Looking for a Backingpack

>>877811

Osprey's okay if you can deal with some of the idiocy that comes with some of their designs. When ever they come out with something new, they fix some complaints of their previous packs only to fuck up something else. They also don't fit me very well at all. Some people love them, most people use them because their friends say they are good, many hate them.

>>877811
They tend to over design little fiddly details but overall they're very good packs and they have one of the best warranties in the business.

I'd recommending trying one on first if you have the opportunity, though. It may be a good pack but it might not fit you personally that well.

What are some other decent brands I should be looking at?

osprey's are a bit "mushy" (if that makes sense) with heavy loads for my taste. i have an osprey daypack that i love, but for multiday loads i adore my gregory baltoro. it feels significantly more secure on my back to me.

my wife has a 45l deuter she likes.

but best bet is go to a store, try some on, throw a load in one you think you like, and wander around the store wearing it for 30 minutes.

>>877857
Deuter, Kelty, and Gregory are all good. I find bags by The North Face are poorly designed,and I've never played with anything from Mountain Hardwear

>>877857


Former packfitter here. The Deuter actlite 65+10 was one of my go-to packs. It fits a lot of different bodies really well, it's got a really simple efficient design and is almost a pound lighter than similarly sized packs because of it, and it's alway on sale somewhere.

Fellow /out/doorsmen I would recommend Mystery Ranch though a bit on the pricey side, undoubtedly the best packs I have ever owned. Padding is rather nice, and the packs are very adjustable to the form.

File: EX Terraplane_10-evergreen-hero-large-backpacking-backpack.jpg (69KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x600px

>>877811
Great Packs for both spacing and weight displacement, fits are always super nice too.

File: 20161017_155115.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

hard to beat this pack imo.

>>877857
Ossprey lowe alpine and gregory are good affordable brands. With osprey being lighter and more fragile and gregory on the heavier side with a more suffisticated back system. Lowe alpine is somewhere in the middle in weight and less fragile than the Osprey.

Deuter is also a good brand though i have no experience with it.

I have a lowa 70+20. Osprey 45+10 and my sis has a gregory. So i have quite an experience with those brands.

File: Screenshot_2016-10-12-21-20-43.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>877870
Seconding the baltoro. I absolutely love mine.

I bought it at a time that I did not need a pack. One of the best /out/door purchases I've made (probably second to my air mattress)

Thanks, I'll keep looking and go try some on in the store to find which feels best

Just finished the PCT and used the Granite Gear VC 60L. Think I saw only three others with it but it was the best for me and is an absolute beast (plus its very light). Most people use the ULA Circuit.

>>878028
Name?

What's a good size for a beginner looking to start out only doing 1-2 night trips? It seems like a 65 L bag is recommended by many but fuck it looks huge and unwieldy. I grew up camping with family every summer and have gone on a few backpacking trips with friends so I'm not a complete noob to the outdoors.
I'd like something with a front opening zipper and so far I like osprey Atmos 50AG or Kestrel 48. Any advice?

>>878879
>like a 65 L bag is unwieldy


camping bags dont lay across your back and shoulders the same way a normal backpack does. the frames make them stand on themselves and support (most) of their own weight. the size difference between 65 and 50 may sound like a lot but if you look at at 65 next to a 50 its not that big of a difference.

>>878417
this is the right thing to do. try on a bunch of bags and find out company makes bags that work for your body. personally i associate osprey with tall skinny people (which i am neither) so i normally look marmot, mountain hardware and TNF because i think they are shaped better for people like me

>>878938
>>878958
sorry ment to link this post.

>>878065
>>877870
I also have a Baltoro and like it a lot. Lots of compartments to keep things organized (which is important to me), but it is a little heavy. Most bags are going to be lighter than the Baltoro.

File: 896921.jpg (24KB, 328x440px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 328x440px

I was looking for a new pack within the 40-48 L range and thought about this one, what pack would /out/ recommend for hiking within my range? Is this one good?

>>878879
3400 Windrider by Hyperlite Mountain Gear.

>>879147
>3400 Windrider by Hyperlite Mountain Gear
what made you go with the windrider vs an arc blast which would be about half the weight for the same volume/features?

>>877811
Osprey is pretty good, most thru hikers prefer the exos since its the lightest osprey pack and has great places to strap things on the outside.

File: pDSP1-13919968p275w.jpg (44KB, 275x279px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 275x279px

Anyone have knowledge or experience with the Field and Stream 40L external frame pack?
Shit looks like a supped-up LK35, very appealing to me.

that canadian feel when mec has been pure garbage for the last few years use my pack daily its been on a lot of freight trains its dirty as fuck but no holes

I'm gonna need a new 5/40lb pack soon this ones almost dead its impossible to get something not made in china for under 60$ correct?

>>879162
My Windrider is far more durable than the Arc Blast, and more comfortable. The weight savings the Arc would offer doesn't bother me much, my base weight is 12 pounds for a 6 month hike next year. Plenty of expandable room in the roll top to fit a bear canister too

>>879197
Field & Stream is the store brand from Dick's, right? I'd be concerned with the stitching and flimsy material with something like that. But I could be wrong.

>>879219

Not sure of F&S is a Dick's brand, but the majority of purchases for this pack seem to be through that retailer. Guess we'll find out tomorrow. There's a Dick's about 12 miles away, I'm going to head over after work and give it the once over. I'll keep my eye out for stitching; if it isn't double stitched I'll probably forgo the buy and look around for another external frame pack. Hoping for the best though.

>>878972
>it is a little heavy. Most bags are going to be lighter than the Baltoro.
i think my 75 clocks in at 5 1/2 lbs? so yeah, it's a lb or 2 more than most packs of similar size, but not so much to be a deal breaker. at least for me, since it eats my heavy climbing gear so easily.

>>879197

Went to check this out yesterday. Half double stitch, half single. Daisy chains were sewed uneven. Loose stitching throughout. Non-removable separator in the main compartment. No molly straps on the bottom. Some sort of buckle on the top to strap but it was centered instead of on the ends.

Somewhat disappointed with it, opted not buy which is unfortunate. Looks like I'm still on the market for a 40L external frame bag.

Anyone have experience with the Kelty Yukon pack?

>>877811
I started out with an Osprey atmos 65 on my thru hike and downsized to a Talon 44 after a few hundred miles

thru hike packs should be <50 L unless you are some crazy old dude who can't live without XYZ giant/heavy/impractical item while innawoods

>>878061
>suffisticated

>>881713
What do you mean by "thru-hiking"? Is it not just walking from point A to point B while carrying all your stuff? How could that ever imply the size of your pack? Wouldn't duration, climate, risk/safety be the factors?

File: 880839.jpg (30KB, 324x440px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 324x440px

Check out the REI trail 40. Read some reviews and go try one on. I just got back from a 4 day solo and love this thing. Just enough space, about half the weight of my kelty trekker 65 (also a great pack btw), and can carry a lot more than the 50l rating implies. I had my whole sleep kit (bag, pad & liner) strapped under the pack with the integrated lash straps (frees up a lot of space in the pack). Super affordable too.

>>881803
in case you're not a troll and are really just this new or retarded, "thru-hike" implies doing a very long trail (jmt, at, pct, etc.) in one long nonstop multiple month push. on a hike that long people tend to find out what they actually can and can't live without, and drop everything they don't need so they don't have to carry it on consecutive 20-30 mile days over 12000' passes. thru-hikers are basically the root of obsessive ul faggotry.

>>881987
>thru-hikers are basically the root of obsessive ul faggotry.
really can't win with you faggots

>>881990
i don't mind weight shaving as a concept, it's the i-won't-shut-up-about-cutting-the-handle-off-my-toothbrush that drives me fucking batshit. ul faggots are the vegans of hiking.

>>882003
>cutting a toothbrush in half
nobody I knew did that sort of shit

people either spent tons of money on gear, or they just left shit home
also not all thru hikers are ul. I hiked with a guy that carried a fucking guitar in a case in one hand while he hiked
granted he was a yellow blazing faggot, but you get the picture.

>>882003
>ul faggots are the vegans of hiking
and like the vegan lifestyle, ultralight hiking is taking over. It's just more fun to fly down the trail and enjoy every step, never met a heavypack fag that was having fun on 30 mile days

>>881987
Okey, so I'm wondering, what bulky and useless things am I carrying in my 65l bag? Because I always figured that "thru-hiking" was what I was doing, when walking off-trail for 2 weeks in the far north of Scandinavia or hiking an undocumented passage in the Hengduan mountains where the total duration is far from known.

>>882006
I did that, but not for weight saving. Toothbrushes never fit right in zip locks or bath kits so I just lopped the end off. Problem solved.

>>882081
1: From his description, I guess you're just hiking/camping. It would appear that thru hiking requires country sized trails.

2: That doesn't mean you're carrying useless things. It's clearly not too heavy for you, so it's not that big a deal, but people /out/ will generally tell you that if you didn't use it on your last hike, you probably don't need it.

>>882081
>I always figured that "thru-hiking" was what I was doing
you figured wrong. you're backpacking (which is also what i like, fwiw). thru-hiking is hiking a very long trail end-to-end, nonstop.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thru-hiking

inb4 wikipedia=>>>/trash/
it accurately describes it in more detail than i'm interested in typing

Honestly Osprey is the best in the market. Probably start with something hovering around 50 - 60 liters if you are going on small trips. I would also recommend arcytaryx from personal experience.

File: meh.jpg (5KB, 272x185px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 272x185px

>>883127
>my opinion is objective fact
honestly osprey is a highly regarded company that generally makes excellent packs (i have 2), but "best" is going to influenced by body shape, personal preferences, and intended use. for multiday backpacking "best" *for me* is gregory, and *for my wife* is deuter.

>>877857
I quite like lowe alpine, but you don't hear much about them on /out/

>>883117
>>883125
I understand, but why would "country sized trails" require a smaller pack? What I wanted to point out to the poster talking about how "thru-hike"-packs should be sub 50l is how narrow minded that statement is. Not all thru-hikes is as close to civilization as the AT for example.

>>883219
most thru-hikers value speed, and light=fast. plus carrying a light pack for 5-6 months is more comfortable than carrying a heavy pack for that long. towards this goal most attempt the trip when conditions will tend to be most favorable so they won't need heavy winter gear.

Go to thrift stores and see if they have them I got my Gregory for 12 bucks at one. It's an old model but its it perfect shape.

>>878417
Don't just put on the pack in the store and walk around, though. That'll give you an idea of what hiking with the pack is like in perfect conditions and nothing further. Be sure to bend over, squat, lean from side to side, etc. Make sure the pack is balanced with your body. If you end up having to climb over/scramble under fallen trees while /out/, you'll be glad you tested the pack thoroughly.

>>883337
Most people put value in packing light and some are willing to sacrifice more than others. But you can't survive without calories. So my point is that many statements regarding pack-size and weight are only adaptable in a situation where you're in the vicinity of civilization. If you plan to stay out in the wilderness and hiking long distances where few people ever go - you will have to take lots of extra safety measures and bring more than enough food.

>>883564
>it's a yuro gets befuddled by americans using american jargon on an american website
it doesn't matter what you think. "thru-hiking" is a specific term with a specific paradigm. call yourself whatever you like when you're with your friends, but here it has a particular connotation. deal with it and move on.

>>883575
So just to clarify; thru-hiking is only available when in proximity to civilization?

>>883576
the vast majority of thru-hikers are going to be on trails where commercial resupply is a viable option.

there are exceptions, but they're proportionally insignificant enough to be irrelevant. like when talking about the local price of gas, sure, a very very small minority of people have race cars that need racing gas, but nobody considers that to be a needed reference point.

and even taking those outliers into consideration, you schlepping around in the woods for a couple weeks still isn't thru-hiking. sorry that hurts your feelings so much.

>>883576
Depends on how long the thru hike is.

Shorter hikes (1-2 week) might not, but longer hikes do to allow for rest and resupply.

>>883117
not necessarily country sized but generally trails that take at least few weeks to complete end to end.

>>880324
If you want good, new external frame go to Sportsman's Warehouse. But honestly I feel the best way to get a good external frame is to go used. Backpacks are one of those things that people commonly buy, use twice and then throw in the garage/closet for 10 years so you can get good lightly used packs for a song through craigslist/goodwill/etc.

File: 243.png (35KB, 587x496px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 587x496px

>>878061

>I have a lowa 70+20

What do you use this for?

I have Deuter Aircontact 75+10 and it was my first backpack.

What I'm actually getting at here is that people say you don't need over 65 liters unless packing food/equipment for 1-3 weeks but...fuck, I bought that huge pack and don't want to feel bad about it, even though I don't spend 1-3 weeks outside, ever.

>>885085
I literally found a big blue backpack on the street today with a written message
>to give away
on it. I still cant believe it. It's basically completely intact. Why would you throw out functioning gear just like that? Arent these expensive?

should I be worried that that thing is infested / radioactive / polluted with fungal spores or something?

>>885088
>I don't spend 1-3 weeks outside, ever.
Why not you fucking pussy

>>885088
i have a 75 that i bought in anticipation of when my son is old enough to go on overnight hikes, but still too young to carry all his shit and so i'll have to pack extra. i'll decided i'd rather have too big a pack now than have to buy another pack later.

>>885099
If you're worried about it just wash it with warm water and dish soap.

I decided to poke my head into a Savers thrift store after making that post and found a completely intact Kelty trekker for $5.99. It was maybe 10-15 years old but the foam on the straps and hip belt wasn't even packed down.