Bad Bug Out Bag
-During field testing the temperature ranged from a high of 65 degrees F to a low of 38 degrees F with high winds and some rain. -Overall: On first impression the pack was heavy, organization was mediocre, but the backpack was comfortable on the body. The buckles, zippers, and seams appear to be of low-quality material and not watertight assembly (it came with a low-quality raincover). The two organizational pouches inside the backpack were made of cheap plastic/denier material that were jammed full of gear, still in their original packaging, and not well organized. The pouches lacked labels and simple instructions on how to use the products. The evaluator struggled placing items back in the pouches after items were removed of their original packaging. The two-person light-weight tent had to be strapped to the outside of the backpack thus downgrading some of the packs ability to not stand out in an urban environment as touted by the website. Product Review: -Food & Water: The 400kcal food bars were one of the few shining lights out of all the products that came with the kit. They were easy to consume, tasted decent, and were filling. The water purification tablets, and various water containers/products worked as advertised, but were of low quality. The evaluator assessed that the “water system” needs a mechanical water-purification pump capable of purifying up to virus contagions. -Shelter and Warmth: The two-person dome tent was quite roomy and could have fit three people, that is the only upside of the tent! The seams and the waterproof tub had holes you could see through, the stakes were too small and bent easily, and the “rain fly” measured a paltry 8”x 12” and let the rain in. The tent did not perform well and would have blown away in the windy conditions had the evaluator not grabbed onto the tent and held it down. The two vinyl ponchos were made of cheap material that tore easily but they did shed water. The HeatStore “sleeping bags” were made of semi heavy duty, non-insulated, material that kept the evaluator warm but were not made of breathable material. The hand warmers worked as advertised. The evaluator assessed the materials comprising the shelter system were made of cheap material and some did not work as advertised individually, but that a person could survive for at least 72 hours by utilizing all the materials as a whole system and being proactive with maintenance and care. -Hygiene & Sanitation: Although the products were not of high quality, the evaluator felt that the addition of a sanitation/ hygiene kit was a plus for the survival system and the products worked as intended. Most survival systems on the market do not come with sanitation/ hygiene kits. -First Aid: The evaluator felt the first aid kit was not adequate to deal with serious trauma situations and that the inclusion of the stethoscope was useless as most personnel are not trained on how to effectively use a stethoscope in an emergency trauma situation. -Survival Gear: The evaluator felt this part of the kit was even worse than the “shelter and warmth” part. The multitool plier was hard to open and pull out each individual tool, furthermore when the evaluator tried to use the knife portion of the tool to shave some wood, the blade bent back rendering it useless. The folding saw worked as advertised and was able to cut small diameter shrubs/ trees with no issues. The 5-in-1 whistle was made of cheap material and the compass portion of the whistle did not work. The work gloves were basic cheap gardening variety gloves that provided little warmth. The compass was stuck on a westerly heading and would not align itself to magnetic north rendering it useless. The survival knife was made of cheap metal, uncomfortable to grasp, the edge bent easily when striking wood, the ferro-rod fire striker that came with the blade was too small and took a lot of pressure to produce even a small spark. The emergency preparedness handbook was lacking in any survival training basics and mainly dealt with generic situations regarding emergencies in an urban/home setting. The playing cards, pencil, rope, and can opener work as advertised. The self-defense tool was not tested as the evaluator could not find any willing volunteers on which to test the product. -Light & Communication: The multi-use radio flashlight worked as advertised except for being able to charge a cell phone. The evaluator tried charging his cell per instructions by hand cranking the flashlight while the cell phone was plugged into the flashlight with the cables that came with the device. The evaluator was unable to charge the cell phone (not even one percent) after ten solid minutes of cranking. The flashlight and radio portion of the device worked as advertised and kept a charge for 24 hours after fully cranking for three minutes on the device. The LED compact flashlight was very bright and worked as advertised. The light sticks were not tested.
