In the previous two installments of this discussion, we looked at a basic approach to accepting expert advice on gear selection for outdoor living, including the last installment, which focused on the pack design and selection. In this installment, we’re going to look at more considerations of pack selection, as part of the “Big Three.” In backpacker lingo, the “Big Three” refers to the three most essential elements of a base load. They also happen to tend to be the three heaviest items in the base load, which means, if you can reduce the weight of those three, while still managing to maintain sufficient quality and robustness to last, you can reduce the overall weight of your load far more effectively than by say, cutting the handle off your toothbrush, or drying dots of toothpase on a playing card, in lieu of just carrying a travel size tube of dentrifice. The “Big Three” is comprised of (1) the pack itself, (2) the sleep system, and (3) the shelter. (1) The Pack Since we covered a great deal of information on pack selection in the last installment of this series, we’re going to hit this one quick, and move on. Since Ray Jardine first started publishing guides to Ultralight backpacking, with his Pacific Crest Trail Hiker’s Handbook, which included his design and sewing instructions for making a small, frameless pack out of ripstop nylon that was so light it was more a purse than a pack, companies have been looking for ways to cash in on that idea. This has included everything from frameless day packs to larger, but still lightweight packs that either use your closed-cell foam sleeping pad for the frame, to those using just a slight sheet of HDPE plastic as a so-called “frame sheet.” It has since progressed to using ultralight, super thin fabrics like Dyneema and Silnylon for the body of the pack. While these have their cheerleaders, I’ve never been able to get behind them, just because, even with Cuben fiber, which is reputed to be slightly more robust than Kevlar, I just don’t trust it. I’ve stuck with some sort of 400-1000denier fabric in my packs, despite the weight penalty this incurs. Since I’m already dealing with a weight penalty from having extra fabric and zippers, for external pockets, it’s never really bothered me much. A decent, “budget” model pack like my Kelty Red Cloud 90 still weights less than five pounds. That’s going to keep me from meeting the ridiculously arbitrary 10# base load “ultralight” barrier, but I also know (because I’ve done it, albeit not on purpose) that I can drop that pack off a 20 foot cliff, into rocks, and it’ll be none the worse for wear. The advantage of having the frame—internal or external—is that when you DO have to load it heavier than you’d like; i.e. heavier than your “base weight,” it’s not going to tear the stitching out of the pack, and it’s not going to collapse the pack into a shapeless blob hanging around your ass. While I have a lot of love for an external frame pack, when I’m wearing body armor, if I’m not wearing body armor, the internal frame beats it, hands down, which is why something like 98% of the outdoor recreation market ended up moving away from external frames and into internal frames. It just carries a load better. Anybody who claims otherwise is not actually putting any real miles in with the packs on. Even Kelty, who is the originator of the aluminum framed external frame pack, and STILL produces external frames, now offers more internal frames than external frame packs. (2) The Sleep System When we say “sleep system” in preparedness circles, most minds immediately jump the the classic Military Sleep System (MSS) with it’s inner bag, summer/patrol bag, and GoreTex bivy bag. It’s a decent (not outstanding) system that can still be procured reasonably inexpensive, and it must be cool, because it’s government issue, right? Not really. Continue reading: https://www.patreon.com/posts/if-it...paign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link Continue reading...
