Now that I’ve shown you my homemade kit, Click
Here if you missed it, it needs to be tested. Now typically I would
just record its bare stats and that would be enough to know which of my packs
it would be going into, or would allow me to know what capabilities it would
have before entering the field. However, to give more of a balanced review we
will be measuring it alongside others that you could easily purchase at Walmart
or Amazon on the cheap. Now, why these: Well not only are they the only other type of kits
I currently own, they vary enough to allow me to see where my custom kit will
fall into place. Before I break down my experiments with this gear I
must state the following:
“I am not being paid to
endorse this item. I paid for it with my own money under my own volition. My
review is genuine and accounts are from my, and mine alone, experiences with
this item.”
And with that, let’s
look at some questions.
As with any good test we
decided the best course would be to question what we are looking for in a
cooking kit. Besides the common baking, boiling, and frying, we were also
concerned with volume. No more and no less than a quart is preferred. Stability;
it’s important that it is able to cook on a fire without falling over and
spilling water onto said fire. This eliminated round-bottomed bowls from the
test. Speed; we were hoping to find an ideal configuration to optimize
processing (baking/boiling/frying) time. Serve-ability; sometimes it’s nice to
be able to serve your meal as opposed to eating it out of the pot that it was
cooked in. This isn’t very important, but we are trying to see what all we can
get out of each kit. Compact-ability; we really want the best gear we can get
and store it in the smallest space possible. Storage-ability; we want to be
able to add other items into the kit so we can store more things. This may be
confused with compact-ability, however with this we are looking to see what we
can store inside the kit rather than
storing the kit itself. We will be conducting the test comparing only the
materials used here without any base to compare them to. This means that only
the pots in question will be compared only to each other. We will be using a 1st,
2nd, and 3rd system and finding the average for
statistics for each pot.
Let us get to the lineup:
Mess Kit A
Ozark Trail 3 Piece Stainless Steel
Cookware Set
5
3/4 inch wide 5 inch
deep pot holding 5 cups
4
7/8 inch wide 4 ¾ inch deep pot holding
7 cups
A
lid that fits both pots with a folding knob
Folding
handles
Included
by me -- A plastic cup with measurement
Initial impressions: Likely
not good for baking or frying, but the optimal choice for boiling. Contents appear
to be even or greater to Kit B, but there is not really anything to serve up
food with. It appears that it would be stable in a cooking environment. There
is opportunities for Storage-ability, however, not much in the way of Compact-ability.
Mess Kit B
Coleman 5 piece aluminum mess kit:
One plate measuring 5 ¾ inch
bottom with 1 ½ inch walls
Securing handle to lock
all the pieces together
Another plate the same
size except it can turn the securing handle in to a frying pan handle
Small pot that holds close
to 2 cups more like 1 ¾
Metal cup with measurement
markers
Initial
impressions: This kit appears to be optimal for frying and baking,
however, at first glance does not appear that it could do much in the way of
boiling. Its volume appears to be adequate and it appears sturdy enough to
stand up in a cooking environment. There are dishes to serve up the food with
all stored within the kit itself. It is also compact so it could slide right
into your pack.
Mess Kit C
My custom kit:
9 inch wide 2 inch walls
round cake pan
8 ¾ inch wide and 3 inch
walls that hold 60oz (6 cups is better than full pot)
4 ½ inch wide and 1 ½ inch
wall cup that is 7oz (close enough to a cup to be used for measuring)
Vice grip pliers
Initial
impressions: This kit seems adequate for baking and boiling, but
with no apparent handle frying appears to be difficult. It is similar, but a
bit larger than B so it likely has a higher volume. With its larger size it may
be a bit more unstable in a cooking environment, however this presents more
opportunities for Storage-ability. It is slightly larger than pot B, but is
still flat so Compact-ability still does not appear to present an issue.
To
test these, I have decided to use the camp stove “Peak 1” made by Coleman. The
test would be better if I could’ve used a campfire for each, however I wanted
to make sure the performance was as equal across all the different kits and
tests. The Stove will allow me to keep the heat source an independent variable from
the different mess kits which will be my dependent variables. That’s science
son, now let’s start the test.
Boiling
Test
For
the first test we timed how long it took to boil water. For the test we filled
each pot with 2 cups of water then placed it on the burner and timed it till
the water came to a rolling boil.
Mess Kit A: The
kit had two different pots so both were boiled. About 7:05 minutes for both. The
time came back a couple seconds apart. I chalked this up to human error with
the stop watch. Some problematic elements that we discovered were that the lid
began to shake the closer the pot got to boiling, there is no way to hang this
pot up unlike Pot B, and also during this test both pots seemed to have balance
issues, however nothing came of it.
Mess Kit B: The
pot in this kit was made closer to what a typical pot looks like, however it’s
smaller size limits the amount of water that can be boiled. We went with 1 ¾ cups
over 2. I was afraid of over boiling and made this call. It came to a boil in
5:49 minutes. Beside it small size no other problems we noted during the test.
Mess Kit C: Since the boiling apparatus in this kit is large
dog bowl with a flat bottom gave this pot the most stability. However during
the test it took 8:50 minutes to achieve a rolling boil. This was about 2
minutes longer than Mess Kit A and 3
minutes longer than Mess Kit B. Other
problems were that the lid (round cake tin) was hard to remove during the
boiling process as I checked and releasing the vice grips from the pot during
the test made me nervous.
Overall: we
found that Mess Kit B’s pot even though
it was smaller worked the best. Followed by Mess
Kit A and then Mess Kit C.
Frying
Test
After completing the first test, we wanted to look at each kit’s
ability to fry. For our testing medium, we used a slice of bologna and a ½’
cube of Crisco. For all three kits we allowed the Crisco to melt before adding
the bologna and spread it around the frying surface. We then timed it to see
how long it took to get a nice seared crust without overly burning the bologna
slice.
Mess Kit A: We had to
improvise with this kit and use the larger of the two pots as a frying pan. The
pot was deep which made it challenging to flip the bologna and the actual
surface which we fried on was so small the bologna barely fit, overall it took
about 3:15 minutes. We wanted to
experiment with the lid, however it has no walls to be used as a frying device.
Mess Kit B: This kit took
4:38 minutes to cook the bologna due to the issues we encountered while frying.
The handle of the pan offset the balance on the burner of the Peak 1. I would
like to add that this problem would be eliminated by cooking with it cooking
irons or over a bed of coals or using a heavier food to counterbalance the
handle.
Mess Kit C: This kit continued to balance well and using
vice grips as a removable handle made flipping the bologna a breeze. I did note
that I did not use enough Crisco to account for the larger frying surface so
there were issues with sticking in spots. The cook time was 4:00 even, a bit
longer than Kit A, but a drastically better experience.
Overall: We found that Mess
Kit C was best suited for frying due to its balance and manageability. Plus
more space means more room for food. We believe Mess Kit A was at its limit
with frying and were surprised that it could even do what it did. Kit B
surprised us by being more difficult than expected to work with, however this
is likely do to our experiments being done on the Peak 1.
(P.S. my wife ate all of the bologna.)
Baking Test
For the final test we wanted to see how well each kit could bake.
Baking in the field allows you to produce food without having to expend any
other energy in search of other local nutrients. Every ¼ cup of flour has 100
calories in it. Our bread mixture used during this experiment used one cup of
self-rising flour and half a cup of water. This recipe could be altered as long
as it maintained the two to one ratio. In addition, we added a pinch or two of
flour, just enough to be able to work with the dough. It was not kneaded and all
of the baking surfaces were greased with Crisco, about the same amount as
before, but spread around the pan this time. We also flip the bread every 2-3
minutes to try and prevent sticking.
Mess Kit A: We used the
larger pot to bake our bread in. There came an issue when flipping as we had to
flip the bread into the smaller pot and then back again. Fortunately there was
no sticking and the bread was finished in 12:53 minutes.
Mess Kit B: The biggest issue
encountered with this kit was the handle slipping loose and removing the lid
while flipping the container. There was also an issue with sticking as the
bread became burnt on to one side of the pan and had to be scraped off. The
cook time was 15:04 minutes.
Mess Kit C: In the future I
would remember to include gloves with this kit as the only way to flip it was
to use my fingertips to lift it off of the heat source and turn it over. Other
than that the only problem was that we would find oil spots on the outside of
the pan which is a potential fire hazard, however it was not an issue during
testing. The bread finished baking in 12:35 minutes.
Overall: Kit C was the best
choice for baking due to its faster cooking time, no sticking, and ease of
flipping. Kit A surprised me once again, but due to the issue with flipping it
came up short. Kit B could have done better, but there are some issues needing
to be corrected which could set it apart significantly.
Other Test
Before we call a victor, there are a few other additional notes we are
using to evaluate the
kits by. Volume: We
chose Mess Kit A as number one because it has two pots, which each held a
significant amount of liquid, followed by Mess Kit C, and lastly B.
Stability: Mess Kit C won out
in stability as it never had a problem with wobbling or balance. B was next
because it was reasonable stable when boiling, even though its handle when
frying impacted its balance greatly. Mess Kit A had a constant wobble that
could not be corrected.
Speed: Mess Kit A was overall
the fastest when it came to cooking time. This could be because the metal was
thinner allowing it to heat up easier. Next was Kit C which is made of a thicker
metal, and Kit B typically took the longest or was neck and neck with Kit A.
Serve-ability: Kit B takes
first place by leaps and bounds as it has an actual plate as part of the kit as
well as a cup. Kit C followed behind due to the fact that you could serve with
one pan while cooking with the other and there is room for a cup as well. Kit A
comes in dead last as there is nothing to serve with, as well as little room to
add a serving dish or a cup.
Compact-ability: We chose Kit
B due to the fact that it lays flat and can just simply be placed in the bottom
of your pack. Next was Kit C. Once again, it does lay flat, however it has more
girth than Kit B. Kit A is very tall and wide and cannot lay flat causing it to
take up a significant amount of room in your pack.
Storage-ability: We chose Kit
C as being able to hold the most items due to the large area inside with only
small tools currently occupying that space. Next we chose Kit B which is in
some ways a smaller version of Kit C, Kind of where I got the idea from.
Finally we found Kit A had the least amount of storage due to the fact that it
is very tall and everything has to fit together like Russian nesting dolls.
FINALE
We find that Kit C either took first or second in all tests. It may not
have always been the best choice, but it was always close enough to being the
best without being unable to perform in any of the tests. It did not have a
tendency to excel at one feature like Kit A with boiling or Kit B with frying,
and then perform poorly in other tests like Kit A with baking and Kit B with
boiling.
In closing, all of these kits can be the best kit for you depending on
what you are looking
for. In starting this, I believed that Kit C would be the
best overall and after these tests my hypothesis is now plausible. Does this
mean the other kits are trash? NO! It just means that Kit C is the best kit for
what I’m looking for. I like to bake, I like to fry, and I like to boil. So I
want a kit that is going to be more versatile. I’m not looking for a kit that
is going to be the best at boiling if it isn’t going to be able to do anything
else. I would rather use the kit that is half way decent at boiling, but can be
used for multiple purposes. This way I am not carrying around a different kit
for every aspect of cooking in the bush. I also would like to point out that
this is not a review of any of these kits, this was only a series of tests. To
me a review is very in depth in revealing its pros and cons while focusing only
on the subject matter. These tests focuses more on comparing the kits which
gave me less time to spend with each kit which in turn makes me less comfortable saying
whether a kit is good or not. That is why I can only give you the results of
these tests. However, if you’re dying for a review, you won’t want to miss next
week! As always feel free to comment, share this blog, and check back next
week for a new one. Follow me on Facebook: @BPackBushcraft and on Twitter @BPackBushCraft. Until next time, keep
those fires burning and put another log on for me.
What do you guys think?
ReplyDelete