Exterior frame vs interior frame backpacks

File: 8OXPkFG.jpg (320KB, 1353x756px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1353x756px

Sorry to say but some butthurt faggots are about to come shit on your thread because they hate backpack threads.
You will likely have to go elsewhere for useful information.
Google whipsnake

>>837134
USE THE CATALOG YOU STUPID FUCKING USELESS FAGGOT! >>828112

>>837136
not all backpack threads, we just hate having 9001 active backpack threads and the fucking retards who still go and start another one

External frames used to be the standard. They were very popular until maybe the late 80s when internal frames began to become popular.

External frames don't have to be loaded that carefully as they carry loads a little more evenly. They also are great for lashing things to the outside of the pack. Many external frames can be set down, and remain sitting upright, making them easy to access. Some say they handle extremely heavy loads better.

Downsides are they they are generally wider, which can mean they catch on branches and such easier. They also carry the load farther from your body, so you do tend to have to lean forward a bit to keep balance.

Internal frames are generally more popular. They are easier to maneuver with since they carry the load closer to your body, many people also say they are generally more comfortable, as you can often fit themy easier to different body sizes and types. They also can be lighter, as you can remove the internal frames on many packs when you aren't carrying much of a load.

File: Commander-Pack-Bag-2015.jpg (97KB, 700x1251px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 700x1251px

Exterior frames
Pros:
>Easily changeable
>Easily fixable/replaceable
>More customization normally
>Comfortable
Cons:
>Large
>Semi heavy depends on your opinion
Interior frame
>Small
>Light
>Comfortable if the right size
Cons:
>not alot of customization
>easily breakable if plastic
>Not fixable
>Expensive to replace as you need to buy a whole new pack

Picture related my backpack I use for hiking. Comfortable and I can easily and comfortably pack 50+ pounds without any issues for 3-4 hours on a nice day without any issues.

File: Commander-Pack-Bag-2015.jpg 123.jpg (22KB, 283x500px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 283x500px

Example of what I mean by customization. If I wanted to I could leave my pack part at base camp and go hunting or whatever with just the frame. I could change the straps around and everything. Great pack 220 dollars well spent.

>>837142
>we just hate having 9001 active backpack threads


Why?
Why would you care how many threads there are on one subject?
Just dont open them if they trigger you so much.

File: 5656.jpg (114KB, 699x518px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 699x518px

>>837176
> Why?
Does this really need to be explained to you?
kys fagit
At minimum, please do not reproduce.

>>837149
You ever use it to strap game you take to it to haul back to camp?

>>837204 Sadly no, going to be getting my hunting license this fall hopefully thou. Heard its great for that as its original purpose.

>>837215
I've been looking into packs, thought I wanted an internal frame, but now I'm not sure...

>>837217
if I may ask what type of hiking do you do? Dense trails or maintained trails? day trips or week plus trips and what is your average weight?

File: Sitka_spruce_tumors,_Olympic_National_Park.jpg (200KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 480x640px

>>837217
Same guy that posted >>837218 (Me)
Pros to this pack
>Loads of room and I mean loads. I tend to carry alot of stuff (small stuff) like cliff bars or jerky stuff like that so the side hip bags are great for that as well as putting commonly used items in there water bottles whatever
>Easily comfortable packing 50+ pounds starts to really bother me right around 75 pounds
>Nice for packing stuff that you find (Found a burl in a tree and took that) Sortof pic related.
>Has a seat/flap at the bottom of the pack I/you can use for a sleepbag or a tent or whatever
>Nice fabric and semi light as is

Cons:
>not waterproof
>Wide turns and I mean wide
>Hurts to bend over
>Pain if you fall
>Hurts your back after 3-4 days of hiking with 50ish pounds but thats normal.

Advice: Great for my type of hiking which is going to a area camping out for a couple of days and going home. Normally 1-2 day hike there and back.
Not great for long treks which is where a interior frame comes into play. Not great for dense trails either.

Conclusion all up to your personal opinion. Try one on in a store and ask for some weights to be put in it and walk around for a hour looking at stuff and see how it feels.

File: 1415032540023.gif (999KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x251px

>>837222
Yeah, good info to consider, thanks for taking the time.

I'm going to be doing lots of different things (including likely hunting) but your points about how dense the trails are is well taken. I suppose, for now, the best answer I can give is pic related.

Another thing I like are the side pockets. Those seem to have gone away on a lot of packs, and I can't for the life of me understand that trend?

>>837228
No clue to be honest. Here are the specs on this pack thou
Top Loading
Spindrift Collar with Draw Cord
Rifle Holder
Hold-Open Frame
Hydration Pocket and Port
Frame and Lashing Straps Included with Pack Bag
Lower Door Access - #10 Zippers
Internal Horizontal Divider
Webbing Loops for Lashing
Clevis Pin Attachment
Pockets: 2 Side Accessory Hinged Pockets, Main, Front, Spotting Scope Pocket
Great for everything but bushwacking pretty much.

My personal opinion on side pockets is as follows; if it doesn't have them then it goes into the trash. Never understood this one pocket rule type of thing. More pockets is better not just for room but for organization and everything.
Packs name is: COMMANDER + PACK BAG
ALPS OutdoorZ
Highly suggest it if you do the same kind of hiking I do. I normally pack a assault pack on the bottom rolled up so I can go do whatever without any issues. Overall a great pack and type for what I like to do.

>>837201
Yes please explain.
You have already shown your displeasure now how about trying to back it up with a reasonable argument.
Its not like there is not plenty of room on this very slow board.

File: ruck.jpg (96KB, 354x427px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 354x427px

Other posters explained the differences pretty well.. At the end of the day its all personal preference. Id say most really nice hiking packs are internal frames (For longer type stuff). They usally offer like more technology for supporting your back and what not. The nice external packs now adays and for more rugged users. Like I said though at the end of the day its up to you.

Heres an example of what I experience/have seen

>Internal Frame
Hiking AT, Thru hiking, 1Wk+ hikes

>External Frame
Hunting trip, Military, etc.


Pic related is the ruck I use. Now if i ever went on a hike longer than like 2weeks id get a really nice internal frame pack. They just feel nicer on your back nowadays. Now the pack I have, ive put through some shiiiiiit. Once I broke a frame and it still held for 20miles ruck running back.

>>837371
>very slow board
exactly. specialty /out/ topics can survive for a very long time here IF they are not being bumped and buried by 4 pages of redundant pack/shoe/knife/tent/whatever threads. 1 of each is totally appropriate, but multiple of each at the expense of varity is not.

File: 18d7n1vohycz0jpg.jpg (26KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 636x358px

>>837429
Threads that suck do not get bumped and go away.
We do not need all this crybaby shit to keep them in check.
Just ignore the threads you think are redundant and keep the tone of this board a little more civil .

>>837452
slow=/=sucky

climbing and field recording and star gazing are all examples of good /out/ threads that tend to get buried in the crush of redundancy.

>keep the tone of the board a little more civil
?? i was very civil. unless you think i'm the only person annoyed by this and the other two posters calling this out were me.

>>837429
>buried by 4 pages.
There's something called catalog. Learn how to use it and stop shitting up threads you have no interest in.

File: 0.jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x360px

>>837518
>i need to learn to use the catalog
>not the morons who make a thread about a topic that's already covered 14 times
>mfw

Internal frame. Always. My first pack was a Kelty external frame. There is a reason why it is my first pack. Because after that I bought a Kelty Redwing. Much better pack in literally every way. Its more comfortable, distributes weight better, has just as much if not more carrying capacity as the external. Without losing out on features like lashing stuff to the pack if need be.

There is a reason why internal frames are popular. Because they fucking work. External frames are outdated technology and have no real concrete benefits over internal frame packs.

>>837547
>i need to learn to use the catalog
>not the morons who make a thread about a topic that's already covered 14 times

Yes motherfucker thats exactly right.
There is no law saying you need to shit up every fucking thread you dont like.

>>837695
sorry, but i guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here. :)

in my opinion op's should use the catalog before posting a new topic. that will keep it cleaner, more organized, and more diverse for people like me who do know how to use it and use it to keep track of multiple threads.

and i'm going to keep "shitting up" the threads that are shitting up the board. but i will continue to appreciate useful, focused threads, even low activity ones about niche interests that you'd rather see lost so we can have anothe lolmora! thread.

File: Voodoo3.jpg (58KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x400px

>>837725
Well then you are part of the problem.
It is your attitude that brings down this board.
You are wrong, there is plenty of space and your craving for neatness is just OCD.
I wish you would stop but I cannot force you.

>>837222
What the hell are you carrying to load up to 75 lbs?

My week long pack is only 30 lbs with a day of water carried and a week of food.

>>838141
and again we must agree to disagree, because i believe that it is your attitude of accepting and even defending redundant threads that is bad for this board. to use this topic as an example, many small backpack threads are less valuable and informative than one master backpack thread, and having many short threads on one topic accelerates the loss of other topics.

but differences of opinions are what keeps this world interesting. :)

>>838257

Multiple small threads cover more ground and different topics than one big messy backpack thread would.

Some people don't feel like sifting through one big thread just for a relevant responses that they actually care to further conversation with.

Some people like ultralight backpacks, some people like canvas backpacks. They each deserve their own thread, no matter how hard your opinion thinks otherwise.

Absolute duplicate threads can fuck off though.

>>838268
This anon gets it.
I dont care about most backpack threads but if I see one about used packs, that might peak my interest.

>>838268
Yeah, honestly...it's an imageboard. Fast discussion on varied topics is the point. If you want in-depth discussions that last months, then you should be using a traditional forum.

>>838181
I tend to find stuff and take it home I found a chunk of slate once and decided to try to make a table out of it. Worked for a while but my damn cousin broke it.

File: 1468608224919.jpg (58KB, 851x233px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 851x233px

>>837452
kys snowflake

I bet you're a millennial

I thought summer was over by nao

>>838257
Thank you for your efforts to keep /out/ an interesting and useful board and not one full of 2 post threads about the same few things

Vain children with short attention spans tend to spam a thread as soon as they have a question instead of checking the catalog, lurking, or doing a little research first

Why put effort into this board when good threads will be pruned by people to lazy to check the catalog and spamming the same questions over and over again?

File: crop_KP51748_640.jpg (29KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x360px

>>838701

>>838701

>tfw you reply to yourself

File: nope.jpg (63KB, 1065x544px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1065x544px

>>838719

>>838701
If a thread gets pruned, it was not a good thread or it was stale.
This is not an archive type site man, you are not doing it right.