Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Gregory Packs

  1. #1
    Thru hike Done, working on a section hike. stickat04's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-27-2002
    Location
    clay, MI
    Age
    48
    Posts
    112
    Images
    6

    Default Gregory Packs

    I went looking at some packs for my 2004 trek and i seem to like the fit of them. Anyone have any experience with them?

  2. #2
    Section hiker 733 AT miles poison_ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-19-2002
    Location
    Mass.
    Age
    45
    Posts
    179

    Default

    I have a Gregory Reality pack and I absolutely love it. I have had a hard time getting packs to fit properly in the past because of my small frame and this one fits perfectly and carries well. I doubt I will ever use any of my other packs again.

    The only problem with the Gregory packs, as far as I can tell is the weight of them. The reality is pretty close to five pounds. If you cut some of the extra straps off and get rid of the hood on top, you can save a little weight.

    I'm only a section hiker, so the weight issue isn't a huge concern for me. If I was thru-hiking, I would be tempted to look around for something else a little lighter.

    -- Ivy

  3. #3
    Registered User Moose2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-24-2002
    Location
    Utah - But my heart's still in Vermont!
    Age
    66
    Posts
    901
    Images
    1

    Thumbs up Cadillac

    Stick, IMO Gregory Packs are the Cadillac of packs. Big, comfy, and plush. Weight just disappers in them. Their suspension is the best around. Once you get one fitted to you correctly, you'll love the way it carries.

    Now the downside.... They are heavy. Depending on the model you'll find they weigh between 5 - 8 pounds. I understand the newer models are a little lighter. Also, take a hard look at the size you're thinking of buying. If it's up in the 5000 cu. in range, it's probably to big. Cost - a new Gregory pack can set you back $300. IMO this is one area where you get what you pay for though.

    For me, Gregory packs are the standard. I was seriously considering going to a lighter pack for 2003. Decided if I take the 35 pounds I'll be carrying, dump it in my Gregory Lassen, I'll hardly know it's there. Why dump an old, trusty friend??
    GA - NJ 2001; GA - ME 2003; GA - ME 2005; GA - ME 2007; PCT 2006

    A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will.
    —SPANISH PROVERB

  4. #4

    Default

    i'm gonna have to agree with moose, with my gregory, the load just disappears. the suspension is that good! yes, gregory's are heavy, especially mine (windriver). it is huge, but nothing hangs on the outside and i've found the front pocket to be very useful for storing quickly needed items, not to mention it's duribility. the 2002 adventure series packs are about a pound lighter across the board, but i'm not gonna spend over $300 to save a pound over my 1998 model. i'll simply leave the top lid home as i've been doing recently. never found it of much use anyway and i'm certainly not gonna wear it as a fanny pack (snicker)! did i mention how comfortable the damn thing is?

    gregory has my recommendation, except i'd go with a smaller model, such as the shasta or reality.

  5. #5
    Registered User gravityman's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-05-2002
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,157

    Default Good service

    When I got to damascus my gregory frame sheet had blown out the velco closure that held it in place. They've changed the design since I bought my shasta because of this 'feature'. The outfitters in Damascus also realized that my pack was too big for me. Orginally gegory was going to send me a loaner pack until they fixed mine, however since mine was the wrong size, they just gave me the loaner. Now they are supposably using my stinky old pack as a loaner. I like the idea that my pack is still out there getting used by AT hikers that need a loaner. They probably don't notice the smell
    Anyway, they were very good to me. However the weight of the pack has caused me to retired it for only winter hiking when I need to carry more than 30 lbs. I have a Osprey Aether 60 and love that!
    enjoy,

    gravity man

  6. #6
    Addicted Hiker and Donating Member Hammock Hanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-04-2002
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,016
    Images
    222

    Default

    Gregory Packs are one of the best. The suspension is great. In 2001 I started with 55 pounds (let's not go there... LOL). The only way I was even able to get 100 miles with that weight was my Gregory Petit Dru's suspension. Everyone kept telling me I was carrying too much weight, but I didn't feel it. Of course over time I did get rid of stuff and brought my base weight to 13 pounds, therefore not really needing such a load bearing pack. My husband used the Windriver and liked his just as much. Of course I have lightened his pack as well. (Both are for sale, check here on the forum.) -- Gregory is a great company for standing behind their products. Hammock Hanger
    Hammock Hanger -- Life is my journey and I'm surely not rushing to the "summit"...:D

    http://www.gcast.com/u/hammockhanger/main

  7. #7
    GA-VA/ME-VA '04
    Join Date
    09-21-2002
    Location
    New Fairfield,CT.
    Age
    52
    Posts
    22

    Thumbs up exellent service

    I got my Gregory (Ranier)in 1995.It's alittle big and heavy, but It's the most comfortable pack I could find.I am a big person and I have a problem finding gear that fits.When I bought my pack I had the large waist belt maxed out.Gregory sent me another belt with longer webbing free of charge.I got to keep the smaller belt for when I lost the weight,which thankfully I use now.Also two years ago when my dog was a puppy ,he mistook some of the buckles and webbing as a chew toy.Gregory sent me new buckles and webbing free of charge ,even after I told them about my dog .I plan on using this pack on my thru-hike,in 2004. So I called Gregory to ask "if I had any trouble on the trail,could they still fix my dated pack?" They said there would be no problem,even tho they stopped making that model.Gregory packs are not the cheapest ,but I guess it's true what they say "you get what you pay for"

  8. #8
    Springer-->Stony Brook Road VT MedicineMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-30-2002
    Location
    Roan Mountain,TN
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    522

    Default now dont get mad but.....

    like many of you i have what the media and our own suttle fantasies have made into the classic rule of the world backpack....mine happens to be an Arcteryx Bora 80 but I thank God every time I hike for my GVP-4 and before that it was a Gust and a Breeze...I have to agree with others in the backpacking community much more insightful than I when they say that the mass producers have to overbuild to such an extent that failure is virtually impossible, that this overbuildig cost in weight and further that the weight will eventually destroy us whether in the knees, hips, ankles or spine. They overbuild for legal purposes and the simple fact that if one does fail then the word gets out....to me it is the same mentality that wants to keep building battleships when there is no logical reason to do so...the comfy suspensions temp one in carrying more weight which is a bad body thing. and the downright preposterous weight of these types of packs empty is insane......OK got that off my chest and have probably cast a spell on my GVP-4 to split open at the seems the next time it goes out!

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-05-2002
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,885
    Images
    118

    Default

    Well, producers also overmanufacture their gear because sometimes you need something really tough. Where failure of a piece of gear could mean a really miserable time or worse. Think of it this way. Suppose you are in a really isolated area, where you can't resupply with food for, say, 2 weeks. You're in the mountains, which means you need a tent that can really take a beating. It is cold out, so you've got a big time sleeping bag also. To deal with the snow, ice, and glaciers that you are crossing, you've got on monster boots, are carrying crampons, and an ice axe or three. Add to that some safety gear (ropes, pro, etc), and the fuel necessary to melt snow, and you've got yourself a really heavy pack. Now, suppose the hipbelt clip breaks. You really need that hipbelt to help you manage the big pack you are hauling, but now it isn't there. Pretty miserable for the next two weeks, eh?

    Or, suppose you brought a tarp with you. On day 1, a storm comes through and destroys your tarp. No more shelter for 2 weeks. No where to run to.

    Gear makers tend to overbuild their gear, I think, on the theory that they need to build for the worst possible contigency that the user might face. Gregory build a lot of mountaineering packs. So do Dana and Arc'teryx. High quality stuff and good for the situation above described. However, that situation doesn't describe the AT, except for perhaps the Whites or Katahdin in winter. Even there you are not isolated and can get out of a bad situation.

    The whole point of this diatribe is this: Bring the gear that is suitable for the environment you are travelling through. Why take a mountaineering pack when you are taking a walk in the woods?

  10. #10

    Default

    let's see, the last battleship was built about 60 years ago. so what point were you making?

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-05-2002
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,885
    Images
    118

    Default

    Point: Don't bring a Gregory Denali Pro to hike the AT. What battleship?

  12. #12

    Default

    battleship - see dachonkin's post

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-05-2002
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,885
    Images
    118

    Default

    Ah, I see. Not being much of an expert on military matters, I can't comment on the logic of building battleships. However, the big, overbuilt Bora 95 that I hauled around the Stekhin area last summer was built well and appropriate for the conditions I was using it in. Overengineered gear has a place, as does lighter-weight gear. To rule out a big pack just because it is big, without considering what you will use it for, is just as foolish as ruling out an ultralight pack just because it is ultralight.

    Point: Think about what you will use your gear for before you buy it.

  14. #14
    Springer-->Stony Brook Road VT MedicineMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-30-2002
    Location
    Roan Mountain,TN
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    522

    Default ok destroyers

    no not destroyers, we still need them.....but that is the point, the right tool for the right job and the AT does not require a 6 pound pack that can survive a tumble down the scree or a tramping through osage orange....now back to the battleship, a poor analogy since the gregory muscle packs do have a place so I am taken aback and must disabuse....and i still say that the big manuf. create images via advertising that suck in the hoipoloi-hey I was one of them for years and in many ways still am......

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-05-2002
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,885
    Images
    118

    Default

    I think perhaps the majors advertise a lot of their gear using the backdrop of hard mountaineering as a way to sell their stuff. dachonkin is right: It isn't necessary on the AT. The only major manufacturer that I know of that doesn't seem to do this is Arc'teryx. Although, I believe they were bought out a little while ago by Adidas, so perhaps they will become another North Face.

  16. #16
    Springer-->Stony Brook Road VT MedicineMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-30-2002
    Location
    Roan Mountain,TN
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    522

    Default well a compromise is in order

    I love the lightweight stuff, my age and knees make it so....but I do worry about not being able to slam my stuff down like I did years ago when carrying that old Jansport D-2, you know the feeling of sliding out from under the massive weight and letting it swing hard and fast to the ground....cant do that with my GVP-4, and Chris you're right, what if you had to suddenly run off the trail like say from a wild dog or God forbid a bear and find yourself running through the bramble...many an ultralightweight pack would surely suffer.....so do a yahoo search for the Mitril Pack. It is 20oz or less and completely made of Spectra, so throwing it down, running through bramble, and worse shouldnt be a problem....I am asking Santa for one!

    http://www.kiskiloutdoors.com/Mithri...ain%20Page.htm

    is the link for the Mithril

    The only problem with Spectra (and the Mithril site talks of this) is that it is a white fabric and very very difficult to dye....and in my part of the woods-east TN-you def. dont want to wear anything white during deer season.

  17. #17
    Yes, I know I mis-spelled "Hamster"...
    Join Date
    11-26-2002
    Location
    Athol, MA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    705
    Images
    30

    Default

    One thing thats good about a company being bought out and given major financial backing is the overall evolution of gear that follows. Although they do produce alot of crap, TNF does help to set the pace in the gear market. For example, it's only a matter of time before heated clothing makes a comeback, better engineered, and adopted by the majority (recently sparked by two TNF products).

    I'm still waiting for aerogel clothing to come down in price .

  18. #18

    Default Getting back to the topic...

    I have a nice bomb proof pack that comfortably carries over 50 lbs and swallows gear like a thru hiker eats.... but at 7 lbs Im lookin for a lighter pack. My first pack was very light but didnt grip my hips well so it put the weight on my tender newbie shoulders. Things change.... my shoulders are now a lot tougher and my base pack weight has gone way down so my needs have changed

    current pack. 7lbs - 7000 cu. 50 lbs load. acc. for everything
    new pack <2lbs - 4000 cu. 30 lbs load.

    While I have had many Impulses to buy so far I am holding out for a pack that meets all my specs.

  19. #19

    Default

    geeez! what ramble..sorry, the point i was making is that you might want to wait a bit and see what happens. I have changed a lot since I first started as have my needs.

  20. #20
    Addicted Hiker and Donating Member Hammock Hanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-04-2002
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,016
    Images
    222

    Default DOM, I understand your thoughts....

    I am on my third pack. Thinking back though I needed each pack, as it was able to carry the load I NEEDED to feel SECURE at that time in my hiking life. My pack weight has changed as has my comfort level on doing with less, or as my pocketbook could afford to buy lighter gear. Each pack served it's need at the appropriate time. -- If you have not mentally committed to a "ultralite hike" buying an ultrsalite pack wohn't work. If you'rr gonna carry a lot of gear or your gear is heavy, use a pack that is goning to be able to carry it. I heard a lot of complaints on various "lightweight packs" from hikers who were trying to carry 40 pounds in a pack meant for 20. Just my thoughts. Hammock Hanger
    Hammock Hanger -- Life is my journey and I'm surely not rushing to the "summit"...:D

    http://www.gcast.com/u/hammockhanger/main

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •