NERT11
Member
Bullard UST with Bourkes and ESS, or Cairns 1044 with Defender and Bourkes?
- Thread starter NERT11
- Start date
ful-vue
New Member
To me Bourkes are just a fashion statement. What would be the point? (I wear a 660C with a face shield - I would upgrade it to a Defender if the kit wasn't almost as expensive as the entire helmet.)
HCR1990
Member
I have a 1044 with defender but no bourkes, its great, out of of the way until you need it and nothing to get caught on eye protection wise.
Eric1249
Member
justavillain
Member
If you have borks you should have a 2ed set of eye protection. (at least I was told this not sure but you do see goggles on a lot of them)
As for the defender it's a good system I like it for the most part. The problem I have with it is they fog EASY because it touches your cheeks otherwise it's good.
I have a 1044 with the external visor and I personally like the look more with the external one.
As for the defender it's a good system I like it for the most part. The problem I have with it is they fog EASY because it touches your cheeks otherwise it's good.
I have a 1044 with the external visor and I personally like the look more with the external one.
pdk9
Member
We have 1044's and 1010's with defenders; a lot of guys including me, keep the bourkes (but that's simply for the traditional look, since I've always had them). I would hands down go with cairns over Bullard; cairns was the first of the 2 with the defender-type eye protection and they did a great job with it. I have no complaints with the cairns defender; they're out of the way (unlike goggles), always ready to go, and they hug your face pretty well IMO (something that the formerly-compliant 4" face shields never did)
NERT11
Member
Ignore the fact that I included the Bourkes as part of the question. I know it's just for the traditional look and not NFPA compliant... I'm only choosing it as an option. My main question was Bullard or MSA. MSA has the advantage of the Defenders, and y'all like the 1044 better correct?
Thank you for the quick replies folks!
Thank you for the quick replies folks!
Markymark5411
Member
The last time I checked, the Bourkes were listed with NFPA at the same compliance level at the 4" flip down shields. I believe the wording was something to the effect of a class II or secondary eye protection. Both still required goggles or safety glasses to get a class II or primary eye protection compliance. Not sure where the defender fits into the NFPA recommendation as I have not looked into that. We had this issue several years ago on a department I was on and we had several people tell us that the Bourkes we "illegal" and "non-compliant". Upon looking into the issue it was discovered that the Bourkes in fact were as compliant as the flip down face shield that so many on our department said we had to have.
I truly get that the Bourkes are not very protective and actually have been knowing to cause injury to firefighters simply because of their design. I personally have found the Bourkes to be as effective as the flip down shield but less cumbersome then that of the shield or goggles. This of course hinges on a properly installed set of Bourkes. The aftermarket Bourkes work well but I have seen some that were just thrown on without attention to detail thus resulting in a poorly operating set of bourkes with gaps and improperly alignment. Bourkes and a pair of safety glasses have served me very well in my 20 years of firefighting. I am interested in trying the defender set up as I have heard a lot of good feedback on them.
I truly get that the Bourkes are not very protective and actually have been knowing to cause injury to firefighters simply because of their design. I personally have found the Bourkes to be as effective as the flip down shield but less cumbersome then that of the shield or goggles. This of course hinges on a properly installed set of Bourkes. The aftermarket Bourkes work well but I have seen some that were just thrown on without attention to detail thus resulting in a poorly operating set of bourkes with gaps and improperly alignment. Bourkes and a pair of safety glasses have served me very well in my 20 years of firefighting. I am interested in trying the defender set up as I have heard a lot of good feedback on them.
justavillain
Member
NERT11 said:
Also a little food for thought the 1010 and 1044 are the same helmet the 1010 is painted/glossy as the 1044 is colored fiberglass and more matte finish
I have a cairns 1010 with Bourkes and now defenders for the past year nd half. What a difference. My Bourkes are all scratched and distorted from fires and such. The defenders are awesome with how much coverage they have and the fact they are protected until they need to be used.
pdk9
Member
NERT11 said:
Love the 1010/1044 helmets; I have both and, like mentioned above, the only real difference is matte vs glossy finish...I think that MSA/Cairns make the best helmets out there (kinda like a pierce of helmets, IMO)
Also, another consideration with the UST/goggles combo is that goggles (just like 4" face shields and bourkes) are also subject to heat/scratch/impact damage, due to the fact that they sit outside your helmet. Yeah, you can get protective covers for them, but it just is one more thing that makes the helmet bulky and only protects against scratches. I also saw someone mention fogging with their defenders; for me, personally, it hasn't been much of a problem, and pretty much every goggles and safety glasses I've worn are subject to some degree of fogging when you're working hard and sweating.