyewear List. The Army tested this configuration to MIL-PRF-32432 ballistic fragmentation and approved it for issue. |
|---|---|
| Impact rating | "ANSI Z87+ 2020" (2LS kit page); "ANSI Z87.1+ 2015 Edition" (APEL kit page) |
| Ballistic standard | "U.S. MIL-PRF-32432A" (APEL kit page, SKU 740-0386) |
| APEL | "APEL (Authorized Protective Eyewear List) approved" — the Black 2x w/Clear & Smoke Gray APEL kit |
| Lens system | "Patented DedBolt Lens Lock" for quick exchange |
| Lenses included | Fully assembled frame with Smoke Gray lens plus a Clear lens (2LS); the APEL kit ships two assembled eyeshields, hard case and pouch |
| Rx insert | "Prescription compatible with the ESS U-Rx Insert, ESS Vice Insert, and UPLC" |
| Fit / size | "Tri-Tech Fit ergonomics offer universal comfort and stability. Universal Fit." |
| Coatings | "ClearZone FlowCoat technology minimizes scratches and provides unmatched anti-fog capability" |
How the 8.6 score breaks down
- Protection rating (30%)
- 10
- Optical clarity & tint options (20%)
- 8
- Fit & ear-pro compatibility (20%)
- 8
- Fog & scratch resistance (15%)
- 8
- Value (15%)
- 8
What the spec page supports
- APEL listing and MIL-PRF-32432A stated by the maker on the APEL kit page
- Clear and smoke lenses in the box; tool-free DedBolt swap
- Three documented Rx-insert options (U-Rx, Vice, UPLC)
- Named anti-fog / anti-scratch coating (ClearZone FlowCoat)
Where it falls short
- Lens material, thickness, weight and warranty are not stated on the product pages
- The plain 2LS kit page lists ANSI Z87+ and OSHA but not the MIL-PRF wording — buy the APEL SKU if the Army listing matters to you
- Universal fit only; no small or large size
Skip this if…
…you have a narrow face — the Crossbow comes in one universal size, and the Sawfly's Small or a youth frame will seal better.
#ad · Price set by Amazon · Disclosure for the link to ESS Crossbow 2LS Kit
How Lens & Lead rates eyewear
Pairs we claim to have worn or tested: 0
Plenty of sites say they shot every pair on the list. We didn't, and we say so. What we do instead: read the certification the maker actually publishes and repeat its wording ("meets", "certified", "tested to", "APEL"), check the lens system and the tints in the box, note whether the temples are described for ear muffs and whether an Rx route exists, and score every pick on a public rubric that weights protection first. Every figure links to where it came from; where the maker's page would not load we cite the retailer and say so. The standards themselves are explained on ANSI Z87.1 vs MIL-PRF-32432.
Scores are editorial judgments from that documented research, not test results. Commissions never set a score or decide a pick. The rubric and its weights are published.
Questions
Frequently asked
Which is better, Oakley M Frame or ESS Crossbow?
The Crossbow on documentation and inserts; the M Frame under muffs and comms. Both are issued eyewear; the Crossbow's APEL claim is on a page we could read, the Oakley's is not.
Are both the M Frame and the Crossbow APEL approved?
ESS states APEL on its Crossbow APEL kit page. The M Frame 3.0 is widely sold as APEL, but neither Oakley's page nor the Army's would load for us, so we mark it MIL-PRF from a retailer listing.
Which is better for prescription wearers?
The Crossbow: ESS documents three inserts. The Oakley listing we cite mentions none.
Keep reading
Related on Lens & Lead
Receipts
Sources
- Shellback Tactical — Oakley SI Ballistic M Frame 3.0 listing (ANSI Z87.1, MIL-PRF-32432, Thin Stem, Plutonite, UV) (checked 2026-09-21)
- ESS EyePro — Crossbow Black 2x w/Clear & Smoke Gray APEL page (ANSI Z87.1+ 2015, MIL-PRF-32432A, APEL) (checked 2026-09-21)
- ESS EyePro — Crossbow 2LS Kit page (ANSI Z87+ 2020, ClearZone FlowCoat, U-Rx / Vice inserts, Tri-Tech Fit) (checked 2026-09-21)
- U.S. Army — Effective Eye Protection Preserves Sight to Fight (APEL managed by PEO Soldier / MCEP; the APEL logo marks authorized eyewear) (checked 2026-09-21)
We don't own or wear-test these glasses and we don't pretend to. Ratings, lens systems, fit notes and coatings come from the maker's own product pages (linked on every product) or, where the maker's page would not load, from a retailer or press page we label as such. Where a figure isn't published we say so. Prices are set by Amazon and change often, so we don't print them. Read the full method.