The Admin Pouch Death Match was so popular that we’ve decided to tee up another installment. This time we’re going to focus on a popular category – tactical molle daypacks. The 5.11 RUSH 12 and the Camelbak HAWG have long been the standard by which others in this category are measured. There are other worthy candidates. For instance, the TAD Fast Pack Litespeed and Kifaru Zippy both have ardent supporters and rightfully so. The problem is they are also both well over the $200 mark. Many cannot afford them and therefore they both tend to lack the broad appeal of the HAWG and Rush 12.
In this introduction, we’re going to compare the two packs and point out important similarities and differences.
The 5.11 RUSH 12 (left) and Camelbak Mil Tac HAWG (right)
SPECS
The two packs are close in carry capacity – 1,296 cu in for the RUSH 12 and 1,400 for the HAWG. However, their dimensions are very different. So different in fact that 5.11′s stated measurements for the main compartment (18″ H x 11″ W x 6″ D) seemed generous. I measured and according to my tape, the exterior of the pack measures out at 17″ H x 12.5″ W x 6″ D. That makes more sense because it didn’t pass the eye test that the RUSH was only an inch shorter than the HAWG and it was also noticeably wider (the HAWG is true to spec at 19″ H x 10.5″ W x 10.2″ D). In fact, the RUSH wouldn’t fit in my locker at the gym without turning it sideways whereas the HAWG fit fine. Just a practical example where size does matter.
Speaking of things that matter… the RUSH is also very heavy – weighing in at 3 lbs due to it’s 1000D construction and the extra molle webbing. The HAWG weighs 2.2 lbs. I’m a huge proponent of using 500D Cordura on packs and this is why. 500D is still highly abrasion resistant and it saves on weight. In this case, a 26% reduction to be precise.
Front view – 5.11 RUSH 12 (left), Camelbak HAWG (right)
EXTERIOR
In the 2013 version of the HAWG, Camelbak made the decision to remove the molle webbing from the sides of the pack.
Side View – Camelbak HAWG (left), 5.11 RUSH 12 (right)
I’ve heard more complaints about this aspect of the new design than any other. It didn’t bother me as I generally prefer not to attach large pouches to the side of my packs. It also made the pack a little bit less tactical looking and as discussed above it does save a little weight. If you like covering your pack in pouches then your mileage will probably vary. Another difference had to do with the compression straps. Camelbak has an upper and lower compression strap which really helps to keep the pack compact. The single upper compression strap on the RUSH series is not as effective at keeping things tight.
The shoulder straps on these bags couldn’t be more different.
Back Panel – 5.11 RUSH 12 (left), Camelbak HAWG (right)
The yoke harness on the 5.11 RUSH is wide, thickly padded, and aggressively contoured. They also include additional molle webbing for attaching pouches. I could be wrong but it looks nearly identical to the harness on the RUSH 24, only slightly smaller. It’s almost overkill for a pack this size. The straps on the HAWG are more streamlined, less contoured and curved outward rather than inward. The d-rings are a nice touch but no molle webbing. Both packs include a sternum strap. The Camelbak includes a non-weight bearing waist strap.
So which is better? Fit and comfort is different for everyone, but for me it depended on the loadout. The RUSH 12 is one of the most comfortable packs I’ve ever demo’d with a light load — your typical assortment of small EDC items and an extra layer in case the weather changes. Switch to a moderate load that includes a full water bladder or a heavy laptop and things changed. The yoke planted most of the weight on my neck and shoulders. It was almost like having a weighted collar around my neck. I started yelling “You Damn Dirty Ape” uncontrollably at friends and family members. It wasn’t a pleasant experience.
The HAWG on the other hand was much more comfortable under a heavier load. I didn’t expect that but the straps and possibly the shape of the pack did a much better job of weight distribution. It also pairs very well with the included Camelbak Mil Spec Antidote Reservoir, which is baffled to keep things low profile. I tried to put the Antidote in the RUSH 12 but it wouldn’t fit. The bladder is too tall or the bag is too short. Maybe a little of both.
The top of each pack includes a carry handle and antennae ports that have hook and loop closures. I love carry handles so kudos to both manufacturers for that.
Top View – 5.11 RUSH 12 (left), Camelbak HAWG (right)
The RUSH 12 has a nice soft lined valuables pocket on the top for sunglasses or phone storage. I didn’t like the routing of the reservoir hose on the RUSH. It goes through the main compartment and out one of the top ports. Camelbak on the other hand includes an elastic opening coming right out of the hydration pocket, keeping the hose from stealing space and getting tangled in the main compartment.
By the way, the zipper pulls on both packs are crap. I cut them off and replaced them with my own custom zipper pulls.
INTERIOR
Moving to the interior of the packs, both packs have integrated Admin Panels.
Admin Panels – Camelbak HAWG (left), 5.11 RUSH 12 (right)
I’ll cover them in more detail in the individual pack reviews, but I definitely prefer the layout on the RUSH 12 simply because none of the slots on the Camelbak will fit my Leatherman Skeletool or my Zero Tolerance 0350 folder. A big fail in my book. I also like the zippered pocket, the extra tether, and the slip pockets on the flap of the RUSH. The pen slots are deep on both packs. The slip pocket design of the HAWG is more flexible but the RUSH is better suited for keeping smaller items secure.
5.11 also adds additional organization in the main compartment with two zippered mesh pockets and a non-padded magazine/laptop sleeve with a bungee cord closure whereas the HAWG keeps things simple.
Main Compartments – Camelbak HAWG (left), 5.11 RUSH 12 (right)
I like the light gray lining of the HAWG, which helps with finding items in low light conditions. They’ve also include three nylon loops which can be used to mount a medical pack insert or other accessories.
The bottom of the packs are nearly identical.
Bottom Panels – 5.11 RUSH 12 (left), Camelbak HAWG (right)
They both have grommets for drainage and four lashing points. Both packs will stand up on their own when laid on the ground (even when empty).
————————–
In the next installment, I will feature the 2nd place finisher, dive into more detail, and discuss my rationale. This is proving to be a very close match-up with pros and cons on both sides. Stay tuned! 
The post Molle Daypack Death Match: An Introduction appeared first on Loaded Pocketz.