Camelbak Comparisons

[TimW]

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

[Papadoc]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

Tim,
Thanks for the info and pics. I have a question though, what is up with the weight? In each case the "500" version is larger, has a higher capacity, yet is considerably lighter than it's non-500 counter part.

[TimW]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

1000D denotes the Denier of the Cordura...500D is thinner and, thus, lighter. From my Camelbak Rep:

Tim,
The 500D is 37% lighter per square yard and our fabric itself exceeds the mil spec requirements for 500D by 41%. However, that is the technical data and the packs themselves may not differentiate by that large of a margin.

You are confusing volume with "external" measurements. If you take a cardboard box that weighs X, and increase the box's VOLUME by 25%, that doesn't necessarily mean you might use 25% more material to get this larger volume. I SUCK at math and such, so I am not saying this is a hard fact, but it seems to make sense to me.

Coupled with a material that is almost 40% lighter, it's easy to see how they could make the pack larger AND lighter. From everything I can tell, they've cut nothing out of the design...indeed, they've ADDED features (upper pockets on outside and a fleece-lined pocket). All other features are the same as far as I can tell.

SOTech is using 500D for a lot of their pouches, and they've found that the strength and abrasion resistance is about 75-80% as good as 1000D for that 40% weight decrease. As you can see in the specs listed above, the sizes tend to be a bit bigger for the same amount of weight, or less.

[Papadoc]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

I did not realize that the 500 == 500D Nylon. That makes sense then on the weight vs volume/physical dimension's and features. And a 20-25% strength and abrasion resistance loss vs ~40% weight decrease is not a bad trade off at all.

Would you happen to have any pics showing the Motherload 500 vs Hawg 500 vs Mule 500?

Thanks

[Hooch]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

Would that trizip be good for a Quad? I want a ruck that I can access through the back, not a top load.

How much are those?

[TimW]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

No direct pics of ML v HAWG v MULE. The latter 2 are, obviously, already there in the last pics. If you look at the ML and Trizip, you can extrapolate the size...the ML goes to about the zipper for the lid. Then look to the Trizip/HAWG/MULE picture.

There is a sizable difference between the HAWG and ML, and a significant difference between the ML and MULE.

The size differences are listed at the top. The ML has 6 times the cargo space of a MULE, over twice that of the HAWG and one-fourth more than the Trizip. All four are about the same height, the Mule and Hawg and the Trizip and Motherlode are about the same width.

It really depends on what you plan to do with it...as my miltiary friends say "mission dictates gear".


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 500: 20 in x 10.5 in x 12 in / 1291 cu in / 2.64 lbs

MULE 500: 18 in x 10 in x 6 in / 492 cu in / 2.10 lbs

http://www.practicaltactical.net/pro...bak/Categories

Trizip is $194.99. My prices are some of the lowest on the Internet (avg about 30% off retail) and I usually have the stuff in stock, though the new 500-series is sort of hit-and-miss as I build inventory.

[Wood Devil]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

I like the Camelbak Talon. Foliage Green. You have any of them on hand, Tim? Pics?

[TimW]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

No, not on hand. I'd have to order it. With SHOT coming up, it'd be around the end of the month before I got anything in. Let me know if you want one (timw (at) practicaltactical (dot) net) and I can add that to my SHOT Show order.

[majortom]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

Tim,

New to this site, but I have seen your store website.

I'm looking for the BFM 500 but wondering if 500D material compromises durability.

I will only be using the pack for hiking, camping and some travelling.

Your comments appreciated.

[TimW]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

Tim,

New to this site, but I have seen your store website.

I'm looking for the BFM 500 but wondering if 500D material compromises durability.

I will only be using the pack for hiking, camping and some travelling.

Your comments appreciated.

IMO, not for people like us. According to Camelbak, it's got about 80-85% of the abrasion resistance as the standard 1000D Cordura. But it's a lot lighter, and the softer hand allows Camelbak to do things that the stiffer material wouldn't allow. For what it's worth, I've transitioned all my Camelbaks to the 500D versions.

I currently have Foliage and ACU in stock, and Black is on order.

[majortom]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

Thanks for the reply.

I am trying to decide between the BFM 500 and the motherlode. Although I'm leaning towards the larger pack. Better to have more capacity when you might need it than to be caught short.

I will order the pack in early April. You do ship to Canada I assume?

Btw, what part of Phoenix is your store located? I may be in Phoenix in late May for a few days.

[TimW]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

Yes, I ship to Canada. At the moment, I am out of the Motherlode 500 series...I've had only 1 order for one, surprisingly. BFMs and HAWGs, all the time.

I don't have a physical storefront, but can make arrangements to meet at the Bat Cave if you're in town. Give me as much notice as possible, preferably via email @

timw (at) practicaltactical (dot) com

[majortom]

Re: Camelbak Comparisons

Thanks Tim.

I will know by the end of the month whether I will be visiting Phoenix.

My feeling is that the BFM 500 is the right pack.

Will chat with you soon..