Gear

BV450 vs BV500

Last updated: May 17, 2022 by Canberk Koksal

The BV450 is good for 4-day trips. But the BV500 (see image) is better. The 11.5-liter capacity has enough storage space to keep you on trail for up to 7 days.

In the BearVault lineup, model BV450 and BV500 serve as the best options for food storage in the backcountry. The smaller BV450 is good for shorter treks, whereas the BV500 is best for thru-hiking.

In summary, the rugged BV450 and BV500 can take some serious abuse from a hungry grizzly. While both are exceptional, the 7.2 liter capacity of the BV500 offers 7 days worth of meal storage, making it the better value.

Let’s take a look at the differences between the BV450 and BV500 so you can decide which is best for your outdoor adventure.

Capacity

How long are you heading out for a trek? Are you doing an overnighter or tackling a thru-hike on the PCT?

I ask because your supply and resupply situation is the single most important factor when it comes to choosing a BearVault model.

The stout BV450 has a capacity of 440 cubic inches. That’s roughly 7.2 liters of food. For most hikers, this is enough space to hold 4 days’ worth of food.

That is if you’re carrying typical hiker food. We’re talking dehydrated meals, trail mix, peanut butter, jerky, and of course, some candy.

For thru-hikes, the BV500 is better. This bigger bear canister offers 700 cubic inches, which round out to about 11.5 liters.

That’s enough space to last a thru-hiker 7 days between resupply. Or you could use it on a 2 to 3-night journey to feed you and a hiking buddy.

What I don’t recommend doing is opting for the BV450 if you’re simply trying to pack light for a long journey.

Every backpacker knows things happen out on the trail. Injuries, weather, and other factors are constantly coming your way. That extra day's worth of food may be your saving grace on trail.

Weight

Overnighter or thru-hiker, the weight of your pack, is everything.

Every ounce you haul needs to be meticulously calculated to avoid injury. Or at the very least, to avoid overburdening you with a heavy pack.

Empty, the BV500 weighs 2 pounds and 9 ounces. At 2 pounds and 1 ounce, the BV450 will save you 8 ounces.

Obviously, once you load up both these suckers, you're looking at a heavier weight.

That said, you still need to make sure you're properly fueled for your journey. So keep that in mind when choosing which BearVault model is best for your backpacking trip.

Size

The stout BV450 (see image) has a capacity of 440 cubic inches. That’s roughly 7.2 liters of food. For most hikers, this is enough space to hold 4 days’ worth of food.

What I love about the BV450 is the size. This bear canister is about as wide as it is tall. Specifically, 8.7 inches x 8.3 inches.

The BV500 adds a noticeable amount of bulk. At 8.7 inches x 12.7 inches, the BV500 takes some meticulous packing to get all your gear stored just right.

I find trying to stash it in my pack horizontally is a bit of a stretch. And yet, vertically, it takes up a lot of precious cargo space.

That’s why most hikers, myself included, strap the BV500 horizontally on the top of a pack.

The benefit is this provides easy access for snacking. The downside is it makes the pack top heavy when fully loaded.

Horizontal or vertical, the BV450 simply fits better in a pack than the BV500.

Value

As a backpacker, I find bear canisters to be far superior to the old-school method of slinging a bear bag up in a tree.

You'll also be hard-pressed to find a tree if you’re backpacking through the desert or setting up camp above the treeline.

The BV450 and BV500 are honestly the best bear canisters for stashing your food in bear country. Even my US Forest Service friend confirmed nothing beats these canisters when it comes to proper storage in the backcountry.

Both these models are Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee approved. That means they’re resistant against grizzlies and black bears.

So yeah, they’re seriously tough as nails. Or, I guess in this case, murder paws.

This is a feature I highly appreciate on a recent camping trip in the heart of Montana. Which, if you aren’t aware, is prime grizzly country.

Needless to say, both are valuable buys.

Yet while I dig the size and weight of the BV450, there’s no arguing the BV500 is the overall better value. It stores more food and barely costs more money.

If you’re going backpacking for more than a couple of days, go with the BV500. You could even stash enough food for you and your backpacking buddy on a 2-night journey.

Conclusion

If you plan on snoozing under the stars in bear country, you need a proper way to store your food. The BV450 and BV500 are the best options.

Rugged and IGBC approved, the BV450 is good for 4-day trips. But the BV500 is better. The 11.5-liter capacity has enough storage space to keep you on trail for up to 7 days.

Maven C.1 vs Vortex Viper

Last updated: May 17, 2022 by Canberk Koksal

The Vortex Viper (see image) will give you a wider view for hunting, wildlife watching, birding, and everything else you need these binos for.

In the Maven and Vortex lineups, the C.1 and Viper blend attractive features for rugged use. The Maven C.1 marries mid-level optics with affordability. Meanwhile, the wider field of view of the Vortex Viper is better for the hunting community.

In summary, the Maven C.1 and Vortex Viper are durable optics made to handle outdoor abuse. While the Maven C.1 flashes an attractive price, the sharp image and wider view of the Vortex Viper are far superior.

Let’s take a look at the breakdown to gain a better perspective on these binoculars.

Magnification and Objective

The Maven C.1 comes in 8x42, 10x42, and 12x42. The Vortex Viper also comes in an 8x, 10x, and 12x magnification.

Yet it does the Maven C.1 one better by offering a 42 and 50 objective. Specifically, 8x42, 10x42, 10x50, and 12x50.

The difference here is plain to see. The Vortex Viper gives you a closer look with a wider view.

Brightness and Clarity

Maven C.1 features exceptional brightness and crisp clarity for the price. Additionally, these binos offer good light transmission with good coloration.

While they don’t offer the same brightness as the Maven B.1 and B.2 in low-light settings, they can hold their own in dimly lit settings.

However, it’s the Vortex Viper that boasts less distortion with high fidelity. It also doesn’t have the same degrees of chronic aberration that you get with the Maven C.1.

I should note, though, that both binos use a dielectric coating. This reduces light loss and improves the overall image quality. The Vortex Viper just does it better.

Field of View

Maven C.1 (see image) features exceptional brightness and crisp clarity for the price. Additionally, these binos offer good light transmission with good coloration.

When you’re stalking prey animals like a predator, a field of view is a feature you highly want to consider. This is how wide of a view you’ll get through your lenses.

For a better comparison, let’s take a look at the 8x42 option of each model.

The Maven C.1 offers 341 feet at 1000 yards. That’s an angular field of view, or rather a real angle, of 6.5°. Not bad, but not great.

The Vortex Viper ups the game to 409 feet at 1000 yards. This equates to a 7.8° angle.

This will give you a much wider view. A wider view I would much rather have when I’m hunting antelope on a wide-open plain.

Eye Relief

Eye relief is the distance at which you can hold the binocular eyepiece from your eyes and still have a clear sight of the field of view. This is an especially important feature to consider if you wear glasses.

While the eye relief is close for both these binoculars, the Maven C.1 is better. The 8x42 option has an eye relief of 19.5mm. That’s a bit longer than the 18mm eye relief of the Vortex Viper.

Value

Maven C.1 gives you mid-level performance at a substantially lower cost. This alone makes these binoculars an excellent value.

What the Maven C.1 offers, the Vortex Viper does better. This option enhances clarity, color, and depth of field. However, it will cost you a significantly higher price.

The Maven C.1 and Vortex Viper offer some features that are highly coveted in the field. Both models are waterproof, fog-proof, and offer tripod compatibility.

The one noticeable difference is the Vortex Viper offers a locking diopter. The Maven C.1 does not.

If you’re on a budget, the Maven C.1 is clearly the better value. However, the Vortex Viper will give you a wider view for hunting, wildlife watching, birding, and everything else you need these binos for.

If neither of these options meets your intended price range or demands, the Maven and Viper binocular finder can help you find what’s right for you.

Conclusion

For rugged use, the Maven C.1 and Vortex Viper are worthy options of your dollar.

The Maven C.1 is no doubt an affordable choice with solid performance. If you can spend a bit more, the Vortex Viper will reward you with a wider view and crisper clarity.

Maven B.1 vs B.2

Last updated: August 10, 2022 by Canberk Koksal

The flagship Maven B.1 (see image) is a solid go-to for all outdoor activities, whether it be birding or whale watching.

In the Maven product line, the B.1 and B.2 offer superior optics for low-lighting scenarios. The flagship Maven B.1 is sized for everyday use, while the Maven B.2 offers exceptional performance.

In summary, the 10x magnification and brightness level of the Maven B.2 is more advanced than the Maven B.1. This makes these binos better for big game hunters and wildlife watchers scanning the landscape at dawn and dusk.

Let’s delve deeper for better clarity on the two.

Magnification and Objective

Also known as strength and size, the magnification and objective vary between the Maven B.1 and B.2.

With Maven B.1, you have a choice between 8x42 and 10x42. Meanwhile, the Maven B.2 offers a wider range with 7x45, 9x45, and 11x45.

As you can see, the full-size objective is the same for both models. It’s the magnification that’s really setting them apart.

A 7x to 10x magnification will suit most users. However, this depends upon the scenario.

If you’re a hunter scanning the ridgeline for a bull elk, you’ll want the 11x magnification, especially if regulations prohibit antlerless elk hunting.

The smaller 7x magnification is better when the objective isn’t miles away. Like when you’re cheering on your favorite soccer team, and you want an up-close look at the red card that’s about to get pulled.

For times like these, go Maven B.2.

Brightness and Clarity

Both Maven B.1 and B.2 are just as sharp as the attractive streamlined design. Yet it’s the Maven B.2 that wins out in brightness.

The sharp prism offers a brighter image along with incredible light transmission. That makes the Maven B.2 a superior choice in dim lighting.

This is a feature I find particularly useful considering the prime time for wildlife watching is at dawn or dusk especially if I’m trying to ID certain species.

Field of View

The 10x magnification and brightness level of the Maven B.2 (see image) is more advanced than the Maven B.1. This makes these binos better for big game hunters and wildlife watchers scanning the landscape at dawn and dusk.

Field of view is important when you need more of the horizon in your sights. For instance, when you’re keeping a close watch for a rare bird in the sky.

A general rule is the smaller the magnification, the greater the field of view. Both the Maven B.1 and B.2 offer a wide field of view.

Both of which are excellent options when you're bird watching or keeping a lookout for small critters roaming about.

Should you need a different field of view, these aren’t the only options. Maven offers a range of binos in a wider and narrower field of view.

Prism Type

One of the most notable differences between Maven B.1 and B.2 are the prisms.

The Maven B.1 features a Schmidt-Pechan roof prism. The Maven B.2 is equipped with an Abbe-Koenig roof prism. So what’s the difference?

Without going full-on optics nerd, the Schmidt-Pechan prism is more compact than the Abbe-Koenig. That means it will be more comfortable to grasp and easier to transport for everyday use.

On the other hand, the Abbe-Koenig prism offers better light transmission. They’re also harder to produce and more expensive.

Near Focus Distance

It may sound counterintuitive, but how close a pair of binos can focus can be just as important as how far.

For instance, say you’re sketching field notes of a woodpecker’s feathers, and the bird is only 10 feet away. A smaller near-focus distance will allow you to get more detail.

So in the case of the woodpecker, you’d want to opt for the optics of the Maven B.2. The Maven B.2 has a minimum focus distance of 4.9 feet. That’s just slightly better than the 6.6 foot near focus of the Maven B.1.

Conclusion

The flagship Maven B.1 is a solid go-to for all outdoor activities, whether it be birding or whale watching. However, it’s the Maven B.2 that excels in low light situations, whether that be dawn, dusk, or a cloudy day.

Arc’teryx Konseal AR vs LT vs FL 2 vs FL 2 GTX

Last updated: May 17, 2022 by Canberk Koksal

The Arc’teryx AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all offer great stability best paired with rocky terrain. Yet, it’s the Konseal AR (see image) that marries tacky traction with rugged durability that’s built to tackle technical climbs route after route.

In the Arc’teryx shoe lineup, the Konseal AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX fill the niche of tackling the approach. Durable, lightweight, fast, and waterproof, all four of these models have their own perks. What they don’t offer is extra ankle support like the Acrux LT GTX.

In summary, the stiff sole and abrasion-resistant uppers of the Arc’teryx Konseal AR offer rugged durability. What these shoes lack in comfort, the Konseal LT makes up for with every stride. Meanwhile, the biting grip of the Konseal FL 2 and FL 2 GTX beckon your feet to the crag.

Let’s get a closer look at how these options pit against one another.

Comfort

Although the Konseal AR is one attractive-looking shoe, it’s stiff as a board. Same with the Konseal FL 2 and Konseal FL 2 GTX. While this is ideal for lengthy scrambles, it’s a problem when the going gets mellow.

The comfort level will leave you wishing you opted for a wider toe box and more cushioning on flat trails. For comfortable day hiking shoes, you’ll want to use the Arc’teryx shoe finder.

The Konseal LT is precisely the opposite. The breathability and flex of the mesh uppers in combo with the lighter weight provide ample comfort on mellow and rocky terrain.

Arc’teryx even thoughtfully added in a collapsible heel, turning these into slip-ons for lounging around base camp. Of these four options, the Konseal LT is the one I would slap on for a full day of ascending the approach.

Traction

When scrambling around boulders, you need reassurance at your feet. All four of these Arc’teryx approach shoes offer a solid degree of traction. Which, of course, varies with conditions and terrain.

As for the Konseal LT (see image), this shoe surprisingly holds its own among the bunch. The lightweight design and tacky sole offer ample traction on rocky terrain and talus slopes.

For instance, the sticky tread of the Konseal FL 2 clings well to rocks and hard-packed trails, as does the Konseal FL 2 GTX. The biggest difference with this shoe is the Gore-Tex waterproofing adds better traction in wet conditions.

This will likely improve your approach as mother nature releases her furry but to a degree. The design of the shoe leads me to suspect some water may seep in around the tongue, causing some slippage inside.

Meanwhile, what the Konseal AR lacks in comfort, it makes up for in traction. This shoe provides a solid grip on smooth slabs and jagged surfaces. The shallow lugs provide full foot contact allowing you to grab surfaces like a chameleon.

As for the Konseal LT, this shoe surprisingly holds its own among the bunch. The lightweight design and tacky sole offer ample traction on rocky terrain and talus slopes. Just don’t test these when it starts to pour.

Stability

Stiff soles may not be ideal for comfort, but they help with stability. The rigid sole of the Konseal AR does well when the terrain resembles anything but flat.

The Konseal FL 2 hugs the foot with higher synthetic sidewalls that increase stability with each maneuver. Its waterproof counterpart, the Konseal FL 2 GTX, does this and more as it meets the challenge of sloshy conditions with sure-footedness.

And our lightweight friend, the Konseal LT? Even these add stability when precision counts most.

Needless to say, all offer good stability. Yet, if I’m slogging through muddy terrain with a loaded pack, I would go with the Konseal FL 2 GTX.

Durability

For wet and muddy climbs, the Konseal FL 2 GTX (see image) is a better choice.

Slap the Arc’teryx label on anything, and you expect durability. Or so you would think.

Don’t get me wrong; any approach shoes will take a beating. But the Konseal LT may wear out faster than the others. This is mostly due to design.

The collapsible heel leads me to suspect durability issues down the road. Same with the toe cap.

On the other hand, the Konseal FL 2 and FL 2 GTX offer better durability. But like the Konseal LT, I fear the toe cap may eventually separate from the synthetic mesh of both pairs.

Then there’s the Konseal AR. These shoes are built to take some serious abuse. From the abrasion-resistant upper suede to the sole, this is the best option for durability out of the four.

Versatility

The Konseal AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all work for scrambles and climbs. Yet, it’s their technical features that limit their use for varying activities.

The Konseal FL 2 (see image) hugs the foot with higher synthetic sidewalls that increase stability with each maneuver.

The Konseal AR may claim “all-around” use, but the comfort level is less than desirable for the mellow section of a hike. Although, they do look good being sported around town.

The Konseal is the opposite. The comfortable fit and lighter weight can take you from flat hiking to jagged scrambling with minimal compromise. It will let you hop around with agility while you're at it too.

What the Konseal LT doesn’t excel at is scrambling up super slick boulders. For wet and muddy climbs, the Konseal FL 2 GTX is a better choice. Meanwhile, the Konseal FL 2 balances weight with traction to keep you light on the approach.

Conclusion

Approach shoes are best when you need precision at your feet. The Arc’teryx AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all offer great stability best paired with rocky terrain. Yet, it’s the Konseal AR that marries tacky traction with rugged durability that’s built to tackle technical climbs route after route.

Arc’teryx Alpha AR 35 vs 55

Last updated: August 10, 2022 by Canberk Koksal

The Alpha AR 35 (see image) offers a touch more in the way of versatility. This pack is big enough to do an overnighter if you pack smart. The size is also better if you plan on taking it tour skiing.

Among the Arc’teryx backpacks, the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 are built to accompany your mountain activities. So if you’re looking for a pack that could double for town use, neither are for you.

In summary, the Alpha AR 35 is not only 5 ounces lighter than the Alpha AR 55; it’s also more versatile. From tour skiing to day trekking, the Alpha AR 35 will hold all your essentials without feeling bulky like the Alpha AR 55.

Let’s take a closer look at the differences between these two backpacks.

Versatility

What are you looking to do with your pack? How versatile you need your pack to be is the first metric to consider when figuring out which option is right for you.

Arc’teryx claims the Alpha AR 35 and Alpha AR 55 are versatile packs designed for all-around use. In fact, that’s what the AR stands for, “all-around.” While this sounds good in theory, the delivery doesn’t fully live up to the name.

For starters, the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 are not good for trail running. Even if you’re swiftly moving in alpine terrain, these packs are just too big and too husky.

The Alpha AR 55 is specifically too large to hit the slopes. The bulky fit is also not ideal for super technical icey climbs. What the Alpha AR 55 is good for are multi-day overnighters and general mountaineering.

The Alpha AR 35, on the other hand, offers a touch more in the way of versatility. This pack is big enough to do an overnighter if you pack smart. The size is also better if you plan on taking it tour skiing.

Meanwhile, the lighter weight is better for agility. That means you can scramble more comfortably. Ideally, I would use this pack on a long alpine day trek. It will hold all the essentials and possibly some gear for a hiking buddy.

Considering the “all-around” aspect, I’d go with the Alpha AR 35. I find it to be more practical for my needs.

Pack Capacity

The biggest difference you’ll notice between the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 is their pack capacity. The smaller Alpha AR 35 can house 35 liters of gear. Meanwhile, the larger Alpha AR 55 allows you to pack up to 55 liters of gear.

With a load like that, the Alpha AR 55 is the winner. The extra 20 liters means you can stuff in more food, emergency layers, and mountaineering gear. That way, you can tackle the expected and the unexpected like those luminous clouds that suddenly rolled in.

Pack Weight

The biggest difference you’ll notice between the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 is their pack capacity. The smaller Alpha AR 35 can house 35 liters of gear. Meanwhile, the larger Alpha AR 55 (see image) allows you to pack up to 55 liters of gear.

Despite the large load, the Alpha AR 55 has a surprising space-to-weight ratio. The total empty weight is 46 ounces. This is on the lighter side, considering the capacity of this beast.

Yet despite the good ratio, the Alpha AR 35 is still lighter. This pack weighs in at 41 ounces when empty.

At first, the drop in 5 ounces may not sound like that big of a deal. That is until you fill the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 to the brim with all your gear.

To put things into perspective, the Alpha AR 35 will leave your legs more nimble and put less strain on your back.

However, Arc’teryx offers a range of daypacks of varying weights. Their Arc’teryx pack finder can help you find the right one.

Comfort

Both the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 feature the same style harness. The comfort level, however, is different when fully loaded. This is to be expected as more weight puts more strain on your body.

That said, the Alpha AR 55 didn’t shine in this category. The weight of the load is rather uncomfortable when attempting technical climbs. This harness style better transfers the load with the Alpha AR 35.

Regardless, the back panel could use some improvement for both backs. The design doesn’t rest well on the lower back. This could lead to some irritation or pain when putting in the miles.

Conclusion

The Arc’teryx Alpha AR 35 or AR 55 could be right for you, depending upon your use. If you want the more versatile option of the two, the Alpha AR 35 is the better choice. Meanwhile, the Alpha AR 55 is better for multi-day hikes and mountaineering adventures that require more gear.