Author Topic: New packsack options (Read 1390 times)

willysjeep134 · « **on:** September 13, 2005, 05:31:20 AM »

I have been using the same Kelty aluminum external frame and Boy Scouts Camper pack bag for the bast eight years. The bag has one main pocket and three small pockets. It holds about 2942 cubic inches.

This pack has served me well. I have trimmed down my load when hiking so that I have extra room in my pack on almost every trip. Now, I think I am ready to make a little change. I am seriously considering getting a Duluth Pack.

I mostly go on weekend hikes in the summer. Occasionally I will take a winter hike or a week long summer hike, but that isn't too often. I also canoe quite a bit. With my frame pack I could lash my sleeping bag on the outside and have all the room in my pack bag for other equipment. With a soft packsack I would need extra room to store my sleeping gear inside the bag. I have been using a pair of wool blankets more often now, and they do take up less room in the summer, so I don't know just how much more room I will need. The two packs I am looking at are the Duluth Pack No 2 and the Duluth Cruiser No 2.

The Duluth Pack has leather straps and a tump line. It holds 3970 cubic inches. This is an envelope stype pack, just two pieces of canvas sewn together. The pros of this pack are; it holds about 25% more than my current pack, it has a tumpline to take the place of the hip belt on my current pack, and it costs $105. The main disadvantage is that it measures 24" wide, that might be akward to carry through the woods, although I am a pretty big guy.

The Duluth cruiser is a box shaped pack. It holds 3280 cubic inches, but has no tump line. This pack costs $85. I feel a tump line is necisairy for heavy packing if the pack doesn't have a hip belt. The narrow width, 19". This means it will go through the brush easier. This pack is also larger than my curret bag. I am afraid that the lack of a tumpline will make this pack more difficult to carry. I have occasionally carried my frame pack without a belt, and it wasn't fun. A tumpline would be nice. Also, if I need to bushwack and take a small pack with, I have a packbasket that would be fine as a daypack.

I think I am leaning more towards the classic Duluth No 2. Pack. I can always use my packbasket if I want to take a day hike or bushwack where a big pack would be a hazard. For $20 more I might as well get more room and a tumpline.

willysjeep134 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 15, 2005, 05:16:46 AM »

Well, I went and did it . I put a Duluth classic No 2 pack on order. It cost me $115 out the door. I should be getting it within a few weeks. I plan on maybe taking it on an overnight winter campout in the coming month or two, so I might have a product review later on. We'll see how this works out.

Woodbutcher · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2005, 03:03:59 PM »

Dear Willys:
This backpacking thing needs a bit of experience, ya know. At least for me. Yeah, I got a back pack, and a belt thing around my waist, Kmart specials, but they're comfy. But I only need to move around for a day for hunting or fishing, so my needs are minimal, for now. Been learned a few things by experience so far! Working on the coffee thing with the pop can stoves, lately. Thermoses are breakable, too heavy, bulky, don't keep things hot for long, ect. ect.
I'm looking forward to your "report". Thoughts from someone like you are more valuable to me, than any magazine article. Thank you!
Woodbutcher

hunting1 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 21, 2005, 02:33:52 AM »

Take a look at the Eberlstock Just One packs! They are great!

willysjeep134 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 27, 2005, 09:15:40 PM »

Got the pack a few days after I ordered it. It is extremely heavily built! The leather straps, even the shoulder straps, are made of bridle leather that must be 1/4" thick. The shoulder straps are held on by thirteen big copper rivets. The back flap has three buckle down straps that are long enough to allow me to lash a sleeping bag down under the flap. There is a light cotton pocket sewn into the inside of the bag, like on the inside rim opposite the shoulder straps.

I have carried my junk home from college for the weekend a few times with this pack already. I can see that it isn't all that uncomfortable with a blanket right next to the back for padding. If I were carrying big pointy objects a blanket would ne necisairy to make things comfortable. With a pretty heavy load in the pack it rides nice. I wouldn't probably want those leather straps riding directly on exposed skin during the summer, but I never go shirtless so that shouldn't be a problem. Over all I think the pack should serve me well.

One added note, I guess canoeists seem to have a more traditional take on camping equipment in some cases than average backpackers. The Duluth packs are targeted at canoeists. The average backpacker probably will think I'm crazy for not having an internal frame pack with a hip belt. Although some of these super ultralight guys are going to frameless rucksacks again because the frame adds weight. Of course, these guys are carrying like 20 pounds of equipment total, so they don't need anything but shoulder straps I guess. Anyways, I will report back once I put this pack to some more serious testing.

alpini · « **Reply #5 on:** December 04, 2005, 05:44:10 AM »

I myself really like traditional styled rucksacks and I think they do have a definate place in this world of techno backpacking.

I do think the #2 Duluth would be better for carry than the #1 model Duluth because of size and shape. The larger model seems to be a kinda " saddle bag " for canoeists and would be quite comfortable as long as it stayed on the canoe. I've never used a trumpline.

I use my canvas/leather rucks for dayhiking or light overnighters. I learned not to over load these things because of the no hipbelt thing. I do find they are very useful for stop and go situations, handier to use than a strapped down, compressed hipbelted packs. Great for carrying stuff that requires quick access and fast " no hassle " repacking.

Right now, I'm playing with a surplus German ruck that I picked up at a good price. I used to pass these things by, never giving these bags a second glance because of the dated technology. I now find these old rucks are my most used packs when it comes to light "on the move" type hunting and fishing.

I'd like to hear your report on this pack when finally get to use it.

willysjeep134 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2006, 01:56:46 PM »

I just did a little light hiking with my pack. I was at the Harlow Lake cabins in Marquette co. Michigan. The parking lot is about a half mile from the cabin I was staying at, over a packed snowshoe trail. I hiked in once with a load of food, clothes, and bedding for the weekend. It went quite well, and I found that I really didn't need the tumpline. One of my friends walked in later that night and said it was supposed to drop down to -1 that night, so I hiked back out and got my fathers aqua-view camera out of the truck, and also some water bottles. It was a very light load. I returned to the cabin again. Finally two of my friends showed up from southern Wisconsin at around 2 am. I walked back out with one of my friends and packed back in a 30 pack of beer so the cans wouldn't burst in his truck.

Over all, the pack rode well so long as it was packed right. I also packed to the cabin a load of firewood from the woodshed 1/10 mile away. I didn't find the tumpline very useful, but I never carried anything long enough to need to give my shoulders a break. I did find that I couldn't double over my sleeping bag and roll it up like norma, then it wouldn't fit so well under the flap. I zipped it up and rolled it up; that made it a little wider load to carry, but it wasn't too bad. I like the rugged simplicity of this pack. Even without padding, carrying something hard and flat like a case of beer was pretty easy. I'm going to give it a try on a longer hike once the weather warms up a little.