Scepter Water Containers - Commercial vs Military runs?

[Crimson_Phoenix]

The Molle II Large Rucksack. I think I've seen them in the last year for like $39.  No one wants them because they are big, heavy and ACU. And there are a ton of them out there. You can also dye them easily with RIT dye. To a much better color.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOLLE?utm_source=chatgpt.com

You cannot view this attachment.

I got a contract run of that same ruck in coyote brown 17 years ago to use when I was a field scientist. Used to live out of that thing 2-4 weeks at a time, plus a gym bag for clothes and spare shoes.

[Moab]

MOLLE II Large Ruck + water jug fit (based on commonly quoted dimensions)

Sources:
- MOLLE II Large Ruck (main compartment dimensions and system info):
  https://www.amazon.com/MOLLE-II-Rucksack-Backpack-Assembly/dp/B0046QT4BA
  https://armynavyoutdoors.com/us-army-issue-molle-ii-rucksack-used/
- WaterBrick 3.5 gal dimensions:
  https://www.waterbrick.org/product-specifications/
- Reliance Aqua-Tainer 4 gal dimensions:
  https://relianceoutdoors.com/products/aqua-tainer-4g-15l
  https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/reliance-aqua-tainer-water-container-4-gallon-or-7-gallon?a=2213892

Reference sizes:
- MOLLE II Large Ruck main compartment (quoted): ~18" x 8" x 24"
- WaterBrick 3.5 gal: 18" x 9" x 6"
- Reliance Aqua-Tainer 4 gal: 11.5" x 11.25" x 10.75"

How many fit (practical):
A) WaterBrick 3.5 gal:
- Realistic in main compartment: 2 bricks
- Possible total (main + lower compartment): 3 bricks (depends on divider/lower bay clearance)
- "By volume" theoretical max: ~4, but not realistic in a real ruck and weight becomes ridiculous

B) Reliance Aqua-Tainer 4 gal:
- Realistic: 1 jug
- Possible (tight) if the ruck bulges and you stack: 2 jugs vertically

Weight reality:
- 2 WaterBricks full = already a heavy ruck in water weight alone
- 2 Aqua-Tainers full = very heavy and awkward because the jug shape fights the ruck shape
```�10�

If 4 water bricks fit, and even though it's a ridiculous weight, if your just moving them to load in a car it would work well. But even moving 2 or 3 in a ruck is preferable to hand carry by far. Anything properly mounted to your back like this will ease travel a great deal.

Another win for the Waterbricks. But I did not ask it to estimate capacity for the 3 other brands of water jug.

I don't know that you can get 2 Aqua-Tainers into a MOLLE II. I have a MOLLE II in M83 woodland and the first thing I did was replace the first gen black frame with a next gen tan frame, as the black frames are notoriously brittle.

I think it would hold one Aqua-Tainer at best, and you're pushing 56 pounds of water and not much else. The sleep system carrier on the MOLLE II makes it look huge, but the actual cargo area of the pack is deceptively small.

Remember it's quoting the 4 gallon not the 7 gallon. And it claims 1 and "possibly" 2. Iirc the main compartment and the sleeping bag compartment does have a zippered opening between the two. Or am I remembering that incorrectly? If not, you could safely cut/melt an opening between the two. But I think the safe bet is using it to carrying multiples of the smaller 3.5 gallon Waterbricks. They seem to make more sense overall for just about everything. Short of being able to survive a drop off the side of 6x military truck in the Spectre.

Iirc it also says it's unable to hold even one of the 7 gallon square Reliance containers. But I'd bet it could hold a Spectre. It's a much more forgiving shape. As is any standard Jerry can type shape.

I'm just excited to find any practicle use for this pack. They are so huge and bombproof. But terrible as a backpacking long distance pack. You are simply paying to much of a weight price. 5lbs seems to be the upper limit for a solid bug out backpack. Otherwise your sacrificing 5obs of ammo, food water etc. Which puts you largely in the civilian pack realm. But your going to have a much better physical experience. And many are built plenty tough to handle anything short of sustained daily combat. And if your operating in sustained daily combat your bug out has already failed. Lol.

Cheap, overbuilt military surplus is awesome. But rarely do we find a solid use beyond mechanized daily warfare. Which is the opposite of bugging out or operating during a paw or emergency. But for utility sake I can see this pack being used for large, short distance transport.

The best use case I could ever find was wild meat transport on the cheap. $39 for a pack that can hold and safely carry 200lbs. Is pretty awesome. But that's a short distance. Which has its place in an emergency. Moving things from house to car, to a short distance location, or just walking around with that capability on your back while scavenging let's say. It certainly would hold a car battery or two or three.

There is also an argument I have made in here about dyeing gear for outfitting a small group cheaply with old ACU gear from this era. I forget the cost but if you had to outfit a family of 4 let's say - quickly and cheaply. An old set of ACU and associated gear can be had for less than $200 per person. And some RIT dye to make it acceptable colorwise is very doable.

That may seem like a terrible idea weight wise. But if you add up a minute man "type" loadout for bugging out with an affordable long gun, mag access, survival gear etc. The cost quickly adds up. Rifle, ammo, clothing, pack, chest rig etc quickly overcomes a standard budget for a family or group of even 3 or 4 people. But it's doable with an entry level AR and a set of ACU gear.

And the colors you can dye all of it into are more than acceptable.

If you add up the likelihood of a use case where you would need this type of loadout, against how much money you'd like to spend leaving this to sit in your garage (most likely) it's not far fetched to see this is a pretty good idea. Just a chestrig in modern offerings can easily exceed $200. 

If I were home I'd go see whether my Spectre or Reliance cans would fit in the Molle II large rucksack.

[echo83]

MOLLE II Large Ruck + water jug fit (based on commonly quoted dimensions)

Sources:
- MOLLE II Large Ruck (main compartment dimensions and system info):
  https://www.amazon.com/MOLLE-II-Rucksack-Backpack-Assembly/dp/B0046QT4BA
  https://armynavyoutdoors.com/us-army-issue-molle-ii-rucksack-used/
- WaterBrick 3.5 gal dimensions:
  https://www.waterbrick.org/product-specifications/
- Reliance Aqua-Tainer 4 gal dimensions:
  https://relianceoutdoors.com/products/aqua-tainer-4g-15l
  https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/reliance-aqua-tainer-water-container-4-gallon-or-7-gallon?a=2213892

Reference sizes:
- MOLLE II Large Ruck main compartment (quoted): ~18" x 8" x 24"
- WaterBrick 3.5 gal: 18" x 9" x 6"
- Reliance Aqua-Tainer 4 gal: 11.5" x 11.25" x 10.75"

How many fit (practical):
A) WaterBrick 3.5 gal:
- Realistic in main compartment: 2 bricks
- Possible total (main + lower compartment): 3 bricks (depends on divider/lower bay clearance)
- "By volume" theoretical max: ~4, but not realistic in a real ruck and weight becomes ridiculous

B) Reliance Aqua-Tainer 4 gal:
- Realistic: 1 jug
- Possible (tight) if the ruck bulges and you stack: 2 jugs vertically

Weight reality:
- 2 WaterBricks full = already a heavy ruck in water weight alone
- 2 Aqua-Tainers full = very heavy and awkward because the jug shape fights the ruck shape
```�10�

If 4 water bricks fit, and even though it's a ridiculous weight, if your just moving them to load in a car it would work well. But even moving 2 or 3 in a ruck is preferable to hand carry by far. Anything properly mounted to your back like this will ease travel a great deal.

Another win for the Waterbricks. But I did not ask it to estimate capacity for the 3 other brands of water jug.

I don't know that you can get 2 Aqua-Tainers into a MOLLE II. I have a MOLLE II in M83 woodland and the first thing I did was replace the first gen black frame with a next gen tan frame, as the black frames are notoriously brittle.

I think it would hold one Aqua-Tainer at best, and you're pushing 56 pounds of water and not much else. The sleep system carrier on the MOLLE II makes it look huge, but the actual cargo area of the pack is deceptively small.

Remember it's quoting the 4 gallon not the 7 gallon. And it claims 1 and "possibly" 2. Iirc the main compartment and the sleeping bag compartment does have a zippered opening between the two. Or am I remembering that incorrectly? If not, you could safely cut/melt an opening between the two. But I think the safe bet is using it to carrying multiples of the smaller 3.5 gallon Waterbricks. They seem to make more sense overall for just about everything. Short of being able to survive a drop off the side of 6x military truck in the Spectre.

Iirc it also says it's unable to hold even one of the 7 gallon square Reliance containers. But I'd bet it could hold a Spectre. It's a much more forgiving shape. As is any standard Jerry can type shape.

I'm just excited to find any practicle use for this pack. They are so huge and bombproof. But terrible as a backpacking long distance pack. You are simply paying to much of a weight price. 5lbs seems to be the upper limit for a solid bug out backpack. Otherwise your sacrificing 5obs of ammo, food water etc. Which puts you largely in the civilian pack realm. But your going to have a much better physical experience. And many are built plenty tough to handle anything short of sustained daily combat. And if your operating in sustained daily combat your bug out has already failed. Lol.

Cheap, overbuilt military surplus is awesome. But rarely do we find a solid use beyond mechanized daily warfare. Which is the opposite of bugging out or operating during a paw or emergency. But for utility sake I can see this pack being used for large, short distance transport.

The best use case I could ever find was wild meat transport on the cheap. $39 for a pack that can hold and safely carry 200lbs. Is pretty awesome. But that's a short distance. Which has its place in an emergency. Moving things from house to car, to a short distance location, or just walking around with that capability on your back while scavenging let's say. It certainly would hold a car battery or two or three.

There is also an argument I have made in here about dyeing gear for outfitting a small group cheaply with old ACU gear from this era. I forget the cost but if you had to outfit a family of 4 let's say - quickly and cheaply. An old set of ACU and associated gear can be had for less than $200 per person. And some RIT dye to make it acceptable colorwise is very doable.

That may seem like a terrible idea weight wise. But if you add up a minute man "type" loadout for bugging out with an affordable long gun, mag access, survival gear etc. The cost quickly adds up. Rifle, ammo, clothing, pack, chest rig etc quickly overcomes a standard budget for a family or group of even 3 or 4 people. But it's doable with an entry level AR and a set of ACU gear.

And the colors you can dye all of it into are more than acceptable.

If you add up the likelihood of a use case where you would need this type of loadout, against how much money you'd like to spend leaving this to sit in your garage (most likely) it's not far fetched to see this is a pretty good idea. Just a chestrig in modern offerings can easily exceed $200. 

If I were home I'd go see whether my Spectre or Reliance cans would fit in the Molle II large rucksack.

Ah, that makes more sense. Yeah, a 4 gallon would work. I was just looking at my pack and the 7 gallon in my basement and thinking, "Yeah, no way." 

What I'm saying should probably be a separate thread, but I think your observations on the MOLLE II have some serious merit. I have one set up as my BOB because 1.) it was free and 2.) I think the assault pack/main ruck combination has some merit. Carrying all your big items in the MOLLE II, but being able to stash it, use your assault pack, then come back to your MOLLE II is my line of thinking. 

Conspicuously absent from my line of thinking is the mechanized side of things. With no mechanized support, I can see how the MOLLE II would be a pain. There's a reason you see them hanging off the sides of Strykers and Bradleys, and not being worn around for weeks on end. 

It is bombproof, but it's definitely more heavy than a civilian pack in the same bracket. 

[Moab]

MOLLE II Large Ruck + water jug fit (based on commonly quoted dimensions)

Sources:
- MOLLE II Large Ruck (main compartment dimensions and system info):
  https://www.amazon.com/MOLLE-II-Rucksack-Backpack-Assembly/dp/B0046QT4BA
  https://armynavyoutdoors.com/us-army-issue-molle-ii-rucksack-used/
- WaterBrick 3.5 gal dimensions:
  https://www.waterbrick.org/product-specifications/
- Reliance Aqua-Tainer 4 gal dimensions:
  https://relianceoutdoors.com/products/aqua-tainer-4g-15l
  https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/reliance-aqua-tainer-water-container-4-gallon-or-7-gallon?a=2213892

Reference sizes:
- MOLLE II Large Ruck main compartment (quoted): ~18" x 8" x 24"
- WaterBrick 3.5 gal: 18" x 9" x 6"
- Reliance Aqua-Tainer 4 gal: 11.5" x 11.25" x 10.75"

How many fit (practical):
A) WaterBrick 3.5 gal:
- Realistic in main compartment: 2 bricks
- Possible total (main + lower compartment): 3 bricks (depends on divider/lower bay clearance)
- "By volume" theoretical max: ~4, but not realistic in a real ruck and weight becomes ridiculous

B) Reliance Aqua-Tainer 4 gal:
- Realistic: 1 jug
- Possible (tight) if the ruck bulges and you stack: 2 jugs vertically

Weight reality:
- 2 WaterBricks full = already a heavy ruck in water weight alone
- 2 Aqua-Tainers full = very heavy and awkward because the jug shape fights the ruck shape
```�10�

If 4 water bricks fit, and even though it's a ridiculous weight, if your just moving them to load in a car it would work well. But even moving 2 or 3 in a ruck is preferable to hand carry by far. Anything properly mounted to your back like this will ease travel a great deal.

Another win for the Waterbricks. But I did not ask it to estimate capacity for the 3 other brands of water jug.

I don't know that you can get 2 Aqua-Tainers into a MOLLE II. I have a MOLLE II in M83 woodland and the first thing I did was replace the first gen black frame with a next gen tan frame, as the black frames are notoriously brittle.

I think it would hold one Aqua-Tainer at best, and you're pushing 56 pounds of water and not much else. The sleep system carrier on the MOLLE II makes it look huge, but the actual cargo area of the pack is deceptively small.

Remember it's quoting the 4 gallon not the 7 gallon. And it claims 1 and "possibly" 2. Iirc the main compartment and the sleeping bag compartment does have a zippered opening between the two. Or am I remembering that incorrectly? If not, you could safely cut/melt an opening between the two. But I think the safe bet is using it to carrying multiples of the smaller 3.5 gallon Waterbricks. They seem to make more sense overall for just about everything. Short of being able to survive a drop off the side of 6x military truck in the Spectre.

Iirc it also says it's unable to hold even one of the 7 gallon square Reliance containers. But I'd bet it could hold a Spectre. It's a much more forgiving shape. As is any standard Jerry can type shape.

I'm just excited to find any practicle use for this pack. They are so huge and bombproof. But terrible as a backpacking long distance pack. You are simply paying to much of a weight price. 5lbs seems to be the upper limit for a solid bug out backpack. Otherwise your sacrificing 5obs of ammo, food water etc. Which puts you largely in the civilian pack realm. But your going to have a much better physical experience. And many are built plenty tough to handle anything short of sustained daily combat. And if your operating in sustained daily combat your bug out has already failed. Lol.

Cheap, overbuilt military surplus is awesome. But rarely do we find a solid use beyond mechanized daily warfare. Which is the opposite of bugging out or operating during a paw or emergency. But for utility sake I can see this pack being used for large, short distance transport.

The best use case I could ever find was wild meat transport on the cheap. $39 for a pack that can hold and safely carry 200lbs. Is pretty awesome. But that's a short distance. Which has its place in an emergency. Moving things from house to car, to a short distance location, or just walking around with that capability on your back while scavenging let's say. It certainly would hold a car battery or two or three.

There is also an argument I have made in here about dyeing gear for outfitting a small group cheaply with old ACU gear from this era. I forget the cost but if you had to outfit a family of 4 let's say - quickly and cheaply. An old set of ACU and associated gear can be had for less than $200 per person. And some RIT dye to make it acceptable colorwise is very doable.

That may seem like a terrible idea weight wise. But if you add up a minute man "type" loadout for bugging out with an affordable long gun, mag access, survival gear etc. The cost quickly adds up. Rifle, ammo, clothing, pack, chest rig etc quickly overcomes a standard budget for a family or group of even 3 or 4 people. But it's doable with an entry level AR and a set of ACU gear.

And the colors you can dye all of it into are more than acceptable.

If you add up the likelihood of a use case where you would need this type of loadout, against how much money you'd like to spend leaving this to sit in your garage (most likely) it's not far fetched to see this is a pretty good idea. Just a chestrig in modern offerings can easily exceed $200. 

If I were home I'd go see whether my Spectre or Reliance cans would fit in the Molle II large rucksack.

Ah, that makes more sense. Yeah, a 4 gallon would work. I was just looking at my pack and the 7 gallon in my basement and thinking, "Yeah, no way."

What I'm saying should probably be a separate thread, but I think your observations on the MOLLE II have some serious merit. I have one set up as my BOB because 1.) it was free and 2.) I think the assault pack/main ruck combination has some merit. Carrying all your big items in the MOLLE II, but being able to stash it, use your assault pack, then come back to your MOLLE II is my line of thinking.

Conspicuously absent from my line of thinking is the mechanized side of things. With no mechanized support, I can see how the MOLLE II would be a pain. There's a reason you see them hanging off the sides of Strykers and Bradleys, and not being worn around for weeks on end.

It is bombproof, but it's definitely more heavy than a civilian pack in the same bracket.

If you search ZS on internet archives you will find my first real bug out bag. I did not want to spend alot of money. And I was happy with cheap overbuilt military surplus. 

Until I was done. It weighed well over 70lbs. 🥴 A prime example of buying your pack first (that alone is a mistake - buy your gear first and match your pack to your gear), and not adding up weights of each piece of gear prior to buying anything. Both are the two biggest mistakes most people make. 

Then you realize there are steps to the process. And why there are gear weight calculators you can use for free. Because along with quality and price the biggest factor is "can I carry this?". 

So you have to start with a list of items that meet your own "sweet spot". Sweet spot is where price meets the highest quality you need and can afford. Without a dramatic increase in price that usually occurs when you go after that last 10%-20% of quality. 

Often when you go from 80% of the best quality to say 90% or 95% the price suddenly goes up by 50%. Or some drastic increase. It's always that last bit of this years improvement or that extra special functionality or quality that kills the price point. But you have to decide where "your" sweet spot is item by item. Maybe you do need that last 20% of quality. And spending the extra makes sense. Or maybe 60% of best quality is good enough for like something simple like a crowbar. And you can save money to spend elsewhere. 
 
But the other consideration that goes hand in hand is weight. You can't just pick all the lightest items. You'll end up with many inferior items at a sharp price increase for ultralight. But once you get a complete list of proposed gear. You can look at alternatives in each item. And decide overall "which items can I afford to decrease weightwise - without overspending or giving up needed quality".  

That's easier done looking at your kit as a whole on paper. Which items aren't as vital as others? Maybe I can ditch something altogether? Or maybe this category is so much more important  - I can make due with something lighter and maybe of lesser quality in an opposing area. Or maybe I can choose a double duty item. That may not do each job as well as the two single items. But the double duty item is cheaper and lighter. And good enough. 

But after not doing it on paper and spending an overall large sum of money. I quickly realized what a 10lb pack meant. I was giving up 5lbs of ammo, or water, or food, or something of equal importance. And I saw the value in doing it on paper first. With weights. 

Alot of the stuff I was in love with - I ditched altogether. I had a lot of "perfect" items. That were indeed the "best item for the job".  And that's where we fall down in our debates of the "the best bug out knife", "the best tent", etc etc etc. There is no best tent. There is a top ten. That all come with a price, quality and weight. But only one is right for "you".  Your use case, your AO, your gear list. And your overall weight. 

It not only has to do what you need it to do. It has to fall in line with the rest of your list and the overall weight. That is very singularly driven, and very nuanced. We can certainly discuss the best options in some category of item. But so many different factors go into each of our gear decisions. It's impossible to find "the best". The best for you? Certainly. 

The Molle II Large Rucksack is hard to pass up though. It's dirt cheap and so bombproof you could haul rocks with it. Or water jugs or large amounts of meat. Or just to have in the truck when you run across two car batteries you want to haul out of someplace. But carrying them in your arms is impractical. As a heavy item hauler for back up it's not a bad expenditure. $39 is crazy cheap for what you get. 

Lastly, I also recognized the value in modularity. Find as many weight responsible carry methods that you can add and subtract weight quickly. Mobility is vital. I use a main pack with full shoulder pads, a thin strapped chest pack (that comfortably ride the main pack) and a large USGi fanny pack ( that rides below or under my main packs waist belt). All of those can ride on my body at the same time. Without creating hot spots or uncomfortable long distance travel. Basic essential survival items are spread across all three. Everything I need is spread across all three. But in a manner that as I ditch them quickly I can still survive. 

If I have to ditch the main pack - completely or temporarily. I have enough basic survival items spread across the chest pack and fannypack to survive. I keep the large essentials in the main pack. But the very basic, essential items like nav, ifak, fire, cordiage, knife, gloves etc split between the fannypack and chest pack. Even some tiny lightweight items are doubled up. A Bic and small firesteel in both. My main compass in the chest pack and a backup of lesser quality and smaller in the fanny pack as backup. A poncho which replaces the tent in my main pack. Alot of thought goes into this. Alot of research. 

Even within my main pack I have modules that can be ditched or cached quickly. That I have already spent the time putting into a clear, long thought out strategy for. Separated already. As I don't want to be making those complicated decisions under duress or in a short moment. Digging thru my entire pack trying to figure what weight I can ditch. 

I highly suggest splitting up your load this way. And having contingencies for dropping weight. 

Now that I'm entirely off topic. I'll shut the hell up. Lol!

[Crimson_Phoenix]

Moab, you're taking us back to the old ZS discussions, just like the before times. Reference gear weights, I got the lightest weight gear I could find back in the day, and they're now bulky and heavy compared to what's on the market now, 16 years later. I replaced my Thermarest self-inflating mattress with one from Klymit, that's roughly the size of my 1L Nalgene bottle. Easily 1/3 the side. For warmer weather, I get by with a poncho liner, but one of these days I'll get the Snugpak jungle bag for the warmer months. It's about the size of a football vs. the temperate three season mummy bag they made, which is bigger than a basketball. A compression sack with the jungle bag, new air mattress, and camp pillow still come out smaller than the mummy bag I have.

[Moab]

Moab, you're taking us back to the old ZS discussions, just like the before times. Reference gear weights, I got the lightest weight gear I could find back in the day, and they're now bulky and heavy compared to what's on the market now, 16 years later. I replaced my Thermarest self-inflating mattress with one from Klymit, that's roughly the size of my 1L Nalgene bottle. Easily 1/3 the side. For warmer weather, I get by with a poncho liner, but one of these days I'll get the Snugpak jungle bag for the warmer months. It's about the size of a football vs. the temperate three season mummy bag they made, which is bigger than a basketball. A compression sack with the jungle bag, new air mattress, and camp pillow still come out smaller than the mummy bag I have.

That's an interesting topic on its own. When do I need to review my gear for simple age? Is it still serviceable. Is the design outdated?

If I continue to live here in the Phillipines my preps will continue to change drastically. They already have. And I was not able to bring alot of emergency items with me. Which was a hard thing to accept. Decades of research, deal finding and collection largely gone. For the sake of shipping and customs fees. Then I had a main box of survival items stolen by a local shipping company. 

But also my survival and prepping supplies were geared for North America. Not a tropical island climate. Luckily many of the basics are the same. And alot of the heavy stuff is not necessary. Cold weather gear. More rugged gear. Alot if I don't need simply due to the climate. It's much more forgiving here. Even in a typhoon it's still warm. Think hammock and tarp. Not tent and stove. 

Prepping is similar. But I have to recreate it. Water, fuel and food storage. Food, water, fuel, basic supplies and their containers are cheaper. But the whole thing is a different scenario. Infrastructure is screwed even without a disaster. Living off grid is a given necessity here. Setting up an off grid system (even a portable one) largely gets you out of the main drawbacks of living here. 

But depth of need for dealing with sewage and sanitation was a thing I did not foresee. Even within major cities septic is largely ignored. A huge percentage of houses either dumps raw sewage right out onto the ground. (Like literally my apartments owner pipes sewage out into the field next door. And no one gives a shit. No pun intended.) Or houses have been digging new outhouses for decades on a tiny piece of property. The same property that contains their well. 

Third world countries based on corruption systems don't put any priority on citizen safety. That just digs into the pile of tax dollars, who's theft, makes the entire system run. Not well mind you. At all. But that's how it runs.