Best packs for a several day and night trip.

File: 4714-9645_0.jpg (102KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1000x1000px

>>1032428
Depends what weather/gear you need. The most common advice is to get all the other gear first, and then buy something that fits it all.

Do you already know what size backpack you need?

Pic related is the backpack I'm currently eyeing

I have an older Osprey Aether 70 (from 2009) that I've been using for years and am happy with.

It does have a lot of superflous straps and pockets that I never use though, and the weight feels too low (I prefer to feel the weight up on my back instead of down by my ass).

Padding is great and no pressure points or anything, very adaptable to different trips/purposes.

>>1032434
no I was going to get the pack first. so maybe ill look into getting the gear first but if I do im not sure how ill make sure it all fits.

>>1032438
my advice is always buy a cheap (<$60), smaller (40-45l) pack for a couple seasons to learn what features you like, don't like, and wish you had, how to pare down the unnecessary junk newbs tend to jam their pack with, and to make sure you actually like backpacking before dropping $$, then do some research and buy the pack you'll spend the rest of your life with.

>>1032428
A 60L Osprey served me just fine on a 10-day backcountry trek in NM, as well as multiple 5-day winter treks in northern Canada.

What size you need depends heavily on how bulky your shit is. While I haven't gone full minimalist/ultralight I do have decent gear that reduces bulk a lot.

>>1032428
Something that can hold everything you want to take

The aether is really more of a winter bag. It's designed to better carry lots of weight. As a consequence, it's quite heavy. Save some money, save some weight, and save yourself. Get a 50L atmos for the trips you're describing.

>>1032444
What would you say is a good affordable pack for short trips?

File: 20170125_214658-picsay.jpg (1MB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1536x2048px

>>1033862
Kelty Redwing 50.

Hard to beat. It's well made and will last forever. Can find them as little as $60 for the last model, about $100 for the new model.

File: fjällräven_kajka_75.jpg (47KB, 665x665px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 665x665px

Just bought this one. Anyone had any experience?

>>1033996
Probably sturdy and well constructed, however that is a low bar for the asking price. It's expensive and heavy. You could have gotten a cuben fiber pack for less.

>>1033996
>7 lbs 4 ounces
lol, holy shit. and i thought my baltoro was heavy.

Snugpak Endurance with additional Condor Elite pouches. Possibly the greatest thing in the universe.

File: WhatsApp Image 2017-06-08 at 20.43.46.jpg (188KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1600x1200px

>>1034024
Forgot the picture.

>>1034025
>>1034024
A lot of bushcraft to be done in Nederland?

>>1033930
Where would you shop for the cheaper/older model? >>1033946

Zpacks Arcblast

File: 36196593000b21ee89.jpg (272KB, 729x1063px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 729x1063px

Bought Varusteleka's new frame pack. Haters gonna hate.

>>1034061
did it come with the missile launcher?

>>1034046
Sierra Trading Post, Campmor, ebay.

Anyone here familiar with a Gregory Stout 75?

>>1033996
I have this and it's very comfortable with heavy weight and the whole front opening feature is very handy. Great compression system if you don't fill it up completely. I use it instead of a suitcase for travel as well.

>>1034046
Woot.com sometimes has

Amazon still sells them, camelcamelcamel.com will show you when to buy if you price track there. Super easy to do.

>>1033996
Only an idiot would buy this pack.

$400 and over 7 lbs.

You could buy 3 other nicer packs for that price, and those 3 COMBINED would not weigh that much.

Unless you're an absolute idiot, DO NOT BUY THIS PACK.

"b-b-b-but it's more durable"

No it's not, and an Osprey/Gregory/ULA pack will be just as durable for half the price and weight.

>>1034061
These Finnish frame packs are so fucking epic. I have been eyeing that RP80 since they launched it, please post some pics and shit when you get yours.

File: 29882b.jpg (172KB, 882x787px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 882x787px

>>1034061
nice ! i hope you tell us after a seasons use how it is . i was looking at it to but then i got a deuter aircontact 60+15l pro for 230. and is Varusteleka 500-599 from what i could find online :(

File: AIRCONTACT PRO 60+15.jpg (373KB, 686x940px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 686x940px

>>1034623
this what i got now its real nice from looks of it but the real test comes in summer with a cross alps trip for 7-10 days

>>1034626
Should fit just fine above head on the train anon

File: 63976.jpg (332KB, 918x1632px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 918x1632px

>>1034061
External frame or bust my friend

>>1032428
do they allow backpacks of this size as a carry on on planes? I go camping like twice a year so I can't really justify spending 200 bucks on a pack unless i could use it as a carry on

>>1034777
Most aircraft's wont

>>1034777
See:
>>1033930
Great size for taking on a plane

File: Palante.jpg (669KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 1200x900px

comfy

>>1034609
Duffle bag is barely adequate to bring your booze from the humvee to the barracks.

>>1034618
Why would anyone ever want to carry an 8 lbs pack.

That's literally more than half my total weight I carry, and I'm not even close to being ultralight.

There is no reason whatsoever to carry a pack over 5 lbs. It's just fucking stupid.

File: images (1).jpg (8KB, 195x259px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 195x259px

>>1034779
Yeah the Redwing is the perfect pack if you also want to use it as a carry on. The hip belt is removeable, and there's a carry handle on the center of the packs backside. Makes it perfect to use as luggage. The smaller Redwing work well too, but the 50 is a nice size.

This pic shows the handle on the back.

>>1032428
You missed the Atmos 65 AG on sale for 193 at REI for their anniversary sale
You dun goofed

>>1034834
If you're camping in one spot for the long term, it has its benefits

File: 20170609_224713_HDR-614x819.jpg (104KB, 614x819px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 614x819px

Leaving in the morning for a 6 day backpacking trip with this bundeswehr ruck from varusteleka.

I think it will work out ok.

>>1034834
There´s too much staring at just weight these days instead of the big picture. Sure lighter is lighter but that´s just one piece of the pie.

The weight of a pack is completely irrelevant in comparison to how it carries. A 20 lbs pack that feels super comfy is much better than an 1 lbs pack that feels like crap. Sure most often a lighter pack feels nicer to carry, but that´s not always so simple.

I'd much rather use a super solid 8 lbs pack to carry 40-70 lbs of gear than a a marginally lighter pack that can´t carry the load as comfortably. A heavier pack equals a heavier total carry weight yes, but that heavier pack can carry the weight better = keeping you going longer, farther, faster.

Packs are also used for for other things than neat and tidy five day hikes in the bushes behind your house. Some people need to haul guns, ammo and all kinds of shit. But that´s more of a /k/ommando topic so I´ll just end my rant here.

>>1034834
>waah waah some people have preferances that differ from mine

>>1035042
This still is no justification whatsoever, in any way, shape or form, for a $400 8lbs pack, when a $200 4lbs pack is better in every way.

A 5lbs Gregory pack would absolutely shame that $400 pack in its load carrying ability, and cost nearly half as much.

File: 234322.jpg (205KB, 718x860px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 718x860px

>>1034834
Good for you. My total weight tend to be a bit more than that.
An advantage with external frames is that you can easily detach the sack and strap on a drybag to cut weight, or strap on anything really.

>>1034618
>>1034623
Going on longer hike in august so will report back after that. Changed the hip belt buckle to berghaus buckle.

>>1035382
Ok, so you are a stubborn fucker and won´t come out of your little box at any cost.

Consider the following: why are such packs designed, manufactured and used all around the world if they are totally useless?

Your pointless arguments make it clear that you have zero understanding of the military pack market. And you wouldn´t need to, but since you can't accept the polite hint of "to each his own" 'then please stop whining.

>>1035524
Berg Buckle FTW. I've been thinking about upgrading some of my packs with either those too, or plastic Cobra buckles.

File: 20170611_042428.jpg (283KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 2048x1152px

>>1033930
>>1034839

Fuck yeah, the Kelty 50 rocks, and like any pack if you need more room just strap shit to it.

>>1035869
They're sold all around the world to misinformed idiots that don't know any better.

ENO hammocks are easily the most popular hammocm, yet they're twice as expensive and twice as heavy, and much less comfortable than almost every other hammock out there.

Popular does not equal good.

>>1035904
So you are saying Mystery Ranch and Eberlestock are used solely by misinformed idiots?

Dear sir, I think the idiot here is you.

>>1035909
Even Mystery Ranch's 100L pack doesn't weigh 8 lbs. 100 liters is absolutely enormous.

Keep justifying your inherently wrong position.

Unless it's an external frame pack designed to carry game, which THIS >>1034061is not, you're jist carrying the wrong pack.

>>1035931
>Even Mystery Ranch's 100L pack doesn't weigh 8 lbs.

You´re right, sorry, my bad. It weighs 10 lbs.
http://www.mysteryranch.com/6500-pack

>>1035931
a trash bag has 100L volume, there are other things to your pack then weight tard.
also other people might prefer comfort in exchange for a tiny weight increase. like wearing hiking boots even when the terrain is expected to be light.

>>1034037
Not him but. No.

>>1034839
>>1033930
>>1035882
Redwing lovers:
Which do you prefer, the 2016 model or the one before? Trying to decide which to buy, as the price isn't much different.
The new one has the "Perfect Fit" strap system and the shove pocket. The older has the front daisy chain and two sizes. Anyone used both?

>>1036461
I only have the old model, but I've tried on the new model. If say the newer probably has a better suspension, but I didn't carry it very far so it's hard to say.

The shove pocket would be handy. Coincidentally since my pack does not have that, I use the daisy chains on the front to lash my jacket to when I'm not wearing it.

If the price is similar, get the new pack. If you find the old pack for cheap, like $60ish then you could save a little and still have a good pack.

I've also tried the newer model redwing 50 at the Cablela's and it's comfy, but I felt the straps and buckles my older model were sturdier, and mine is still in good shape I was just curious to see the new ones at the store. I'd get the older one if you needed to save some cash, you'd still get a great pack.

Osprey Volt 75... yay or nay?

>>1033996
Not from this pack, but have another, bigger (and older) Fjällräven. That is used for long trips only.

I'd take a Fjällräven as a brand any day over something like Osprey, Gregory, ULA.

Wearing and trying how the load is balanced on your back, how you can move, how to adjust and loosen and tighten quickly, things like this are the only way to check packs. Some sperg writing edgy things looking at weight and price only is not good advice for anyone.

>>1034777
No, carry-on is not an option for these.

You should get the travel bag (often doubles as a rain bag) where you just stuff everything including the straps, nothing can hang out. Then you check the whole thing in via the "special baggage" counter.

Pro tip: get a small padlock to the zipper to reduce chances opportunistic theft by people within the package handling process at the airports.

>>1036862
The redwing 50 can be carry on, just remove the spinal support column and place it diagonally inside the pack and it'll fit in the carry-on., but if you're like me and you pack your blades, you'll end up checking it anyway.

>>1035935
Daaaaaamn son! rekt him

>>1036858
>Wearing and trying how the load is balanced on your back, how you can move, how to adjust and loosen and tighten quickly, things like this are the only way to check packs.
this is correct. too bad you undermine yourself by sperging out over namebrands, just like you complain about other people doing over weight and price (both of which are more valid criteria than namebrand is).

File: 61japJrpMhL._SL1000_.jpg (115KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1000x1000px

>>1032428
Hi /out/
Looking for a buying advice.
Currently i have pic related for going innawoods but i've found that is not suitable for my needs. Im looking for a 50-65L pack with internal frame. My budget is $100, but if i can find it for less, that would be nice. Currently im thinking in getting this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000F34ZKS/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I1W4AQX8NHA760&colid=2HLCQNRGKZI6O
Or this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01AS14376/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=IJOTVAG9103L8&colid=2HLCQNRGKZI6O
Altho the NorthFace goes a bit off from my budget, i would bite the bullet cuz of the brand.
Any other suggestions are welcome.

>>1038146
I think either would be fine tbqhwyf

>>1033996
I've used mine for dozens of hikes over the last five years and also for backpacking SEA and Europe.

Sturdy as all hell, I really like mine.
It is kind of bulky and heavy though, I'm currently looking at some Osprey packs for further backpacking.

Doing the WHW in a few weeks.

berghaus trailhead 65
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00QTVNZL0/ref=ox_sc_act_title_6?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&psc=1
or
decathlon 70l
https://www.decathlon.fr/sac-a-dos-eas-h-70l-blu-id_8300845.html

Looking for something decent and these are about the same price. I like the decathlon's opening zip at the front which looks useful but I'm not sure about the quality..

Thoughts?

I love my ULA Ohm 2.0
Ula-equipment.com

>>1038234
How mature is your gear selection you're putting in? If you're likely to outgrow your equipment over the next few years decathalon will be fine.

I have owned a range of their stuff. Clothes aren't bad, shoes are great, the backpack I had I wore the bottom out but I was pretty rough on it.

>>1038270
Just to add I didn't bother looking at the links. All mid level sacks are gonna be similar in quality and function.

Personally i have a golite bag and a old 75l highlander. It's draw cords and surrounding stitching are gone but still useable after a decade. In that time my gear has changed a lot.

Follow regular advice. Try in store if you can for fit, find the deal online. Don't get any larger than 65l as that's already massive.

>>1038276
Alright, will do. I've tried the decathlon, it fits. Will probably go for that.

>>1038267
>ULA Ohm 2.0
Yup, best one I've ever had

>>1038282
Enjoy the whw. If the weather is driech consider starting in Balmaha, the first section from the start milngavie is shit tier.. Paths next to roads, dog walkers, dull walking. Doesn't pick up till.you get to the banks of lomond.

>>1038295
Thanks, yeah I've heard that from a bunch of people. I'm really looking forward to the bit after the loch as well, that looks pretty spectacular.

>>1038301
Yeah around rowardennan is the area I first started properly going /out/

Nice forests. The shoreline is pretty abused in places but loads of good wild camping spots.

Are you Scottish? Remember your head net bud. Trossachs have been bad for midgies this year I think, last few ones I've done have been up towards the tay forest. No one about. Only deer.

>>1038303
>Are you Scottish?

Nope, southern poofter. I found a cool cap in Decathalon with a net. Should do the job. Gonna combine that with a long sleeved fishing shirt to try and escape the midges.

>shoreline is pretty abused in places

Yeah, it's my first time properly going /out/ so I chose to do a well known trail. Hopefully I'm going to be able to go a bit away from the shore and wildcamp away from the crowds.

Btw, can you recommend a sleeping bag? Should I invest in a decent 3 season tent even if it ends up being too hot and I don't use it? I figure it would be useful in the long-run.

>>1038315
Haven't used a tent in years mate. Either hammock or tarp for me, at least in the lowlands.

Sleeping bag, well, depends on if you run hot or cold. I sleep cold so I take a higher rated bag than the season. I take it you're doing it over the summer? I'd still want a 5C or 0C bag desu

If you're after synthetic/budget I've heard good things about the mountain hardware lamina bags

If you're after down/mid tier, I'd suggest Alpkit or Rab

>>1038582
>tent
meant to say 3 season sleeping bag

>>1038582
Cool thanks for the tips.

File: external frame.png (182KB, 275x329px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 275x329px

Any love for external frame packs? I got one from Field & Stream for $60 at a flash sale at Penis Sporting Goods two years ago.
>great build quality, and not just for the price
>you can pack all sorts of heavy shit, no problem
>better ventilation than most internal frame packs
>superior weight distribution
>easy organization

File: gg-w-blaze-60-p_image_1.jpg (778KB, 1707x2560px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 1707x2560px

I've had this one for a little while now. It would be perfect if it didn't have such high side pockets.

>>1036960
Chill Anon. Notice how I wrote "I would". It's a subjective opinion on my part to leave the Ospreys and others to the store and not even try them, since I have never found ones which I like (fit, my measures, requirements for ergonomics, my style of packing, amount of gear I need to carry, etc.). Fjällräven's high end gear works for me, likewise Bergans, and so on.

This does NOT mean all packs from Fjällräven or Bergans or whatever brand suit me ALWAYS. It means some brands are most often dead ends for me, so why spend the time trying them out? They had their chance.

But your mileage may vary, hence: try it out. There's no universal answer. Maybe your preference is Osprey's gear always works for you for some reason, if so then go for it.

>>1038234
Zippers will be less useful if they break. I'd have liked to see some straps across the zippers to take of tension from the them.

>>1040245
If you have cordage with you its easy to make a serviceable repair that'll last you your trip.

Good quality zippers only break when over stuffed desu

>>1035524
Berg buckle is love berg buckle is life
( came from a Berghaus)

File: 262561_11656_L.jpg (34KB, 451x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 451x600px

Was thinking about getting the osprey xenith 75. Does anyone have one or heard anything good about it?

>>1040259
And then what, buy a new backpack? So then I'd be better of choosing another backpack to begin with. I doubt a 99€ 70L pack have high quality zippers.

>>1040552
well personally I don't buy budget gear, and I don't abuse my gear, and I've never had a zipper failure in over ten years going inna

your money, your call,

>>1032428
any pack you can afford with ~ 65 liters

pretty much any pack you can afford. cheaper sometimes is better.

File: IMG_5477.jpg (2MB, 3623x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3623x3024px

>this triggers the /out/ists

File: savotta-rajajääkäri-lisävarusteilla.jpg (938KB, 2000x1700px) Image search: [Google]

938KB, 2000x1700px

Okay /out/ this pack is 40-60l with the roll top closed or open, weighs a little over 5lbs and has a place for me to attach my tent to the bottom. I have experience with both usmc ilbe and filbe packs, and I've tried on the Redwing 50, volt 60, and a jansport pack that were all okay fitment wise. This pack looks like more what I'm after with the bottom straps and molle that I can have rifle attachments made for.

Do any of you have experience with Savotta? My main concern is length between belt and shoulders because I'm 6'4 and lots of packs are just under the right length to fit.

I've seen them online at Finnish retailers for 329€ plus CC fees and shipping. It's not the cheapest pack but it's really not expensive as far as the other brands go either.

Thoughts?

>>1040631
I'd actually be pretty impressed to see someone take that out for a week, as long as they didn't bitch, moan and ask to borrow the things they forgot to bring.

>>1040673
Not that guy, but.
Sleeping bag, mat and tent go on the outside of the backpack.
Hatchet, if needed, goes on the outside too.
Depending on your local climate/time of the year you could get by with only underwear, socks and food.
I could potentially pack enough food to last me 4-5 days there provided there will be plenty of water sources.

>>1040673
>>1040685
I have a sleeping bag, tent, sleeping pad, cooking kit, and clothes in that pack I posted. Only thing I would need to still pack is food and to put my rifle in that side pocket. That pack has a shit ton of space

>>1040673
Dunno man, I feel like people get a little too precious about gear these days. It's still just a sack of cloth with a couple of straps to hold it on your back. The weight/structural differences between some hipster shit like this and a highly technical ultralight yadda yadda pack are actually going to be pretty minimal, especially over just a week. I'm sure osprey and arcteryx would love for you to believe that the only way to enjoy yourself /out/ is with a $300 Nano-tech-xtile-micropolymer-DWR-tri-vent-spring-loaded-8-in-one space pack on your shoulders, but as recently as the seventies, leather and canvas were still the go-to for /out/ gear and for all the differences in technology, not much has actually changed about the way people go /out/. It's 80% marketing and 20% real difference.

>>1040646
God dammit why do finnish people make the most badass packs


Would buy in america/10

>>1040701
I'm American, there's a couple online stores that have then I looked at and there's $10 shipping and what ever CC fee for foreign currency. That's why I want this pack.

>>1040481
looks good, only issue might be lack of straps. I'm getting the aether 60 and I'm a bit concerned about that.

File: 1200px-Caligae_with_nails.jpg (189KB, 1200x1609px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1200x1609px

>>1040691
This holds true for all gear really.
People have been going /out/ since the dawn of man but all those ultra expensive Nano-tech-xtile-micropolymer-DWR-tri-vent-spring-loaded-8-in-one-tex materials have only existed for a couple of decades max.
People have managed just fine without them for a long long time.
Roman soldiers for example walked to hell and back through all kinds of terrain on hobnailed all leather sandals. No Gore-Tex, PU midsole, Vibram outsole and all that yadayada.

gregorypacks.com/backpacking/baltoro-85/6427BAL85.html

File: Teton-Fox-5200-front-Blue-Main.jpg (277KB, 1400x1400px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1400x1400px

The Teton Fox5200 is an affordable inner-frame option with lots of space, pockets, compression straps on top, middle, and bottom for holding gear, a waist strap, as well as a chest strap, and a total weight of 5.5 lbs.

File: everest_gear_kb_130529_blog.jpg (61KB, 640x501px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x501px

>>1040835
no need to go as fa back as the romans, beginning of alpinism is already very primitive tech. hell look everest gear in the past. pic related

>those boots
wouldn't the amount of metal make these boots like ridiculously expensive entire national production was in average like 1 kg per person per year. IIRC

>>1042844
Modern gear has improved comfort and safety quite a lot in conditions like those on Everest. Mostly through improvements in insulation, water resistance and weight. The difference is those improvements make is pretty minimal during mundane hikes, but is played up quite a lot by gear companies that would have everyone believe they need the same gear as professional mountaineers. Old-school hiking gear will serve perfectly well in all but extreme conditions, yeah?

>>1042862
I disagree. There's been a bunch of improvements in backpack design and fabrics used in apparel.

Moisture wicking fabrics make a big difference when it's hot, humid and you are being active.

Modern internal frame packs hold weight more comfortably, and give you more stability, especially when you are hiking through brush that would get caught on a big external frame. Not to mention the improvements in weight and airflow to a sweaty back.

You can get most of these things for comparable prices, maybe a small premium. If you think about how long the gear last, the cost difference is negligible. Maybe $50 extra to get a good pack that lasts 5+ years over the 25 year old pack that weighs 4x as much and will never feel comfortable loaded up. The only times you see big cost differences is when you are trying to buy the state-of-the-art gear.

Do you need the modern stuff? No, but I think it's worth the extra money for a bunch of items.

Titanium spork? No.
Modern backpack design? Yes.

>>1034723
Huwat bag?

>>1042871
This.

While you can get by for mundane hikes with old shit, new shit really isn't that much more expensive (last-year's-model internal frame packs are available through amazon/campmor/sierra trading post for as low as $40 for name-brand stuff) while being more comfortable and lighter.

More comfortable and lighter is always, always better. Sometimes it's not worth the price premium, but in this case it is since the price premium is so low compared to ancient shit or milsurp.