New meets old kit.

[1jack1pike]

I am looking at putting a modern – traditional pack together.

What I want is the modern convince of well-fitting pack, easy to use kit, lightweight (ish), but I also want to combine it with the traditional aspect of long lasting, hard wearing, bomb proof kit.

My main concern, though I am sure many of you will just think its me being daft, is how it will look together, MOLLE and orange things don’t tend to go well with brown leather and canvas things.

So I am wondering, this is where I need your help please, where can I make a trade off? I want to find that balance of having modern kit, but still having the traditional ways.

For example, my recent action is to use a hobo (ikea stove) stove instead of a gas stove, this will possibly be upgraded to a bushbox at some point. I am wondering if you guys can think of any more and help me combine the traditional methods into my modern pack setup.
Thanks!! (hope this makes sense!!)

 

[Old Bones]

Personally, I think your making life hard for yourself.

Its perfectly possible to buy 'long lasting, hard wearing, bomb proof kit' right now - Podsac has long had that reputation, and they still have some left on their website, before the old Podsac stock runs out. However, 'you can have it cheap, have it good, and have it light - chose any two still applies'. There is a tradeoff in anything, and I'm sure if you look round the press releases of various outdoor manufacturers (big and small), you will find variations on those tradeoffs.

A wll fitting pack is just that - it has to fit you. For me, a decent back system is essential for a large rucksack. Modern framed rucksacks have them, but a 40 year old surplus (but bombproof) pack wont. That doesn't mean it wont be comfortable for an individual, but I suspect most of us would prefer the newer design after a while. There are loads of canvas rucksacks out there, but whether they will suit is another matter.

Thats something the military has finally come around to - they tended to buy bombproof and cheap, only to find that many soldiers either bought their own kit, had the issued bag modified (there is a cottage industry for modding British Army bergens - such as http://www.jayjaysbrecon.co.uk/ ) , or put up with it but suffered. Now, armies are much more in touch with the civilian market, and are often getting those manufacturers to design or make kit for them. Berghaus, Lowe Alpine and (good) Karrimor have been doing it for years. I understand that Arcteryx now designs packs for the US Army (and potentially eye wateringly expensive they are too - http://leaf.arcteryx.com/ProductFind.aspx?language=EN&category=Packs_and_Travel_Systems ). Looks lovely, and I think there other manufacturers as well involved in supplying the US military.


However, they are much lighter (a knacked soldier is an ineffective soldier), comfortable (ditto) and obviously tough enough for the military, whilst being much lighter than canvas, for example. Remember as well that canvas gets very heavy when wet (one reason why pattern 58 webbing wasn't always loved), and leather has a similar problem. There is a reason why you dont find such materials being used by people climbing Everest. When Lowe came up with the modern internal framed pack back in 1967, they didn't use lots of leather, etc http://lowealpine.com/uk/explore/lowe-alpine-story/ - they wanted it to be as light as possible.

And do you need it to be bombproof? If your going on a six month expedition through the Hundu Kush and the jungles of SE Asia, then probably (or just braving baggage handling at the average airport...), but for most people, you can trade some of the over engineering into a lighter and more comfortable load.

If you want canvas/leather, then have a look at some of the surplus packs (Endicotts is an excellet start), but remember that the german pack they have is 35L, but weighs more than a civilian 50L, with a fairly simple strap. In theory there is no reason you couldn't have an old style looking pack (canvas/leather/metal fittings) with a modern back system/inner frame/waterproofing and general design, but you'd have to put it together yourself, and the result would look a little odd, not to say pretty expensive for what you'd end up with.

I think a decent brand pack (try it on first), suited to what your using it for in terms of weight/size, perhaps with Molle attachments (although not particularly needed for most situations) would work well, and if you can get a second hand military sack at a good price, then great. But you might be paying a lot more than for much the same thing in 'civvie colours'. If you want that 'classic look', then your probably going to have all the downsides too, or go upmarket (http://www.modernmanbags.com/califo...ck-with-split-upper-lower-storage-army-green/), but I'm not sure if its made to be bombproof.

There is a thread here about canvas bags - http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-103737.html

 

[1jack1pike]

Hi many thanks for the advice, will check those websites out.

Dont want to insult you but I think you got the wrong end of the stick. My poor explanation I am sure!!

I have spent the last few years hiking and "dabbling" in bushcraft and as such have accumulated some nice modern kit. But when I flick through peoples photos of bushcraft and bushcraft kit it makes me really want to put together a traditional kit. But after using the "nice shiny kit" I dont want to go back to uncomfortable canvas pack (and I have tried a few, there just not my thing).

So what I am looking for is if there is any traditional ways / kit I can use which will complement my modern kit. The few examples I have done for instance is rather than a gas stove (though I do still use it occasionly) I have a Ikea hobo stove, also with water, rather than carry 3L in a bladder and use a filter I have one bottle and a milbank bag which is used in conjunction with boiling. Just daft things like that - it gives me a sense of being closer to the nature that surrounds me, withought loosing the modern comfort, I find a lot of modern kit is made and marketed as a replacement of modern convenience

I hope that helps explain a bit better?! Cheers

 

[Old Bones]

Ok - that makes much more sense!

Frankly, you can do what you like - and something like a hobo stove actually has modern counterparts, such the one which charges a usb device, or ones made from Ti. There is a thread on Outdoor magic about Cottage manufacturers, and you might find a hobo stove which is a bit lighter, more efficient, etc. Or even make one yourself.

I'm probably not the best person to advise you, since I've got used to my creature comforts (older and dodgy back), but I'm sure others can suggest ways that you can trim down the modern stuff, but still be comfortable. I suspect that some things will be easy - charclothes for instance will work fine (but a bic lighter is always a good idea!). A charger for that mobile is going to be useful, as is an LED headtorch. On the other hand, if wool, etc works for you, then use it.

Good luck - I'd be interested to see what the old school essentials are, and what modern day stuff people really value.

 

[John Fenna]

If weight is not a problem - make your own to your own spec!
As my many threads will testify, you can make everything you need with only basic tools (though a torch is useful, as is a phone for emergencies...) without sacrificing comfort ... just the miles you walk in to camp

 

[Polecatsteve]

I totally see where you are coming from with a want for traditional kit. Traditional doesn't have to mean heavy, uncomfortable, to me it just feels more, enjoyable?

As you say, finding the right mix of immersion and practicality is the key. When I first started bushcraft, camping, outdoorsyness...call it what you will. I used to carry everything and the kitchen sink. It used to be so uncomfortable (I filled a plce Bergen and side pockets. I'd have something for every eventuality. And used nearly none of it!

Now, I know more and carry less.

On over night trips I adapt my kit to where I'm going. If say well over 50% of the weight I carry is food and drink(not water...drink) ;-).

I now KNOW I can start a fire on a semi dry day with only a knife and cord, I know how to purify water and so on.

Now all of my kit is there for a reason and not "incase". Which allows me to chose what lovely items I want.

My mix of traditional and modern is taking TP with me...save the moss! In all seriousness my modern item is a small brass torch I keep in a pouch. It makes finding stuff in my pack at night much easier than a candle lantern.

My hobo stove also uses a trangia burner for backup / ease. So you can see where little compromises make it fun too.

I hope you have as much fun as me making your traditional kit up.

 

[rg598]

I think you have to be honest with yourself about what you mean by "traditional". I hope I am not being rude, which is not my intention, but from what I gather from your posts, you just like the look of traditional gear, and want modern gear that will give you the same stylistic choices.

If you are actually interested in being close to nature, then the best way to do it is to actually go be in nature. No amount of leather, canvas, steel, etc will get you any closer.

Similarly, "bombproof" gear is not in any way related to traditional gear. There is bombproof modern gear and disposable traditional gear. In the past people used what worked. Petrol and alcohol stoves have been used in wilderness travel going going back to the late 1800s.

If you feel that some modern gear is just there to provide modern conveniences, and that separates you from nature, then just get rid of the gear. You don't have to replace it with "traditional" gear, just get rid of it. I guarantee you that an ultralight backpacker who is on a ten day trip through the woods is a lot closer to nature than someone carrying 60lb of leather and steel, cooking bacon by the trail head.

If on the other hand it's just about the look, then I can't be of much help. I like gear that works, and I like skills that are practical. I find the two together let me get out into nature. I don't connect to nature through the gear. The gear is just there as a tool to let me be in nature. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your question all together, which is possible.

 

[Polecatsteve]

Ross,

While a understand where you are coming from about "getting out there". There is something lost when you carry an ultra-light titanium cookset and gas stove with the latest long handled titanium spork-a-majig wearing clothing that was developed to climb to the moon sleeping in a tent that sounds like a bin bag in the wind.

Yes, if it was a long distance race, hike, health reasons I would be with you 100%....]

However there is something so satisfying (to me at least) by using a canvas pack, cooking from a billy I could toss down a mountain and pick up and use again, lighting a fire using natural tinder and a flint.

It is all down to what compromises we want to make from modern day advances against what "feels" right.

I feel im rambling, I guess its one of those situations where "If you have to get it explained to you, you will never understand".

You are definitely not being rude in your post, I like how if you got 10 people and told them to gear up for a 3 day camp all 10 would be totally different. Thats life!



Back on topic though, If you want "traditional" with modern day benefits, look at things like Fjallraven's gear. The Fjallraven Stubben (backpack) seems to fit your requirements. A modern material pack made from G1000 (fancy Polycotton) but with more classic looks. Also doubles a seat and has removable side pockets like PLCE.

 

[rg598]

Polecatsteve,

I completely understand the appeal. I was neck deep into that style myself at one point. That's why I told the OP to be honest with himself about what he means by "traditional". Too often we simply feel the desire to use certain type of gear because of the way it makes us feel, but then we feel compelled to justify it's use through practical terms. There is just no need for it. If one feels better wearing certain type of clothing, then by all means. After all, this is a hobby. But we don't need to justify it with things like the kit being more durable, or getting one closer to nature. "Because I like it" is a perfectly good reason to do something in my book.

If on the other hand, it is an issue about durability, practicality, more efficient use of natural resources, etc, then it would be a different conversation.

 

[Polecatsteve]

"Because I like it".

Sums it all up Ross. Exactly what I mean.

 

[1jack1pike]

Thanks for the comments guys, all much appreciated. Like many of you said its all a matter of opinion of what works for who and where - but I am looking for a blinding flash of inspiration at the moment!

Old Bones - I will go check that thread out thanks for the info! Thats what I am looking at really, modern* equivalents of tried and tested traditional kit, such as the hobo stove over gas and a millbank bag over filters. Ok - that makes much more sense!

Its not so much that I hate modern kit and want to get away with it, I am trying to avoid what I have done so far (through hiking a lot) which is have lots of nice kit for certain circumstances in different places when a good chance has it that what I want is what I dont have on me**. I want to go back to basics with kit that will work all year round and will suite all my needs.

The problem I see as it is: I could go buy a ton of posh hiking kit and be comfortable etc, but I wont like it, I physically dont like the modern kit. Equally I could go buy all traditional kit, but I wont be comfortable (when hiking distances of 12-15 miles +) I know some of you will laugh and call me weak, but yeah, I am a bit of a wuss. Hiking a few miles into a wood may be fine for most and me but I want to be able to carry it miles on all sorts of adventures, and having my shoulders hurt and being miserable is not my idea of fun!

* By modern - I am talking about the weight and composition here, though I am not an ounce counting meanie if I can make my pack lighter I will but it is the last consideration. As for the composition, I have a wool bush shirt, I could wear it every day and it will still look new, its just tough as nails (but I wont wear it for pretty much any of the year as its too hot, and pretty itchy!), but then I have fancy hiking kit that is good for keeping warm and dry etc but if you look at it wrong it will fall apart - I need to find a balance somewhere.

** I find a lot of modern kit is aimed at consumerism - which I am a sucker for. For example sawyer filter, great bit of kit, but I cant use it in freezing conditions therefore I need another filter to work in those conditions when it is freezing etc etc.

John - making my own kit is something I occasionally dabble in, and the satisfaction you get is huge! Where I can make my own, I try to. But for the most part I am not really in a position to be making much, no tools or skills!

Ross - I dont think your being rude at all Your exactly right, I want modern kit, in stylistic choice. Exactly! Its not that I feel that traditional kit will make me close to nature, its just the options it provides for me. If for example, I used a gas stove, I can find a spot and brew up in a few moments, if I went for the more traditional cooking over fire, I would need to find tinder and such along the way. I have a craving for using more of what I know to the test, rather than walking past a fungi and going "oh thats xyz, I can use that for abc" as I have no need to use it.

I think bombproof was a over exaggeration on my own part, your right with what you say. I just ' feel' that traditional kit is more harder wearing, a flint and steel is more than likely (!?!?) going to break. Where as I have to pray to the gods of Jetboil when I use my stove as who knows weather it will work of weather it chooses to take my eyebrows off!

Now I dont want to be the one seeming rude here either but using what worked is not really an option so to speak, I have no real need to go outside (other than the fact I get moapy if I dont), where as in days gone past the old boys were working outside year round. Yes they had to use what worked, but I can use what I like and go home if it doesent and leaving the house has become a total option! But I do see what your saying - why change something if it does what we need it too.

Polecatstove - (love the name by the way!) - Your a man after my own heart, I agree with you totally, there is something just.... satisfying, with that sort of kit? I think what people carry and why is a great debate because everybody has there own ideas and inspiration. I will have to go check that pack out, looks very nice!

Thank you for all the help guys! Much appreciated

 

[rg598]

1jack1pike, I think your desire to use certain gear because it makes you happy when you use it is perfectly good. You are right, we don't "need" to do any of this, so we have the freedom to do things just because we want to. If you are making a stylistic choice, that's fine, and there is nothing wrong with it.

The only thing I will say, just for clarification purposes, is that "traditional" kit doesn't mean basic kit and it doesn't mean more reliable kit. A kit can be basic and reliable whether it be traditional or modern, and inversely, a kit can be complicated and unreliable whether it be modern or traditional. History is filled with examples of both. Flint and steel (traditional tool) is no more reliable than a ferro rod (modern tool); your Jetboil (modern tool) is probably more reliable and efficient than the alcohol stove Nansen carried on his Greenland expedition in 1888 (traditional tool?), just as an example. Consumerism is nothing new either. You have plenty of examples of 18th and 19th century expeditions that carried mind-blowing amounts of "traditional' gear.

All I can say is clear your mind any notions of what traditional and modern gear are and aren't. Those are artificial constructs that we have created. Only reliable gear is reliable; only basic gear is basic; only practical tools are practical; only minimal kit is minimal. If you are looking for any of those things, you can find them in either type of gear whether it's been deemed "traditional" or "modern".

If on the other hand we are talking just about a stylistic choice, then I'm afraid my comments haven't been much help. I'm sure there are manufacturers that specialize in that type of retro gear, I'm just not familiar with them.

 

[Macaroon]

1jack1pike, I think your desire to use certain gear because it makes you happy when you use it is perfectly good. You are right, we don't "need" to do any of this, so we have the freedom to do things just because we want to. If you are making a stylistic choice, that's fine, and there is nothing wrong with it.

The only thing I will say, just for clarification purposes, is that "traditional" kit doesn't mean basic kit and it doesn't mean more reliable kit. A kit can be basic and reliable whether it be traditional or modern, and inversely, a kit can be complicated and unreliable whether it be modern or traditional. History is filled with examples of both. Flint and steel (traditional tool) is no more reliable than a ferro rod (modern tool); your Jetboil (modern tool) is probably more reliable and efficient than the alcohol stove Nansen carried on his Greenland expedition in 1888 (traditional tool?), just as an example. Consumerism is nothing new either. You have plenty of examples of 18th and 19th century expeditions that carried mind-blowing amounts of "traditional' gear.

All I can say is clear your mind any notions of what traditional and modern gear are and aren't. Those are artificial constructs that we have created. Only reliable gear is reliable; only basic gear is basic; only practical tools are practical; only minimal kit is minimal. If you are looking for any of those things, you can find them in either type of gear whether it's been deemed "traditional" or "modern".

If on the other hand we are talking just about a stylistic choice, then I'm afraid my comments haven't been much help. I'm sure there are manufacturers that specialize in that type of retro gear, I'm just not familiar with them.

That's about the size of it; very well put.

 

[John Fenna]

John - making my own kit is something I occasionally dabble in, and the satisfaction you get is huge! Where I can make my own, I try to. But for the most part I am not really in a position to be making much, no tools or skills!

The only way to get skills is to practice them....

 

[PDA1]

A really good combination of new and old is shown in this video from Wilderness outfitters. It is part 1 of a three part series on the Roycroft frame carrying system. Well worth viewing IMO. This is real bushcraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSUkSlrBZN4

Using your tarp as the wrap is an interesting multiple use choice. Maybe with UK weather you would want to have your shelter more easily accessible. All good technique though.

 

[Laurentius]

A really good combination of new and old is shown in this video from Wilderness outfitters. It is part 1 of a three part series on the Roycroft frame carrying system. Well worth viewing IMO. This is real bushcraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSUkSlrBZN4

Using your tarp as the wrap is an interesting multiple use choice. Maybe with UK weather you would want to have your shelter more easily accessible. All good technique though.

I recently made myself a roycroft style frame, I will not call it a roycroft because I could as easily have come up with the basic idea having never seen a roycroft pack and it had some tweaks in of my own to suit me, which is the great thing about making your own, it's personal to you. All the fittings are leather and brass because I like it, and although I have not gone any long distance with it yet, or carried any great weight it is no less comfortable than an internally framed pack, and I think more practical than the old fashioned ladder type pack frames. I can also strap any sized bag to it I want, and a roll top drybag suffices at the moment, though I am on the lookout for something a bit more aesthetic. Yes there is a weight penalty, and no I have not tested it to destruction though if any part breaks it is not going to be hard to fix. I made it because I had the wood available and I thought it would be fun to do, it's not there for surviving the zombie apocalypse. It is modern, because it has been made recently, and traditional because it uses traditional materials which have been available for centuries. (except for epoxy, I compromise there)

 

[sunndog]

Some great posts there ross

Stuff like........"Because i like it" and "this IS a hobby after all".......should be said more often

 

[Old Bones]

The only thing I will say, just for clarification purposes, is that "traditional" kit doesn't mean basic kit and it doesn't mean more reliable kit. A kit can be basic and reliable whether it be traditional or modern, and inversely, a kit can be complicated and unreliable whether it be modern or traditional. History is filled with examples of both. Flint and steel (traditional tool) is no more reliable than a ferro rod (modern tool); your Jetboil (modern tool) is probably more reliable and efficient than the alcohol stove Nansen carried on his Greenland expedition in 1888 (traditional tool?), just as an example. Consumerism is nothing new either. You have plenty of examples of 18th and 19th century expeditions that carried mind-blowing amounts of "traditional' gear.

Excellent points. Just because something is 'traditional', does not always mean it works well in particular circumstances (and I trained as an archaeologist, so I should love everything old!), and there are many examples of people finding it a real trial trying to light a fire with a flint and steel - its not always easy. If they had had a ferro rod, then they might have used it.

Its worth pointing out that in the 18th/19th century, the big heavy kit expeditions often used was often carried by someone else. Its much easier being smug about something being 'bombproof' if your not carrying it! And if you look at the example of the Franklin Expedition, they had lots of 'traditional kit' - it was just wasn't really the right kit for the conditions!

On the other hand, if you were some sort of time traveller and offered someone in the 19th century a material like titanium, perhaps in the form of a hobo stove, they'd might be very interesting - if its stronger and lighter, then why wouldn't you want to use it?

There are certain things which are difficult to improve on - a knife, for instance, and be it a plastic handle or a bone one, certain fundamentals apply. On the other hand, the person who is two days overdue, but refused to take their mobile phone with them is asking for trouble. You could take a carrier pigeon with you, but a phone is easier.

I'm for whatever works, for that person, and in those circumstances. If I'm less exhausted from carrying less weight, then possibly I have more energy to enjoy what I find outside. And the adage 'Only reliable gear is reliable; only basic gear is basic; only practical tools are practical; only minimal kit is minimal' is an excellent one.

The cottage industry in hiking gear has generally come from those looking to lighten their load, and getting something perhaps 'made to measure', or possibly even 'bespoke'. However, there are also plenty of people making things in traditional materials, which are perhaps for another market entirely. Hopefully you will find what you want from one of these producers.

That Fjallraven Stubben looks lovely, but at £200 I dont think I could get that past my wife!

 

[Laurentius]

Some great posts there ross

Stuff like........"Because i like it" and "this IS a hobby after all".......should be said more often

Indeed, I am not a professional hunter humping deer carcases around, nor an alpinist. Is the weight of my kit mission critical? if it is not, then go for whatever floats your boat.

 

[Laurentius]

Its worth pointing out that in the 18th/19th century, the big heavy kit expeditions often used was often carried by someone else. Its much easier being smug about something being 'bombproof' if your not carrying it! And if you look at the example of the Franklin Expedition, they had lots of 'traditional kit' - it was just wasn't really the right kit for the conditions!

The Franklin Expedition had the most modern kit available at the time, they would have fared a lot better, had they had the traditional kit of the Inuit

On the other hand, if you were some sort of time traveller and offered someone in the 19th century a material like titanium, perhaps in the form of a hobo stove, they'd might be very interesting - if its stronger and lighter, then why wouldn't you want to use it?

That's very true, but there is more to it than that, titanium might be lighter, but there is always the expense and that has always been a factor especially if you are kitting out a whole expedition, there is a trade off between the cost of something and the availability of a cheaper but heavier alternative. [/QUOTE]