Thread 2836406

I was looking into camping/hiking and touching grass again, I had an alice pack in the military a long time ago and that was alright, but is there high tec super light stuff out there now that carrys a lot? Id like a full frame pack that is as light as possible that could carry 50-70 lbs. What about actual waterproof? Or do you still need to wrap everything in garbage bags?

>>2836406 (OP)
they dont sell them anymore but the kelty redcloud 110L was really fucking solid

besides that, an external frame

if you think you can tell the difference between brands then your conditioning is shit and you have a vagina

>>2836408
that pack is almost 10 years old, not that its a bad thing I just wanted to know where things stand for backpack tech right now if things have kind of been the same since 2010+ or if something cool came out that everyones using now

>>2836414
im a grug sorry

>>2836406 (OP)
Seek Outside probably make the best lightweight external frames and large volume bags. Never used one, but they have a good reputation as far as I know.

Savotta from Finland make modern, but traditional sturdy frames. Used by Finnish military. I have one and they're great. Pic related.

You can find other modern frames, often without bags, of various quality if you look around on google. Usually targeted to hunters.

You can buy waterproof dry bags of various durability and sizes. Just strap it to the frame.
Hightech is mostly a meme. External frames doesn't need all that crap as long as they have well designed shoulder straps and waist belt that sit ferm and comfortable.
Many people seems to use ultralight shit like Hyperlite made with hightech materials like dyneema.

>>2836406 (OP)
With regulating back(height). №7 on pic.
With good material like cordura, with good stitching.
Belt must fit good and be strong (better thick belt).

Don't take for serious hicking routes cheap noname backpacks.
It must fit good.
I love surplus, I took Tasmanian Tiger 75L with carbone and aluminium frames for 40 km (25 miles).
Also good is Tatonka, Deuter etc.

No matter how waterproof your backpack, it doesn't save you from falling in river on ford and heavy long rain. Put all in small (5-10L) strong plastic bags (vacuuming also good).

>>2836450
Also good to take straps which conneting to backpack, to mount mat etc.

Purpose and price range?

>>2836406 (OP)
Piggybacking off of this thread:
I need a bicycle panier that doubles as a backpack. I've asked in the bike thread on /n/ but that board is just about dead.
It needs to look business casual, hang off of the side of the rear rack of the bike, be at least 25 liters, protect a laptop up to a 16" macbook, should preferably be free of pfas and other nasty chemicals.

I don't care about the brand as long as I can get my hands on it in Germany. Price should scale with robustness / build quality but I can't spend 500€ on a backpack.

>>2836633
Search for pannier backbacks and you get plenty options. You'll probably have to compromise on something among your requirements though.

>>2836406 (OP)
Some Alice variant is the best you're gonna get.
>Id like a full frame pack that is as light as possible that could carry 50-70 lbs
A palice frame might be able to do that, but I'm not sure if it can handle the weight long term. the magnesium alice frame from ordnance okinawa is going to be the best choice, with the aluminum frame from tactical tailor a close second, but easier to get.
For bags, there's plenty of choice. I've got a early 2000s US-Army molle alice and a set of German KSK molle bags that fit on an Alice molle panel (while being originally designed for the mystery ranch NICE frame, which is inferior to the Alice frames), for example., and there's still tons of people making new bags and straps. Also, hellcat mod if you don't need molle loops on the bag.
>What about actual waterproof?
PU coatings are pretty much standard. With a storm collar or a rolltop, that'll keep rain out no problem, but if you'll be swimming with the pack, you'll still want drybags.

Also, to save you some time, here's the other current production exoframed packs you'll see:
>molle 2 large pack, filbe
alright packs, but the frame rides to close to the bag imo. If you sweat a lot, alice is better, which is why units in the tropics still use those.
>molle 2 medium
flimsy frame, but will fit an alice frame with minor modifications. In that case, it's the only cheap way to get a medium sized, molle compatible alice. I'm still looking to get one in multicam, since shops here only ever have icu.
>savotta / särma xl
Too tall for normal people + shitty waist belt that you can't cary stuff on (in theory, you can, since there's molle, but then you can't adjust the fit properly since the adjustements are blocked). I've got one, and only used it once because it sucks so bad.

Then there's tons of internal frames, of course, which all suck. None of them give you the air gap an alice ill, and most are an absolute pain to repair.

>>2836406 (OP)
>I had an alice pack in the military a long time ago
Alice packs havent been issued since thr late 90s how fucking old are you

Lads, I caved in and ordered a Savotta Jääkäri S, what am I in for?
Is it really a buy it for life, even if I use it every day apart from hiking as a general backpack?

>>2836406 (OP)
I have deep nostalgia for ALICE but honestly it sucks. The pack is okay but the frame is heavy and doesn't really support anything. I've thought about putting a medium ALICE on an old Jansport frame or something but the frames are all like 2" too wide.

If you have a Goodwill Outlet near you (aka "the bins") you can find amazing deals. I got a pristine Dana Design Arcflex Terraplane the other day for like $12.

I would advise you to reconsider your entire setup and gear away from your military experience, including the pack. 50-70 is a huge weight just to camp. You dont have to be a UL fag with the latest rei gear to get under 50. Consider an internal frame, i have an 85L one so they can carry a lot. I only bring an external if I'm hunting. At least try on some packs at a store or something to see what the tech is like now.

To your other question since no one else answered, while I dont know of any waterproof packs, nowadays they make very light very waterproof pack covers that wrap around your pack and everyone ive ever worked with or been out for fun with have used these. I have an osprey one

>>2836406 (OP)
Why on earth would you need to carry 70lbs worth of stuff on a hike

Bout to buy a pack and narrowed my selection down to these 3.
Anyone have any experience with any of these?

>>2836723
>Alice packs havent been issued since thr late 90s
>t. grunt
My most recent one is from 2023. Overprouction from a run made for the marine raiders in 2022. They still use (molle-compatible, somewhat modified) alice packs, because they're just that much superior to filbe and molle.
>>2836724
>Is it really a buy it for life
Hell no. It's PU coated, so it'll destroy itsself after 10-15 years at the latest. Fabric and seams are alright though, so it probably won't fail mechanically.

>>2836823
Meh, I'll manage without the PU-coating, as long as the fabric won't tear apart.

>>2836724
Should hold up for a couple of decades at least.

>>2836834
1000D Nylon and tripple stitched, so it won't tear. But tears are easy to repair, while urethane slime is impossible to fix.
Not saying it's not an alright pack, but it's not a lifetime buy like a good silnylon pack would be. Or an uncoated pack, for that matter - my first alice, which I still use for hauling groceries (yep, I do that on foot, cause it's fun) is from the 70s and still works just fine.

>>2836406 (OP)
atompacks if you can accept the import fees

I’m convinced that most of these replies are trolls giving bad advice on purpose.

The Alice pack isn’t a great design. Both sizes were built wider across the shoulders rather than taller along the torso. This places the packs load further from the wearers center of gravity than it needs to be, causing instability and leverage working against him. It’s true that the military used them for decades, and it’s also true that “hiking” in the military is so miserable that it’s literally a well known, common meme (pic rel).

>waterproof
>PU coating
Unless a pack is specifically made to be waterproof (they’ll usually be advertised as such), it won’t have sealed or taped seams. It’s why pack covers exist (and pack covers are far from perfect).

>durability?
Its importance is exaggerated in most cases. Hiking gear has gotten a lot lighter since the mid 90’s, and I’m not talking about ultralight stuff. The generations after the Boomers turned out to not be so retarded, and can leave stuff they don’t need at home. That’s the reason most packs are internal frames now; no one is carrying heavy, bulky loads. Since loads aren’t as heavy, packs don’t get as beat up as they used to. And since they’re less bulky, internal frames have taken over.

Ray Jardine briefly mentions this in his PCT book from the early 90’s (which was a sort of inflection point regarding ultralight hiking and lighter pack loads in general). At the time, a typical backpack would last through one thruhike of the PCT. Those were external frames, made of 500D or 1000D nylon, like the Kelty Tioga and Jansport D series. Now people use something much lighter and made from thinner material, like an Osprey Exos or GG Mariposa, and those last… through one thruhike of the PCT.

If you were to load the latter with 80lbs of bullshit, they’d disintegrate after a few days. But that’s just retarded, because there’s no reason to have an 80lb pack if you’re just hiking.

>>2837001
No, it’s a typical pack thread.

>>2837046
Tell me you've never carried a heavy pack without telling me...
>The Alice pack isn’t a great design. Both sizes were built wider across the shoulders
Wrong. While height is the same (and needs to be, you can't go prone or wear a helmet or even just a hat with a tall pack), the width is also the same. The difference is the depth, with the large pack being twice as deep. If you put heavy shit on the outside and run, it'll start swinging left to right, but if you pack properly, its not an issue.
>This places the packs load further from the wearers center of gravity than it needs to be
This distance is the main advantage the alice pack has. That extra distance gives you an airgap, stopping you from sweating through your shirt, and making it possible to hike for several days without getting rashes or soft skin.
>causing instability and leverage working against him
Not if you pack right. Obviously, if you shove a bunch of 2l bottles right on the outside (which I di once for while hauling groceries home just to try it), you'll get humped. But put them near the frame, and lighter stuff (sleeping bag and tarp, or in my case, veggies and oatmeal) on the outside, and the pack is perfectly stable.
>it’s also true that “hiking” in the military is so miserable that it’s literally a well known, common meme
Let's be honest here, grunts bitch about anything. Compared to the plastic-framed Molle they issue now, alice packs are paradise, and everybody that is allowed to changes to them. Same with units from other countries, for example, I have a whole set of bags from a KSK veteran, where his entire unit bought custom-made bags that looked like the mystery ranch assault packs and eberlestock mountain bags they were issued, but fit the alice frame, so they could use comfortable packs without having to explain to their superiors why they weren't using the corruption-chosen crap they were given.

>>2837001
What makes you think so? The trolls usually recommend either UL packs, or overpriced tacticool shit, not milsurp and second-hand civy packs.

>>2837053
Wider than normal civilian packs. Not sure how you inferred otherwise.

>air gap
Not what I meant when I said “wider across the shoulders.” Also this isn’t an advantage over any other framed pack. Even internal framed packs have been doing this since around the time the Alice pack was phased out.

>perfectly stable
Bullshit. Again, the pack is wider across the shoulders compared to their contemporaries. There’s no way you’re going to just “pack better” to solve that.

>>2837054
>The trolls usually recommend either UL packs
Why are people on this website so anti-UL

>>2837069
Perverse contrarianism is when someone rejects a position not because they’ve reasoned it out, but because it’s the popular or expected position. It’s contrarianism for its own sake; the “I don’t want to be like the herd” impulse taken to an extreme.

If most people agree upon something (in this case, ultralight backpacking being a more comfortable, more enjoyable experience), the perverse contrarian automatically takes the opposite stance. This gives them a badge of individuality. They see contrarianism as proof in and of itself of being independent-minded or “better than those Reddit fags.” It’s not about independent thought. It’s about differentiation.

30 years ago these same people would have been the first ones cutting their toothbrushes in half.

>>2836851
Isn't it possible to remove it when the PU starts to break?
Also, I heard the PU coating only starts to die if it gets soaked continuously in water.

>>2837046
depends on your build. I served in the usmc in the mid 2ks. In that time I used Alice, Molle, and ILBE. The Alice was hands down the most balanced under load for me. I still use the Alice for camping/hunting.

>>2837270
The pack is the same for everyone: wider rather than taller. The packs shape doesn’t change from person to person.
Also
>it’s the cherry on top of the shit sundae

>>2837069
Because UL packs fucking suck. Other UL stuff, I can kinda get behind if it's durable enough, but buying a pack that's 500g lighter, but in turn ruins your back by putting all the weight on your shoulders instead of your hips is just retarded.

>>2837113
>Isn't it possible to remove it when the PU starts to break?
Maybe with some solvent, but I guess that'd ruin the nylon, too. It doesn't break so much as turn into a sticky slime.
>heard the PU coating only starts to die if it gets soaked continuously in water
Maybe some weird modern PU variant? the most recent PU shit I've handled was a rain jacket from ~2005 that I was gifted, never used, and just kept in my closet in case I ever needed it. Next tie I touched it, in 2023, I couldn't even unfold it because the PU coating had degenerated and stuck to itsself so badly.

>>2837066
>Not what I meant when I said “wider across the shoulders.”
Well, yeah, mostly because you were talking out of your ass. All three milspec alice sizes are the same width across the shoulders, varying only in height (the small is 1/3 shorter) and depth (large being twice as deep as medium and small).

>>2837053
Ideally for carrying heavy weights the weight should high and "on top" of you.
The Alice pack is capped off in height so it doesn't extend over your head as you've pointed out. It therefore has to expand in width to hold more gear, which makes it more back-heavy and pulling you backwards. The negative part of having the weight high up is that it become top heavy and wobbly.

It's like the difference between having someone sit on top of your shoulder or hanging piggyback on you, which is going to be more exhausting.

>>2837366
> All three milspec alice sizes are the same width across the shoulders, varying only in height (the small is 1/3 shorter) and depth (large being twice as deep as medium and small)
Correct. Alice picks are all the same width.
They are also wider across the shoulders than other issued packs and other civilian packs of similar sizes.
This isn’t hard to understand.

Also
>ultralight packs don’t have hip belts
Why embarrass yourself like this?

>>2837374
It’s only idea when you’re walking over relatively flat terrain. As soon as you have to scramble or climb or maneuver around obstacles, even a little, it gets super tippy. It’s a lot of leverage working against you.

That’s why we saw the switch to internal frames as base weights got smaller in the 90’s. We could have just used smaller, lighter gear secured to a frame and held high up, but the advantage was lost on anything other than a road walk. It’s more advantageous to have reasonably sized packs at the shoulders if there’s any kind of fun involved.

It’s also why internal frame packs bigger than maybe 60L don’t make any sense. Generally, those frames don’t extend much past the shoulders. Instead, the packs are made thicker and wider to accommodate more stuff (even the bottoms are thicker, which just a shit design). The switch to all internals happened because gear got smaller, but consumer demand still dictated a market for some enormous, ridiculous packs that generally suck balls and aren’t good for anything. 110L internal frame? Come on, man.

I'm just a regular guy planning some camping trips with my family. Im looking for a hiking/camping backpack. Is a surplus rucksack a dumb idea? They're like 40 bucks shipped.chinese stuff is like 30 and I don't want to buy an actual hiking backpack because they're expensive.

>>2836406 (OP)
i miss my ALICE sometimes, i should dig her out of dark corners of my basement, havnt used it in like a decade plus

>>2838122
if it's a short trip and you probably only do it on very rare occasions then yeah, don't spend a lot of money. can always divide the gear with others in shitty surplus packs so the weight doesn't make you suffer

>>2836724
i have mine since 3 years now. Holds up great. Get the seating mat (or make your own) as an insert so it cushions your back a bit from the inside.
If you wanna carry anything over 10kg for a significant amount of time, you may want get shoulder pads for the straps (savotta sells em but can find cheaper chinesium ones on amazon too), additional sternum strap can be useful too. it works great with all the molle pouches i have and strapping on stuff is super easy. Thing is great.

>>2838277
Are they stupid heavy?

>>2836406 (OP)
ive been using this frost river portaging bag all summer and its working pretty well

>>2838367
does anyone have experience with PALICE frames like this?
I nce held one and it felt quite light but also a bit flimsier than an alice making me beleive it wouldn't be as good at transferring weight as a fully rigid alice frame.
also how easy is it to use its attachment points to mount a pack that wasn't meant exaclt for an alice frame?

>>2838367
I remember these having a reputation for exploding into a billion little plastic pieces when you really loaded em up.

i bought a swedish LK35 years ago, never used it once because some bushcraft dude on youtube had a really cool one he modified. dont fall for old military gear larps. i found 2 internal frame packs of varying sizes at the thrift store for 5 dollars.

I started out with milsurp because I was a poor fuck that knew nothing, and thought bringing heavy old gear just meant me not being a pussy and all that macho ego-masturbation bullshit. Years later and now most of my gear is lightweight and I regret wasting all that money at the start on milsurp when I could've just done it properly in the first place. Milsurp works if you're going out once or twice because you can take it in short rounds, but when you start hiking more frequently and doing longer walks, milsurp can suck my micro cock. It's just like when you start working out, the harder you do it as a beginner the faster you lose the motivation, gotta do it smart. My current 60L backpack weights 1/3 of my old 45L pack, plus it has more functions, easier to use, comfortable, and some of those Xpac and Ecopack materials are so good at abrasion resistance that there's no need for heavier materials. Some say the shoulder/hip pads suck on lighter packs, but from my experience it depends on which one you pick. A buddy of mine used the Fjällräven Kajka, that bitch weights 7.5 lbs. I convinced to him borrow my pack instead and he regretted not returning his Kajka before it was too late. I'm not one of those "spend a billion bucks on DCF and cut your toothbrush in half" guy, but there is a balance between being lightweight and having your necessary gear be durable... hell I even buy AliExpress stuff. A $300 pack and a $150 tent even for winter, it just works, know when to spend and when not to. Your body will thank you, and this hobby will be far more enjoyable in the long run. Sorry for the rant.

>>2838711
As someone who enjoys making field repairs on gear to keep it going, I strongly disagree. A large portion of the weight comes in the form of rugged webbing and hardpoints that allow you to easily patch up tears, and if you have to use the gear with holes or parts worn thin, the military stuff is often designed in a way that it won't tear itself to shreds. Ultra-light stuff usually requires to you replace a large section of it when something happens, and ignoring holes usually just causes them to rip larger and larger sections until it becomes unusable. I know most people don't give a single fuck and will just abandon gear the moment it's structural integrity comes into question, but if you're really serious about "long walks" and "hiking more frequently" being able to repair your stuff between supply points (which may be few and far between depending on where you are) is something worth considering.

>>2838367
yes its stupid heavy and frame prone to snapping
most packs now use the thinnest/lightest shit like dynema , that hulking beast us like cotton as thick as your boots

>>2837113
>Isn't it possible to remove it when the PU starts to break?
Yes. You have to scrub it down with alcohol and a toothbrush. Very time consuming and annoying.
t. ruined his assault pack PU coating accidentally and had to strip it all

>>2837076
>If most people agree upon something
Most people going out? or most people shitposting on here?
Cause I've yet to see a single ULfag away from the main trails. Most is unironically teens with discounter gear, with milsurp and chink reproductions of military gear a close second.
>>2837379
>ultralight packs don’t have hip belts
Lol, did you fail primary school reading class? Nobody claimed UL packs don't have hipbelts, just that they place way more weight on the shoulders than a framed pack, which place the entire weight on the hips.
I'd explain the mechanics but I doubt you'd understand it.
>>2837390
This guy gets it. Though I have to add that when you're not wearing armor, an exoframe with an airgap is way more comfy than an internal frame without one. And yes, before someone needs o add it: you could theoretically make an internal frame with an airgap, even if I'm not aware of one.
>>2838122
>Is a surplus rucksack a dumb idea?
Depends on which one. Alice with green or brown frames are good, black frames (albanian and turkish) suck. Early molle breaks when it's very cold (think alaska), later molle is alright. ILBE is as good as alice, but too large for most people. european packs, except bergen and finnish parachuters, are midtier and cost the same as a comparable new civy pack.
>>2838483
Palice is the one frame I'm still missing kek. For the price, I'd consider a Grey Ghost frame (or ordnance okinawa if in asia).
Mounting another pack of similar size on any alice frame is possible, but it needs either the frame pouch or plenty of loops. What I put on so far: MR.NICE packs, car molle panel (with several plate carrier back panels - molle is great), M37 british haversack (that one was hard, had to make clasps for the short straps), Bundeswehr / wehrmacht assault pack (fits perfectly).

>>2838392
Which pack is it? Can't find on their site... seems discontinued.

Pic related, closest i've found.

>>2836723
I'm not that anon, but I enlisted in 1997.
Making me old as FUCK.
You little shits.

>>2839028
How did you ruin it? What are the don'ts, if I want it to last?

>>2839284
I soaked the bag in vinegar in an attempt to remove the smell the bag had from baking in some pile of dirt and other unwanted ACU pattern gear for years. Turns out strong acids and alcohol degrade the PU.

My recommendation instead if you have any smelly PU gear is several soaks in dawn dish soap and baking soda and then scrubbing the bag with a toothbrush. It has worked for me so far, but beyond that I'm not too much of an expert in care.

Oh, and do not throw that shit in a washer with an agitator. a buddy of mine made that mistake and his bag was shredded

>>2839341
>his bag was shredded