LOWE ALPINE STING

[Laurence Milton]

MM have these excellent backpacks in stock. I can vouch for them being genuine article and in excellent condition and price, having just got one.
Camo only, sadly.
Apart from the quality, these things (for those that don't know) have adjustable back lengths to ensure a comfy fit.

 

[Erbswurst]

I don't think that it makes any difference, but aren't they rather made by Arwy?

 

[Laurence Milton]

No, that was a copy latterly made for the Dutch Army. Generally, it is thought AWRY to be lower quality (but FAR from poor!) or it could be just snobbishness?
The originals were LOWE ALPINE. (interestingly, made in Vietnam.......)
A stonking pack by any measure...................

 

[MrEd]

No, that was a copy latterly made for the Dutch Army. Generally, it is thought AWRY to be lower quality (but FAR from poor!) or it could be just snobbishness?
The originals were LOWE ALPINE. (interestingly, made in Vietnam.......)
A stonking pack by any measure...................

Are the ones at MM Lowe alpine or Awry?
Original lowe alpine ones have a lowe alpine label sewn inside and the poppers for the back stays have the lowe alpine logo on them - the awry don’t have these (they have an awry label)

I have a lowe alpine and an awry and the awry is definitely a different grade of construction to the lowe alpine but it’s in weight of fabric rather than stitching quality - both are fantastic quality tbh and imo it doesn’t really matter who made them, they are fantastic and comfortable back packs, bombproof to

 

[Laurentius]

Are the ones at MM Lowe alpine or Awry?
Original lowe alpine ones have a lowe alpine label sewn inside and the poppers for the back stays have the lowe alpine logo on them - the awry don’t have these (they have an awry label)

I have a lowe alpine and an awry and the awry is definitely a different grade of construction to the lowe alpine but it’s in weight of fabric rather than stitching quality - both are fantastic quality tbh and imo it doesn’t really matter who made them, they are fantastic and comfortable back packs, bombproof to

I have both a Sting and a Saracen (bushcrafters OCD, go figure) and I do not have a clue whether either, both, or none of them are genuine Lowe Alpine. My Lowe Alpine mountain cap on the other hand is the genuine article, and the mutts nuts goto winter headgear.

 

[Laurence Milton]

As per original post, MM Stings are Lowe Alpine.

LA packs are normally so stamped on two poppers on the top of the frame, and if still on the bag, a green label within. Later Awry waist buckles were improved but these can be changed at will...........

It was just a heads up for anyone that MM have these in stock, in excellent condition for £50.........
Definitely as others have said, the danglies..............

 

[MrEd]

As per original post, MM Stings are Lowe Alpine.

LA packs are normally so stamped on two poppers on the top of the frame, and if still on the bag, a green label within. Later Awry waist buckles were improved but these can be changed at will...........

It was just a heads up for anyone that MM have these in stock, in excellent condition for £50.........
Definitely as others have said, the danglies..............

That’s excellent, the military DPM ones are not common as LA bags so definitely worth a purchase and for the life of me I can’t figure out why they aren’t a more popular pack to be honest, they are excellent and a lot of pack for the money.

only upgrade I have made is to swap the waist belt buckle out for a ‘berg buckle’ as it’s easier to use with gloves on etc. No need to upgrade anything else tbh!

 

[SSGN_Doc]

I’ve got two surplus Dutch packs, a Sting and a Strike. My Sting is an Awry made bag and my Strike is a Lowe Alpine. Both exhibit quality construction.

I also wondered how these have not been more popular, just based on their durability and versatility with the detachable side pouches.

They are not ultralight. Some folks don’t want a military looking bag.

 

[MrEd]

I’ve got two surplus Dutch packs, a Sting and a Strike. My Sting is an Awry made bag and my Strike is a Lowe Alpine. Both exhibit quality construction.

I also wondered how these have not been more popular, just based on their durability and versatility with the detachable side pouches.

They are not ultralight. Some folks don’t want a military looking bag.

they aren’t ultralight, but tbh they arent ultra heavy either - it’s more comfortable and bigger and has more features than an LK35 that everyone raves about. But I don’t get it!!

i do prefer my olive green one to my DPM one though

 

[packalot]

they aren’t ultralight, but tbh they are ultra heavy either - it’s more comfortable and bigger and has more features than an LK35 that everyone raves about. But I don’t get it!!

my unasked-for 2 cents: external frame vs internal frame. i have both the LK35 and the Sting and I use them for different purposes. The Sting is great for moderate loads over moderate terrain, especially if going considerable distances. The LK35 is much better at managing heavier loads and/or rugged or rough terrain, especially if you have to clamber over deadfall or up scree slopes.

 

[Laurence Milton]

I have a modded LK35 on an alloy frame, and it is superb, better than it has any right to be. The (LA) Sting I have is superbly made, not particularly heavy, and everything is adjustable.................

 

[MrEd]

my unasked-for 2 cents: external frame vs internal frame. i have both the LK35 and the Sting and I use them for different purposes. The Sting is great for moderate loads over moderate terrain, especially if going considerable distances. The LK35 is much better at managing heavier loads and/or rugged or rough terrain, especially if you have to clamber over deadfall or up scree slopes.

what in your opinion makes it better for those scenarios that the sting?
I have both packs and can’t remember the last time I reached for the lk35 tbh and can’t think of a situation I have been in where the lk35 would have been ‘better’

having said that i have used the lk35 frame without the sack for porting heavy loads short distances (water carriers etc) but that’s not the same as the scenario you are describing.

 

[packalot]

having said that i have used the lk35 frame without the sack for porting heavy loads short distances (water carriers etc) but that’s not the same as the scenario you are describing.

i'd suggest it kind of is the same scenario. i do a fair bit if green woodworking of various sorts and that means i am often scavenging windfall and suchlike for my wood supply.

given the choice of taking the LK35 or the Sting out through the bush and hills where there are no trails -- clambering up and down hillsides and through unmanaged woods -- to haul back 30, 40, 50 kilos of wood i'll take the LK35 any day. more stability under weight, better weight distribution, more options for lashing and so forth. IMO it's not that the LK35 in particular is better at this kind of thing (though it is unusually good), i'd say pretty much any well designed external frame pack would offer the same benefits.

on the other hand, for a couple days out where the load is mostly bulk vs dead weight -- especially if there is long hiking on more or less prepared trails -- i'd opt for the Sting. that adjustability is hard to beat for the long haul.

in my experience external frame packs are more adaptable -- i run several different bags on the LK35 frame for instance -- and by far the pack of choice for heavy, difficult loads through difficult terrain. the Sting, or any other internal or frameless pack, not so much.

that said these are just my experiences and preferences. YMMV.

 

[MrEd]

i'd suggest it kind of is the same scenario. i do a fair bit if green woodworking of various sorts and that means i am often scavenging windfall and suchlike for my wood supply.

given the choice of taking the LK35 or the Sting out through the bush and hills where there are no trails -- clambering up and down hillsides and through unmanaged woods -- to haul back 30, 40, 50 kilos of wood i'll take the LK35 any day. more stability under weight, better weight distribution, more options for lashing and so forth. IMO it's not that the LK35 in particular is better at this kind of thing (though it is unusually good), i'd say pretty much any well designed external frame pack would offer the same benefits.

on the other hand, for a couple days out where the load is mostly bulk vs dead weight -- especially if there is long hiking on more or less prepared trails -- i'd opt for the Sting. that adjustability is hard to beat for the long haul.

in my experience external frame packs are more adaptable -- i run several different bags on the LK35 frame for instance -- and by far the pack of choice for heavy, difficult loads through difficult terrain. the Sting, or any other internal or frameless pack, not so much.

that said these are just my experiences and preferences. YMMV.

Got you, and actually we are on the same page, I just misunderstood your initial uses. Yes agreed, which I is why I am loath to part with the LK35.
The other advantage is strapping awkward shaped items to it - straps can be looped anywhere on the frame.

multi day hike with ‘normal’ stuff (food, clothes, shelter etc) = sting

carrying a heavy cast iron hand pump and fittings or something to a remote camp etc = LK35 frame

(I don’t do very much of the latter hence why I reach for the Sting most often)

 

[Laurence Milton]

Don't get rid of the LK35 whatever.....

 

[Erbswurst]

Yes, rather get a cast iron hand pump!

 

[SSGN_Doc]

they aren’t ultralight, but tbh they arent ultra heavy either - it’s more comfortable and bigger and has more features than an LK35 that everyone raves about. But I don’t get it!!

i do prefer my olive green one to my DPM one though

True. I don’t find them objectionable in weight. But some “gram weenies” want to shave every bit of weight they can, and start with the pack.

an external frame pack (as already mentioned) is just a different animal and can change some of the characteristics if how a load feels.

I have a Sting and Strike, largely because I was looking for a pack that was bigger than an ALICE pack or patrol pack, but not as big as a full Bergen in the 90 to 120 liter pack. The Strike is my preferred size. The Sting is nice for longer trips or colder weather where there may be more bulk in the pack.

 

[Erbswurst]

Regarding the camouflage pattern.
Am I right to see here:

Sting on the left 100% Dutch.
Patrol Pack on the right 100% British.
In the middle Dutch Strike with British side pouches?

Is that the difference between the both DPM patterns?

 

[packalot]

i've got British and Dutch DPM gear -- including all three packs that SSGN_Doc has shown in the photo -- and IMO the camo differences are fairly subtle. based on the gear i have i'd say the British DPM seems to have a bit more of the green while the Dutch has more of the rusty brown, maybe the sand color on the Dutch DPM is a bit lighter too. that said in my experience normal wear and tear mostly erases the significance of those differences. after "proper" use and abuse they look pretty much the same to me.

as to the side pouches on the Strike in the photo my guess is that they are Dutch. i say this not because i see the camo as being Dutch but rather the zipper configuration on the Strike: on my Strike the side pouch zippers run from top to bottom whereas the zippers on all the British gear i own run from bottom to top. in other words the British pouches wouldn't fit on the Strike (unless you turned them upside down). this assumes that my Strike is standard and not some weirdo exception.

and yes, the zippers on my Sting run bottom-up (British style, for lack of a better designation) as opposed to the Strike's top-down. how the Dutch justified having totally opposite zipper configuration between the Sting and the Strike -- again assuming i have standard issue gear -- is beyond me.

fwiw the only side pouches i've seen that fit the Strike (because of the zippers) are either standard issue Dutch gear specifically for the Strike or Belgian "Jigsaw" side pouches with also used the top-down zipper orientation. i don't have Dutch pouches for the Strike so i make do with the Belgian pouches for now. eventually i'll flip the Strike zippers so they run bottom-up and just use a couple of the British DPM pouches i have kicking around.

 

[SSGN_Doc]

The Strike bag is Dutch, the side pouches were separate and are Dutch. It is an early model bag that has the bottom to top zipper orientation. I suspect the color differences are simply from being from different cloth lots and probably slightly different ages. The side pouches were also significantly dirty while the bag was very clean. The lightest color tan is stained to a duller more brown tone.

one way to know if the pouches were for Dutch bags is the type of attachments for shoulder straps. British side pouches feature plastic buckles. Dutch side pouches have simple loops to run straps through.

And yes, from left to right the bags are Dutch Sting, Dutch Strike, British Northern Ireland patrol pack.