external frame rucksack
- Thread starter Tengu
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
BOD
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
not much use, but is it worth saving the frame?
the bottom bit folds up
I have something very similar. Keep it. Wrap, bag and tie items too large or dirty to fit in to your ordinary rucksack.
Like an aluminium Roycroft pack
If you manage to find a cheap MOLLE pack (last generation US Army load bearing) you can use the frame. I found that Molle pack components can be used in conjunction with the external frames.
Buy some nylon from pointnorth and make a new sack and waistbelt (stiff it up with thermoplastic and pad it with sleeping mat, the belt that is) and it will probably serve you for many years. Save the buckles and zippers if they are in good condition. Cheapest big pack you'll ever get, and you'll have the opportunity to design pockets and lids to suit your needs.
A frame like that beats sabres and vulcans in load bearing comfort any given day. Although you seem to be a female, and I have no clue how a frame sits on your back, almost everybody I know who've tried a heavy load on a frame pack agrees.
A frame like that beats sabres and vulcans in load bearing comfort any given day. Although you seem to be a female, and I have no clue how a frame sits on your back, almost everybody I know who've tried a heavy load on a frame pack agrees.
Have tried 3 and owned 2 other external frame packs. I somehow doubt that this would be drastically different. There is a reason why almost noone does external frame packs no more
Oyeah? How about Norrøna? Sacci? Bergans? All bigger military packs used by the scandinavian ranger units use frames. And I know for a fact that they were very popular with some US special units in afghanistan (swedish squaddies 'lost' quite a few).
On a similar note we can discuss why so much of the equipment commonly used in our kind of outdoors activities aren't manufactured in any larger scales. Stainless kettles aren't commonly made for outdoor purposes, does that mean they're useless?
Certainly you agree that there is a large element of fashion in sportsgoods? My alaska pack weighs 1.9 kilos, holds 100+ ltrs and was made in 1979, it took soft packs a good 10 years to come up in the same specs, but are still no way near the carrying comfort. It beats a vulcan anyday. It was taken out of production because it didn't sell, the company who made still thinks that is superior to their modern packs, but that people want to buy flashy bags with at least two more technical features then their former pack (usually with an acronym). I still have the email correspondence between me and the company to prove it.
Just because some people like external frames doesn't make Mikkel wrong. If he finds that they move the balance point out to much then they do. I suspect that it might be down in part to body shape now that I think about it. As a skinny runt myself the extra couple of inches that the load is pushed out on an external frame does tend to leverage out making me lean that little bit further forward to bring my centre of gravity back to where it needs to be.
Personally I'll take the sweaty back of an internal framed rucksack over an external any day. However that pack reworked as you said above with a decent hip belt and such would be a useful tool.
Personally I'll take the sweaty back of an internal framed rucksack over an external any day. However that pack reworked as you said above with a decent hip belt and such would be a useful tool.
I get what you are pointing at but to state: "if he finds it, then they do...." sounds not like I hope you mean it.
Mikkel states that "There is a reason why almost noone does external frame packs no more "
This argument COULD be similar to: a thousand flies can not be wrong: Eat sh... well and I think that is not the intention of anyone here.
Big corporation marketing makes a lot of people shut of their brain... (I know, I am a dive instructor
)I PERSONALLY like lightweight a lot but I am also beginning to see the advantages of external frame packs...heavier but.....
So... to each their own I reckon...
It is just too bad that I have too little time and money to try them all ;-)
Grtz Johan
I love divers! they pay more for secondhand kit than they do new!
I see scuba equitment at the car boot I snap it up!
The best I got was a dive computer with a flat battery, I put it on as a non runner, not sure if it runs and I got nearly 50 quid!
-----------
Thats good advice on the rucksack, I now have three to test out....looks like a lot of walks from now on...
I see scuba equitment at the car boot I snap it up!
The best I got was a dive computer with a flat battery, I put it on as a non runner, not sure if it runs and I got nearly 50 quid!
-----------
Thats good advice on the rucksack, I now have three to test out....looks like a lot of walks from now on...
rancid badger
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I cut my teeth on the sas/para bergen when I was 18
-external frame, heavy as hell, nearly as big as me-I weighed about 7 stone wet through at the time!
I had to do some serious padding and faffing about but managed to get reasonably comfortable. I ran/walked, probably hundreds of miles with the same pack, carrying all sorts of heavy gear, without worrying too much which bits were poking where inside the sack as the frame kept the load away from my body enough not to worry about it.
I prefer the softer, internal frame packs now but don't need to carry anything particularly "heavy metal", with sticky out corners anymore!
So it's what ever suits, there are no real rules, you need to try before you buy when ever possible and what suits one, will never suit another.
Regards
R.B.
-external frame, heavy as hell, nearly as big as me-I weighed about 7 stone wet through at the time!
I had to do some serious padding and faffing about but managed to get reasonably comfortable. I ran/walked, probably hundreds of miles with the same pack, carrying all sorts of heavy gear, without worrying too much which bits were poking where inside the sack as the frame kept the load away from my body enough not to worry about it.
I prefer the softer, internal frame packs now but don't need to carry anything particularly "heavy metal", with sticky out corners anymore!
So it's what ever suits, there are no real rules, you need to try before you buy when ever possible and what suits one, will never suit another.
Regards
R.B.
No need to start a heated debate People will use what they like.
I just argued that external frames had the disadvantage that the balance point is moved further back. This is caused by the empty space between the frame and the pack itself. Internal frame packs have the main compartment between the support (if it is a pack with support at all), and thus getting a more close fit, and stable pack.
I heard the same argument from backpackers that were active from back in the 60s when the first external frame packs came. And they really don't miss them
I know that people in here treasure 'old stuff' a lot, so perhaps it's pointless arguing against something that was "good enough for my grandad"
People will use what they like.I just argued that external frames had the disadvantage that the balance point is moved further back. This is caused by the empty space between the frame and the pack itself. Internal frame packs have the main compartment between the support (if it is a pack with support at all), and thus getting a more close fit, and stable pack.
I heard the same argument from backpackers that were active from back in the 60s when the first external frame packs came. And they really don't miss them
I know that people in here treasure 'old stuff' a lot, so perhaps it's pointless arguing against something that was "good enough for my grandad"
Very useful for carrying logs or boxes or owt that would wreck a rucksack.
Doesn't have to be used as your primary load carrier.
Doesn't have to be used as your primary load carrier.
rancid badger
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
No need to start a heated debate
I just argued that external frames had the disadvantage that the balance point is moved further back. This is caused by the empty space between the frame and the pack itself. Internal frame packs have the main compartment between the support (if it is a pack with support at all), and thus getting a more close fit, and stable pack.
I heard the same argument from backpackers that were active from back in the 60s when the first external frame packs came. And they really don't miss them
I know that people in here treasure 'old stuff' a lot, so perhaps it's pointless arguing against something that was "good enough for my grandad"
Cheeky buxxer!!!
your right though!
Regards
R.B.
I love external frame packs. I had a Fjallraven 'Gyro' that went 'missing' when we moved house five years ago. It was a fabulously comfortable pack loaded up for a long trek: it rode on the hips beautifully, with plenty of ventilation between one's back and the pack itself. Even the best ventilated internal frame packs are sweaty by comparison. I'm sure part of the reason that internal support packs are more prevalent these days is that they are cheaper to make. I don't like them.
Burnt Ash
Burnt Ash
It is also a question of how you do stuff. An external frame isn't any good if your doing a few days on the trail. They come to their use with loads over 20 kgs. Personally I've carried 35+ kgs (in the army... not my choice!) in a vulcan, and it just doesn't work. We were happy when we got the big frame packs from sacci, for a while that is, 'cos after that they increased our load to around 40 for some times. As a civvy I did 21 days in Sarek. I challenge anyone to take the same weight in an internal frame pack.
And as for frames moving the weight out from your bodies, get a doctor to sort that hump of yours out..
And as for frames moving the weight out from your bodies, get a doctor to sort that hump of yours out..
...they increased our load to around 40 for some times. As a civvy I did 21 days in Sarek. I challenge anyone to take the same weight in an internal frame pack.
I have in my Vulcan, and it was fine.
It was, however, not for 21 days, but only for a week.
And, for honestys sake, I haven't done the same with an external frame sack, so I can't really say that I know the difference.
/ Karl
I find it depends on what I'm doing.
I can carry more in comfort for longer distances with an external frame pack. the trouble is, it sits quite high on my back and is a lot of hassle when travelling through forests.
for shorter trips I prefer my sabre 45 (with or without pouches).
the advantage of the frame of course is that I can carry logs back to camp using it.
I can carry more in comfort for longer distances with an external frame pack. the trouble is, it sits quite high on my back and is a lot of hassle when travelling through forests.
for shorter trips I prefer my sabre 45 (with or without pouches).
the advantage of the frame of course is that I can carry logs back to camp using it.
Similar threads
