Pack question - external vs. internal frames

[Niko]

I inherited a nice old school external frame pack form my Pops, still in great condition, that he used when he went on his thru hike back in the day. I see that most of the packs that are made now are internal frame and seems that most people prefer them to the external. Was wondering why they so common to use the internal frame packs nowadays. I'm sure there is good reasons other than it being just a new trend or something. Is a better design, or just personal preference? Or is there any advantages / disadvantages for one over the other? I just wouldn't want to go ahead and use it if it was going to end up being an issue or burden on the trail. Would be great to have your thoughts on the subject.
Thanks - Niko

[RodentWhisperer]

I seem to recall it being said that internal frame packs "hug the body" better than external frame packs, keeping the load from shifting (and thus, preventing one from losing balance).

I grew up with external frame packs, and never had a problem with them. I loved being able to lean my pack up against a tree when I got to camp, and keep it there all night. Very convenient. And I could carry massive weight-- my first trip to Isle Royale NP involved 52 lb of gear/food, and it worked like a charm! I remember always holding the shoulder straps, though, to pull the pack's weight closer to my back, and keep me from "tipping."

There are times I feel like going out "old school" for a weekend-- external frame pack, full-length CCF pad, white gas stove, wool sweater, the whole shot. Just like we all did "back in the day." Ah, memories...

[moldy]

Generally speaking the internals are lighter, more comfortable and today more available. Weigh the thing and compare it with internal frame packs. I have seen thru-hikers with them. My opinion is that unless you are a thru-hiker where 2 pounds matter, you should use the thing until it's either "used up" or you can pass it on.

[FarmerChef]

Generally speaking the internals are lighter, more comfortable and today more available. Weigh the thing and compare it with internal frame packs. I have seen thru-hikers with them. My opinion is that unless you are a thru-hiker where 2 pounds matter, you should use the thing until it's either "used up" or you can pass it on.

+1. If it's not that heavy, external fram packs are still an excellent choice and built with more quality than some internal frame packs of today. However, how it fits you is perhaps the most important criteria. Take it out for a day hike and load it down with 25 - 30 pounds of stuff. See how it feels. Then go to your local REI or outfitter and try on some packs with weights in them (they'll provide them) and compare the fit and feel. If you're lucky, they'll have a treadmill in the store and you can try "hiking" for a bit with the pack on. Sometimes, the first mile or two can feel fine but then that annoying "something" turns into a painful something. With hiking experience, you can more quickly tell where something doesn't quite feel right as soon as you put the pack on and where it will cause you a problem later in the day.

[Lyle]

Used external frame packs for MANY years. They are great. Comfortable, cool, easy to pack, can be used as a shelter support or backrest. They carry heavier loads more comfortably then internal frames. Short of dropping them while loaded, they are built to be pretty bombproof, unlike today's lightweight options that require more care.

That said, I now use internal or frameless packs. My overall load, even on extended trips, is a fraction of what it used to be. This is a function of more experience, carrying fewer "extras", more money to spend on better gear, and most importantly, lighter weight gear available today.

Absolutely no reason a frame pack wouldn't still work great for a thru hike. My one caution would be that nylon deteriorates with age and exposure to ultra violet. I may question how durable the old nylon packbag may be.

[Feral Bill]

Give the old man's old pack a try. My son borrowed my old external for a week's trip last summer and loved the comfort and the convenience of the many pockets.
For a high capacity pack, externals are generally lighter. For bushwhacking and skiing, internals have the edge.

[Son Driven]

I have been using an internal for my training in Minnesota's single digit temps. In order to wear the right amount of clothing to keep from getting chilled, my back is getting all sweaty. I am concerned about how uncomfortable the internal might get in the heat of the summer.

[MuddyWaters]

As was said, internals ride closer to back, making your balance better. This is important in some situations.
As also said, your back is typically hotter, sweatier than the old externals that were well off the back.

But, most externals today are also too heavy and huge by long distance backpacking standards for most to consider them. You dont need a pack made to carry 70 lbs, unless you plan to carry 70 lbs.

The Osprey exos series are actually external frame pack, the 58 weighs under 3 lbs and a lot of people use it. The Zpacks arc-blast is a 13 oz pack and its external frame.

[Likeapuma]

What about something like a Deuter bag, if you're concern with an overly sweaty back?

I just picked up a Deuter Spectro 32 for day hikes & possible weekends... Nice air flow, but forms well. Obviously, that packs isn't large enough for long distance, but maybe something similar?

[Pendragon]

I carried something like 70 lbs of camping and camera gear into Denali National Park with a Camptrails external back in 1987, and I am planning on using that same pack on my upcoming section hike from Springer to Damascus. Only this time I am doing my best to lighten my load below 30 lbs total because these old bones are not holding up quite as well as this pack is. And it weighs no more than many of the internal packs I see being sold online, with much better capacity and versatility (pockets galore). Of course, if you intend to go ultralight, then yea, since every ounce counts, you'll end up using a tiny, thin little bag with tiny straps that will blow out if you put anything in it. Viva La External!!!

[HooKooDooKu]

I've been using an external frame pack for the last 15 years. I only just last year decided to try an internal frame pack to see if I could save on some weight.

The main fundimental difference I've noticed is that I could carry a lot more on an external frame pack because I had all sorts of places to lash stuff. For years, I comfortably lashed the tent, sleeping pad (LE version, so it was a full 20" wide) and sleeping bag to the frame of the external frame. With the new pack, the only place to lash anything big is the bottom. I've changed to a NeoAir for sleeping pad, but now I'm stuck putting the sleeping bag or tent INSIDE the internal frame pack... eating a LOT of space.

The other thing is that because internal frame packs hug your body better so that you don't need a much space to walk. This is why internal frame packs are recomended if you're going to be taking it off trail so that you don't need as much open space to get the pack through. In a crowded, you're also less likely to whack someone when you spin around while wearing an internal frame.

[swjohnsey]

You can do Route 66 in a Model A. Obviously, the external frame packs work. Technology marches on.

[Tuckahoe]

You can do Route 66 in a Model A. Obviously, the external frame packs work. Technology marches on.
Hogwash! When discussing internal or external frames both have advantages and disadvantages. Neither is worse or less advanced than the other. Additionally any modern technologies that can be put into an internal frame can certainly be used in externals.

[swjohnsey]

Hogwash! When discussing internal or external frames both have advantages and disadvantages. Neither is worse or less advanced than the other. Additionally any modern technologies that can be put into an internal frame can certainly be used in externals.

I like external frames. I occassionally carry my large ALICE. We are talkin' thru-hikin' the AT. Point me to the externals that weigh 18 ozs.

[MuddyWaters]

I like external frames. I occassionally carry my large ALICE. We are talkin' thru-hikin' the AT. Point me to the externals that weigh 18 ozs.

Zpacks arc blast. Oh wait, it weighs 13oz. Sorry.

[MDSection12]

I grew up using an external and lashing almost everything to the outside... Once I got an internal and could keep all my gear in the pack, close to my back, and away from snagging branches, I never went back. I still keep the frame packs around as loaners though.

[Niko]

I think I'm going to give the old man's pack a shot, and least test it out and see how it feels with some weight in it and traversing different terrains. First, most definately looking into some replacement straps and a new waistbelt.

[Double Wide]

I love me some external backpacks. They keep my back from sweating, they're comfy, and they'll carry a load. The only time I've cursed it was on a long downhill on a not-so-developed trail. It snagged every branch on the way down.

Still using it though...

[moytoy]

It's great to listen to all the opinions but in the end you will have to decide for yourself which you like better. What type of hiking your doing and location of hike make a difference as to what pack will work best. For me I love my external frame but I also love my frameless:)

swjohnsey--I don't have a model A but I'm going to try to follow the old route 66 with a '73' GMC MH.

[swjohnsey]

Zpacks arc blast. Oh wait, it weighs 13oz. Sorry.

I like Zpack's stuff but everything I carried made from cuben was trashed before Maine.

[swjohnsey]

There are always some folks who like to swim upstream. Take a look a what folks are usin' in the way of gear on the trail. The majority ain't always right but it pays to take notice. Shaffer and Espey were usin' surplus army packs (frameless) and it worked for them. I saw folks usin' ALICE packs. I carried an ALICE for about a million miles.

[stranger]

I inherited a nice old school external frame pack form my Pops, still in great condition, that he used when he went on his thru hike back in the day. I see that most of the packs that are made now are internal frame and seems that most people prefer them to the external. Was wondering why they so common to use the internal frame packs nowadays. I'm sure there is good reasons other than it being just a new trend or something. Is a better design, or just personal preference? Or is there any advantages / disadvantages for one over the other? I just wouldn't want to go ahead and use it if it was going to end up being an issue or burden on the trail. Would be great to have your thoughts on the subject.
Thanks - Niko

There are many opinions on this question, so I will try to stick to the facts.

External Frame Packs - generally older designs, we're originally designed and intended for established trail hiking like the AT. The idea being the frame has no flex, so the weight of the pack (a heavy pack) could be carried 100% on your hips, keeping your shoulders and back from doing the work and carrying the weight on your legs, which are much stronger, thus exerting less energy to carry the pack. This concept assumes your pack is somewhat heavy, thus needing to avoid utilising the back and shoulder muscles. Becaus the frame is not dependant on the contents for structure, you can have pockets, stuff lashed outside, etc... Because the suspension (frame) is not compromised from this. This also means the pack can be off your back, allowing better air circulation between you and the pack.

External cons - they are not flexible, so they have zero torsion flex, meaning the packs have a single pivot point - the hips. This means when the pack is balanced, it's great, when it's not...it shifts. Also, they are awkward to regain control, it's like taking a baseball bat and balancing it on your palm, it feels very light, now wrap your hand around the bottom of the bat and lean it horizontally, now it's very heavy, same concept. Other cons are the bulk factor, the packs are quite big, they can be heavy, and they SQUEAK, don't underestimate the squeaking, trust me! Finally, they have been left behind by the industry, this means most of the new materials are not offered in external frame packs, the foams are not as robust, materials not as comfortable or well thought out. In the 90's both Gregory and Dana Design brought externals back from the deal, but then the swing went back to internals eventually.

Internal Frame - originally intended to do what external packs couldn't...skiing, climbing, snowshoeing, off trail hiking, etc... The frame became a variety of 'internal' support structures that follow the contour of the spine. These generally consisted of 'stays' (metal bars) that slid through etiher a dense foam framesheet or later, plastic framesheets. Other designs started using fiberglass and cabon fiber struts that ran down the sides of the pack. A big downfall internal packs from a manufacturing standpoint was their fixed lengths, so this was the birth of multiple size packs, in some cases up to 8 frame lengths (thank you Dana Gleason). The packbags were meant to be narrow, and the internal contents compressed up against the frame (by compression straps) gave the pack much of it's structure. Because the pack is dependent on the contents to help with rigidity, they avoided pockets and focused on a single large compartment. However the narrow packbag, flexible frame, more detailed fit and held snug up against the back gave the user a feeling like they were 'wearing' the pack, not carrying it - this was Gregory's slogan for many years 'Wear It, Don't Carry It'. Many external users loved the stability and flex of the internals, and the stability was hard to abandon once felt. Then came womens sizes, multiple hipbelts, shoulder straps, womens shoulder straps and hipbelts, etc... Plus they looked damn cool and there was massive, just massive marketing with internals starting in the late 80's. The end result was that as more and more people abandoned externals, the technology and industry supported the internal market and the external died in many ways. But really, the final analysis is that a rock solid, high end internal frame does most activities very well, where as a good external is decent only for trail hiking. So for most hikers, the internal design is a better choice.

Internal cons - they are warmer, up against your back. They also fatigue you more because they work a greater amount of muscles, meaning all things equal, on a flat section of trail...you will do more work in a $350 internal than a $100 external...on a FLAT SECTION OF TRAIL. They are harder to pack for newbies, and you really shouldn't put anything heavy outside, becasue the internal load is designed to support the suspension. They are more expensive and harder to fit.

In 2013...as more and more people are going lighter, and carrying 40-50-60 litre packs...there is becoming less and less need to use a massive external with a high profile that can support 60lbs, times have changed, it's really that simple. In 1995, silnylon didn't exist in the outdoor industry, now it does. In 1992, most people used sythentic sleeping bags, now almost no one does, remember those heavy leather boots? Now mostly abandoned. Andrew Skurka is not really saying anything that Ray Jardine didn't, sure it's more detailed and more tested perhaps, but the ideas are very similar...yet Jardine was always considered a nutjob and Skurka is praised...20 years will do that. Things change.

Nothing wrong with an external, just like there is nothing wrong with VCR's

[jeffmeh]

Very well said, Stranger. Externals and internals are really different tools. I would take my 1980 Trailwise external (RIP, the pack fabric eventually rotted out - the OP should check for this) over any internal if I were taking heavy loads up and down any non-technical trail. Heck, for a really heavy load it is hard to beat a packboard, the extreme end of external. On the other hand, with a much lighter kit, or for anything technical, including skiing or snowshoeing, an internal is far more suitable for balance and weight.

[R1ma]

In 2013...as more and more people are going lighter, and carrying 40-50-60 litre packs...there is becoming less and less need to use a massive external with a high profile that can support 60lbs, times have changed, it's really that simple. In 1995, silnylon didn't exist in the outdoor industry, now it does. In 1992, most people used sythentic sleeping bags, now almost no one does, remember those heavy leather boots? Now mostly abandoned. Andrew Skurka is not really saying anything that Ray Jardine didn't, sure it's more detailed and more tested perhaps, but the ideas are very similar...yet Jardine was always considered a nutjob and Skurka is praised...20 years will do that. Things change.

Nothing wrong with an external, just like there is nothing wrong with VCR's

Takes me back... In 91, did Philmont with 2 groups - so that what 20-25 12-15 year olds + 5 adults IIRC. Only 2 of us had internal frames but maybe 50% rocked down bags. I still have my internal from that trip, even though it weights over 4 lbs, and the down bag, even though it's lost probably 15% of it's down over the years - not exactly downproof seams - and is much worse for wear ;)

Now, I haven't hiked with an external since 90, and even then, the packs were from the 70s/early 80s, but they always felt like I was strapped to a rack. I've gotten far too used to the flexibility afforded with internal and frameless packs.

[stranger]

Very well said, Stranger. Externals and internals are really different tools. I would take my 1980 Trailwise external (RIP, the pack fabric eventually rotted out - the OP should check for this) over any internal if I were taking heavy loads up and down any non-technical trail. Heck, for a really heavy load it is hard to beat a packboard, the extreme end of external. On the other hand, with a much lighter kit, or for anything technical, including skiing or snowshoeing, an internal is far more suitable for balance and weight.

Haha...Packboard! There are probably about 50 people on here that will know what a packboard is. An interesting note, back in 1998ish I was out with the guys from Dana Design hiking on the Long Trail, and one of their reps, a guy who had climbed Everest, filled a massive cooler with about 30 beers, then ice, and carried it to the top of Mount Mansfield in one of their externals. I remember on top he said something like "those internals have their place, but they can't do this"....haha.

[swjohnsey]

You will see packboard when you get to the AMC huts.

[Miami Joe]

My first pack was a Jansport external. I loved the damn thing and wore it out. Internal packs have their advantages, to be sure, but so do externals. As someone mentioned in an earlier post, internals are the better options for skiing. For long-distance backpacking, I still prefer the external-frame design. You can carry more weight more comfortable, you can lash things onto the pack with ease, external frames are easier to pack (and unpack to get at things) and POCKETS! SO MANY POCKETS!

[aficion]

1974 Camptrails Ponderosa still in service. I have done many recent short trips with my 4 kids using this pack for our tent and cooking/eating gear, etc. We divy up food and they carry their own sleeping gear clothes, and personal items.
Being able to add a 12 pack of beer is a bonus when you are walking into a PATC Cabin for a 4 night stay in SNP. Oh and did I mention the fishing gear and fifth of Makers? Original pack bag, frame, shoulder straps and belt. Best money I ever spent on camping gear. When I do my thru in 1917 it will be hard to leave it behind, but I will. Right now Z packs arc blast looks best to me. It'll carry all I need to stay comfortable in the woods. By then there is no telling what else will be available. Must have breathable mesh and separation/air between my back and the frame 3 season.

[moytoy]

aficion ..when your done with that time machine I would like to borrow it:)

[Train Wreck]

1974 Camptrails Ponderosa still in service. I have done many recent short trips with my 4 kids using this pack for our tent and cooking/eating gear, etc. We divy up food and they carry their own sleeping gear clothes, and personal items.
Being able to add a 12 pack of beer is a bonus when you are walking into a PATC Cabin for a 4 night stay in SNP. Oh and did I mention the fishing gear and fifth of Makers? Original pack bag, frame, shoulder straps and belt. Best money I ever spent on camping gear. When I do my thru in 1917 it will be hard to leave it behind, but I will. Right now Z packs arc blast looks best to me. It'll carry all I need to stay comfortable in the woods. By then there is no telling what else will be available. Must have breathable mesh and separation/air between my back and the frame 3 season.

Please notify the ATC when you finish your thru, so they can knock Earl Schaffer down into 2nd place as the first hiker to ever complete the trail :p

[aficion]

Please notify the ATC when you finish your thru, so they can knock Earl Schaffer down into 2nd place as the first hiker to ever complete the trail :p

Hey if I could really lose a century, well it would be a great temptation. LOL

[k2basecamp]

I love my Alpenlite external. Used it in 1981 on my thru and again in 2011 on my 30th anniversary 335 mile trek from Katahdin to Mt. Washington. I have tried internal frames and they are not comfortable and are hot, and a pain to pack/ unpack. Newer is not better.

[jeffmeh]

Haha...Packboard! There are probably about 50 people on here that will know what a packboard is. An interesting note, back in 1998ish I was out with the guys from Dana Design hiking on the Long Trail, and one of their reps, a guy who had climbed Everest, filled a massive cooler with about 30 beers, then ice, and carried it to the top of Mount Mansfield in one of their externals. I remember on top he said something like "those internals have their place, but they can't do this"....haha.

Yes, externals are still far superior for lugging large quantities of beer, lol.

[hauptman]

Depends upon weight.

External---30+
Internal---15+
No frame---less than 15