Do you guys have any cheaper recommendations for polyester hiking

björnkläder

prAna

vúllöpupen

Mon Chics

daängelkuk

pieru laukut

bära en kjol

tortilla tävätän

Filson.

>>891522
>tortilla tävätän
kek

Your preference in pants is oddly narrow. You might consider polyester work pants, though. Some brands like Caterpillar and I think Carhartt make pants like that with extra fabric in the parts prone to tearing. They also make pants you can put knee pads into, which is nice if you're going to cover some really rough terrain.

Remington makes some field pants for hunting. Also check out arbor wear

does anyone else hear hate wearing poly clothing? 30% poly is the most I can do.

>>891469
Pinewood make a few nice pants in both polyester and cotton, i own the Hastings trousers and might buy their Schwarzwald trousers.

>>891717
This. Pinewoods polycotton-fabric and design is very similar to Fjallraven, they just use a DRW instead of wax to give them a bit of water-repelency. If you want to you can apply wax to any polycotton to get somthing similar to Fjallraven

File: mac k.jpg (268KB, 660x1148px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 660x1148px

>>891469
>In any case, what pants do you hike in?
Mackenzie Hunter pants, they're a cheaper alternative to FJ. 65% poly, 35% cotton. Lower quality than FJ too but I think these pants are just fine. It is a budget option after all.

>>891717
>>891718

How the hell do you order off their website?

>No price information
>No online shopping cart

I hate websites that do this.

>>891742
You don't. You have to find a dealer that sells that their stuff, kinda like Gransfors or Wetterlings.

>>891642
Yeah. I just don't like the constant rustling and sometimes I feel like a space man walking around in full poly. They are amazing at winning water, though.

milsurp

>>891769
aren't practically all milsurp pants cotton?

File: D-FX_1_BROWN_BURST-THE-WALL_1461250657.jpg (495KB, 1180x786px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1180x786px

i just got myself some heavy duty construction trousers, around 70 euros. wind and water resisting and tough as hell. cheaper than a new jeans.

>>891860
>70 Euros
>cheaper than jeans

What the fuck?

Dude, their sizing is weird ass fuck and a web of lies. I bought the "correct sizing" as listed on their website and is ultra saggy

Great pants though. I have those,exact same ones. Ill sell,em,to you for 30 bucks

>>891860
also apparently the preferred workwear of ghosts

>>891597
>knee pads
>cover some really rough terrain
Riiiiiight...

>>891860
Those look comfy

>>891891
I've seen people buy jeans for 200 euro. These were just normal jeans that had been tumble dried with a bunch of stones so they'd be damaged. people are fucked

>>891513
>bära en kjol
Min neger

>>891860
After looking thru their website I can say that they're kinda neat desu. Even though they manufacture overseas it seems to be in some well planed factory and not in some shithole sweatshop. I would prefer if it was manufactured in Belgium or other European country though.

>>891642
Here, >30% poly makes me sweat like a madman and makes my skin feel like it's suffocating.

>>891469
you should check out engelbert strauss

5.11
the best money i have spent
60€

Thought I might use this thread to ask a pants question.

What pants are good for field work? I'm gonna be doing some field work at conservancies in Southern California. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and estuaries are where I'm gonna be working mostly. I want pants that are light and breathable, but tough enough to withstand tears from thorny/dry plants.

>>891742
Not an answer to your question, but the small Sweedish brand "Lundhaggs" is also inthe category of top notch poly-cotton clothing. Their designs are in some cases almost the same as Fjallraven's but they're a bit cheaper

How are the sizing on Fjallraven pants? True to size, or do they run larger or smaller? I've read reviews where some guys said it was too snug in the crotch area when kneeling, and others say they were way too big.

>>891522
>>891513
>>891512
>>891510
>>891508
>>891507
>>891480
>>891474

>Speak english you fucking gooks

Seriously though, I just picked up some dirt cheap ones from a local /out/ store. I can't even remember the brand, cost me like £20. They've been absolutely fine, although I can certainly feel the cold in them at this time of year. Just shop around, most places will let you try stuff on in store, so just do that.

No one suggested duluth?

>>891474
I have a pair of these for work. So fucking durable. They don't get cold when wet and they're pretty light weight for being thick pants. What pair did you get that doesn't have the tool pouches sewn in?

File: 1257329817743.jpg (38KB, 383x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 383x600px

How do Pinewoods compare to Fjalllraven in terms of quality and durability? I was thinking of getting some FJ Barrents trousers but the Pinewoods Lappland ones are less than half the price. I'm not looking at the "Extreme" waterproof versions, just the regular ones.

>>891860
Really want a pair of these.

>>894331
Pinewood is pretty damn durable, i'd say about 90% as durable as Fjällraven, the reason the FJ are twice as expensive is mostly branding and the G-1000.

File: 705962.jpg (735KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 2048x1536px

>>894811
Good to know. Those trousers were half price at £40, so even at full price they'd have been a good £30 cheaper than FJ Barrents, which I have never seen at a discount. Ordered a pair.

>the reason the FJ are twice as expensive is mostly branding and the G-1000.
That and that they seem to have tapped into the hipster market, so while they still make some great outdoor gear they also make shit that's blatantly made to be bought by 'lumbersexuals'. Consequently their brand is now worth more and they can jack prices up. Quite unfortunate but hopefully it keeps companies like this alive, they just need to alway be aware of the necessary distinction between durable and practical outdoor gear and stuff that's made to look outdoorsy and fashionable. As for the G1000 I seriously doubt it's any much better than any other quality polycotton.

Same exact thing happens with other great makers too, Filson being one. I was at an antiques show a couple of years back and found a new, hardly worn, green mackinaw in the middle of a random rack of coats. I mean there wasn't a thread out of place on it. Guy wanted £60 and I got it for £50, but the fucking things are 6 times that price new simply because hipsters with more money than sense want to wear good quality but alternative clothes. Really nice coat too since the UK isn't that cold and it's unlined. Got my dad's old sail patching kit badass needles and I sewed a large patch of leather on the right shoulder to stop the wool getting scuffed from shooting, and some leather on the elbows too.

>>894826
To be fair, quality wool is expensive. I've seen plenty of wool jackets here and you won't get 100% new wool under 250€.

>>894826

Maybe I am wrong, but doesn't the G1000 use a waxed cotton to make it water resistant whereas other high quality poly/cotton stuff uses a basic DWR (Teflon).

As for hipster market, I gotta agree. I tried on their pants at a Seattle, Washington store, they are meant for chicken legs. I have to size up in the waist to even put them on. In my book that scream skinny jean fashion that hipsters like.

>>894826
>As for the G1000 I seriously doubt it's any much better than any other quality polycotton.
Yeah it's hardly different from most polycottons, but it has a cool sounding name and because of that they can jack prices of clothing with it because of the G1000 branding

>>894849
>Maybe I am wrong, but doesn't the G1000 use a waxed cotton to make it water resistant whereas other high quality poly/cotton stuff uses a basic DWR (Teflon).
Nah it's just polycotton that you can wax, they don't treat it at all, it's just basically normal polycotton that can be waxed, though i waxed my Pinewood Hastings trousers and they are completely waterproof. They just market their clothes as waxable to sell their Greenland wax. They're not bad quality (i assume) but they do IMHO jack up their prices because they got too big for their britches

>>894853

I see, thanks for the explanation. Good thing I didn't buy into them. When I saw $200 price tag on the pants I tried on, it made me wonder.

I think the most I've spent on a pair of pants was $80 and even then.. that is pushing it. (patagonia Field Pants)

>>894853
>>894861

Man, you guys are persuading me out of the Fjallraven trousers...

The thing is, everyone says Fjallraven gear lasts for ever, and it's that kind of feedback that makes me want to get them more than a budget option. By once cry once, etc.

>>894878
They're probably an amazing brand that will last a long time, the thing is though, they are kinda overpricing some of their stuff, they're taking pants that would have a healthy profit at $150 but jack the price up to $200.

>>894878

If they fit you well, and you think they will meet or exceed your needs. And you just want some good pants that you will wear a lot. Then don't let us talk you out of it.

I am not into poly/cotton for /out/ but that is just me and I live in the NW were it is just wet all the time and anything cotton just absorb more moisture then what is desirable. And sense I don't know anyone that has tried applied wax to them, I just don't know it will work.

>>894887
>>894885

Cool, well the cat has definitely been thrown amongst the pigeons. Now I just gotta figure out the retarded sizing system on the bushcraft store...

>>894895

Top lel, nevermind, I can't find my size anywhere. Fjallraven it is.

>>894895
Oh, you're gonna want to try them on. Fjallraven have a very slim fit to them in the legs. Too slim for me.

>>894895
http://www.fjallraven.us/pages/sizing-guide this should help

>>894904
>>894902

I actually meant the pinewood gear, which is half price on the bushcraft store but in a range of retarded sizes. I can only find them in my size on Amazon, which aren't half price and, when costed in dollars, aren't that much cheaper than Fjallraven when postage is included.

>>894906
here ya go lad, this should help http://www.pinewood.eu/uk/size-chart

>>894906
Hey, 30 waist isn't a retarded size, man.

I hope the legs aren't too slim though, I don't have huge thighs but my legs see enough work that they aren't skinny.

>>894931
i have the 46 (30, which would mean i assume 30 inch waist) and they are plenty spacious for me, though i am fairly skinny at 185cm and 67kg

Just get some Süomi-Perkëles. Got some at my outdoors shop, good poly/cotton blend, really comfy and they dry quickly when I spill my beer on them in the car

File: 636014066283485329ZY_P20.jpg (337KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 2000x2000px

Why does G-Star have to make aesthetic as fuck cargo pants but make them out of cotton instead of poly or nylon? What the fuck is the purpose? When was cargo pants about the looks?

>>894931
>>894941

The only sizes available now in the Lappland Extreme are 36 through 44 UK (inches) on the bushcraftstore - so it seems like they are closing out their unusual sizes. The other half price trousers have similar odd sizes. I'm a 32" waist.

>>894947
Well you could get a slightly larger pant and just wear a belt with them.

>>894946
I have cotton hunting/hiking pants, just make sure you wax them during the rainy or windy days

>>894946
Nothing wrong with cotton, you just need to git good

>>894946
Because it's more comfy. Cotton is only a problem when it gets wet, and it only kills when it's also cold. When it's warm and wet it's mostly just annoying.