Ultralight Backpacking Rifle – The Ruta Locura Pack Rifle Kit (PRK)

This is going to be a general post regarding one of the ultralight backpacking rifle options that I mentioned in an earlier post. It should serve as a general overview of the Ruta Locura Pack Rifle Kit (PRK), and to show the assembly process of the gun, at least the way I did it along with my modifications to the final product. This is not a complete review of the product, only general impressions. I have not been using the rifle for long enough and under enough different conditions as to offer a complete in dept review of its performance.

The Pack Rifle Kit (PRK), as the name indicates, is not actually a complete rifle. It is a conversion kit designed to reduce the weight of a standard Keystone Arms Crickett youth rifle. Rutal Locura produces two variants of the kit. The first is a tube stock version, which reduces the weight of the gun to 15 oz. The second version, and the one which I will be looking at here uses a skeletonized stock instead of the tube stock, reducing the weight of the gun to 19 oz (19.8 as measured on my scale).

Since the receiver and bolt are the ones from a Crickett rifle, the firing characteristics and operation are the same as that of the Crickett. The final product is a single action, single shot, bolt action rifle, chambered in .22LR. The replacement stock increases the length of pull (the distance from the trigger to the butt of the stock) to 14 inches. The overall length of the finished rifle is 32 inches. The kit allows easy disassembly of the completed rifle, whereby the stock can be removed using a single wing nut. As mentioned above, the skeletonized version of the PRK weighs 19 oz (19.8 as measured) in its completed form. The barrel is made of a carbon fiber outer with a steel insert. The stock of the skeletonized kit is made from plastic and carbon fiber.

My setup, as seen in the above picture, including the scope, comes in at exactly 1.5 lb. The PRK is not cheap. It costs $250.00. That is a good amount of money, especially considering that you are not getting an actual gun. Together with the cost of a Crickett rifle, the total cost of the gun will be in the $350.00 range. While not cheap, it is not more than its competitor, the Pack Rifle, which sells for $450.00. 

The Components

In the picture below, you can see all of the components of the kit required for final assembly. Of course, you have to start out with a Crickett rifle. The one I have is a new model (without the safety lock), but the older ones work just as well with the kit, and in fact, so do the old Chipmunk rifles. The components that actually come with the Skeletonized Pack Rifle Kit are the stock, the replacement barrel, and the wing nut/bolt which holds the stock to the receiver in the final product. That’s it!

For comparison purposes, in the chart below I have divided the different components as shared ones, those belonging to the stock Crickett, and those belonging to the PRK, and shown the corresponding weights.

	Crickett	Shared	PRK
Stock	1 lb 0.3 oz (16.3 oz)		6.9 oz
Receiver, Bolt and Trigger Assembly		8.5 oz
Barrel	1 lb 3.6 oz (19.6 oz)		4.2 oz
Barrel Screw		Less than 0.1 oz
Barrel Retaining Lug	Less than 0.1 oz		0.2 oz
Total Weight	2 lb 12.4 oz (44.4 oz)		19.8 oz

Where you see a weight of “Less than 0.1 oz” it means I was not able to register any weight on my scale.

Assembly Stage 1 – Putting Together the Components

Please remember that what you see here is simply the steps that I took. I do not work for Ruta Locura, and my methods should not be followed without knowing what you are doing. Do this at your own risk. If you are not sure how to install the kit, take it to a licensed gun smith.

Stage 1 of the assembly is to put together the components from the kit. Completion of this stage will give you the final product that the Skeletonized Pack Rifle Kit provides. Stage 2 and Stage 3 will show modifications and additions that I have made to the product in order to get the rifle you see in the first picture. For now, let’s continue with Stage 1.

The assembly of the PRK begins with the disassembly of the Crickett rifle.

Begin by removing the stock from the Crickett rifle. It is held to the receiver with just a single flathead screw, which can be found on the bottom of the stock.

When the screw is removed, simply pull the stock away from the rest of the gun. There are no other components holding it together.

Next, remove the bolt from the receiver. You don’t technically need to do this, but there is no reason to cause unnecessary damage to the bolt while working on the gun. To remove the bolt, simply draw it back as far as it will go. Then fully press the trigger. That will release the bolt and allow you to pull it all the way out while holding down the trigger.

With the bolt removed, it is time to remove the barrel. The barrel is held to the receiver with a 1/8 allen head screw and a roll pin. First, remove the allen head screw, which is located within the same threaded tube where the screw holding the stock to the receiver was held. Just place a 1/8 inch allen wrench inside the hole, and loosen the screw.

 

With the screw removed, it is time to take out the roll pin. This is the part of the assembly that had worried me the most. The instructions tell you to use a hole punch to drive out the pin, but I did not have one. I just used a small screw driver. A few taps with the hammer, pushed it right out without much of a problem.

Completely remove the roll pin, and pull out the barrel. I found it easiest when I held the barrel with a towel, and turned it while pulling. The end result should be the completely disassembled Crickett rifle.

Now that we have all of the component parts, it is time to substitute in the Pak Rifle Kit elements. As you can see, it is a fairly direct substitution. The bolt, receiver, and trigger mechanism stay the same; the barrel is replaced with the PRK barrel using the same allen head screw that held the original barrel, without the use of the roll pin; and the stock is replaced with the PRK stock using a wing nut/bolt instead of of the flathead screw that held on the original stock.

The final product of the Stage 1 assembly, and what the Skeletonized Pack Rifle Kit is intended to produce looks like this:

Now, a few points.

The PRK rifle uses the same sights as the Crickett, so you have to remove the front sights from the original barrel and place them on the new one. That is used by removing and then reusing on the new barrel a single 3/32 inch allen head screw.

Installing the replacement barrel can be a little tricky because you are not using the roll pin. The barrel is held in place just by the original allen head screw, which is supposed to go into an indentation on the new barrel. To align it properly, I first matched the indentations with the screw. I then inserted the bolt into the receiver, and pushed the barrel in until it was flush against the bolt. That is how I knew it was in at the right dept.

The reason why the PRK uses a wing nut/bolt instead of the original screw to hold the stock in place is that this allows you to quickly disassemble the rifle for transport. Just by removing the wing nut, you can take off the entire stock, reducing the packed length of the rifle to 20 inches.

All of the work you see done in this post was performed on my coffee table using a screwdriver, a set of allen wrenches, a hammer, and a small screwdriver/hole punch.

Ruta Locura provides some assembly instructions on their website, which you can see here as Page 1 and Page 2. While the instructions are specifically for the Tube Stock PRK, they are virtually the same ones as for the Skeletonized PRK.

Assembly Stage 2 – Modifications

The above picture shows you exactly and completely, what you get with the Skelotinized Pack Rifle Kit from Ruta Locura. Of course, I needed to make some small modifications to the design in order to make it exactly to my liking.

The first modification was to install a trigger guard. This is a single action rifle, meaning you have to manually cock the firing pin after a round is chambered, but still, I do not feel comfortable without a trigger guard. The solution was simple. That evening I was eating some beans from a can, and when I was finished, I cut out a piece of the can, folded over the edges so it was not sharp, bent it into shape using a pair of pliers, and epoxied it to the stock using Gorilla Glue.

After some cleaning up, the result was a rifle with a simple trigger guard that weighs 0.1 oz.

The second modification was even simpler. I just replaced the wing nut/bolt which holds the stock in place with the original flat head screw which performed the same function. The exchange worked well. The reason why I switched back to the original screw is that I have no intention of taking the rifle apart, so there was no need for a wing nut which would catch onto things.

 

The last modification can be seen in the above picture as well. At the risk of having a senator pass a law against the gun, I decided to pain the stock black so it matches the rest of the components. I did it using a can of spray paint I got at the hardware store. The material from which the stock is made has a porous surface, which held to the paint well, and I believe the paint will offer protection from the elements.

The above picture shows the completed product at Stage 2 of the assembly process.

Assembly Stage 3 – Additions

The last stage of the project was to add a scope to the rifle. Why a scope? Well, for one, I am not a good shot, so I need all the help I can get, but also, this is a single shot rifle. There is no quick reload here. Therefore, the more you can improve the probability of getting a hit on the first shot, the better.

So, I started looking for a scope that will work for this application. The first piece I needed to get was the scope mount for the rifle. Keystone Arms makes a scope mount for their Crickett rifles, and since the receiver has not been altered in any way, it works perfectly with the Pack Rifle Kit. The scope mount with the three screws that come with it weigh a combined 0.7 oz.

Keystone Arms also makes a 4 power scope for the Crickett, but it was too heavy for my liking. The scope comes in at over 11 oz, which is a lot considering the whole rifle weighs 19 oz. I looked around for a bit, and decided to get the Barska 4x20 Rimfire Scope (AC10730). As the name indicates, it is a fixed 4 power scope with a 20mm objective lens. The scope is listed as having a weight of 4.8 oz, but as measured it was 3.5 oz. I have no idea why there was such a big difference.

To install the scope, first install the scope mount. The process is very easy. You need to loosen the side screw that controls the elevation of the rear sight, and then remove the top screw which holds the rear peep sight on the bracket. Then remove the two place holding screws on the front part of the receiver.

Then, simply use the three screws provided with the scope mount bracket, to install it onto the receiver.

Once that is done, the scope just attaches to it with the clips that it comes with. You simply tighten them onto the mounting bracket. 

The final product is a ultralight backpacking rifle in single shot .22LR with a 4 power scope that weighs 1.5 lb. Now, the scope is not the greatest. The clarity leaves something to be desired. Also, because of the light weight of all of the components, there is noticeable recoil, which actually loosened the scope the first time I shot the rifle. Make sure the scope is well tightened. For comparison purposes, here you can see it next to my Savage Arms 93R17 rifle with a 3-9x40 scope, which weighs in at 7 lb.

Granted, the 93R17 is a much more accurate rifle, with a much better scope and a 5 round magazine, so performance wise there is no comparison, but after holding the Pack Rifle Kit rifle, and barely noticing that it is in your hands, it is hard to go back to a standard rifle.

The rifle may at first glance appear to be a toy, but in terms of fit and feel, it functions just like any other rifle with a 16 inch barrel and a stock with a full length of pull. At first I was worried that I would have difficulty aligning the rifle properly, but it has been working very well for me and has proven to be quite comfortable. 

Accuracy is what you would expect from a Crickett rifle with a 4 power scope. I have seen people take 200 yard shots with a standard Crickett with a scope, although the reality is that 100 yards would be the limit for most shooters. I doubt I will ever use it for shots over 30 yards, so if you want details on performance past that, I’m sure there is plenty of detailed information on the performance of the Crickett rifle.

In terms of down sides, there are two, and they are both a result of the kit using the Crickett rifle for components. The first issue I have is that there is no feed ramp. As a result, you can not just toss a round into the breach, and push in the bolt. You have to insert the round precisely into the chamber before closing the bolt. It is not a huge deal, but it slows down reloading times. The second issue is that it is a single action rifle. You have to manually cock the firing pin after chambering the round. Again, not a huge issue, but I would have preferred a double action rifle. In short, I wish the kit was based on the Savage Rascal rather than the Keystone Arms Crickett. Again, those are minor gripes, and the Crickett is a well proven platform that has been around for a long time.

Overall, I am extremely happy with the final product after the modifications and addition of the scope. It is hard to beat an ultralight backpacking rifle with a scope, that comes in at 1.5 lb. In all likelihood, this is the rifle that will most often find itself strapped to my pack for small game hunting. It opens up a whole world of possibilities, where you can hunt opportunistically during a wide range of trips. It is so light that you almost don’t have to justify bringing it along. If you happen to run across some small game, then great. If not, then who cares. It is only 1.5 lb. It’s hard to beat that kind of freedom.

Kovea Spider (KB-1109) Long Term Review

Back in July of 2012 I was contacted by Kovea, a Korean company, regarding reviewing one of their stoves that they were about to release on the market. The stove was the Kovea Spider. After a few uses, I did my initial review of the stove, which you can see here. Up through that point I had been using a MSR Whisperlite International white gas stove. The reason was that I don’t like changing stoves based on seasons, and a white gas stove was the safest bet for having a reliable stove in winter. After using the Kovea Spider however, and seeing what it can do, I decided to start using it as my main stove and see how it would perform under different conditions. In short, the results have been impressive.

The stove weighs 6.0 oz, one of the lightest canister stoves on the market, and can currently be purchased from Kovea for about $52. For such a stove this is dirt cheap. Similar stoves by MSR and Primus cost over $100. This is the bargain of the year. You can buy the stoves at the Kovea eBay store here.

As a bit of an overview, the Kovea Spider is a remote canister gas stove. What makes such a stove different from a regular canister stove is that it allows the fuel to be used in liquid mode rather than just as a gas. That is done by inverting the canister after lighting the stove. A preheating tube then vaporizes the liquid fuel before burning. This mechanism allows the stove to function at much lower temperatures than a regular canister stove that relies on the fuel to be in gas form. The reason for that is that most fuels stop gasifying at below certain temperatures (usually about 20F for Isobutane, and about 40F for Butane). By inverting the canister, you can use such a stove at temperatures below 0F (-18C). I like to use MSR fuel canisters because they contain 80% Isobutane and 20% Propane. Propane remains a gas down to –40F, which means that I always have enough pressure to start the stove before inverting the canister to allow it to function in liquid feed mode.

In order to see the stove in use, all you have to do is look at my trip reports. I have been using this stove exclusively for the past five months. It is powerful enough and works well enough in the cold to melt snow, while at the same time is easy enough to operate inside my tent (do at your own risk).

The construction of the stove is excellent. The legs are solid and lock into place. The fuel connection is solid. The design of the valve makes it easy to invert the canister. The stove keeps functioning in cold conditions even when the canister is nearly empty. From a design and construction stand point, I can not say anything negative about it. The more I use it, the more I like it.

One thing to keep an eye out for though is to make sure that the stove is properly primed when you are using it in cold temperatures. I have successfully used it at –10F (-23C), but you have to let the stove burn with the canister upright for about thirty seconds before inverting so that the preheating tube warms up. If you don’t you will get flair ups much like you would with a white gas stove that has not been adequately primed. The flair ups are smaller than those you get with a white gas stove, but they can be easily avoided all together by properly preheating the stove before using it in liquid fuel mode. Also note, that while the stove works at low temperatures, it does not put out as much heat as some of the white gas stoves currently on the market. If you are melting large quantities of snow, it will take you quite a bit longer than it would with a stove like the MSR Whisperlite.

I know that I am not using the greatest of pictures in this post, but as a long term review, I wanted to show you the stove in use under some real, and less than ideal conditions.

Overall, this is one of the best pieces of gear that I own. It has performed very well under a wide range of conditions with zero fiddle factor. As you can see from the picture the stove is powerful enough for me to not even bother with a windscreen (you should use one to increase efficiency). It is incredibly easy to use, and has no unnecessary features that can fail. For $52, in my opinion, it is one of the best stoves on the market. In fact, I would go as far as to say that even for $100 it would still be one of the best stoves on the market. Of course, others spend more time testing stoves may have different opinions on the subject.

GoLite Shangri-La 3 Tent Review

Just like with backpacks, I don’t do a lot of reviews of shelters simply because I do not test a lot of them, so it is hard to do good comparisons. In this post however I want to go over what I currently use as my shelter.

As a bit of background, the first time I went into the woods here in the US, I had with me a Kelty Gunnison 2 tent. It was a good tent, but I used it only once. I just hated being inside a bubble while in the woods. For my next trip, I switched to a tarp and donated the tent. I used a tarp for a long time, but started having issues with it in winter. It just offered very little wind protection, and the closer to the ground I pitched it to compensate for that, the less usable space I had. It doesn’t matter what type of pitch I used, as long as there was a side opened, the wind would get in and make things miserable. So, eventually I switched to the GoLite Shangri-La 5. It offered the best of both worlds. Just like a tarp it had no floor, so I could run a stove, not worry about snow or mud and generally do anything that I would do under a tarp. On the other hand, it offered great wind protection much like a tent.

I used the Shangri-La 5 for quite some time, but about six months ago I switched to the Shangri-La 3. This was done for only one reason. The Shangri-La 5 was just too large. The extra space was great, but in my area I was having a very hard time finding open spaces large enough to pitch it. I went with the Shargri-La 3 because it was an identical tent, simply with a smaller footprint.

To be more precise, I only use the Shangri-La 3 flysheet, pole and tent pegs, the same way I did with the Shangri-La 5. Both tents actually come with a nest, which includes mosquito netting and a floor that gets inserted under the flysheet. Not only do I have no use for it, I find that it creates just a regular tent which is exactly what I don’t want. It’s extra weight that in my opinion gives me a worse shelter. It used to be that GoLite sold the nest for both tents separately, but these days they are sold as a set. Not to worry though, the price has not gone up at all. GoLite moved their distribution in house, so they managed to keep the costs down.

Now, for some details. The GoLite Shangri-La 3 sells for $250. They are currently out of stock, but they will have new ones in a few months. The full tent, together with the nest weighs 4 lb 5 oz. However, with the set up that I use (the flysheet, pole and tent pegs) it weighs 2 lb 3 oz. The pole itself weighs 11.2 oz.

Since you guys have seen me use the GoLite Shangri-La 5, I figured I would give you some side by side stats on the two tents. If you want to see more details about the Shangri-La 5, check out this post.

	GoLite Shangri-La 3	GoLite Shangri-La 5
Weight (with nest)	4 lb 5 oz	5 lb 9 oz
Weight (as used by me)	2 lb 3 oz	2 lb 14 oz
Height	62 inches	73 inches
Floor Area	59 sq. ft.	90 sq. ft.
Material	15 Denier Ripstop Nylon with PU 1200mm Waterproof Fire Retardant Coating	15 Denier Ripstop Nylon with PU 1200mm Waterproof Fire Retardant Coating
Cost	$250.00	$300.00

For comparison purposes, here are two pictures with me next to the Shangri-La 3 and Shangri-La 5 respectively.

As you can see from the pictures, the Shangri-La 3 is significantly smaller than the Shangri-La 5. In fact, that seems to be the main difference between the two shelter. Yes, the Shangri-La 3 is a bit lighter, and a bit cheaper, but for me it’s not enough to make me chose one over the other. The reality is that if I had the space to pitch it, I would still be using the GoLite Shangri-La 5. It is much larger and much more comfortable as a result. It is also easier to pitch. The reason for that is that it has much more of a rectangular shape while the Shangri-La 3 has a hexagonal shape. It is much easier to lay out and pitch a rectangular shape than a hexagonal one.

The GoLite Shangri-La 5 is much more of a home that you carry with you into the woods, while the Shangri-La 3 much more closely resembles the size of a regular tent. People are always shocked by the size when I pitch the Shangri-La 5. They are even more shocked when they find out it weighs under 3 lb. Unfortunately, it was just too hard finding suitable locations to pitch the Shangri-La 5, so I decided to sell it and stick with the Shangri-La 3.

Now, that being said, the GoLite Shangri-La 3 is an amazing shelter. It has all of the great features that drew me to this design. It has an open floor so it can function much as a tarp. I can run a stove inside in bad weather, I can get it without taking off my shoes, I can carve inside, etc. It offers great wind protection, and because there is no floor, it deals very well with condensation. Even when you do get it, it just rolls down the walls and into the ground. I’m 6 foot tall, and the shelter is large enough (just) that I can sleep inside without touching the walls, which keep the condensation off my sleeping bag.

This is the best shelter design I have been able to find, and I am extremely happy with it. I use it for all seasons, and so far the shelter has stood up to anything I have been able to throw at it. I just wish GoLite would go back to selling just the flysheet. They could really bring the cost down making it very affordable.

REI Flash 62 Backpack Review

I generally don’t like to do backpack, or tent or sleeping bag reviews simply because I don’t use enough different ones to be able to give you a good comparison. The only reason why I am writing this review is to show you what I currently use on most of my trips and why I chose this particular pack.

As the name of the post indicates, my pack is the REI Flash 62, more precisely the 2012 model. It is an internal frame pack. It weighs 3lb (1.36kg) for the medium length one, which is what I use, and it has a volume of 62L (3,787 cubic inches). The pack retails for about $190. For those of you not familiar with the manufacturer, REI is actually a store that sells outdoor gear. From time to time they make some of the gear themselves. This is one of those examples. The pack is available only through their stores.

I’ve had this pack for almost six months now, and I have been using it both as my three season pack as well as my winter pack (down to 0F). I actually stumbled onto this pack by accident. What happened was that I was looking for a large winter pack. As some of you may remember, I was using an old CFP 90 pack for my winter trips. It was large, heavy and uncomfortable. Well, I saved up some money, and decided that I’ll get a new winter pack, since my three season one (the Rio Grande 45) was doing fine. So, I went into REI, looking for a pack in the 70-75L range. However, after looking at my gear, I saw that it would all fit (with some care) into a smaller pack. I looked as some light weight packs in the 65L range, and it came down to the REI Flash 62 or the Osprey Atmos 65. I decided to go with the Flash 62 because it was half a pound lighter and more importantly, it had the floating front pocket, which I’ll discuss later.

Once I went home, I quickly noticed that the Flash 62 will function well as a three season pack as well. If I simply didn’t fill up any of the pockets, in particular the large front floating pocket, the rest of my gear fit rather well in the main compartment of the pack, which appears to be about 50L in volume. So right off the bat, I started using the pack. The pack also has an adjustable (and detachable) top lid, which allows you to expand and compact the pack quite a bit.

The first time I used the pack with about 30lb of gear, I ended up being rather unhappy with it. The pack uses a frame that is composed of an aluminum tube that runs along the pack and connects to the hip belt. This was creating some pressure at the location of the hip belt where the frame connected. I contemplated returning the pack, but after trying some of the other packs in that weight range, it seemed that they suffered from similar problems. The second time I used the pack, I was very happy with it. All I did was simply loosen the hip belt a tiny bit. Maybe it was that or maybe it was that the pack was more broken in, but I have had absolutely no comfort issues since then even with weights up to 40lb.

When the weather cooled down, as expected, I was able to use the pack for my winter trips as well. The trips I would use this pack for are ones where the temperature is above 0F (-18C). Anything below that requires a larger sleeping bag which is too big for this pack to handle along with all my other gear.

Above you can see the pack with my full winter gear including crampons (inside the bag), ice axe, and snow shoes. It also includes a Western Mountaineering Antelope MF (0F) sleeping bag and my Patagonia DAS Parka, which is stored in the front floating pocket for easy access. The floating pocket, which I have mentioned several times now is the large pocket you see in the front. Most packs have a pocket in this area that is attached to the body of the pack. The problem with such a design is that once the pack is full, it tends to take up most of the space inside the pocket as well. The floating pocket is attached to the pack only at the bottom and is held to the body of the pack with straps. This allows you to use the full volume of the pocket, and it also creates a space between the main body of the pack and the pocket which allows you to store other items. In the above picture you can see my closed cell foam sitting pad nested between the pocket and the pack.

Some down sides of the pack…well, I already mentioned the initial comfort issue. The pockets on the hip belt are also uselessly small. The most I have been able to put in there was a compass. Also, when fully loaded, the side mesh pockets get stretched out too much, making it hard to put a Nalgene bottle in them. It’s doable, but it’s just too much of a hassle.

Overall, I love this pack. Again, I am not a big pack guy. I don’t sit and test many of them, so I am sure there are people who would be able to make better comparisons for you. For me though, this is the pack I am sticking with.

Olicamp Space Saver Anodized Aluminum Mug Review

As I’ve mentioned before, these days I use a Stoic Ti Kettle as my cup when in the woods. When I was searching for the “right” cup however, I tried out some different ones. One of them was the Olicamp Space Saver cup. I wanted to do a brief review of it since I already purchased and used it.

The cup weighs 3.2 oz, and cost me about $13 from Ben’s Backwoods. I should mention that the customer service was great. The Olicamp Space Saver cup is made of hard anodized aluminum, and is designed to nest with a Nalgene bottle.

The cup has a fairly good design. It has a standard shape that fits over a Nalgene bottle, and hold 24 oz of liquid. Unlike most other similar cups, it has very large handles, similar to what you would see on a US GI canteen cup. I thought the design worked well. The longer handles are good when you have hot liquid in the cup. The handles are riveted to the body much like on the old canteen cups.

While the design on the mug is fine, unfortunately the construction is not. It is just obvious that this cup was made as cheaply as possible. The handles did not line up properly, or more exactly, did not fit together, so the grip was very uncomfortable unless I spent some time adjusting them. The rivets used to attach the handles are very rough, and have not been properly pressed. The ones on my cup protruded so much on the inside of the cup that they gauged out the Nalgene bottle I was using.

I bought the Olicamp Space Saver Mug because it was cheap. Sometimes you get products that are low cost, but are still well made. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. The cost cutting measures are quite obvious. Of course, it is significantly cheaper than my Stoic Ti Kettle, which retails for over $30. That being said, I bought mine on sale for $20. I’ll pay the extra $8 any time because the quality is just light years apart.

Hydro Flask 40oz Insulated Bottle Review

For quite some time now I have been contemplating getting a thermos/insulated bottle of some sort for my winter outings. The benefit of a thermos bottle during winter backpacking, at least for me is that it can prevent the water inside from freezing, and allows you to carry hot water with you for extended periods of time. The problem of course has always been the weight, and surprisingly, the fact that most thermos bottles are very small in volume, rarely exceeding half a liter.This year I accidentally came across the Hyrdo Flask 40oz bottle, and decided to give it a try.

This particular Hydro Flask bottle holds 40oz of liquid, the same amount as a Nalgene bottle. It weights 16.4oz (actually less than the advertised 17oz), and costs about $35.00. I bought mine from Eastern Mountain Sports (EMS).

The Hydro Flask is a double wall, stainless steel insulated thermos. Because of the double wall design, even though the Hydro Flask holds the same amount of water as a Nalgene bottle, it ends up being a taller bottle.

The width of the 40oz Hydro Flask however remains the same as a Nalgele bottle, and can fit within the same cups that nest with the Nalgene bottle such as the Backcountry Stoic Ti Kettle.

In previous years I have tried different ways to insulate water bottles to achieve a similar effect to a thermos. There are many different type of cozies out on the market, and many DIY versions. I was not able to find one that I liked. None of them appeared to insulate particularly well. Even in moderately cold temperatures, the water inside would freeze during the night. When I got the Hydro Flask, I figured I would compare it to one of the better working cozies. It is an insulated cover for a Nalgene bottle made by EMS.

The Nalgene bottle weighs 6.3oz, and the EMS cozy weighs an additional 3.5oz for a total of 9.8oz. As I mentioned before, the 40oz Hydro Flask weight 16.4oz, which is quite a bit heavier.

For the test, I filled both containers with 16oz of boiling water and put them in the freezer. I then measured the water temperature at the 30 min, 60 min, and 240 min (4 hour) mark. Here are the results:

The Hydro Flask performed significantly better than the insulated Nalgene bottle. While the Hydro Flask is 6.6oz heavier than the insulated Nalgene bottle, it appears that the added weight has not gone to waste. Whether the weight is worth it, is a decision you have to make.

So, why do I like the Hydro Flask as opposed to any other thermos? Well, for starters, it holds a good amount of liquid. If I am going to carry a heavy thermos, I want it to make a difference on the trip. I am not going to carry around a thermos that only holds a cup of liquid. It hardly seems worth it. The 40oz volume is a good one for me. It is also the lightest thermos bottle I have been able to find for the volume. The bottle has no bells and whistles. There are no cups, spouts, or anything else that would add weight. I like that and the simplicity it offers.

Hydro Flask has a wide selection of different types and sizes of insulated bottles. This is the one I like, but they offer wader variety of bottles and accessories.

Is this the best backpacking thermos? Well, this is hardly the perfect solution for a winter backpacking water container, but it is the best I have been able to find. I am still unsure if I would be willing to carry the thermos with me, but if I decide to take one, it will be the 40oz Hydro Flask.

Goal Zero Guide 10 Plus Review

Earlier I reviewed the Goal Zero Nomad 7 solar charger. It is comprised of two solar panels which can be used to charge your electronic devises. But, what if the sun is not shining? Well, there is a supplemental component to the Nomad 7, which allows for more continued charging. That devise is the Guide 10 Plus rechargeable battery pack. It was provided to me by Omaha Knife for testing, and it was very useful during the recent hurricane.

The Guide 10 Plus is designed to work in combination with the Nomad 7. In fact, the Nomad 7 comes with the extension cord necessary to connect the Guide 10 Plus to the solar panel. The guide 10 Plus comes with four AA rechargeable batteries.

The dimensions of the Guide 10 Plus are 4 inches x 2.5 inches x 0.75 inches. The case itself weighs 2.1 oz and 6.2 oz together with the batteries. The cable that connects the Guide 10 Plus to the Nomad 7 weighs an additional 0.7 oz. The Guide 10 Plus battery pack retails for about $40.00. Keep in mind that very often it is sold as a kit with the Nomad 7.

On their website, Goal Zero states that using the Nomad 7 solar panel, the Guide 10 Plus battery pack can be charged in about 6-8 hours, while using a USB source, it takes about 8-10 hours. I have to say, I have no idea where they got these numbers. While the charging speed from the Nomad 7 sounds about right, I was able to charge the battery pack through the USB port by both plugging it into my laptop and to a wall outlet in under 2 hours. To charge the battery pack, the cable is inserted in one end, and the other end of the cable plugs into a USB port or the Nomad 7. This port can be a computer, or if you have an adapter (my cell phone came with one) a wall outlet. Keep in mind that inside the pack, there is a small piece of plastic that keeps one of the batteries from touching the pack. You have to pull it out before you can use the pack. The tab is there to keep the batteries from being active while the devise waits to be sold, but it will not work unless you take it out.

To use the battery pack, you just have to plug your device into it. The Guide 10 Plus has a USB port into which you can plug devices you wish to charge. Alternatively, you can just use the batteries themselves in your devices (headlamp, etc).

When it comes to charging speed, it is similar to if you have your devise plugged into your computer. It is about the same speed as if plugged into the outlet. I was able to charge my phone (Droid X, and now Galaxy SIII) twice on one charge of the Guide 10 Plus. I get about 10% charge every 10 minutes.

The Goal Zero Nomad 7 and the Guide 10 Plus battery pack are clearly designed to work together. The intent is that when there is sun you can use the solar panel to charge your devises and the battery pack. When sunlight is not available, you can use the Guide 10 Plus battery pack to power your devises.

Again, the usefulness of the system will depend on your circumstances. I can not see an instance where I would need it when backpacking, but for trips requiring more electronics, or bugout bags, I think this is a great tool. It was incredibly useful in the recent hurricane. My phone was one of the most important things I needed to charge, and the battery pack gave me that capability. This is not in the instructions, so I don’t know exactly what impact it would have on the device, but I was able to use regular batteries to charge my phone by just putting them into the Guide 10 Plus cartage.

Goal Zero Nomad 7 Solar Charger Review

I was recently sent several electronic devises by Omaha Knife for testing. While the store is my go to place for axes, they have expanded their inventory to include a large amount of backpacking, hunting and bushcraft gear. One of the items sent to me for testing was the Goal Zero Nomad 7 solar charger.

The Goal Zero Nomad 7 is a portable solar charger designed for backpacking and backwoods use. It retails at about $80.00. When closed, the Nomad 7 resembles a small notebook. Its detentions are 9 inches x 6.5 inches x 0.5 inches. On one of the corners there is a small box with a USB port. In that area, the folded pad is 1.5 inches thick. The Full devise weighs 14.9 oz, not counting any cables. Just like a notebook, the Nomad 7 opens to expose the solar panels which are otherwise protected by the casing.

Along the perimeter of the devise, there are loops which can be used to attach the panels to a backpack, or to be positioned on any other mode of transportation you may be using.

On the back of the devise, on the reverse side of one of the solar panels is a mesh pocket which contains the charging port.

The pocket is very handy, as it allows the devise you are charging to be stored securely while it is plugged in to the port. Also, when the charger is opened and the panels face the sun, the pocket ends up under the panel, protecting the devise you are charging from direct sun light. From searching online, I have seen the Nomad 7 with this pocket and charging port located on a flap next to one of the solar panels in several of the pictures I have seen. The one I have and you see in the pictures here appears to be the new model. I have to say, I prefer this design a lot more as it protects the devise from direct sun light, and cuts down on weight.

The Nomad 7 comes with several types of adaptors which fit into the charging port (USB, 12V and others). I didn’t have much use for them, as most electronic devises today come with their own USB compatible charger adapter. In the above picture, I am using the USB cord for my phone to plug directly into the Nomad 7.

As far as performance, I have been very impressed with what can be accomplished with these modestly sized solar panels. In good direct sunlight, the Nomad 7 charges my phone (Droid X) as fast as if it was plugged into an electrical outlet. I get about 10% charge every 10 minutes. This means that the Nomad 7 will fully charge my phone is 1 hour 40 minutes. I should note that I have not actually done that, i.e. charge my phone from fully empty to full using the Nomad 7. I am extrapolating based on the speed of charging I have seen during use. Obviously, performance will decrease if less sunlight is available. I should also point out that I tried using it behind a car window, and it did not appear to work well at all. For some reason the car windscreen does something to the sun’s rays that decreases the charging efficiency.

I have now used the Goal Zero Nomad 7 on several outings, and have each time been pleasantly surprised by the capability it offers in the woods. I’ll be the first to admit that electronics confuse me, but it is very assuring to just plug a devise into it, and see the charge light turn on.

Now, the reality is that I carry virtually no electronics into the woods other than the GPS that I use to record the trips for you guys. As such, I can’t justify caring the Nomad 7 on my trips from a purely practical stand point. My GPS receiver can record for about 24 hours on a set of AA batteries. I can bring a lot of AA batteries before I can justify the extra weight of the Nomad 7.

That being said however, there are certainly applications where this type of devise will be of great use. If you are a hunter, using a canoe or ATV to get to a base camp where a number of electronic devises will be maintained, then the Goal Zero Nomad 7 would be a great tool. Similarly, I think it would be very useful for a bugout bag where you may be contemplating being stranded for an unknown period of time without electricity, but still needing to run several electronic devises. I remember during the power outage in NYC about a decade ago, many of us were stranded in the city without any means to charge cell phones or other devises which we needed for communication. Had the Nomad 7 been in my school bag, it would have been put to very good use.

Now, I’m sure that there are people out there who can talk to you for hours about all the details and technology used here, and what could have been done better or differently. Unfortunately, I know very little about that. The only thing I can tell you is that I plug stuff in and it gets charged, which puts a smile on my face. And, if you decide to purchase the Nomad 7 at Omaha Knife, don’t forget your “woodtrekker” discount code.