Well this pack arrived yesterday after buying from a well known seller from ebay for an absolute steal at £48 and I have to say it was a top service and I'm so glad I chose this one.
Thinking of storage space, it was a tough choice between this (50L without side pouches) and the Berghaus Vulcan 2 (Circa 80L without side pouches). My current pack is a Proforce 66L and I was struggling to fit everything in for a winter overnighter.
In the end I decided against the Vulcan purely because I thought it may end up being too much of an impedance scrambling under/through various woodland obstacles, its a big pack and I'm confident now I've got the Sting that I made the right choice.
Firstly some pictures and a bit of a review of the LA Sting.....
IMG_0107 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Lots and lots of attachments. The Molle system is quite popular now and perfect for the utility and water pouches I have should I find I need to make more room in the main compartment.
IMG_0108 by davidpingu, on Flickr
A side by side comparison. My current Proforce pack on the left and the Sting on the right. In this shot the Proforce looks marginally bigger I think and that would make sense being advertised at a 66L in comparison to the quoted 50L of the Sting. Looks can be deceiving however!
There's a noticeable difference in the camo patterns on both of these packs. For British woodland I think the Proforce has the better colours personally. I'm not clued up on the difference in the patterns to know what they both are though.
The push clips are also a noticeable difference. The Proforce clips are in green and slightly more aesthetically pleasing. The black clips on the Sting are more basic looking but feel more robust.
IMG_0109 by davidpingu, on Flickr
The webbing at the bottom of the pack gives various options for attachments. Can anyone tell me what the two loops are typically used for?
A close up of the front with its many Molle attachments:
IMG_0110 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Below is a close up of the above picture, showing the fasteners nearer the top. The lower fastener on both sides has nothing attached? More attachment options I guess but can anyone think of a possible use for these?
IMG_0111 by davidpingu, on Flickr
At the top of the front, just below the opening are two much larger Molle type attachments and running directly below is this thick green section. Again no ideas with these so answers welcomed!
IMG_0112 by davidpingu, on Flickr
IMG_0113 by davidpingu, on Flickr
From the side these webbing straps are dual use. You could attach stuff to these but they also tighten to compress the pack depth wise at least giving the impression that its smaller if needs be I guess, mimicking more of a 40L offering for a lighter pack up. The zips in shot are compatible with the PLCE pouches which add an additional 10L each side so plenty more room if required. I've also heard of people tucking things like a water bladder in between the pouch and the pack as there is supposedly a nice little cavity in there even when its all loaded up. The Zips themselves are YKK and very heavy duty looking. Built to last.
IMG_0114 by davidpingu, on Flickr
A very comfortable and well padded back system. Not adjustable from what I could see so I'm not sure if these packs vary in size or its just one size fits all. Properly worn, the hip belt feels a little higher than my previous pack but tested with full kit it feels as though it fits right. I'm not sure if its designed to sit slightly higher to accommodate a utility belt or if its just a bit smaller. I'm only 5ft 9" though so I doubt I'm too big for it.
The shoulder straps are also very comfy with the usual plastic loops for attachments. I've seen people attach knives here but I've not ever tried it myself. Perhaps someone can explain how that works?
The only thing I felt lacking in this area is the additional clip that runs across sternum sort of height in the chest and clips the two shoulder straps together for better weight distribution. Whether I'll miss this feature remains to be seen.
There are also two square sort of attachments half way down the straps. Again no idea what these are for? Does anyone know?
The lid with nice solid attachment points:
IMG_0115 by davidpingu, on Flickr
IMG_0116 by davidpingu, on Flickr
An absolutely cavernous main compartment. It's much wider both width wise and in depth than the Proforce and this is the area you really need the space. Heres a pic of the the proforce for comparison which is narrower and more tubular in design:
IMG_0124 by davidpingu, on Flickr
In the above picture of the Sting's main compartment you'll see an extra pocket. I think these are generally used for a water bladder. There's also a little zip pocket on the underside of the lid:
IMG_0117 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Here's the Sting packed with stacks of stuff to give more idea on size:
IMG_0130 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Huge top pocket on the outside too. I can literally get 2 - 3 times more in here than the previous pack. Handy for quick access items.
IMG_0132 by davidpingu, on Flickr
A final shot of the LA Sting with my stove attached on the outside using the molle attachements and my czech bedroll secured to the top. There were so many attachment options it was really easy to secure the bedroll just with the webbing that comes on it!
IMG_0135 by davidpingu, on Flickr
On to the Proforce for further comparison:
Bottom compartment where I would store my sleeping bag. For now I just pack the sleeping bag in to a bin liner as a waterproof barrier but I'll be getting a proper waterproof compression sack shortly:
IMG_0118 by davidpingu, on Flickr
IMG_0119 by davidpingu, on Flickr
You can just about see the draw string which seperates the main part of the bag. Anything heavy will open this up and drop it through to the bottom. Not a fan of this design personally.
IMG_0120 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Another issue with the proforce is the stitching has failed in a few areas. The webbing that secures the frame has pulled away. This was after several trips carrying a 35lb sand bag along with about 20lb of other kit such as clothes, food and water. The sand bag fell from the main compartment straight through to the bottom. Wasn't particularly impressed considering this was advertised as being heavy duty.
Another area where the stitching has failed at the top of the shoulder strap:
IMG_0129 by davidpingu, on Flickr
The Proforce isn't all bad though and does have a few features that the Sting does not:
IMG_0133 by davidpingu, on Flickr
This comes included with the Proforce and is advertised at being completely waterproof. It can zip completely shut over the bag for transport or storage in damp areas and I would often use it as extra storage when all set up out at camp. I'd put easy access items in it like dry foods etc. I've also used it to put my Czech bedroll in as an extra waterproof layer and then attached it to the outside of the pack. (There was no way it was ever going to go in was there!!)
One other thing I've used it for is as a bag cover whilst its on my back for torrential rain. You just leave it unzipped but pull the draw string to secure it around the majority of the bag with just the part that meets your back and the shoulder straps being left on show. It's also been said that you can pack your whole bag in to it, zip it shut and use it as a floatation device. Can't say I've tried it! Perhaps a good option to have it packed within this if taking it out on a canoe etc though.
The only disadvantage with this added feature has been that it takes up space within the pack when being carried but not in use.
IMG_0127 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Good padding around the back and the shoulder straps with the same plastic loops as the Sting. This pack also has the extra clip across the chest, clipping the shoulder straps together for better weight distribution. Something the Sting doesn't have. This pack also has the ABS (adjustable back system) feature so you can fine tune the fit.
The hip belt is also very well padded and features a nice little storage pouch within easy reach:
IMG_0128 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Heres the top lid of the Proforce. Ordinarily this has the elastic type cord with the toggle. Useful for attaching light waterproofs or similar when not in use I guess but I ended up removing it as I was forever finding myself caught up on branches etc. Very annoying! The webbing attachment points could probably be modified for something more useful perhaps. What do people tend to do with theirs?
IMG_0125 by davidpingu, on Flickr
A double draw closure at the top of the main compartment. Useful for a little expansion perhaps but I think there may be other benefits to this sort of closure. Either way its something the Sting doesn't have.
IMG_0121 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Centre pocket on the front with some attachment points. They are very different to the Molle system and I've never found use for them. The extra pocket is useful for separating kit and the pack also has pockets on either side so I tend to use those pockets for water storage. Extra pockets are useful, and the standard Sting (without the additional side pouches) doesn't have any on the outside other than the one at the top of the pack. The Proforce also has the pocket on the lid but its a fair bit smaller compared with the Sting.
The only disadvantages having the extra pockets as a standard feature is that there is less space for attachments so you are limited with options where has the Sting could quite easily have more pouches attached in a variety of ways. Also I tend to find with the Proforce that the more the main compartment swells, the less easy it is to get items in to the side and front pockets. They tend to just get compressed outwards which is far from ideal.
IMG_0122 by davidpingu, on Flickr
This last picture of the Proforce shows the other attachments on the right hand side of the bag. There are 3 of these in total and they run in parallel down the bag. They would be ideal for holding an axe (which I don't have) or perhaps walking poles (I don't have those either!)
I have used them for carring a couple of lengths of wood though. You could probably fit two wrist thick sections in so useful for carrying a bit of firewood or collecting a section you want to take home to do something with, like carving.
That's pretty much it in the way of a review and comparison of the two packs so I'll just close this post by adding my conclusion.
Conclusion
Both packs have their differences and although there are a few things the Proforce has that the LA Sting doesn't I think that the Sting wins hands down. It's certainly the more versatile of the two packs and looks a much tougher piece of kit that is likely to suffer a tough life much more comfortably. I'm already looking at having to pay for repairs on the Proforce after just a few outings.
The Proforce was around £80 brand new whereas the LA Sting cost me £48 second hand. New I know the Sting is considerably more expensive being around £100 - £120 and I've only ever seen them sold new across the water on the continent.
Although the Proforce is advertised as the bigger of the two I just don't think it is. I've not weighed the two side by side but the Proforce also feels quite a bit heavier. I'll try and get them both weighed shortly for a better idea.
For the second hand price I paid for the LA Sting I think you'd struggle to find a more versatile and bullet proof pack. I'm one very happy customer indeed and I take my hat of to Lowe Alpine for this offering!
If anyone has some tips or examples of how they've used the various attachments, similar to what either of these packs has on offer, then I'd be very interested to see and hear your examples.
Thanks for reading, I hope this proves helpful to people
Thinking of storage space, it was a tough choice between this (50L without side pouches) and the Berghaus Vulcan 2 (Circa 80L without side pouches). My current pack is a Proforce 66L and I was struggling to fit everything in for a winter overnighter.
In the end I decided against the Vulcan purely because I thought it may end up being too much of an impedance scrambling under/through various woodland obstacles, its a big pack and I'm confident now I've got the Sting that I made the right choice.
Firstly some pictures and a bit of a review of the LA Sting.....
IMG_0107 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Lots and lots of attachments. The Molle system is quite popular now and perfect for the utility and water pouches I have should I find I need to make more room in the main compartment.
IMG_0108 by davidpingu, on Flickr
A side by side comparison. My current Proforce pack on the left and the Sting on the right. In this shot the Proforce looks marginally bigger I think and that would make sense being advertised at a 66L in comparison to the quoted 50L of the Sting. Looks can be deceiving however!
There's a noticeable difference in the camo patterns on both of these packs. For British woodland I think the Proforce has the better colours personally. I'm not clued up on the difference in the patterns to know what they both are though.
The push clips are also a noticeable difference. The Proforce clips are in green and slightly more aesthetically pleasing. The black clips on the Sting are more basic looking but feel more robust.
IMG_0109 by davidpingu, on Flickr
The webbing at the bottom of the pack gives various options for attachments. Can anyone tell me what the two loops are typically used for?
A close up of the front with its many Molle attachments:
IMG_0110 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Below is a close up of the above picture, showing the fasteners nearer the top. The lower fastener on both sides has nothing attached? More attachment options I guess but can anyone think of a possible use for these?
IMG_0111 by davidpingu, on Flickr
At the top of the front, just below the opening are two much larger Molle type attachments and running directly below is this thick green section. Again no ideas with these so answers welcomed!
IMG_0112 by davidpingu, on Flickr
IMG_0113 by davidpingu, on Flickr
From the side these webbing straps are dual use. You could attach stuff to these but they also tighten to compress the pack depth wise at least giving the impression that its smaller if needs be I guess, mimicking more of a 40L offering for a lighter pack up. The zips in shot are compatible with the PLCE pouches which add an additional 10L each side so plenty more room if required. I've also heard of people tucking things like a water bladder in between the pouch and the pack as there is supposedly a nice little cavity in there even when its all loaded up. The Zips themselves are YKK and very heavy duty looking. Built to last.
IMG_0114 by davidpingu, on Flickr
A very comfortable and well padded back system. Not adjustable from what I could see so I'm not sure if these packs vary in size or its just one size fits all. Properly worn, the hip belt feels a little higher than my previous pack but tested with full kit it feels as though it fits right. I'm not sure if its designed to sit slightly higher to accommodate a utility belt or if its just a bit smaller. I'm only 5ft 9" though so I doubt I'm too big for it.
The shoulder straps are also very comfy with the usual plastic loops for attachments. I've seen people attach knives here but I've not ever tried it myself. Perhaps someone can explain how that works?
The only thing I felt lacking in this area is the additional clip that runs across sternum sort of height in the chest and clips the two shoulder straps together for better weight distribution. Whether I'll miss this feature remains to be seen.
There are also two square sort of attachments half way down the straps. Again no idea what these are for? Does anyone know?
The lid with nice solid attachment points:
IMG_0115 by davidpingu, on Flickr
IMG_0116 by davidpingu, on Flickr
An absolutely cavernous main compartment. It's much wider both width wise and in depth than the Proforce and this is the area you really need the space. Heres a pic of the the proforce for comparison which is narrower and more tubular in design:
IMG_0124 by davidpingu, on Flickr
In the above picture of the Sting's main compartment you'll see an extra pocket. I think these are generally used for a water bladder. There's also a little zip pocket on the underside of the lid:
IMG_0117 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Here's the Sting packed with stacks of stuff to give more idea on size:
IMG_0130 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Huge top pocket on the outside too. I can literally get 2 - 3 times more in here than the previous pack. Handy for quick access items.
IMG_0132 by davidpingu, on Flickr
A final shot of the LA Sting with my stove attached on the outside using the molle attachements and my czech bedroll secured to the top. There were so many attachment options it was really easy to secure the bedroll just with the webbing that comes on it!
IMG_0135 by davidpingu, on Flickr
On to the Proforce for further comparison:
Bottom compartment where I would store my sleeping bag. For now I just pack the sleeping bag in to a bin liner as a waterproof barrier but I'll be getting a proper waterproof compression sack shortly:
IMG_0118 by davidpingu, on Flickr
IMG_0119 by davidpingu, on Flickr
You can just about see the draw string which seperates the main part of the bag. Anything heavy will open this up and drop it through to the bottom. Not a fan of this design personally.
IMG_0120 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Another issue with the proforce is the stitching has failed in a few areas. The webbing that secures the frame has pulled away. This was after several trips carrying a 35lb sand bag along with about 20lb of other kit such as clothes, food and water. The sand bag fell from the main compartment straight through to the bottom. Wasn't particularly impressed considering this was advertised as being heavy duty.
Another area where the stitching has failed at the top of the shoulder strap:
IMG_0129 by davidpingu, on Flickr
The Proforce isn't all bad though and does have a few features that the Sting does not:
IMG_0133 by davidpingu, on Flickr
This comes included with the Proforce and is advertised at being completely waterproof. It can zip completely shut over the bag for transport or storage in damp areas and I would often use it as extra storage when all set up out at camp. I'd put easy access items in it like dry foods etc. I've also used it to put my Czech bedroll in as an extra waterproof layer and then attached it to the outside of the pack. (There was no way it was ever going to go in was there!!)
One other thing I've used it for is as a bag cover whilst its on my back for torrential rain. You just leave it unzipped but pull the draw string to secure it around the majority of the bag with just the part that meets your back and the shoulder straps being left on show. It's also been said that you can pack your whole bag in to it, zip it shut and use it as a floatation device. Can't say I've tried it! Perhaps a good option to have it packed within this if taking it out on a canoe etc though.
The only disadvantage with this added feature has been that it takes up space within the pack when being carried but not in use.
IMG_0127 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Good padding around the back and the shoulder straps with the same plastic loops as the Sting. This pack also has the extra clip across the chest, clipping the shoulder straps together for better weight distribution. Something the Sting doesn't have. This pack also has the ABS (adjustable back system) feature so you can fine tune the fit.
The hip belt is also very well padded and features a nice little storage pouch within easy reach:
IMG_0128 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Heres the top lid of the Proforce. Ordinarily this has the elastic type cord with the toggle. Useful for attaching light waterproofs or similar when not in use I guess but I ended up removing it as I was forever finding myself caught up on branches etc. Very annoying! The webbing attachment points could probably be modified for something more useful perhaps. What do people tend to do with theirs?
IMG_0125 by davidpingu, on Flickr
A double draw closure at the top of the main compartment. Useful for a little expansion perhaps but I think there may be other benefits to this sort of closure. Either way its something the Sting doesn't have.
IMG_0121 by davidpingu, on Flickr
Centre pocket on the front with some attachment points. They are very different to the Molle system and I've never found use for them. The extra pocket is useful for separating kit and the pack also has pockets on either side so I tend to use those pockets for water storage. Extra pockets are useful, and the standard Sting (without the additional side pouches) doesn't have any on the outside other than the one at the top of the pack. The Proforce also has the pocket on the lid but its a fair bit smaller compared with the Sting.
The only disadvantages having the extra pockets as a standard feature is that there is less space for attachments so you are limited with options where has the Sting could quite easily have more pouches attached in a variety of ways. Also I tend to find with the Proforce that the more the main compartment swells, the less easy it is to get items in to the side and front pockets. They tend to just get compressed outwards which is far from ideal.
IMG_0122 by davidpingu, on Flickr
This last picture of the Proforce shows the other attachments on the right hand side of the bag. There are 3 of these in total and they run in parallel down the bag. They would be ideal for holding an axe (which I don't have) or perhaps walking poles (I don't have those either!)
I have used them for carring a couple of lengths of wood though. You could probably fit two wrist thick sections in so useful for carrying a bit of firewood or collecting a section you want to take home to do something with, like carving.
That's pretty much it in the way of a review and comparison of the two packs so I'll just close this post by adding my conclusion.
Conclusion
Both packs have their differences and although there are a few things the Proforce has that the LA Sting doesn't I think that the Sting wins hands down. It's certainly the more versatile of the two packs and looks a much tougher piece of kit that is likely to suffer a tough life much more comfortably. I'm already looking at having to pay for repairs on the Proforce after just a few outings.
The Proforce was around £80 brand new whereas the LA Sting cost me £48 second hand. New I know the Sting is considerably more expensive being around £100 - £120 and I've only ever seen them sold new across the water on the continent.
Although the Proforce is advertised as the bigger of the two I just don't think it is. I've not weighed the two side by side but the Proforce also feels quite a bit heavier. I'll try and get them both weighed shortly for a better idea.
For the second hand price I paid for the LA Sting I think you'd struggle to find a more versatile and bullet proof pack. I'm one very happy customer indeed and I take my hat of to Lowe Alpine for this offering!
If anyone has some tips or examples of how they've used the various attachments, similar to what either of these packs has on offer, then I'd be very interested to see and hear your examples.
Thanks for reading, I hope this proves helpful to people
Last edited:
