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.