Test ad

Army style rucksack or backpack

Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
3
Warriors, when it comes to hiking it's very important to have a light carry bag but yet the bag has to be roomy enough for all your essential survival gear.

In your experience how big is the backpack needs to be? 30L 45L or 70L?
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
7,064
Welcome. Without more context its really a question of how long a piece of string is. Environment, skill level, goal and duration all play a part. For example for me on an average day in the woods where I live, the essentials fit in a Ribz-pack which is about 8L. That is enough to keep me alive long enough to be found. As soon as I'm working with clients, that essentials pack has a volume of about 30-35L. Back home in Canada in winter, it wouldn't be unheard of for just basic gear to take up nearly 70L in insulating layers, and extra calories. On the other end, there are a few chaps here who have the skills such that what they need is either in their shirt pocket, or within view at all times from the natural environment.

If I was to recommend someone a pack size to start with as they learned survival skills without any other context, I'd say 45L should get you enough room for a pretty comprehensive 10-essentials list, as well as some safety margin, while being sell built enough to carry the likely heavy load of a novice, or budget spender. You won't do a week out of one, but a weekend living rough would be very manageable.
 

foxyrick

British Pork
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
2,254
As noted above, we need far more context to give a meaningful answer to that, and more insight into your experience and what you intend doing and surviving.

My day sack can be either 18L or 45L, depending on what I'm up to. 3-day sacks would generally be the 45L or 65L, 100L if I was doing some climbing or caving and needed the kit. My long distance sacks are 65L and 100L. When I was carrying a GHB in the car it was in a 45L sack, but not one of my better ones in case it got stolen. I don't keep a BOB in a backpack because it's not a likely scenario, but the kitbag I use would slip into the big sack.

I will say one thing though: I would trade 'light weight' for well-fitting comfort and strength when it comes to packs, if you plan on carrying it for an appreciable amount of time. I know from experience that I would rather carry the extra weight of a Kifaru or Eberlestock pack, long distance, than any other, lighter weight, pack I've ever had.
 

cricketdave

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
5,537
Yeah really depends on terrain and duration. As a soldier I carried a far different load than a camper or backpacker. Some of the packs work well for both some don't.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
8,037
I have 24L, 48L, and 70L bags. Which one depends on what for and which season.
 

22-rimfire

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
19,385
I use a smallish 5.11 back pack for hikes if I intend to carry much. At times I carry their shoulder bag which I can carry most of the "essentials" in the woods. I have a larger one for longer hikes or when I am carrying a lot of camera gear if I don't want to carry a "camera bag". Sometimes I just slide the camera bag inside the 5.11 back pack which provides me with a lot of flexibility. I stap the one 5.11 onto my bike if I am carrying camera gear on it for protection. It can make the bike a little top heavy, but it works.
 
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
2,553
I honestly couldn't tell you the size of my pack, but I use my Condor light assault pack for everything. Motorcycle, mountain biking, hiking, whatever. Small enough to be comfortable, large enough to carry my gear. Love that backpack.

Added picture(it's damn near empty right now).
hdG46pO.jpg
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
3
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
7,064
Save your money. don't bother with a 40$ pack unless you can buy it person. The stitching quality, padding, and all that stuff will likely not be there in a cheap pack. It also won't likely fit properly. A bad fitting pack is as bad as bad fitting shoes to kill you on a hike. If you have an REI near you, or even a surplus store, you're better off with a pack you can try on, and load some weight into. If it doesn't transfer to your hips, you can do serious nerve damage in your shoulders.
 

foxyrick

British Pork
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
2,254
I completely agree with Gadgetgeek.

Many years ago a friend and I went on our first treck together. He used a cheap sack that he had only tried on in the shop for a minute, with no weight in it. It looked OK, and held his kit. I actually questioned him on it before we left, but he said it was fine.

Just six hours in, his arms were turning blue from the pack restricting blood flow at the brachial arteries. The sack didn't handle weight well and the straps fit him so poorly the way they went round his shoulders that he was in severe pain, as well as turning blue. There was no hip weight transfer at all from the waist belt (not a hip belt) on the sack.

It sounds an extreme story but it's completely true. Admittedly, the one you're looking at looks better than his, but the point still stands.
 
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
2,553
I'm planning to go on a full day hike, may be 2 days. Camping overnight is an option. The temperatures at night might fall below 10C. I really like your bag M McFeeli but I'm worried it might be a bit too small to carry food, water and clothing, how many liters is your bag? The closest I found was this waterproof bag http://militarytrained.com/product/military-multifunction-waterproof-backpack-bag/ But it doesn't say how many liters it is.

I wish I could tell you, haha. I have absolutely no clue of the size in liters. I tried to find out and all I could find was one that looked like it, from Condor that's a bit over 1300 cubic inches.

Mines an old bastard, picked it up 6 years ago or so from a local Army and Navy surplus. I wouldn't consider it for a week long camping trip, but 48 hours it's perfect. 72 may be pushing it, but I'm sure it can be done if you pack smart. To me its that perfect size.. Not too cumbersome or obnoxious, but big enough for most of my trips.

It's my go to bag for just about everything, but it's mostly on my back for when I trail ride my KLR.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
7,064
1300cI is right around 20L. Thats enough room for an overnight if you really have your gear sorted, but since you are just starting out, and your equipment will likely change around a fair bit (also sleeping bags tend to be pretty big when they are cheap) I'd really be looking at that 45-50L mark with good suspension. Conditions matter though, stove and fuel or just a pot and a fire, tent and sleeping bag, or tarp and blanket, all those choices can drastically change your gear volume and weight.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
358
I do a lot of backpacking. I currently use an Osprey 85L bag. I got it used and it works great. Very comfortable. I'd kind of like a 60L pack though now. I have acquired lots of small and lightweight gear, so I won't have a problem. I just used the current pack on a 2 week Philmont hike last month. For an overnight or weekend trip I have a 40 L.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
564
For the money a used Marine ILBE is hard to beat. The lightweight guys will complain, but it can handle a fair amount of weight comfortably. Not a first pick to tackle the Appellation trail but a great rugged pack that will meet your needs and hold up well.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
1,204
I do a lot of rucking for the military and do it in my spare time to stay in shape etc. I will say that you should carry the biggest pack you are comfortable with. Honestly it’s all about how the pack feels on you. Once you get your ruck right, you can load that bad boy all you want and it won’t feel too bad. Conversely, you could have a light loaded pack that just feels like hell if it’s not the right one for you.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
2,668
I would strongly suggest you forget about military looking, multi attachment, uber functional, military looking backpacks. If you want to carry a load and do it in confort, stick to mountaneering packs.

There is a big big big difference between carrying the gear for an overnight or not. For a day hike you will not need a sleeping pad, nor a sleeping bag (ligther or heavier, but bulky anyway), coocking gear (although you could stick to cold food), etc.

For you needs I would go with a 45+10 backpack. I am pretty happy with my Lowe Alpine Alpine Attack backpack. Unless a climber, you won't need the ice axe attachments, but overall is a great pack. Empty is only 850 gr and you can remove the top lid/pouch if you don't need it.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2015
Messages
86
I find a 45lt to 50lt most useful in a bag as I can overnight for more days yet still use it as a daypack, most come with compression now and I strap it down. I don't use a military pack in that size. I bought a Mountain Smith ultralight much reduced in cost because though this model was one of their early attempts at UL, it carries multi day weight the most comfortably of any pack I own. That as others state is the most important point of a pack. How does it carry.

For single overnights I can just about fit what I want in one military pack and that is the BW alpine pack from West Germany. It is a day pack. It lacks a hip belt but I can do a minimalist overnight with it.

Someone mentions the ILBE above. I would like to try one. I have an ARC'TERYX Bora 65 I bought off eBay as a travel pack and despite endless reviews remarking on comfort I hate the bloody thing. It just never rides right or feels good. Keep meaning to sell it. The top lid also constantly slips and doesn't ride correctly unless the pack is full to bursting.
 
Top