Starter Pack

**BENESSE** · 08-16-2010, 11:02 AM

For me the fit was most important and I didn't have oodles of options there. (small frame/adjustable) I also cared about how it was organized. I ended up buying the largest size given the constraints I was working with.
Still though, I wish I waited a bit longer because now I have definite likes and dislikes based on schlepping with it for hours on end.

**Sourdough** · 08-16-2010, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by BENESSE

For me the fit was most important and I didn't have oodles of options there. (small frame/adjustable) I also cared about how it was organized. I ended up buying the largest size given the constraints I was working with.
Still though, I wish I waited a bit longer because now I have definite likes and dislikes based on schlepping with it for hours on end.

So........Buy another pack. I must have 25 or thirty packs.

**Pocomoonskyeyes3** · 08-16-2010, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Sourdough

So........Buy another pack. I must have 25 or thirty packs.

25 or 30?!?!? Sounds like you need to sell some!!! LOL OR start an Alaskan Boy Scout Troop!!

I will agree with Sourdough though, I want MORE room in my pack than what I THINK I will carry. Too many times have I decided this was the Right size pack, only to buy something else that I JUST HAD TO HAVE.... only to find that there was no room to put it. Tying it to the pack was misery as it almost invariably would loosen up and swing or sway, throwing my balance off.

I also agree with Rick... Being a former "Ground-Pounder" in the military, I am very familiar with these type of packs. While they may not be as comfortable as some "Civilian" Models, Generally they can take much more abuse. I have a large myself. I paid about $65 for it (At a Pawn Shop) and know that it can perform well. With all my "Standard Bug-out Gear" it is only about half occupied, with plenty of space for "seasonal additions". Also it is literally covered with loops, meaning that if I can't fit it inside... I can tie it off outside where it won't "Flop around".

**Sarge47** · 08-16-2010, 04:00 PM

Having actually handled one of these in a transition, I must say that if you're looking for a really big pack & you don't mind military equipment with an extra butt pack then the CFP 90 is a great choice. I've seen them on ebay for about 100 bucks & that includes the S. & H.!

**finallyME** · 08-16-2010, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Sourdough

OK, I am wondering why you (Any Member) would want a pack that is just barely big enough. It seems to me that having a really huge pack even if you only use less than half of the space 98% of the time, would be prudent. I generally only use about 1/3 of my packs volume. Just curious.

That is a good question. "P" for plenty , right? It really depends on what you are using the pack for. If you know that on your trip you will end up needing a lot more volume, then bigger is better. Generally someone wants a bigger pack, because they find out they want to carry something more. I am trying to carry less. Although sometimes I think I am superman, backpacking generally tells me that I am a wuss. Also, the heavier the pack, the less I enjoy myself, which is the point. For some who doesn't know much, more room generally gets them to bring more stuff that they don't need. They need to fill the space.

If the pack is for a BOB, mobility is high on the priority list, so weight is a concern that shouldn't be taken lightly. However, in a Bug out scenario, you might want the ability to collect stuff along the way. This is something the end user needs to determine.

For recreational backpacking, there is no reason to have more than you need. You want your pack to be a light as possible. You need to know who much room you need. Having a little extra is good, but not 75% more. That is just overkill.

If you are a big game hunter and have to carry large, heavy animals, get a big pack. If you are an outfitter, you might as well have a huge pack as well.

**Rick** · 08-16-2010, 05:45 PM

I do like the approach of getting your gear first then the pack. Focus on what you really need instead of trying to fill up the pack. You can get a giant pack if you want but only after you have the gear identified. That's a great thought, FM!!

**crashdive123** · 08-16-2010, 07:12 PM

@Sourdough - I don't do any serious, rough terrain backpacking anymore, so I like to have extra room in my pack - you just never know what you'll find along the way. When I did backpack on a regular basis, I did not want the extra room. I found that climbing over and around things I suffer no weight shifts with a snugly packed pack. Maybe it was all in my head, because I never tried to do it with a pack that wasn't filled. Just my reasoning for now, and when I was younger.

**Mushroom Man** · 08-16-2010, 07:42 PM

Wow, thanks for all the great responses. I really appreciate it.

@FM - I'm definitely taking your advice to heart. I'll focus on the gear prior to the backpack. I hadn't given that idea any thought, but it makes perfect sense.

@Sourdough - I have a tendency to hoard/find use in every little thing. As such, I always manage to pack a huge amount to go anywhere, and generally only use about 40% of it. A smaller pack would force me to evaluate the importance and necessity of each item I deem worthy of space. More importantly, I want to force myself to be as independent of modern support as possible, and a smaller pack would certainly facilitate that.

And hearing about 25-30 packs for one individual got me thinking-- Is there a forum that veteran members have access to that allows trading?

**crashdive123** · 08-16-2010, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Mushroom Man

Wow, thanks for all the great responses. I really appreciate it.

@FM - I'm definitely taking your advice to heart. I'll focus on the gear prior to the backpack. I hadn't given that idea any thought, but it makes perfect sense.

@Sourdough - I have a tendency to hoard/find use in every little thing. As such, I always manage to pack a huge amount to go anywhere, and generally only use about 40% of it. A smaller pack would force me to evaluate the importance and necessity of each item I deem worthy of space. More importantly, I want to force myself to be as independent of modern support as possible, and a smaller pack would certainly facilitate that.

And hearing about 25-30 packs for one individual got me thinking-- Is there a forum that veteran members have access to that allows trading?

Post #2 is what the owner of the forum has said about trade and barter. We just need to make sure that somebody is not using the forum for running a business. http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...ht=trade+board

**lucznik** · 08-17-2010, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Sourdough

OK, I am wondering why you (Any Member) would want a pack that is just barely big enough. It seems to me that having a really huge pack even if you only use less than half of the space 98% of the time, would be prudent. I generally only use about 1/3 of my packs volume. Just curious.

Originally Posted by Pocomoonskyeyes3

I will agree with Sourdough though, I want MORE room in my pack than what I THINK I will carry. Too many times have I decided this was the Right size pack, only to buy something else that I JUST HAD TO HAVE.... only to find that there was no room to put it. Tying it to the pack was misery as it almost invariably would loosen up and swing or sway, throwing my balance off.

I'll take a stab at this question...

For me, it comes down to having a clear understanding of my personal "pack rat" nature and my intent to fight against that nature. If I have a big pack, I invariably end up filling it - usually with stuff I don't need and will likely not use.

Like Poco, I often find items that, at least at first blush, I think I just "have to have." However, when I start to think about the desired item (in terms of space and weight vs. benefit) I usually decide that it's not as "necessary" an item as I first thought.

As a rule I try to tailor my pack for a given adventure to hold only the amount of "stuff" (including gear and any meat I might plan on packing) I need with no extra room. I also weigh every piece of gear to the 1/10th of an ounce and I carefully and mercilessly scrutinize each item for its overall worthiness. This provides me with essentially three benefits:

Lowest possible weight (allows me to go further, faster, and longer)
Slimmest possible profile (big help when busting through thick brush and/or when stalking - I don't ever drop my pack and leave it - ever.)
Minimum amount of "unnecessary" or "redundant" gear (a big challenge for me as I grew up being taught to take everything I might possibly ever want and which is incompatible with my current "minimalist" aspirations.)

Let me illustrate this with an example. Two years ago I went on my annual backcountry elk and mule deer hunt with a group of friends, including two new guys. Because of problems with work schedules, a couple of us went in a day and a half after the other three guys in our group. When we got into camp two of those other three guys were totally wiped out. In fact, they had not had the energy to do much hunting at all. Looking at their packs, it was readily apparent why. Each of them had humped into camp huge packs that, before any meat was added, weighed over 70 lbs. In contrast my pack weighed in at just over 23#. They had "loaded for bear" with all sorts of crazy stuff:

Complete changes of clothes for each day (which they had packed in vacuum-sealed bags to take less space, not realizing that once they opened those bags and wore those clothes, there was no way to re-seal and re-vacuum them back so as to fit back in their packs.)
Entire six-packs of Mountain Dew
Enough Mountain House freeze-dried entrees to last all of us for weeks on end
Massive quantities of chocolate bars, trail mix, and other snacks
Enough ammo to survive a year or more

During the trip one guy (the third guy in that initial trio - whose pack was much more reasonable) shot an awesome 6-point bull elk and I shot a nice 4x4 mulie. When it came time to pack everything down the mountain these two pack rats ended up burning all of their extra clothes and stashing all their extra food because there was no way they would have made it back down with all their crap + their share of the meat. On the way down my pack ended up weighing just under 90 lbs with meat and antlers but, that was O.K. because I had the space in my bag to put that stuff and I hadn't killed myself just getting to camp in the first place. Those two guys have sworn never to return to our hunting spot again.

This is, admittedly, an extreme example. These guys were just plain foolish. But, it does help illustrate the point. The amount of "necessary" gear always (for me) seems to expand to fill the amount of available space in the pack. So I choose a smaller pack so that it fills easier and I end up not taking a lot of extras.

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

**Sourdough** · 08-17-2010, 12:33 PM

Well, It sounds to me like people are buying smaller packs as a way of solving a different problem. Why not deal with the seemingly uncontrollable perceived need to take more stuff......? In your example, I would have wanted the Barneys "Freighter" Pack, I generally go in with about 35 to 45# but come out with several (Relayed) 120# loads. That is not doable with a little pack that only holds a max of 40# of gear. Nice looking country you men were hunting.

**lucznik** · 08-17-2010, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Sourdough

Well, It sounds to me like people are buying smaller packs as a way of solving a different problem. Why not deal with the seemingly uncontrollable perceived need to take more stuff......?

You're definitely correct there. Like I said, for me, it comes down to having a clear understanding of my personal "pack rat" nature and of my intent to fight against that nature. Though I will point out that, coming out, my pack weighed just under 90# so; I did have some extra room there.

It's like having a(nother) mental disease and taking meds for it. The meds generally don't cure the problem, they just help deal with the symptoms. By forcing myself to take the smallest effective pack possible, I CAN'T entertain the idea of taking a bunch of extra stuff. There's just no room for it. In doing so, I have been able to learn just how much I don't really need any of that extra stuff anyway - which in turn reduces the temptation to want it.

Eventually I hope to be "cured" at which point I too will be able to take whatever pack I choose because there won't be a unbearable temptation to fill it with cool extras.

Until then, I'm just a sick, sick man...

However, no matter how forthcoming my "cure" is and unless I win a lottery or something, I don't think I'll be dropping $600+ on a backpack anytime soon.

Oh, and yes you are definitely right. That is wonderful country. The picture doesn't do it justice and it is very hard to describe just how steep that mountainside really is. It looks like we are on a bit of a level spot but, we most definitely were not. To illustrate consider that, when I field dressed that deer, the guts rolled unassisted down hill from the point you see us at all the way down until they finally came to rest just a few yards from the little stream you see in the bottom of the little valley. It's not the same kind of steep that mountain goat and sheep hunters deal with but, it's pretty wild all the same.

**finallyME** · 08-17-2010, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Sourdough

Well, It sounds to me like people are buying smaller packs as a way of solving a different problem. Why not deal with the seemingly uncontrollable perceived need to take more stuff......? In your example, I would have wanted the Barneys "Freighter" Pack, I generally go in with about 35 to 45# but come out with several (Relayed) 120# loads. That is not doable with a little pack that only holds a max of 40# of gear. Nice looking country you men were hunting.

Sourdough, you are right. His example is a good reason for extra room that is not used. But, a lot of people aren't heading out into the woods with the intent to bring back large amounts of meat. If you are not hunting, there is no need for the extra space. Having a smaller pack then helps fight the urge to take too much crap.

**Sourdough** · 08-17-2010, 02:42 PM

Well, let's say someone is bugging out, they could take 5 times as much freeze dried mountain house food with a large pack and it would still weigh less than 16 pounds. Or if someone was hauling dry firewood 100 yards, they could haul a lot of dry wood and it still would not weigh 22 pounds.

I find my smaller packs have smaller hip-belts and shoulder straps making the same load more comfortable with the larger pack than the smaller pack.

The only time I ever wished I'd had a smaller pack, was the time I Guided a rich Mexican Aristocrat on a Dall Sheep Hunt in the Wrangle Mountains. He flat refused to carry even his own jacket or firearm up the Mountain. So I hauled all of the camp, food, guiding equipment, his gear, my gear, his sleeping bag, everything. He quit on the third day of the hunt.

**lucznik** · 08-17-2010, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Sourdough

I find my smaller packs have smaller hip-belts and shoulder straps making the same load more comfortable with the larger pack than the smaller pack.

I haven't noticed this difference as much, except for on my really small (sub-1800 cubic inch) packs. But those don't (usually) go hunting if I think there is any chance of packing meat and/or antlers. My chosen (smaller) hunting packs, a Badlands 2800 for example, seems to have hip belts and shoulder straps about on par with most everything else that is available.

Originally Posted by Sourdough

The only time I ever wished I'd had a smaller pack, was the time I Guided a rich Mexican Aristocrat on a Dall Sheep Hunt in the Wrangle Mountains. He flat refused to carry even his own jacket or firearm up the Mountain. So I hauled all of the camp, food, guiding equipment, his gear, my gear, his sleeping bag, everything. He quit on the third day of the hunt.

I think this example illustrates where much of the difference probably lies. I don't guide professionally. I don't have people paying me to get them close to animals they may never see again their entire life. You do; and the responsibility to do everything possible to "ensure" success is much greater. I would venture to speculate that you end up carrying a lot of other peoples' crap when they can't/won't do it themselves, hence the need for a bigger pack.

I do sometimes take people who are unfamiliar with the terrain and/or the animals out to help keep them on the "straight and narrow" as it were, but that's not the same thing. Not by a long shot.

Bottom line is that if you hunt with me, you carry your own stuff. If you don't want to carry it, then it gets left behind. The only exception to this rule is with meat/antlers. I will assist in carrying out the spoils of the harvest - even if they're not mine.

As far as a "BOB" goes, well, I try for as modular an approach as possible. Because of my rural geographical location, my primary emergency plan is tailored more for "bugging in" - no pack required. If that isn't possible, then the secondary plan, this time for "bugging out," involves the use of one or more of my vehicles to rendezvous at a pre-selected location with my extended family - again, no pack required. I do maintain a basic kit in a small(ish) backpack that stows easily in my truck for any situation where bugging in isn't an option and neither is using the vehicle(s). Each member of my family has such a pack, tailored to their age, size, abilities, and needs.