How to determine the best way to choose the right rucksack

[hemdale]

Hi there,

I think I definitely need a (much) bigger rucksack than the one I had last time I went to Broadstone Warren.
The 21 liters of my bag are now ridiculous.

Since I'm now seriously considering camping and going outdoor regularly, I'm thinking of investing in a good Rucksack for the next months (and hopefully years) to come.

I understand that camping for 3 days is different than for one week but it is unlikely I will exceed a 3 days camping (but who knows ?)

As far as I'm concerned I see the following criteria:

• Capacity: 35 liters might be a bit small...but 45 liters can get quite heavy too. Less is more ? Or is it better to have a 45 liters bag left a bit empty or having a 35 liters bag completely full ?

• Structure and designs: I'm a newbie here.

• Size, weight and shape: I'm assuming you ALWAYS have to find the rucksack that fits YOU and not the other way around. I'm happy to have your feedback on different brands that make their rucksacks available in different sizes. I also think the weight of the bag when empty is quite critical ?
I would like to find something that has rather good ergonomics.

I have probably forgotten essential parameters, but I'm happy to learn from you since you have much more experience than me on this.
During the last meeting at Broadstone Warren, I've tried the Karrimor Sabre 45. I kind of liked the additional pockets on each sides, but this bag is quite impressive. Not for the faint of heart.

Thanks a lot.

Bruce

 

[Thetillerman71]

I like the Highlander pro-force range, have got a 35 Litre and just recently a 65 Litre, they also do a 45 Litre which would probably be a good compromise. Worth as always shopping around for the best price

 

[Shewie]

If you don't want the typical army look I'd recommend the Osprey Exos 46, at just under a kilo it's a great bag and capable of around 11kg loaded.

If you want an army pack then the Sabre 45 would be my choice.

Lots of options depending on what you want, the most obvious factor is to get one which fits correctly.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

What are you hoping to carry in the pack.?

 

[hemdale]

I have a 4 seasons duvet sleeping bag, I'll probably have to carry a 2kg tent + stove and the usual suspects...

 

[Lister]

Hemdale, you mention Broadstone Warren, are you in scouting? If so (or even if not) go to your nearest Cotswold Outdoors and they'll show you how to pick the correct rucksack (and how to fit one properly), once you know how to do that, that's half the battle. You can even take it a step further and take your gear there and quite literally tell them: "This is what i have, find me the best bag for it" and they'll come up trumps......then hit the net to look for similar stuff and go from there.

 

[brambles]

I have a 4 seasons duvet sleeping bag, I'll probably have to carry a 2kg tent + stove and the usual suspects...

Starting point is going to be around 65 litres .....

 

[R.Lewis]

Just get a Lowe Alpine Sting and be done with it! Capacity starts at 45l without pouches but goes up to 70ish with. You don't have to fill it everytime and it compresses up nicely. I often use as a daypack by zipping the side pouch zips together making a very narrow pack. The pack is so comfortable and adjustable you will have no worries about fit. Built to last and versatile kit.

I've done the only just big enough pack thing and the hassle is not worth it. Imagine its cold and wet when you pack up and everything only fts in your pack a certain way that you have to pack carefully. With excess space you just ram it all in and go home quick!!!! Much nicer. Also if you find something when out you can take it home ok!

 

[blacktimberwolf]

There are 2 ways of choosing a rucky, either you get one that will carry the gear you have or you choose gear that will fit into a rucky, (usually on the smaller side)......if you insist on a 45 litre you may fall into the second category which isn't a problem if you have the funds.
Your Back length too is to be taken into consideration, many of the smaller packs have shortish backs so you end up carrying all the weight on your shoulders, fine if you're only walking a few hundred meters but unbearable on long hikes....
Also choosing a smaller pack, you won't have much room for manouver(sp?) in the future, extra clothing in winter or unexpected items you may need on certain outings etc....
There are a lot of things to be taken into consideration before settling on a particular size pack.

 

[garethw]

Just get a Lowe Alpine Sting and be done with it! Capacity starts at 45l without pouches but goes up to 70ish with. You don't have to fill it everytime and it compresses up nicely. I often use as a daypack by zipping the side pouch zips together making a very narrow pack. The pack is so comfortable and adjustable you will have no worries about fit. Built to last and versatile kit.

I've done the only just big enough pack thing and the hassle is not worth it. Imagine its cold and wet when you pack up and everything only fts in your pack a certain way that you have to pack carefully. With excess space you just ram it all in and go home quick!!!! Much nicer. Also if you find something when out you can take it home ok!

Hi there
I've had the Dutch camo Lowe Alpine Sting now for a couple of months and can't fault it, a cracking pack. The sizing I got though is a tad bigger 55L without pockets, 75L with pockets.
Its a very well made and comfortable pack, thanks largely to the back adjustability. I got mine new & unissued, from the xmod site for £78 inc the side pockets (Some places sell them separately). Not only is this cheaper than many comparable packs, but I've seen many reviews that compared it more than favourabley to the other named brands.
Finally it has some molle webbing on the front, which is great for a couple of small molle pouches.. I was able to get my FAK, fire kit and stove into those... meaning I can break out a brew kit without going into the main pack.
cheers
Gareth

 

[rg598]

For my three season backpacking I use a 45L pack. My base weight is about 18lb. For winter I use a 65L pack. My base weight is about 30lb. The size will depend on the gear you carry. First decide on what you want to put inside the pack and then select the pack. Keep in mind that many things that we often don't even count in the volume of the pack will have to be accommodated. For example, clothing. If you are out in spring and fall, two fleece or wool shirts will take up a fair amount of space in the pack.

I don't have anything to say about specific packs because I use some old cheap ones, but when judging comfort, make sure you test it when it is full. All packs feel great when they are empty.

 

[hemdale]

Starting point is going to be around 65 litres .....

I think you're right. 45 litres will be way too small. A minimum of 60 litres anyway.

 

[Samon]

has anyone tried those steel framed old swedish army rucksacks? they hold around 45 litres and cna be had for about £15, are they worth it if you're on a budget?

 

[Martti]

I think you're right. 45 litres will be way too small. A minimum of 60 litres anyway.

Most of the Finnish birch bark backpacks are around 45 litres and they did serve well for centuries in taiga. Then again the users did not have much equipment to carry around but filled the backpacks with meat and fish.

 

[Qwerty]

has anyone tried those steel framed old swedish army rucksacks? they hold around 45 litres and cna be had for about £15, are they worth it if you're on a budget?

How far are you looking to walk with the pack fully loaded?

 

[R.Lewis]

Hi there
I've had the Dutch camo Lowe Alpine Sting now for a couple of months and can't fault it, a cracking pack. The sizing I got though is a tad bigger 55L without pockets, 75L with pockets.
Its a very well made and comfortable pack, thanks largely to the back adjustability. I got mine new & unissued, from the xmod site for £78 inc the side pockets (Some places sell them separately). Not only is this cheaper than many comparable packs, but I've seen many reviews that compared it more than favourabley to the other named brands.
Finally it has some molle webbing on the front, which is great for a couple of small molle pouches.. I was able to get my FAK, fire kit and stove into those... meaning I can break out a brew kit without going into the main pack.
cheers
Gareth

I am probably off on the capacity I said! Going by my confused memory... The Molle panel is useful for small pouches to keep easy accessed gear handy, I have one set on mine too.

I also have a very old Swedish framed pack and size is similar. Have not used in anger yet as the leather work needs replacement as is perished bad. Only cost £2 at a car boot and its the early 3 pocket pattern so not bad buy! Seems to be comfortable enough, rugged and looks great (or at least will when leather sorted).

 

[PDA1]

A 20 deg f synthetic sleeping bag (mine) is 16 litres, a 20 deg down SB (mine) is 11 litres. A two person tent is 22.5 litres I pack all my kit inside the bag. SO I feel that 50-60 litre capacity is a minimum for 3 day plus trips.
For winter I have a Lowe Alpine 75 litre with adjustable back and it is very comfortable. My 60 litre pack also has an adjustable back and a pretty good hip belt system. For hiking, getting the length and belt correct for you is paramount. Go top a store and get one fitted by someone who knows what they are talking about. FIll it with the weight/volume you expect to use and walk around quite a lot to see if you like it.

 

[spandit]

As someone said, how far are you planning on carrying this pack? If it's just a few hundred metres from a car/train to a campsite, then get a cheap surplus pack - it will be heavy and relatively uncomfortable, but big and rugged.

 

[sandbender]

"...There are 2 ways of choosing a rucky, either you get one that will carry the gear you have or you choose gear that will fit into a rucky, (usually on the smaller side)......if you insist on a 45 litre you may fall into the second category which isn't a problem if you have the funds.
Your Back length too is to be taken into consideration, many of the smaller packs have shortish backs so you end up carrying all the weight on your shoulders, fine if you're only walking a few hundred meters but unbearable on long hikes....
Also choosing a smaller pack, you won't have much room for manouver(sp?) in the future, extra clothing in winter or unexpected items you may need on certain outings etc..."

+1

Wise words.

The Sabre 45 pack might be worth a look, if you find you need more capacity zip on the side pouches, I find it handy for walking in areas where paths are non-existant or overgrown, modern packs tend to be higher and catch on branches and such. However I wouldn't use it for any kind of distance walking. These days the pack that gets the most use is a 47 liter Crux AK47.

 

[boney gumbo mcgee]

The Highlander pro Force 44L is very good if you have to work to a tight budget, its very well made for the price (£30-40), quite comfy, the side pocket zips take a little getting used too, but overall i would say its a good pack.