50-65 Liter

[Zeno]

For a first time pack, and first time Thru Hiker, is a 50-65 liter pack to big, just right, or not enough?
SOBO 2011

[Llama Legs]

yes, if you have a compact gear set and resupply often. which you should strive to do...

[bigcranky]

The answer is, Yes.

Seriously, it depends on a lot of other things -- namely all the things you want to put inside it. If you want a big synthetic sleeping bag and a 3-inch thick thermarest and a 2-person double wall tent and a huge kitchen kit, and a change of clothes for each day on the trail -- well, no, that's why they make 110 liter packs.

But if you choose the kind of gear that is currently popular with long distance hikers, then sure, a 50 or 60 liter pack is plenty big enough.

[Kerosene]

For a first-timer, 65 liters should work just fine in that it's big enough to store the gear you think you really need to bring, but not so large that you'll be tempted to "add just one more thing".

It's a lot tougher to trim down your gear and plans to fit into a 50L bag unless perhaps it's a peak-of-summer overnight hike. Of course, by the end of your thru-hike you may very well be able to fit into a 50L, but I'd start in the 55-65 range.

[garlic08]

Welcome to WhiteBlaze.

Some good advice you'll see on this site is to get everything else you want to use first, then get the pack last, and get the right pack for the weight and volume. As Big Cranky says, there's such a wide range of pack types and sizes, there must be a reason for that.

Not only do you need to consider the volume, you need to consider the suspension. Some hikers are using frameless packs, with relatively large (60L+) volumes, that are only rated for carrying less than 25 pounds, but the packs themselves weigh less than one pound.

[JAK]

For a first time pack, and first time Thru Hiker, is a 50-65 liter pack to big, just right, or not enough?
SOBO 2011
Funny, I'm metric but I have to convert pack sizes to British units.
Hmmm 1 litre ~ 4x4x4 = 64ci. 50x64= 3200, about the size of my Jam2.
I think ULA make the better pack in that size range, for 15-30 pounds.

It isn't big enough for everything they will want to sell you,
but in the long run, it should be big enough for everything you need.

[Rocketman]

South Bound 2011.

You'll be starting off with nearly a summer weight outfit, so it should be easier to fit your stuff into a pack of that size, and still carry some "nice to have" things.

You'll be finishing in late Fall or Early Winter down South, so as you move down that way, your demands for warmer and bulkier clothing and sleeping gear will rise. But by then, you should be experienced enough to discard much of the "nice to have" stuff, and still fit it into the pack.

And, if that is not true, completely, you can figure out how to attach some kind of side pockets or other bags onto the main pack, and with your then great physical condition, haul it through the rest of the trip with no problem.

You can always have your family or support team be looking for an end of season "big bag" of your choice, just in case you happen to need it. And if you end up not needing it, a "New, With Tags" or NWT listing in sold gear will most likely get back all your money on the unused "Big Bag".

So, you have lots of options, including not buying the pack till you have all the equipment.

It won't be long till you can buy your primary pack (and your "backup big bag") at season closeout prices. About September or so, if not earlier.

[JAK]

I used to think that keeping the volume down wasn't that important compared to keeping the weight down, and this is true for pack weights under 20 pounds, unless you are running, but for 30 pounds or so it really does help alot if the 30 pounds is kept rather compact. Still nice to have some extra volume so that you don't have to fuss too much, or put undue stress on the pack.