Low Alpine Sting Review

[Glosfisher]

Got my Sting on Friday from Cotswold.

Used it today as i was taking a large and, frankly, very unfit group out into the wilds of Wiltshire. Carried the pack all day bar lunchtime and found it extremely comfortable and very easy to load and unload.

The molle patch on the front was ideal for one of my large GP pouches for wallet, gloves etc.

Overall very pleased with the rucksack

 

[johnboy]

I'd be intersted in seeing a picture of the Sting with the MOLLE pouch in place..

Cheers

John

 

[green elk]

thanks for all answers, that helped a lot. I finally decided to order it today, but now it is out of stock...

 

[Glosfisher]

I'd be intersted in seeing a picture of the Sting with the MOLLE pouch in place..

I was meaning to do so today but the weather is so vile and light values so grim, I wouldn't be able to do it justice.

I'll post one by Thursday as on Wednesday I'm lugging a load of surveying gear in the pack up to a Bronze Age site I'm currently working on.

 

[big_swede]

A 45 liter bag at 3.5 kilos? That's a lot. No back system takes that weight of, period.

Compared with e.g. a Crux AK47 it's 2.3 kilos difference. And judging by the specs I can't see any real difference? Is it the front haul loop?

No offence, I hope Johnboy is more than happy with his pack, and so also everyone else who uses this pack, but I can't understand how it can weigh that much? And why you would want to carry a pack as heavy as that? Okay, I have gone from my 5 kilos steel framed LK70 to 1 kilo no frame 60 liter pack, and judging from 1½ years of use of the light one, I can't say I miss any of the ruggedness or the frame from my army pack. Everyone carries their own sack though...

 

[johnboy]

A 45 liter bag at 3.5 kilos? That's a lot. No back system takes that weight of, period.

The Sting's capacity with the side pouches is 75 ltrs without side pouches 55 ltrs.

 

[Glosfisher]

The pack is relatively heavy by modern standards, about the same as my 25 year-old Lowe Alpine Cerro Torre 65 but it is extremely robust and ideal for carrying the sort of loads I need to.

I may be a conspiracy theorist but I consider that the push towards lightweight gear has been made by gear manufacturers and the sycophantic outdoors press (you know who you are..Trail Magazine) in the hope of selling yet more kit that will wear out more quickly. The two lightweight rucksacks I've recently had have both disappointed me especially the Karrimor Sabre Delta 35. The material used in the back of the rucksack is so lacking in relative rigidity that it has formed a permanent fold across the padding.

Lightweight is all very well but when the s##t comes down and you're dealing with a casualty in the field late on a winter's afternoon, you'll be glad you took the kitchen sink with you.

 

[big_swede]

The Sting's capacity with the side pouches is 75 ltrs without side pouches 55 ltrs.

Okay, that puts it in the just fairly heavy department. Still a lot though. A stripped Berghaus Atlas is around 1.9 kilos, and that's 80 liters. Anybody wanna discuss the flimsy fabric of the atlas?

Lightweight is all very well but when the s##t comes down and you're dealing with a casualty in the field late on a winter's afternoon, you'll be glad you took the kitchen sink with you.

***? Casualty? Just how would your heavy ruck help you in the event of an casualty?

 

[The Cumbrian]

I've got a POD Black Ice 50l rucsac that I've had for about fifteen years. By modern standards it's a heavy pack at about 1.5 kg. In that time it's been hauled up and along many crags, used as a seat, a bed, a sledge, overloaded well beyond it's stated capacity, carried a sleeping child and survived as many seasons of British winter climbing as I've had it. It still looks virtually new.
Before I bought the POD, I had a Karrimor Hot Earth that I bought third hand off a mate. I would no doubt still be using that if some tow rag hadn't nicked it at Glastonbury.
If you're in the military, you may well need super durable kit like the Sting. Your kit will get more, and harder use than even the most ardent bushcrafter will give it.
What many people don't seem to realise is that most reputable modern gear is very good. If the average user ( myself included ) packs their rucsac every weekend, and has the occasional longer trip, your going to get 15 or 20 years out of a good modern rucsac from one of the major brands. You don't need something that can survive a tour of Afghanistan. You'll be able to walk further, or get to your campsite sooner and have more time to get set up and relax than if you're carrying the kitchen sink on a winter's afternoon.

 

[johnboy]

Hi,

I dragged my Sting into work today. We have a warehouse team here and they do a lot of parcel dispatch so we have a set of very accurate scales that are calibrated by the post office etc...

Ok I weighed the sac on it's own with no pouches and totally empty did it 3 times and took an average.

Av Weight: 1.6 kg

Same with a side pouch and shoulder strap.

Av Weight: 0.3 kg

I believe a Sabre 45 is 1.2 kg based on the info on PRI site so an extra 400 or so g for an extra 10 ltrs of capacity is not too bad..

I think POD, Crux, PRI, Berghaus, Lowe are all really great packs which will give heaps of good service. I like the Sting for the following reasons:

1. It's green
2. It was on offer at Cotswold
3. It's well made
4. I like having detachable side pouches
5. For me 55L is a good size sack

Durability is important as well but any decent pack should last if not abused...

 

[scrogger]

Johnboy your weight is close to mine when I saw this conversation going on about weight I found it hard to believe it was going to be so heavy from what I had seen taking it out of the parcel. Anyway curiosity got the better of me so I weighed it on a set of fishing scales (probably not as accurate as yours) and it came out at 1.7kg so there or there abouts.
I own a Lowe alpamayo 70ltr sack and it does not weigh as much as that, and I have been using that for about 10yrs plus. If the Sting lasts as long as this I will be well happy and as Michael says good quality packs should last 15 to 20 yrs depending on usage.

interesting thread this has turned out to be.

 

[The Cumbrian]

If Lowe Alpine have overstated the weight by as much as they appear to have then they've really shot themselves in the foot. I can't be the only person who looked at the packs ( especially at that price ) and almost bought one, but was put off by the stated weight.

Regarding longevity, the 15 to 20 years that I stated was for a normal walking / climbing type pack. A pack like the Sting, built to take the kind of abuse that the military hand out, you'll be giving to your kids.

What I have found interesting about this thread is that Bushcrafters seem to be the only outdoors people at the moment who haven't embraced the lightweight revolution of recent years. I don't see the point of gaining lots of knowledge and then counteracting that by using the heaviest kit.

Michael.

 

[johnboy]

If Lowe Alpine have overstated the weight by as much as they appear to have then they've really shot themselves in the foot. I can't be the only person who looked at the packs ( especially at that price ) and almost bought one, but was put off by the stated weight.

Regarding longevity, the 15 to 20 years that I stated was for a normal walking / climbing type pack. A pack like the Sting, built to take the kind of abuse that the military hand out, you'll be giving to your kids.

What I have found interesting about this thread is that Bushcrafters seem to be the only outdoors people at the moment who haven't embraced the lightweight revolution of recent years. I don't see the point of gaining lots of knowledge and then counteracting that by using the heaviest kit.

Michael.

I suspect Lowe Alpine don't care much on the marketing of their military packs. They must be the best kept secret out there. But then they have a contract to supply the Dutch Armed forces ( the Sting is the Dutch All Arms Bergen) and I believe the Irish Armed forces issue them also. So I guess they are happy with knocking out packs to various MOD's. I fully expect my oldest son now 5 to be using the Sting when he's in his late teens.

The lightweight movement has sort of passed NZ by as well for the most part.

 

[scottisha5]

Morning,

Received my Sting from Cotswolds yesterday. Im impressed, Ive seen both worlds, ie operations in Iraq and I can say this bag is as strong as any issue kit Ive ever had. Similarly, I own Deuter Aircontact for camping, walking with my kids and although its well made i am always wary of where and how I put the bag down so it doesn't damage it.

The Sting gets a thumbs up from me, Im packed and ready to go for my midweek bivvi out.

If you want to split hairs and moan about an extra lb or 2 then leave your axe at home!!

Best regards to all and Merry Christmas when it comes,

John

 

[scrogger]

Michael I have a Karrimor (in name only I reckon) OMM which is about 55 ltrs I bought it on a whim really trying to embrace the lightweight regime. It can be stripped down to the bare minimum and is designed for lightweight backpacking. I do actually like the pack but it does have its draw backs. I do not doubt the quality of the materials used and i see this lasting a good few years. The back system is a fixed size which fits me ok but when full eg the first few days of a trip it needs constant tweaking to maintain comfort also the shoulder straps are not the most forgiving.

I know what you mean though as regards "the bushcraft community" staying with robust heavy kit I have tended to go with it myself even though I have some gear that would double up easily. I just dont see myself going into the woods for a discreet bivvy with a bright orange lightweight sack as even if I am not I like to believe I am less visible.

Not really sure why Lowe technical details could be out perhaps a typo or something. the Sting will get used mainly for this area of my interests whilst if I was going to do the GR20 id perhaps go ultra light. Its all a matter of horses for courses if thats the correct term to use.

Andy

 

[big_swede]

Hi,

I dragged my Sting into work today. We have a warehouse team here and they do a lot of parcel dispatch so we have a set of very accurate scales that are calibrated by the post office etc...

Ok I weighed the sac on it's own with no pouches and totally empty did it 3 times and took an average.

Av Weight: 1.6 kg

Same with a side pouch and shoulder strap.

Av Weight: 0.3 kg

I believe a Sabre 45 is 1.2 kg based on the info on PRI site so an extra 400 or so g for an extra 10 ltrs of capacity is not too bad..

I think POD, Crux, PRI, Berghaus, Lowe are all really great packs which will give heaps of good service. I like the Sting for the following reasons:

1. It's green
2. It was on offer at Cotswold
3. It's well made
4. I like having detachable side pouches
5. For me 55L is a good size sack

Durability is important as well but any decent pack should last if not abused...

Johnboy I must say I really respect you for not starting a flaming war as these threads usually end up. And you sum it up real good in the last sentence. Durability is great but shouldn't go into extremes.

And it's weird, to not say bizarre that Lowe overstates their weights so much. The controlled weights makes the sting a much more rational choice IMO. And green and on sale a always a plus

I will try to do a review on my granite gear vapour trail in a separate thread once I get to taking pics of it. Just for a comparison.

And as has been mentioned, I thought that bushcraft would enable people to travel light, replacing gear with knowledge. I don't see why the wild camping community would need so much more abrasion resistance than e.g. climbers and hill walkers.

 

[The Cumbrian]

The lightweight movement has sort of passed NZ by as well for the most part.[/QUOTE]

Dunno about that, MacPac make famously durable kit without breaking the scales. I've read some stories about Sir Edmund Hillary's early adventures tramping in the bush and climbing, combining bushcraft and mountaineering. The way that he travelled could be a lesson to most of us today.

Cheers, Michael.

 

[Shewie]

Buy a Sabre, they rock

 

[Nat]

Buy a Sabre, they rock

No they don't

I don't know what all the fuss is about the Sting's weight. It's a damn good ruck and if like me, you use it on ex aswell then it's killing two birds with one stone, or rucksack so to speak.
I can get enough kit in for a weekend's ex and chuck it about without worrying whether or not one of my mates is going to rag it to pieces. Great replacement on the issue bergen (i know it's bigger but i use my own kit on ex) and lighter.
Then i can sling everything i need for a weekend away on the moors as i always go alone so need a few extra bits and pieces.

I went off sabres after the 4th SF 45 i had and getting horrendously frustrated with the narrow neck. I found the 60 - 100 a pain in the rear and the 80+ too much.

The Sting, in my opinion positively wee's over the sabres now, i couldn't go back to them personally. But it's horses for courses and if we were all the same we'd have a pot belly, chuck ourselves off glaciers and eat fish eyes.

 

[Glosfisher]

***? Casualty? Just how would your heavy ruck help you in the event of an casualty?

Perhaps I failed to make it clear that I spend a great deal of time leading large often not very fit or outdoorsy groups across relatively inaccessible bits of southern Britain. Therefore I need to go prepared especially in the winter.

I'm very impressed with the capacity of the pack, its comfort and the huge opening making loading and unloading a doddle. I like the fact it's green (I don't do bright colours, it attracts the attention of the wrong sort of people like metal-detectorists when I'm working on a new site) and I need a sack that's going to resist a thorough thrashing from briars, barbed wire, flints and whatever else I choose to inflict on it.