View Full Version : Lightest rucksack that can carry 45lbs comfortably?
Hi all, I currently have two lowe alpine rucksacks that are roughly 5.2lbs each and can carry up to 77lbs very comfortably all day long if need be.
My question for you guys is this; does there exist a rucksack that is no more than 3.75lbs in weight that is capable of carrying a 44lb load very comfortably all day long? The reason I give 3.75lb as a maximum weight is because I want at least a 1.5lb drop it weight to justify spending the $$$ on a new lighter rucksack, anything less wouldn't really justify the costs.
I eagerly await your reponses!
Probably is one somewhere. A better question is, why would you want to carry a 44lb load? Rather than look for a new pack I would take a serious look at my gear, and try to cut the weight by a half. 25lbs on your back will make hiking a lot more enjoyable than close to 50.
Tipi Walter
12-28-2012, 20:12
Probably is one somewhere. A better question is, why would you want to carry a 44lb load? Rather than look for a new pack I would take a serious look at my gear, and try to cut the weight by a half. 25lbs on your back will make hiking a lot more enjoyable than close to 50.
Maybe he wants carry 30 lbs of food for a 15 day trip.
I think that someone needs to calculate an age-weight limit that becomes WB law
At 18, join the special forces and run with 125 lbs...............................scale the math down from there.
Q
Hey guys I'm doing an unsupported 418km thru-hike in summer 2013 and believe me I have been dilligently lighteing my items of kit and spening plenty of $$ in the process. The food and water takes 25lbs on it's own, the other 18lbs is absolutely everything else from my pack to my shoes.
The pack itself is the last item of kit I could save a few lbs on so hence my question here.
I'm pretty sure my ULA Catalyst could, but I certainly wouldn't!
The Kifaru KU line will allow you to carry that much weight.
Here is a link for there KU 3700 at 2lbs. 9oz.
http://kifaru.net/KU3700.html
TRU ...
coach lou
12-29-2012, 09:30
A.l.i.c.e.
coach lou
12-29-2012, 09:48
I think that someone needs to calculate an age-weight limit that becomes WB law
At 18, join the special forces and run with 125 lbs...............................scale the math down from there.
Q
I think the basic idea of what you say has merit and is worthy of discussion. Maybe in Walters forum.......when I don't have games
Many Moons
12-29-2012, 09:54
Hi all, I currently have two lowe alpine rucksacks that are roughly 5.2lbs each and can carry up to 77lbs very comfortably all day long if need be.
My question for you guys is this; does there exist a rucksack that is no more than 3.75lbs in weight that is capable of carrying a 44lb load very comfortably all day long? The reason I give 3.75lb as a maximum weight is because I want at least a 1.5lb drop it weight to justify spending the $$$ on a new lighter rucksack, anything less wouldn't really justify the costs.
I eagerly await your reponses!
I bought a Osprey Atmos 65L. It is right at your weight u want and it feels real comfortable to me with a load in it. I carried 45 lbs last year on 108 miler with a cheap Dick's Field and Stream 65L pack. So this year with the Atmos and a lighter load 32 or less hope this pack will do. I am still way to heavy for the more experienced hikes on this site. Check out the reviews and I found it lists at REI for $240 , but found and bought on Amazon for $151 at Al's Sport.com Hike On!!!
Miller
I think that someone needs to calculate an age-weight limit that becomes WB law
At 18, join the special forces and run with 125 lbs...............................scale the math down from there.
Q
That formula works out to about 1lb per year for TW. Just guessing TW's age of course.:D
Tipi Walter
12-29-2012, 10:19
I think that someone needs to calculate an age-weight limit that becomes WB law
At 18, join the special forces and run with 125 lbs...............................scale the math down from there.
Q
That formula works out to about 1lb per year for TW. Just guessing TW's age of course.:D
Ha ha ha. Problem is, the formula doesn't take into account the current slew of 18 years old who want to start out with a 10 lb pack. By age 50 they'll either be going out in a loin cloth with a q-tip first aid kit or calling it quits, wising up and carrying 75 lbs.
Slo-go'en
12-29-2012, 13:53
For that weight load I'd be looking at an external frame pack. It will still be about 5 pounds, but a lot more comfortable to carry than a internal frame.
grateful 2
12-29-2012, 14:59
I have an Osprey Aether that could do it comfortably. Only been used one time because I decided to go ultralight. Pm me if you are interested.
I have an older Camp Trails Adjustable II external frame backpack that would meet your requirement. It weighs just under 4 pounds and will be as comfortable as anything with 40+ pounds (although it is a stretch to call that weight comfortable). You can still find this pack on eBay on occasion but last time I looked it seemed there were some versions that weighed closer to 5 poounds. Maybe they varied by year? On my scale mine is 3 pounds 14 ounces.
AllTheWayToMordor
12-29-2012, 16:13
The Deuter ACT 50 could definitely take that weight. 3# 5oz.
I have an older Camp Trails Adjustable II external frame backpack that would meet your requirement. It weighs just under 4 pounds and will be as comfortable as anything with 40+ pounds (although it is a stretch to call that weight comfortable). You can still find this pack on eBay on occasion but last time I looked it seemed there were some versions that weighed closer to 5 poounds. Maybe they varied by year? On my scale mine is 3 pounds 14 ounces.
I have two different external frame packs from back in the day. Both made by WFS. Both are under 4 pounds as well. One is 3#14oz, the other is 3#9oz. I still use the "heavier" one on occasion if the trip necessitates it. Beauty of having numerous packs is I can choose the right tool for the job.
chiefduffy
12-30-2012, 07:34
Take a look at the Gregory line. A little heavier than what you need, but you can get it down by removing the top pocket and misc other stuff on the pack. I bought one for a heavy-weight trip, and I cant believe how comfortably they carry weight.
Hey guys I've looked in to every suggestion made here, even creating an excel spreadsheet to highlight the pro'/con's of each pack, however I've tweaked and refined my kit list to be 41lbs which is closer to the recommended maximum carry load for these ultralight packs that are on the market, now the only thing stopping me is the cost! Thanks for all your suggestions.
Look into an REI Flash 62.
No 18 y/os in SF they ain't smart enough yet, but if you want see somebody carrying crazy ruck look at a 60mm mortar crew.
I've have the ULA Catalyst I've used for guiding, overnight climbing (rope is bulky and weighs a bit!), winter and anything that requires heavier loads.
For 3 lbs and the weight it carries, it is fairly light. Like how it carries, and, like all ULA packs, pretty durable.
But, unless you have an need for 40+ lbs (see above), a lighter pack and assorted gear may suit you better.
skinewmexico
01-02-2013, 15:49
Catalyst would be my choice, although I've never had 44# in mine. And I miss external frames. Jansport D3 or D5 with the wrap around arms on the frame. Those were awesome. Maybe they'll become the trendy thing again some day, when we're not all acting like we're bushwacking to Everest.
No 18 y/os in SF they ain't smart enough yet, but if you want see somebody carrying crazy ruck look at a 60mm mortar crew.
Sad part is there are, well maybe 19...early 03 i think the army started the "18X-special forces enlistment option" so now 17 and 18 yearolds can go stright from basic to a prep course, to SFAS, then to the Q course. so in about a year an half they can be special forces now. now not alot dont make it, but some do.
Feral Bill
01-02-2013, 16:55
Maybe he wants carry 30 lbs of food for a 15 day trip. Or maybe doing family trips. carrying more than one person's load.
maybe clem
01-02-2013, 17:01
That's pretty subjective... I've carried 40+ lbs. of winter gear in my Golite Gust (22 oz.) comfortably - but I don't know that a lot of other people could say that. I have a long torso, maybe that helped. They don't make them anymore so you'd have to have one custom made for you.
Deuter Act lite 65 + 10
Seconded. I have this pack and love it—comfortable at 41 lbs and easy to pack. Upgraded from a Gregory Palisade that is way too much bag for my current needs. Gregory makes great kit, however.
Seconded. I have this pack and love it—comfortable at 41 lbs and easy to pack. Upgraded from a Gregory Palisade that is way too much bag for my current needs. Gregory makes great kit, however.
So would you guys say the Deuter packs are among the best for carrying heavy loads comfortably in?
chiefduffy
01-04-2013, 16:59
Hey guys I've looked in to every suggestion made here, even creating an excel spreadsheet to highlight the pro'/con's of each pack, however I've tweaked and refined my kit list to be 41lbs which is closer to the recommended maximum carry load for these ultralight packs that are on the market, now the only thing stopping me is the cost! Thanks for all your suggestions.
Keep in mind when you get close to max weight on these packs they will most likely hurt you. I strongly recommend if you are going to carry 41 lbs, get a pack with a max weight around 50.
dornstar
01-06-2013, 15:21
Another Catalyst vote.
So would you guys say the Deuter packs are among the best for carrying heavy loads comfortably in?
I have a few packs and have tried a few others but I can't say I have extensive experience with too many brands. My Gregory Palisade is a tank. Nearly 7 lbs. when I first started backpacking we did 3-4 mile hikes into the woods and set up a base camp. Back then I was wearing jeans and wool sweaters and my pack was nearly 65 lbs. the Gregory carried that weight well and if I was going to need that much gear I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the Gregory again.
The last time I brought the Palisade was to sequoia. My pack was about 45 lbs and a lot less bulky. The Palisade was too big and too heavy for the job. It wasn't easy to pack with a smaller volume of gear.
In the meantime I bought a osprey Stratos 36. Great pack for the size. And I LOVE the back panel that lets lair flow between the pack and your back. I don't think I've ever put more than 20 lbs in that but the quality of the bag is outstanding. My buddy who uses a 65 liter Osprey (Aether?) loves his and he typically carries about 45 lbs.
I was between 35 & 40 lbs for my next trip to Sawtooth Mountains. I was hoping for under 30 but I started bringing more camera equipment. I decided I wanted a smaller pack that was under 4 lbs, or as close to it as I could get.
Before the trip I looked at the Atmos, but rejected it due to the back panel. Similar to the Stratos (which I loved) but I didn't think it would easily fit a bear can. I actually purchased a Kestrel 68. This felt great fully loaded and was a fantastically well made pack. Then I put a full bladder in and it changed the shape of the back panel and made the whole pack uncomfortable—for me. So, I returned it to REI.
I tried the Gregory Savant 58 with about 30 lbs in the store. It felt great with that weight, but I thought I might have issues with the volume (again, needed to fit a bear can).
So, I decided against the savant and bought the Dueter. It easily fit the bear can, had enough volume for all of my gear, was 4 lbs and felt very comfortable fully loaded (about 40 lbs).
I haven't spent the time yet cutting off excess strap material, but I'm sure I could drop a few more ounces off the pack.
I'll never be UL. That's just not the way my friends an I backpack. But at 40 or more lbs you're not UL and are probably looking for a Osprey/Gregory/Dueter. All bombproof in my eyes. It looks like Gregory and Osprey are starting to fill in the 4 lbs 60L pack space in their lineups and I would have had a lot more to choose from if I was looking this year. But I am extremely happy with the Dueter and I would highly recommend the brand.
atraildreamer
03-31-2013, 11:13
I think that someone needs to calculate an age-weight limit that becomes WB law
At 18, join the special forces and run with 125 lbs...............................scale the math down from there.
Q
Considering the higher cost of the lightweight gear, income should be factored in the equation. :-?
Captain Skivvies
04-02-2013, 00:43
Two thumbs up on the Atmos 65. It's very comfortable and will handle the weight.
TheYoungOne
04-02-2013, 12:02
My problem with recommending ULA packs is even the manufacture does not recommend carrying a 44lb load, most recommend 40lb or less as a "MAX LOAD"
The Only ultra-light pack that I can say will definately take 44lb with ease is the stuff made by Kifaru, either the KU5200 or the KU3700 depending on how much room you need. They are made to handle 70lb and up. The only problem is the are crazy expensive.
http://store.kifaru.net/packs-c3.aspx
Other than that, like Chefduffy recommended get they lightest weight pack you can find that the manufacture says can definately handle loads up to 50lb. If you over pack and go beyond the manufactures suggest weight, the pack blow out and carrying your gear down the trail in your arms will be on you.
The way you asked your asked your initial question and the way some of your follow up questions have been worded it's going to lead to endless debate never really getting a targeted answer or bring you to a solid conclusion or concensus to your questions.
So would you guys say the Deuter packs are among the best for carrying heavy loads comfortably in?
There are plenty of packs that are quite capable of handling heavy loads. Gregory, Osprey, Deuter, they all make packs with great suspensions that can easily carry 40 odd pounds, and certainly 50lbs. I've also heard rave reviews about the Arc'teryx Altra packs. Also of note, if you're on a budget, is the REI Crestrail series. I'm the type of person that errs on the side of caution, so I like having a bit more pack than I need. However, with that territory comes the risk of the "good idea" fairy. You have extra space, and the extra load hauling capability, so why not fill it? Just gotta be careful with that.
At the end of the day, it's all about the fit. Go to a store, try on as many packs as you possibly can! For a 40lbs load, I really wouldn't recommend any of the typical UL packs (aside from Kifaru). Think of it the same way you do a sleeping bag. The general advice is to use a sleeping bag that is rated for 10*-15* colder than the coldest temperature that you will encounter on a trip. It's the same way for packs. If you plan on carrying 40lbs, get a pack that can carry 50. Nothing is ever comfortable when it's pushed to its limit. A heavier pack that fits and carries weight comfortably IS a lighter pack at the end of the day.
Wise Old Owl
04-02-2013, 19:47
Ah we are on page two ... have you considered a Sherpa?
http://www.trailjournals.com/entry.cfm?trailname=11616
Hi all, I currently have two lowe alpine rucksacks that are roughly 5.2lbs each and can carry up to 77lbs very comfortably all day long if need be.
My question for you guys is this; does there exist a rucksack that is no more than 3.75lbs in weight that is capable of carrying a 44lb load very comfortably all day long? The reason I give 3.75lb as a maximum weight is because I want at least a 1.5lb drop it weight to justify spending the $$$ on a new lighter rucksack, anything less wouldn't really justify the costs.
I eagerly await your reponses!
It depends alot on what the 45 pounds is. 45 pounds of rocks or canned goods requires a different pack than 45 pounds of well packed gear. It is possible to pack your gear in such a way that the gear itself becomes the frame of the pack.
So the answer is a pack like a ULA Circuit or Catalyst, or maybe even a Golight Jam2 or Pinnacle, if you pack them right, but I think at 45 pounds you would need a well fitted hip belt, like the ULA vs the Golights. The hip belt doesn't really have to be all that well padded, as long as it is wide enough and shaped right, and is in the right place.
Lot of advantages though to being able to pack in a hurry without too much fuss, especially when doing a resupply in town. So it is good to have some extra volume, which can actually be a weight saver. Also a little more structure and a good hip belt, but it has to be done smart. Too much padding and weight is often just for appearance, or to allow for sloppy fits. Done smart a 2.5 to 3 pound pack for 45 pounds at 4000 to 6000 cubic inches should be very doable. I have a Jam2, and would not recommend it for more than 30 pounds, mostly for lack of hip belt as I can provide the structure. The ULA Catalyst I do not have and have not tried, but I would give it a go at 45 pounds for sure, if I lost 30 pounds off my belly first.
Hey guys I'm doing an unsupported 418km thru-hike in summer 2013 and believe me I have been dilligently lighteing my items of kit and spening plenty of $$ in the process. The food and water takes 25lbs on it's own, the other 18lbs is absolutely everything else from my pack to my shoes.
The pack itself is the last item of kit I could save a few lbs on so hence my question here.I totally get that. I would have to lose some belly fat to do what you are up to, but I like the idea of going longer between resupply. More independence and less distraction. Sobo or Nobo ?
randyg45
04-03-2013, 13:07
They haven't made them in years, but if you can find a used Wild Things AT... buy it.
I wouldn't take a farm in Ga for mine.