Kit thats come and gone ...
- Thread starter Twodogs
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Yes.
As much as anything, because you use a pointless (by your own admission) comparison to highlight perceived failings that are outside the Millbank's remit.
... there you go again.
Homework time...
Lighter? 3oz (84g) vs 56g - half as heavy again
Cheaper? £55.95 before postage vs £6 to a UK address (£8.20 to Greece)
Easier to find? Google search vs One Click Here
Don't get me wrong; I have absolutely nothing against the Sawyer filter and would probably own one if I didn't already have a serviceable Travel Tap bottle.
Last edited:
I use an msr filter, weighs more than either of them, cost more and is considerably larger. I use it cos its the one ive got....
Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk
Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk
I have to admit to using both a Millbank bag (to get rid of the particulates ands visible grim) AND a Sawyer filter or mini-filter. I don't much like drinking boiled water that has cooled as it always seems to taste a bit odd; that said, I am happy to if under duress. I like the combination of devices because the water can trickle directly into the bladder thing that then gets screwed on to the Sawyer filter and into my water bottles - no boiling (therefore no funny taste...), minimal backwashing of the filter and good tasting, cold water as well.
I can't quite understand the heated debate about which is better - Millbank or Sawyer: they both do the jobs that they were designed and made to do really very well. I love my combination because it is light, easy to use and keeps me rehydrated.
On the other discussion about closed cell foam mattresses and the inflatable ones, I, again tend to use both: the c.c.f. one to protect the inflatable and give a bit of insulation and the inflatable one for comfort. If I'm going lightweight, then I'll take just the inflatable. I am not sure that I entirely believe the points about inflatables offering insulation when deflated, though. Last summer when bumbling in Greenland north of the Arctic Circle, my Vaude Norrsken mat started leaking around the valve. This meant that after a couple of hours of relative comfort, I would find myself 'back on earth' as it were, which was not only uncomfortable but cold too. My c.c.f. mat would not have produced the same effect. Just an observation from experience...
I can't quite understand the heated debate about which is better - Millbank or Sawyer: they both do the jobs that they were designed and made to do really very well. I love my combination because it is light, easy to use and keeps me rehydrated.
On the other discussion about closed cell foam mattresses and the inflatable ones, I, again tend to use both: the c.c.f. one to protect the inflatable and give a bit of insulation and the inflatable one for comfort. If I'm going lightweight, then I'll take just the inflatable. I am not sure that I entirely believe the points about inflatables offering insulation when deflated, though. Last summer when bumbling in Greenland north of the Arctic Circle, my Vaude Norrsken mat started leaking around the valve. This meant that after a couple of hours of relative comfort, I would find myself 'back on earth' as it were, which was not only uncomfortable but cold too. My c.c.f. mat would not have produced the same effect. Just an observation from experience...
Same here ~ and I tend to run the water through my Millbank first in order to remove any algae and extend the life of the filtre core (before someone asks or comments ... there's no back flush on mine and cleaning removes part of the filtre).
I've used my Millbank Bag as both forage bag and as something to stand on when sorting a foot at the end of the day ... try that for comfort with a filtre
.
Water puritabs...I still use them like a lot of people and kit on this dicussion but with all the filters out there they seem to be used less.
Here you go , ive bought from this company with no probs - http://www.furhatworld.com/classic-winter-hats-c-42_44.html
cheers Andrew.
Fantastic post Blimo.
You put your points across in a well reasoned well thought out way together with facts, i respect that, thank you.
I really made a conscious decision to NOT directly compare the Sawyer to the Millbank bag.
Unfortunately i rushed my response to Toddys post and did exactly what i was trying to avoid doing.
In comparison to the Sawyer filter you are 100% correct the Millbank bag is both lighter and cheaper.
Thank you for correcting me.
I could argue the toss (the weights and prices you quoted are for the squeeze, the Mini system is both lighter at 69g and cheaper at around £25 delivered) but even then you still beat me on both weights and price, so you got me.
notworthy:notworthy
The reason i didn't want to do a direct comparison is because the end results differ.
What i mean by that is.
If we start backwards from having guaranteed safe drinking water, with a Millbank the water needs to be either chemically treated or boiled.
Most chemical treatments will be very lightweight BUT they usually also need at least 20mins to work, they also add to the long term running costs.
Boiling adds both the weight of the pan and stove, plus fuel.
On over nights there won't be many that won't take a stove of some sort, so it's pretty much free weight.
If we use a day trip as an example though, if we want to ensure we don't get ill from our collected water if we use the Millbank we will HAVE to take a stove or purification tablets, so this adds to the weight and/or expense a fair bit.
To give the same finished result (i.e. physically cleaner water that we can't guarantee is safe to drink), then a more accurate comparison would be to compare the Millbank to a water holding device like a water bladder, used in conjunction with a rough filtering device like say a sock, teeshirt, bandanna etc.
A nicer comparison would be a water bladder with say a coffee filter held on the end of the bladder by an elastic band.
For this i'm getting around 22 grams
Even then i personally believe this system is superior to the Millbank in that i can also use the bladder to store water, something that's not possible with the millbank.
Sorry if i've moved the goal posts, you are exactly right in calling me out on my direct comparison to the Sawyer.
You put your points across in a well reasoned well thought out way together with facts, i respect that, thank you.
I really made a conscious decision to NOT directly compare the Sawyer to the Millbank bag.
Unfortunately i rushed my response to Toddys post and did exactly what i was trying to avoid doing.
In comparison to the Sawyer filter you are 100% correct the Millbank bag is both lighter and cheaper.
Thank you for correcting me.
I could argue the toss (the weights and prices you quoted are for the squeeze, the Mini system is both lighter at 69g and cheaper at around £25 delivered) but even then you still beat me on both weights and price, so you got me.
notworthy:notworthyThe reason i didn't want to do a direct comparison is because the end results differ.
What i mean by that is.
If we start backwards from having guaranteed safe drinking water, with a Millbank the water needs to be either chemically treated or boiled.
Most chemical treatments will be very lightweight BUT they usually also need at least 20mins to work, they also add to the long term running costs.
Boiling adds both the weight of the pan and stove, plus fuel.
On over nights there won't be many that won't take a stove of some sort, so it's pretty much free weight.
If we use a day trip as an example though, if we want to ensure we don't get ill from our collected water if we use the Millbank we will HAVE to take a stove or purification tablets, so this adds to the weight and/or expense a fair bit.
To give the same finished result (i.e. physically cleaner water that we can't guarantee is safe to drink), then a more accurate comparison would be to compare the Millbank to a water holding device like a water bladder, used in conjunction with a rough filtering device like say a sock, teeshirt, bandanna etc.
A nicer comparison would be a water bladder with say a coffee filter held on the end of the bladder by an elastic band.
For this i'm getting around 22 grams
Even then i personally believe this system is superior to the Millbank in that i can also use the bladder to store water, something that's not possible with the millbank.
Sorry if i've moved the goal posts, you are exactly right in calling me out on my direct comparison to the Sawyer.
Hey, I'd certainly agree that modern filters are often more convenient to those who do the timed stuff like the three peaks et al.
However, I'd have to disagree with what you're saying about the modern filters, and I'm going to do it point by point
Millbank bags (with the original canvass weave of the original) will actually filter out amoebas (I'll try find a link)
Neither does the sawyer system guarantee water to be safe iirc?
Bilmo beat me to this point..
As a FILTER, a millbank bag performs exactly the same as modern filters do- like a filter!!
Millbank bags are also probably one of the most sustainable long term filtration solutions going, no way has it had it's day!
All the best, Lewis
Also, I didn't mean to offend/cause argument here, just friendly kit banter
http://www.bushcraftmagazine.com/bushcraft_magazine_free_article.html
Worth a read IMO, and I stand corrected as it only reduced the amoeba by two thirds.. Still, if I was faced with a muddy puddle without means of purifying, I'd still filter through millbank first!
Worth a read IMO, and I stand corrected as it only reduced the amoeba by two thirds.. Still, if I was faced with a muddy puddle without means of purifying, I'd still filter through millbank first!
Maybe it's because I don't drink from really dirty matter (farm ponds) but to me, the Milbank just seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Not at all, the bag removes grit and crap leaving you water to boil (heat above 70c), no moving parts, nothing to clog so whats not to like. Modern filters won't remove viruses so in some conditions you'll need to heat treat water anyway. I've given my daughter a Sawyer mini for her holiday in Tunisia as a back up to bottled water et al in the hotel.
I do see your point, as I've quite rarely HAD to use the millbank, and often I just go straight to boiling... Hell if I'm on an exercise ill just take a cheap p58 rip off in my webbing to fill up with the cloudy stuff and pop two aqua tabs into it and I've not been sick yet :L (yet being the important bit)
Maybe. But I rarely find water that needs it (like Isaid, I ain't drinking from a farm pond full of cow $h#=) no matter how much it's filtered. And when I do find gritty, debris filled water, wrapping my bandana over the top of my canteen before submerging it to fill does the same thing.
Exactly.
Done the same many times when i served. Straight into the 58 bottle and double strength 2 puritabs. No problems
Had to use a stinking pond once in the UK lake district, miles from anyway and a very hot day ( unusual in this country) needed water, ran out of beer cans as well! so filtered through a sock and then used puritabs. Not fun but it was necessary until i found better water
The funny thing is the idea to put two tablets in hasn't really got any scientific backing as it's not the concentration of chlorates etc that's the problem, it's the turbidity and sediment protecting harbouring pathogens in microscopic seams... Probably just some corporals "good idea" that caught on!
Atb!
I wouldn't drink from a pond like that anyway Santaman2000, but I do drink from burns which run through peat and bracken and over gravel, and I do drink from lochs which have plant life aplenty in them too. All the millbank does is clear out the gunk, and an awful lot of the miniscule amoeba type stuff too, before I boil or purify.
Only truly desperate folks would consider a farm pond suitable to drink from....or maybe BG
M
Only truly desperate folks would consider a farm pond suitable to drink from....or maybe BG
M
If you can find one, that's not running through peat, bracken and the like too, good for you
Our local burns run over sand, clay, coal, and sandstone. They are alive with living things and they are surrounded in greenery.
The rivers source in the peaty surrounded uplands; our potable tap water used to run golden brown after a heavy rain. Now the particulate is flocculated out before the water gets to the screen filters.
Removal of particulate matter from drinking water is important because that particulate stuff gives home to bacteria and other organisms. Thankfully boiling kills virtually everything, but the less debris in the water to start with, the better.
cheers,
M
Our local burns run over sand, clay, coal, and sandstone. They are alive with living things and they are surrounded in greenery.
The rivers source in the peaty surrounded uplands; our potable tap water used to run golden brown after a heavy rain. Now the particulate is flocculated out before the water gets to the screen filters.
Removal of particulate matter from drinking water is important because that particulate stuff gives home to bacteria and other organisms. Thankfully boiling kills virtually everything, but the less debris in the water to start with, the better.
cheers,
M
Similar threads
