Integrating Sawyer Mini with Camelbak bladder?

Items to keep you alive in the event you must evacuate: discussions of basic Survival Kits commonly called "Bug Out Bags" or "Go Bags"

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators

Post Reply
KnifeStyle
* * *
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:33 pm

Integrating Sawyer Mini with Camelbak bladder?

Post by KnifeStyle » Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:33 pm

Looking to try out a Sawyer Mini, but am finding tricky options in integrating it with a hydration pack. I have a standard blue 3L bladder, in theory I could just cut the tube close to the bladder and add the filter in-line. This makes it tricky to access when it needs to be backwashed later on. Or, I could use a stockier military bladder I have with the quick-link mouth port, which would allow me to flip my pack upside-down, remove the mouth piece, and fill it in small portions using the squeeze bag? Am I missing out some ultimate solution for using this filter or are these my main options?
jamoni wrote:Zombie Squad, the things you have experience with scare me.

User avatar
Wraith6761
* * *
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:00 pm

Re: Integrating Sawyer Mini with Camelbak bladder?

Post by Wraith6761 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 6:25 pm

The Mini is designed to be added directly into the line, just cut the line and plug in the Mini. No adapter is needed. I found that making the cut a little ways past where the tube exits my bag and starts along the shoulder strap was the most comfortable place to add it, as the extra weight was right on the strap and not flopping around, but to each his own. To backwash, just pull the tubing off of the Mini and backwash like normal. I will note that the Mini tends to clog much faster than the Squeeze, or maybe it's just more noticeable since the Mini's flow rate is slower to begin with. You can do the Squeeze as an in-line filter as well, it just takes an adapter to do it (specifically, this one: http://www.amazon.com/Sawyer-Products-S ... 008JX0QP4/).
Woods Walker wrote:...I don't think it matters if a backpack has Dora the Explorer on it. Based on my observations from years of hunting and fishing if something looks and acts like prey it will draw in predators.

sdsviet
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:46 am

Integrating Sawyer Mini with Camelbak bladder?

Post by sdsviet » Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:55 am

Here's my solution. I used camelbak quick link adapters to attach the sawyer mini and also added a charcoal filter to the mix. In the photo, the main connector to the camelbak is not there anymore because I needed that connector at the time for something else. I need to buy more connectors actually.

http://www.amazon.com/Camelbak-Quick-Li ... ak+adapter

Image


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

User avatar
JIM
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:30 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Wall street (Dollar zombies FTL$)
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Integrating Sawyer Mini with Camelbak bladder?

Post by JIM » Sun Dec 20, 2015 10:42 am

Wraith6761 wrote:The Mini is designed to be added directly into the line, just cut the line and plug in the Mini. No adapter is needed. I found that making the cut a little ways past where the tube exits my bag and starts along the shoulder strap was the most comfortable place to add it, as the extra weight was right on the strap and not flopping around, but to each his own. To backwash, just pull the tubing off of the Mini and backwash like normal. I will note that the Mini tends to clog much faster than the Squeeze, or maybe it's just more noticeable since the Mini's flow rate is slower to begin with. You can do the Squeeze as an in-line filter as well, it just takes an adapter to do it (specifically, this one: http://www.amazon.com/Sawyer-Products-S ... 008JX0QP4/).
Agreed, that's how I run it as well in my bob. i also use the middle portion of the sawyer mini to wrap my duct tape around.
Image

First-Aid primer and medical disclaimer

"Trust me, I'm a Medic. This won't hurt.... Me. You, I'm not so sure - probably a lot..''

dunamis
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:14 pm

Re: Integrating Sawyer Mini with Camelbak bladder?

Post by dunamis » Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:28 am

MSR inline filter works great with the Camelbak MilSpec bladders, but not sure if the connections are the same or compatible for the blue bladder you have.

User avatar
Jorian
* * *
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:16 pm
Location: Salida CO
Contact:

Re: Integrating Sawyer Mini with Camelbak bladder?

Post by Jorian » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:34 pm

dunamis wrote:MSR inline filter works great with the Camelbak MilSpec bladders, but not sure if the connections are the same or compatible for the blue bladder you have.
Always a trade-off between flow rate and level of filtration. The MSR unit boasts 99.9% protozoa removal, the Sawyer mini 99.9999%. Question - 99.9% sounds pretty good. 99.9999% is a thousand times better on paper... how bad does the water have to be for that to be a significant difference?

IANMCDEVITT3
*
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:03 am

Re: Integrating Sawyer Mini with Camelbak bladder?

Post by IANMCDEVITT3 » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:24 pm

Of protozoa or viruses? I know that many threats are from minerals and virus particles. In Ukraine,the Luhansk Peoples Republic actually, entire towns were sick from just the mineral content, the metals from the coal mines and fallout from the unregulated factories, and viruses. I have a little Sawyer I used and I didn't get sick.

dunamis
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:14 pm

Re: Integrating Sawyer Mini with Camelbak bladder?

Post by dunamis » Wed Dec 23, 2015 8:39 pm

Jorian wrote:
dunamis wrote:MSR inline filter works great with the Camelbak MilSpec bladders, but not sure if the connections are the same or compatible for the blue bladder you have.
Always a trade-off between flow rate and level of filtration. The MSR unit boasts 99.9% protozoa removal, the Sawyer mini 99.9999%. Question - 99.9% sounds pretty good. 99.9999% is a thousand times better on paper... how bad does the water have to be for that to be a significant difference?
IANMCDEVITT3 wrote:Of protozoa or viruses? I know that many threats are from minerals and virus particles. In Ukraine,the Luhansk Peoples Republic actually, entire towns were sick from just the mineral content, the metals from the coal mines and fallout from the unregulated factories, and viruses. I have a little Sawyer I used and I didn't get sick.
I don't know. Ya'll are the medical experts - you tell me?

User avatar
Jorian
* * *
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:16 pm
Location: Salida CO
Contact:

Re: Integrating Sawyer Mini with Camelbak bladder?

Post by Jorian » Thu Dec 24, 2015 10:35 am

IANMCDEVITT3 wrote:Of protozoa or viruses? I know that many threats are from minerals and virus particles. In Ukraine,the Luhansk Peoples Republic actually, entire towns were sick from just the mineral content, the metals from the coal mines and fallout from the unregulated factories, and viruses. I have a little Sawyer I used and I didn't get sick.
If a mineral goes into solution, no amount of physical filtration is going to get rid of it... reverse osmosis or distillation would be the only way AFAIK.
I was just thinking of protozoa, wondering what a "safe" level would be.

Post Reply

Return to “Bug Out Gear”