New MOLLE vs. Karrimor SF Sabre 45 - worth a change?

[Squidders]

Hi All,

I have had, for a good few years now, a Karrimor SF Sabre 45 with side pockets and that does me for winter and summer but I can't seem to shake the desire to get a big MOLLE II backpack.

I'm wondering if any of the folk over in the USA have any tips or thoughts, or even if anyone has owned both these packs?

The one i'm interested in getting, I think is current issue.

So, some starter questions, how useful in size are the modular sections? Is there a compression part that will hold a winter sleeping bag? Is the pack comfy over long distances? Does it adjust or do I need to look for a specific size?

I appreciate any information available. The MOLLE one is the only pack i'm considering changing to at the moment, I still love the Karrimor but something is telling me to change.

 

[santaman2000]

Never owned either so take my comments with a dose of salt. But regarding the usefulness of the modular sections (I assume you mean the ones that attach via the MOLLE webbing) the sizes available are virtually unlimited; from knife scabbards to pouches for your water bottle or extra ammunition magazines, and up to sustainment pouches (about 10-112 liters)

 

[Squidders]

It's the main backpack with frame I'm considering... It looks quite nice to me but before dropping all that money on postage I need to be sure about the quality and comfort!

thanks santaman.

 

[santaman2000]

Never owned either so take my comments with a dose of salt. But regarding the usefulness of the modular sections (I assume you mean the ones that attach via the MOLLE webbing) the sizes available are virtually unlimited; from knife scabbards to pouches for your water bottle or extra ammunition magazines, and up to sustainment pouches (about 10-112 liters)

My bad. That last sentence should read "....10-12 liters."

 

[Goatboy]

My bad. That last sentence should read "....10-12 liters."

Or if we want to speak proper English Litre and not Liter like what you Yanks do. Please read this old boy
LINK

 

[santaman2000]

Or if we want to speak proper English Litre and not Liter like what you Yanks do. Please read this old boy
LINK

LOL. if we want to use "proper" English we'll use Imperial measure instead of that continental metric anyway.

Out of curiosity what's the European (continental) spelling for this anyway?

 

[Goatboy]

LOL. if we want to use "proper" English we'll use Imperial measure instead of that continental metric anyway.

Out of curiosity what's the European (continental) spelling for this anyway?

For what?

• 1000ml is 1 litre not a liter. Litre in Europe too.
• 14 pounds to a stone, although I believe you don't weigh folk in stone like we do.
• The hundredweight (cwt.) in England is always 112 pounds, or 8 stone. In the US, the hundredweight is 100 lb., unless noted as otherwise. It is proper to call a 100 lb. hundredweight a short hundredweight, and a 112 lb one a long hundredweight. As there are always 20 cwt. to the ton, in the US it is normal to use a 2000 lb. ton (a short ton), and in England a 2240 lb. ton (a long ton).
• Lengths. These are the same in both systems, i.e. inch, foot, yard, mile.
• Liquid measures. In England, since 1824, liquid and dry measures have been the same. The gallon in use in the US is for liquid measure only. It is the old 'Queen Anne' gallon, of 1707, and is of 231 cubic inches. The Imperial gallon is bigger at 277.4194 cubic inches. As there are 8 pints to the gallon, the pint is different in the two systems - 28.875 cu. in. for the US, 34.677425 cu. in. for the Imperial. In the US there are 16 fl. oz. to the pint, the Imperial has 20, so the two fluid ounces are very close.
• Dry measures. US dry measures are not the same as US liquid measures. The US (dry) bushel is that of William III of 1696, and is of 2150.42 cu. in. The Imperial bushel is 8 Imperial gallons, or 2219.3552 cu. in. In the Imperial system, dry and liquid measures use the same units.

 

[santaman2000]

-Actually in the US a "short ton" is only 1600 pounds (not sure why but it goes back to the railroad coal cars) and a "long ton" is usually considered an even 2200 pounds (I always assumed because that's 1000 kilos, or a metric ton)

-TBH I've never heard the term "hundredweight used here at all although it does appear in older writings (pre 20th century)

-I knew about the difference in liquid measures (it's interesting to note that with the US pint, 1 pint of water weighs 1 pound)

-Re dry measures, The US bushel equals 8 US gallon in volume and a US peck equals a one half US gallon (The same ratios as comparing Imperial bushels to Imperial gallons) But those dry measures are increasingly less used as most dry goods are now sold by weight. TBH I've never seen the peck actually used.

 

[Ahjno]

LOL. if we want to use "proper" English we'll use Imperial measure instead of that continental metric anyway.

Out of curiosity what's the European (continental) spelling for this anyway?

For what?

• 1000ml is 1 litre not a liter. Litre in Europe too.
• 14 pounds to a stone, although I believe you don't weigh folk in stone like we do.
• The hundredweight (cwt.) in England is always 112 pounds, or 8 stone. In the US, the hundredweight is 100 lb., unless noted as otherwise. It is proper to call a 100 lb. hundredweight a short hundredweight, and a 112 lb one a long hundredweight. As there are always 20 cwt. to the ton, in the US it is normal to use a 2000 lb. ton (a short ton), and in England a 2240 lb. ton (a long ton).
• Lengths. These are the same in both systems, i.e. inch, foot, yard, mile.
• Liquid measures. In England, since 1824, liquid and dry measures have been the same. The gallon in use in the US is for liquid measure only. It is the old 'Queen Anne' gallon, of 1707, and is of 231 cubic inches. The Imperial gallon is bigger at 277.4194 cubic inches. As there are 8 pints to the gallon, the pint is different in the two systems - 28.875 cu. in. for the US, 34.677425 cu. in. for the Imperial. In the US there are 16 fl. oz. to the pint, the Imperial has 20, so the two fluid ounces are very close.
• Dry measures. US dry measures are not the same as US liquid measures. The US (dry) bushel is that of William III of 1696, and is of 2150.42 cu. in. The Imperial bushel is 8 Imperial gallons, or 2219.3552 cu. in. In the Imperial system, dry and liquid measures use the same units.

-Actually in the US a "short ton" is only 1600 pounds (not sure why but it goes back to the railroad coal cars) and a "long ton" is usually considered an even 2200 pounds (I always assumed because that's 1000 kilos, or a metric ton)

-TBH I've never heard the term "hundredweight used here at all although it does appear in older writings (pre 20th century)

-I knew about the difference in liquid measures (it's interesting to note that with the US pint, 1 pint of water weighs 1 pound)

-Re dry measures, The US bushel equals 8 US gallon in volume and a US peck equals a one half US gallon (The same ratios as comparing Imperial bushels to Imperial gallons) But those dry measures are increasingly less used as most dry goods are now sold by weight. TBH I've never seen the peck actually used.

Back to Molle vs Karrimore SF Sabre 45 please lads.

 

[santaman2000]

LOL. Sorry for the hijack

 

[mousey]

I've recently ordered a molle frame [1603] however not with the molle backpack. My thought was to use the frame with bags/ stuff sacks/ pouches I've already got and rig up some sort of cargo panel like the kifrau one [but low budget homemade version - I think it was dangerous dan who's done something similar] I looked at the downeast website but you can get those frames cheaper on ebay. The only thing putting me off was the postage and I'm a little unsure of the Customs / VAT charges which may be appilcable, but I bit the bullet and I'll deal with those if/when they arise

 

[Karrimor SF]

Hi All,

I have had, for a good few years now, a Karrimor SF Sabre 45 with side pockets and that does me for winter and summer but I can't seem to shake the desire to get a big MOLLE II backpack.

I'm wondering if any of the folk over in the USA have any tips or thoughts, or even if anyone has owned both these packs?

The one i'm interested in getting, I think is current issue.

So, some starter questions, how useful in size are the modular sections? Is there a compression part that will hold a winter sleeping bag? Is the pack comfy over long distances? Does it adjust or do I need to look for a specific size?

I appreciate any information available. The MOLLE one is the only pack i'm considering changing to at the moment, I still love the Karrimor but something is telling me to change.

Hi Squidders,

If it helps with your decision, have you looked at the Karrimor SF Predator Patrol 45 or you could attach the new Karrimor SF Predator MOLLE Panel to your Sabre 45.

Karrimor SF Team.

 

[dean4442]

You should definitely change and to ensure you don't have second thoughts and clutter your house up just send me the karrimor pack.
No need to thank me.
Colin

 

[Squidders]

Thanks Colin, You are far too generous, I couldn't possibly impose on you like that!

As for the original question in my mind, I suspect few have experience of the US MOLLE pack... I asked the same question on BCUSA but I suspect few there have experience of the Karrimor pack.

Bummer.

 

[Rich.H]

I haven't used the specific molle pack your mentioning, but I have used other molle gear. For me it's a great system for a few reasons, you can have everything in set pockets/pouches for ease of finding. This itself can be countered by simply having colour coded bags as many folk do, but where molle shines is how it adapts. I use a system where what would normally be plce side pouches are also my belt kit. This way I can have everything on a molle backpack when hiking, then quickly swap a few pouches onto a belt kit for wandering around from the camp site, or just for a quick day out. This overall means I own less actual gear as much of it has at least two purposes.

Obviously the cost factor always comes into things and as always generally the more you spend the better quality you get, but that never means you should have one pack for an overnighter and a second pack for 3-4 days when a simply few pouches do that job and also cover more.

Personally I would say first get a pen and paper, work out as exactly as you can how much and what you carry for various trip types, see what amount of internal space you need for these then start looking around at molle systems (if that ends up being your chosen route). This way you can build up a sure fire check list to try and avoid falling into the black hole of gear hoarding. Also means you can happily save to spend more on higher quality gear safe in the knowledge you won't then suddenly splurge on impulse stuff.

 

[Squidders]

Thanks for the advice... I'm lucky in that I am in no way a hoarder of gear. I have a pretty strict rule of something going before something arrives. I have little in the way of storage for my kit and don't like having to make a hundred choices while packing to go out.

I'm still unsure about the back system, shoulder straps and waist belt on the new molle and how comfortable it is, most people reviewing them talk about capacity and load but not how comfortable the pack is.

Thanks again for the useful comments so far.

 

[rg598]

Stay away from army surplus gear if you are interested in any degree of comfort or efficiency. For the amount of money you will spend on a MOLLE frame and pack, you can get a far superior commercial pack. In theory all of the pouches and arrangements seem like a good idea, but once you start walking with it, you realize that everything moves all over the place and it weighs five times more than a regular pack. Figure out what volume pack you need, and then get one that fits all your gear. In my opinion the MOLLE packs are uncomfortable, heavy, and move way too much.

If you are looking for an external frame pack, Kelty has good cheap ones. If you are willing to spend the money and go with a hunting pack with a good frame, I'm sure there are manufacturers in the UK, but the US ones that I know of are Kifaru, Mystery Ranch, and Stone Glacier.

 

[Squidders]

Hi Ross, Thanks for wading in - What type of movement of the pack was the problem, did it swing a bit from side to side when walking or something else? I know they are heavier than many packs out there but the additional weight doesn't phase me greatly, the Karrimor one I still love isn't what you'd call light. I'm really interested in the discomfort of the MOLLE pack though, what were you wearing under it what did you have in it and did you have any pouches or bits on the outside? I'd appreciate any information and experience you can offer. Thanks.

 

[santaman2000]

I believe the "movement" he's referring to is the movement of the add-on pouches. That was a problem with the older ALCE gear but to be honest, the whole reason they converted to MOLLE was to solve that problem The MOLLE, if woven onto the system properly (over one MOLLE strap, under the next) it doesn't move. On the other hand, if you just fasten it on without weaving the straps, it will still shift around.

 

[Rich.H]

I believe the "movement" he's referring to is the movement of the add-on pouches. That was a problem with the older ALCE gear but to be honest, the whole reason they converted to MOLLE was to solve that problem The MOLLE, if woven onto the system properly (over one MOLLE strap, under the next) it doesn't move. On the other hand, if you just fasten it on without weaving the straps, it will still shift around.

+1 for this, at first the molle system looks like simple loops but when you do that you can clearly see it bounces about like the old plce uk stuff. If you get straps that are an inch or so longer than recommended for any pouch then you have space spare to do an extra weave. Plus get ballistic nylon straps and you can tighten them up beyond the normal weave point. I've found this way for my belt kit as example the pouches do not move at all. Yes the belt will obviously have some bounce in it, in the same way a pack will but where the pouches fix on there is zero movement.