I pulled a bunch of product off the shelves, stuffed them with wadded newspaper and took pictures. I have pics of the HAWG v HAWG 500 and MULE v MULE 500, but honestly there is not enough difference between them to really see in pictures.
I did not have a "standard" BFM to compare to the BFM 500, but the basic difference is the addition of the upper pockets on the sides, and the "swap" of the two back pockets...the larger outer pocket was at the top, with a smaller rectangular pocket below that. Basically, take the "standard" Motherlode, and add a rectangular pocket below that, and you should have an idea. Weights below are empty, no water, and the volume (cubic inches) is cargo only.
Specs:
BFM: 21 in x 13 in x 10 in / 2551 c.i. cargo / 5.88 lbs empty (no water)
BFM 500: 21.5 x 13.5 x 14.5in / 3142 c.i. cargo / 4.6 lbs empty (no water)
Motherlode: 19 in x 13 in x 8 in / 2143 c.i. / 4.88 lbs
Motherlode 500: 20 in x 14.5 in x 13.5 in / 2592 cu in / 4.47 lbs
Trizip: 20 x 13 x 11.5 in / 1917 c.i. / 4.89 lbs (this is info on the tag...marketing materials say it's 2,318 c.i.)
HAWG: 1099 c.i. / (I don't have any other specs on it...pulled this from the website and I have none in stock so can't check tags)
HAWG 500: 20 in x 10.5 in x 12 in / 1291 cu in / 2.64 lbs
MULE : 18.5 x 10 x 5 / 540 c.i. / 2.27 lbs
MULE 500: 18 in x 10 in x 6 in / 492 cu in / 2.10 lbs
BFM 500 v Motherlode 500
They are that much different in size, physically, unlike the impression this picture gives. Remember that the BFM 500 has pockets on the sides, so it wasn't as close to the wall as the Motherlode 500. Since it was closer to the camera, the BFM-500 looks much larger than the ML-500. While it is a bit bigger, it's not as dramatic as the image suggests.


Motherlode 500 v Motherlode


Motherlode 500 v Trizip


Trizip v HAWG 500 v MULE 500

I did not have a "standard" BFM to compare to the BFM 500, but the basic difference is the addition of the upper pockets on the sides, and the "swap" of the two back pockets...the larger outer pocket was at the top, with a smaller rectangular pocket below that. Basically, take the "standard" Motherlode, and add a rectangular pocket below that, and you should have an idea. Weights below are empty, no water, and the volume (cubic inches) is cargo only.
Specs:
BFM: 21 in x 13 in x 10 in / 2551 c.i. cargo / 5.88 lbs empty (no water)
BFM 500: 21.5 x 13.5 x 14.5in / 3142 c.i. cargo / 4.6 lbs empty (no water)
Motherlode: 19 in x 13 in x 8 in / 2143 c.i. / 4.88 lbs
Motherlode 500: 20 in x 14.5 in x 13.5 in / 2592 cu in / 4.47 lbs
Trizip: 20 x 13 x 11.5 in / 1917 c.i. / 4.89 lbs (this is info on the tag...marketing materials say it's 2,318 c.i.)
HAWG: 1099 c.i. / (I don't have any other specs on it...pulled this from the website and I have none in stock so can't check tags)
HAWG 500: 20 in x 10.5 in x 12 in / 1291 cu in / 2.64 lbs
MULE : 18.5 x 10 x 5 / 540 c.i. / 2.27 lbs
MULE 500: 18 in x 10 in x 6 in / 492 cu in / 2.10 lbs
BFM 500 v Motherlode 500
They are that much different in size, physically, unlike the impression this picture gives. Remember that the BFM 500 has pockets on the sides, so it wasn't as close to the wall as the Motherlode 500. Since it was closer to the camera, the BFM-500 looks much larger than the ML-500. While it is a bit bigger, it's not as dramatic as the image suggests.


Motherlode 500 v Motherlode


Motherlode 500 v Trizip


Trizip v HAWG 500 v MULE 500


Comment