High Ground Media, LLC

Introduced in 2017, the Travel Bottle by Pelican is part of the company’s ongoing drinkware line as Pelican expands its line of products beyond hard cases. With its robust design and hardened material, the bottle will ensure hot liquids remain so for hours, while cold remain so for even longer.

Made from a body of BPA-free 18/8 professional-grade stainless steel, and folded to shape a vacuum-sealed, double-walled design—the bottle’s body has the ability to regulate and prolong the thermal shifts of the contents inside. Its overall ergonomics (support bands on body’s top and bottom, and overall diameter) allow for a comfortable hand grip. The rubberized, non-slip base helps to ensure the bottle remains in place regardless of surface.

On various pained versions, the tumbler includes a sweat-proof powder finish to mitigate the body from “sweating” and allowing the user to maintain a non-slip surface.

The leak-proof lid is a screw-top design made from Eastman Tritan™ copolyester for heat resistance. An integrated carrying handle allows for the bottle to be easily opens and securely closed regardless of pressurization due to internal temperature changes.

Specifications:

• Length……………………………3.62″ (9.2 cm)
• Height…………………………….11.00″ (27.9 cm)
• Overall Volume Capacity…32oz (0.95L)

The Travel Bottle is available between 18, 32, and 64oz. sizes, and comes in Black (featured) and White.

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Excellent (5/5): At an MSRP of $29.95 for the 32oz variant, the Travel Bottle from Pelican is made from folded stainless steel for its longevity and impact resistance. The thicker, screw-top lid also is intended to provide maximum insulation while allowing immediate access. Comparators to the Travel Bottle would be Rambler 36oz ($54.99) from Yeti, or the 32oz Bottle ($44.95) from Rtic (but appears at a sale price of $19.99 on some third-party retail websites). This would put the Travel Bottle at an excellent cost amid the market of similar products, all with similar construction and design.
• Comfort – Good (4/5): Like any 32oz vessel, the Travel Bottle was a bit bulky to wrap your hand around simply because of the overall diameter, but the painted finish not only prevented sweating, but gave the container an added tactile feel. The rubberized base also helped ensure the bottle remained stationary on a desk, countertop, truck hood, and wooden table. The one noted aspect from a perspective of exposure to 8 hours of heat (such as coffee) was that some warmth (not to the point of discomfort or pain) was noted on the top of the body, presumably since that is where it is thinnest and the material interacts with the lid allotting for a dissipation source, but the rest of the body remained cool throughout the duration. One recommendation to Pelican would be perhaps to offer as a separate accessory an attachable handle for improved carrying.
• Durability – Excellent (5/5): The 18/8 professional-grade stainless steel used in the Travel Bottle is a material that is both food-grade safe and extremely durable. It is frequently used in cookware and commercial kitchens for both its ability to resist heat and warp. This translated in the bottle to a body that sustained its shape through rough love inside an equipment and range bag with other items, as well as on the trail or campouts. Indeed drop-testing (10 drops from a height of 6’) only resulted in surface marring to the finish, but nothing that exposed the base metal. Perhaps the weakest element to the overall product would be the durability of the plastic lid, but it too was robust enough to survive the drop testing. But should anything untoward happen to the Travel Bottle, it is guaranteed for life by Pelican for full replacement.
• Functionality – Good (4/5): Functionally, the Travel Bottle did what it should—it kept hot drinks hot, and cold ones cold. But in comparison to other Pelican and Yeti products that share similarities in design and material, the Travel Bottle had the best heat retention level of all those tested. With only an average loss of 5.15 degrees per hour, over an eight hour span, the Travel Bottle performed the best (see data chart). This could be most likely attributed to the thickness and seal of the lid (where most tumblers and bottles experience heat loss), that gave it the best retention level over time. There also was a notable pop from pressurization when unscrewing the lid but thankfully no splash back, and Pelican could improve the design if it could augment the lid with some type of push-button pressurization valve to allow the user to depressurize the bottle before fighting to open it. Otherwise, the leakproof seal to the lid kept the liquid contents secure. When testing cold items, fully packed ice inside the Travel Bottle lasted for approximately 3.75 days before all ice had melted leaving water at a 33 degrees.
• Weight – Excellent (5/5): At 17.3 ounces for the 32oz bottle, the Travel Bottle’s weight was solely determined by the amount of material and overall size. The 32oz version of the  bottle still felt lightweight without any contents, and even with various liquids added still was not exceptionally burdensome and felt at home in a backpack or waist pack. In contrast, the Rambler 36oz (24.5oz) from Yeti, or the 32oz Bottle (19.2) from Rtic both demonstrate that the Travel Bottle from Pelican is at an excellent light weight amid a market of comparable alternatives.

Overall Rating – Above Average (19/25)

Product Link: https://www.pelican.com/us/en/product/drinkware/bottle/travbo32

I am reviewing this product as a courtesy to the manufacturer and via STL Shooting Enthusiasts, so that I can evaluate it and provide my honest feedback. I am not bound by any written, verbal, or implied contract to give positive reviews. All views are my own, and based off my personal experience with the product.

The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the author. The views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Released in 2020, the 2.0 is the latest iteration of the Patrol Glove offered by Magpul to bring together dynamic materials and robust protection, while offering maximum dexterity possible. The Patrol Glove 2.0 has full coverage and is designed to support law enforcement, military, and private shooters alike.

Made overall from a dual chassis combination of corded elastic nylon and premium goatskin leather, the Patrol Glove 2.0 affords a high-degree of breathability with adequate enclosure around the hand and fingers. This protective leather extends up and around the front tip of each finger and thumb, for increased protection.

Between the thumb and forefinger is a reinforced valley with added leather, that will protect the hand web and material from compromise, be it through abrasion or impact. This is especially good for users of compact and sub-compact handguns due to the increased risk of contact with the slide during function. The thumb in each glove includes touch-screen compatibility for most common smart devices.

Each finger has an enhanced articulation design, and closed-cell padded knuckle panels for maximum tactile control and protection. The top-most facing half of the glove is made from an elastic nylon that allows the glove to contour to the user as well as most dynamic situations.

The Patrol Glove 2.0 includes an elastic nylon band around the wrist bone that secures the glove, as well as anchors a leather pull loop that aids in donning the glove.

The Patrol Glove 2.0 is available in Coyote (featured) and Black, and come in sizes between Small and 2XL.  

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Average (3/5): With a list price of $49.95, the Patrol Glove 2.0 is one of several gloves in the Magpul clothing line, and the second generation of the glove that improves on the previous design. The corded elastic nylon material gives maximum flexability and tactile sensation for the wearer, while the closed-cell padding offers a modest degree of protection for the overall hand and knuckles. Some notable market comparators to the Patrol Glove 2.0 would be the M-Pact Tactical Gloves ($24.99) by Mechanix, the Assault Pilot Gloves ($70) by Oakley SI, or the Tactical Gloves ($49.95) by Sig Sauer. This gives the Patrol Glove 2.0 an appropriate (or average) score in terms of its cost to the consumer.
• Comfort – Good (4/5): The lightweight and flexible material of the Patrol Glove 2.0 enabled it to fit very comfortably, with a good degree of tactile sensation for weapon controls, loading ammunition, or in general use. The premium leather potions did affect some sense of tactile feel at the fingertips, but not to the point of distraction or inability to manipulate controls. The cut of the material and reinforcement along the web of the hand and palm kept a good degree of comfort and flexibility, while still allowing for full range of motion. The closed cell pads provided a good degree of protection to the knuckle line, but the harder the force striking it (and the object in question), the more abrasive on the exterior material it became and some fraying was noted.
• Durability – Average (3/5): Over the course of examination (roughly 30 days on the range, hikes, and in everyday wear); while the upper corded elastic nylon exterior was very flexible, as it came into contact with more abrasive surfaces (such as hard metal edges, wood, or rocks) the smaller breaks and fraying of the material was noted. This was particularly notable around the raised foam padding with its slightly taller profile. The leather palm held up well with minor scratching noted from manipulating weapon controls or grabbing at various surfaces. The same leather material also extended from the palm, down the bottom length of the fingers, and around the front half of the fingers. This ensured the fingertips were properly protected from hard or abrasive surfaces. The stitching appeared to be one continual line throughout most of the glove, with only extensive bartack and double line stitching added to various stress points. One aspect of the Patrol Glove 2.0 design that lends itself to its longevity is the option to use an elastic wrist closure as opposed to the use of a hook-and-loop tab that many other gloves use and often wears out. This design choice will ensure the gloves longer-term usage.
• Functionality – Good (4/5): From a functional aspect, the Patrol Glove 2.0 did what was expected, it protected the backhand with its closed-cell padded material, while giving the palm and fingers extended protection with the leather. With its elastic wrist enclosure and stitched pull tab, this aided in easy donning of the glove without risk of excessive wear out or compromise of the overall stitch line. The loop itself also had the added function to be used to hang the gloves on a carabiner or hook when not in use. The fingers did have good tactile connectivity to touchscreen technology and easily manipulated the screen to various smart devices to some extent (things that required more dexterity like zoom in/out were somewhat more challenging).
• Weight – Good (4/5): Weighing 2.5 ounces for the pair, the Patrol Glove 2.0 was a lightweight additive to any range belt or bag. Its materials and size did not contribute to overall bulk, and was otherwise very comfortable. While the M-Pact Tactical Gloves (4.8 ounces) by Mechanix, the Assault Pilot Gloves (7.5 ounces) by Oakley SI, or the Tactical Gloves (3 ounces) by Sig Sauer demonstrate the variance in market weight for such accessories. Given the listed market alternatives, they all demonstrate that the Patrol Glove 2.0 is of a good weight among its competitors that offer similar protection and materials.

Overall Rating – Above Average (18/25)

Product Link: https://magpul.com/apparel-gear/accessories/gloves/patrolglove2-0.html?mp_global_size=undefined

I am reviewing this product as a courtesy to the manufacturer and via STL Shooting Enthusiasts, so that I can evaluate it and provide my honest feedback. I am not bound by any written, verbal, or implied contract to give positive reviews. All views are my own, and based off my personal experience with the product.

The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the author. The views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Since the first introduction of its polymer magazines in 2007, Magpul has continued to innovate and lead the accessory market with its unique blend of magazines, stocks, and handguards. Today Magpul is as synonymous with the firearms industry as the firearms themselves. The current model of polymer magazines (or PMags) is divided between Generation M2 (Gen2) and Generation M3 (Gen3) PMags with each offering something unique.

Gen M2 MOE (Window)

Introduced in 2009; the 30-round Gen M2 (seen as Revision-“M”) first was available in a standard non-window variant, then by 2013 was re-designated the “MOE” with an improved polymer blend and a new side window option. The Gen M2 MOE (or Gen2 MOE) continued Magpul’s legacy from its first generation of polymer, crush and impact-resistant magazines by improving its design and function to make a superior product.

From the top, the Gen2 MOE features an anti-tilt, self-lubricating follower and stainless steel spring ensure consistent feeding of ammunition. Slots at the rear help seat stripper clips guides to speed in the loading of ammunition.

The Gen2 MOE has a consistent curve throughout the length of the magazine to aid in reliable function. Its overtravel stop ensures the Gen2 MOE cannot be forced past the magazine catch and into an open chamber for both shooter and weapon safety. Along the bottom half the ribbed grip surface includes a front and rear textured surface for tactile control. Windows on both sides provide immediate visual recognition of ammo count.

At the bottom the removable floorplate is flared to enable positive control during magazine handling. Dust covers for the Gen2 MOE are sold separately in packs of three and will clip to the bottom of the floorplate.

The Gen M2 MOE is only available in a flat black (featured).

Specifications:

• For use with Colt-spec AR15/M4 firearms
• Rated for 5.56 x 45 ammunition
• Not compatible with SA80 and HK416, or similar platforms

Product Link: https://magpul.com/firearm-accessories/pmags/ar15-m4-m16/pmag30ar-m4genm2moe-window.html?mp_global_color=118

Gen M3 Window

Coinciding with the evolution of the Gen2 MOE, in 2012 Magpul released its 30-round Gen M3 (or Gen3). This release included design additions that give the shooter improved function during handling as well as improved ergonomics. These features aided Magpul’s Gen3 to be selected as an acceptable magazine for combat use by the USMC in a public announcement 2016.

Again, starting at the top the Gen3 features many of the same aspects of the Gen2 MOE with some improvements. The anti-tilt, self-lubricating follower is of a somewhat reduced design, yet the stainless steel spring and stripper clips guides remain the same as the Gen2 MOE. The Gen3 features thicker side walls and modified magazine dimensions for greater compatibility with non-Colt-spec rifles.

The Gen3 has the same consistent curve throughout the length of the magazine that accounts for the tapered case of the .223/5.56 cartridge, and aids in reliable function. One notable change in the Gen3 is the overtravel stop on the spine has been significantly bolstered to prevent any accidental/forceful overriding of the magwell. In addition, the Gen3 now features a more pronounced magazine latch catch and “ramp” on the side to improve compatibility.

The ribbed grip surface is more pronounced on the Gen3, and has aggressive front and rear textured surfaces not included on the Gen2 MOE. Translucent windows on both sides are the same anti-glare material as the Gen2 MOE, and still provide immediate visual recognition of ammo count.

One new inclusion on the Gen3 is a paint pen matrix on the bottom sides of the magazine’s body. This allows for easy and clear visual recognition of markings based on the user’s needs.

The removable floorplate is also significantly redesigned for a slimmer profile while ensuring proper magazine handling. This helps ensure stacking of multiple magazines is possible in all pouch manufacturers. Dust covers for the Gen3 are included with the magazine but will not attach to the base of the floorplate

The Gen M3 is available in a flat black (featured) and medium coyote tan.

Specifications:

• Compatible with Colt-spec AR15/M4 platforms, HK416/MR556A1/M27 IAR, British SA-80, FN SCARN MK 16/16S, and others
• For use with Colt-spec AR15/M4 firearms
• Rated for 5.56 x 45 ammunition

Product Link: https://magpul.com/firearm-accessories/pmags/ar15-m4-m16/pmag30ar-m4genm3window-5-56×45.html?mp_global_color=118

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Good (4/5): With a minimal price difference, the Gen2 MOE ($15.95) and Gen3 ($17.95) both offer the Magpul legacy in resilience and durability. In many aspects both magazines are fundamentally identical, with only minor differences meant to improve more non-essential elements to the function of the Gen3 product. That said, the price of the Gen3 reflects those elements such as; the paint pen matrix, enhanced external control elements, and a re-designed floorplate and follower. In comparison, other magazines include Lancer’s L5AWM ($16.30), Hexmag’s Series 2 ($16.99), and Daniel Defense’s DD Magazine ($21.00) that would put the Gen2 MOE at a good cost, and the Gen3 in an appropriate (or average) price point among its competitors.
• Comfort – Excellent (5/5): From a comfort aspect, the Gen3 clearly had the more tactile feel to it over the Gen2 MOE, due in part to its enhanced grip and textured surfaces. This provided for some additional control, particularly in the front of the magazine as it was driven into the magwell. The translucent window and round marking indicators in both the Gen2 MOE and Gen3 offered the same level of clarity to visually track round count within the magazine. The feed springs to both magazines also had the same approximate level of potential energy that ensured consistent feeding. Disassembly in the Gen2 MOE was a little more challenging then the Gen3, likely attributed to the additional bulk of the floorplate around the edges. Overall for their handling and feel, both the Gen2 MOE and Gen3 felt excellent in the hand and was not restrictive in any sense.
• Durability – Good (4/5): The biggest positive aspect to the durability of Magpul’s Gen2 MOE and Gen3 magazines laid in the polymer’s resiliency (or the ability of the polymer to flex and then return to its pre-determined shape). It’s a careful balance between finding a polymer blend that was flexible enough to sustain the magazine’s shape and integrity, while being neither too pliable or brittle. Three drop tests to each fully-loaded Gen2 MOE and Gen3 magazine were conducted from a height of approx. six feet, with the feed ramps down in an attempt to get a direct strike. In each iteration, despite striking a concrete surface, only 1-2 rounds were typically ejected and the feed lips were never compromised beyond simple surface marring. Internet research found plenty of examples of those who were able to crack/compromise the polymer magazines in various drop tests, but this was often done by manipulating the material’s resiliency aspect (typically by freezing or lowering the ability of the polymer to flex) or by exerting extensive force over time (i.e. repetitive/extensive full auto) beyond normal usage. Magpul magazines have passed the NATO Rough Handling Tests to include droppages from 5 feet from all manner of orientations. It should be noted, much like many other polymer-based products, users should avoid prolonged direct UV exposure to the Gen2 MOE or Gen3 in that it may affect the molecular resiliency of the product (i.e. becomes brittle).
• Functionality – Average (3/5): There was (and remains) some platform compatibility concerns within the applicable range of non-milspec AR lowers for the Gen2 MOE magazine. This often included unique or otherwise non-traditional designs that merge skulls, helms, or warthog designs to the magazine wells and thus had some conflicts with the magazine’s exterior design. Both the Gen2 MOE and Gen3 did fully seat a 30-round magazine with the bolt forward, but it was noted the Gen3 felt slightly tighter against the bolt and may be indicative of minute tolerance differences in the magazine sidewalls. Because of the differences between the Gen2 MOE and Gen3 floorplate geometry, Magpul accessories like Ranger Plates were not interchangeable. Similarly, while the Gen3 had an included dust cover, it did not attach to the floorplate and left the question of “why”? Not many people utilize the cover and those that do I’m sure would have apricated the ability to attach it when not in use. One positive aspect of the Gen3 was its added space for the “31^st round” which wasn’t actually intended for another round, but rather to enable the magazine to be fully loaded with sufficient flex in the spring to fully seat the first round. Aside from that, the paint pen matrix was a nice inclusion as it could allow for easy compatibilization of rounds (like for .223 and 300 BKO) via magazines, though that feature was not tested.
• Weight – Average (3/5): Generally, the weight of the Gen2 MOE and Gen3 magazines were approximate given they both are made from the same polymer material. The Gen2 MOE weighed in at 4.6 ounces (empty) while the Gen3 weighed 5 ounces (empty). Perhaps the heaviest aspect of both magazines was its overall body and the slight weight difference could be explained by the added external features to the Gen3. In comparison, Lancer’s L5AWM (4.8 ounces), Hexmag’s Series 2 (4.6 ounces), and Daniel Defense’s DD Magazine (7 ounces) all demonstrate the variance in weight due to differences in magazine design and material. This placed the Gen2 MOE and the Gen3 within the average weight of the competitors noted.

Overall Rating – Above Average (19/25)

I am reviewing this product as a courtesy to the manufacturer and via STL Shooting Enthusiasts, so that I can evaluate it and provide my honest feedback. I am not bound by any written, verbal, or implied contract to give positive reviews. All views are my own, and based off my personal experience with the product.

The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the author. The views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.