Is 3-1/2 to 4 pounds considered heavy for a backpack?

[todd52]

Is 3-1/2 to 4 pounds considered heavy for a backpack?. I'm talking about just the backpack itself with nothing in it.

[rocketsocks]

Is 3-1/2 to 4 pounds considered heavy for a backpack?. I'm talking about just the backpack itself with nothing in it.

Now 4lb I'd consider to be getting more towards the middle to heavier side of life, 3 1/2lbs. I'd consider in the solid middle of the range.

[shakey_snake]

What are your plans for it?

That sounds about average for a mountaineering pack. Are you climbing Everest soon?

[Franco]

it depends.. (it always does)For a load up to around 35 lbs you can get packs at around 2 lbs that will do it, for example the ULA Circuit (2.2lbs stripped of some of the extra bits...)
Regularly having loads over 35lbs or so will require (for comfort) a more solid frame , therefore a heavier pack.

[broken arrow]

it is all up to you if it feels right, and depends on how heavy-a-load you plan on truckin'.

[Mrs Baggins]

How big are you? Personally, at 4' 10" and 120 lbs I wouldn't carry one that heavy. I have an REI Flash that is right around 2 lbs. And I'd like to find one lighter than that but it's probably not possible and still have a comfortable hip belt and ample interior space. I'm returning the Flash because the shoulder straps keep falling to the sides and that makes me shrug my shoulders all day til they feel like their ripping. I can't stand it anymore. My husband's does exactly the same thing.

[hikerboy57]

What are your plans for it?

That sounds about average for a mountaineering pack. Are you climbing Everest soon?

really? i use an osprey atmos 65, weight 3lbs 10 oz, and ive met plenty of thrus whove used it too. and in a way youre climbing everest 20 times if you factor in total elevation gain.
its really about how the pack carries your kit. a lighter pack doesnt necessarily carry your load better.
i am switching to something smaller this year, as ive been able to get my load weight down and i dont need as much room for 3 season backpacking. i love the atmos, and may just get an atmos50.without food and water im around 23lbs fully loaded

[Another Kevin]

really? i use an osprey atmos 65, weight 3lbs 10 oz, and ive met plenty of thrus whove used it too. and in a way youre climbing everest 20 times if you factor in total elevation gain.

+1 to "use what carries well." My daughter swears by her Gregory - it's one of the heavier packs that she tried, but it carries better than anything else she's tried. I have a 3 lb 12 oz pack myself (an ALPS Orizaba 3900). It's heavier than some, but it fits me, and I'm long in the torso. (It has an adjustable torso, and it fits only on the longest setting.) A good many UL packs don't fit me. Also, it's 3 lb 12 oz with an integrated pack cover, so I don't need to carry a separate pack cover. I save a few ounces there.

Yes, it's a mountaineering pack. If I'm out in full-on winter, I need to lash on snowshoes and a crampon bag and maybe even an ice axe, so just what sort of pack do you think I'd need? The real difference is that a mountaineering pack is taller and narrower, and has more lash points for gear.

I'm just a clueless weekender, but I can't imagine that having to carry the thing a longer distance would change my opinion of "use what fits."

[shakey_snake]

really? i use an osprey atmos 65, weight 3lbs 10 oz, and ive met plenty of thrus who've used it too.

HYOH, of course, but my god that's heavy.

its really about how the pack carries your kit. a lighter pack doesnt necessarily carry your load better.

Sure. But suspension and shoulder padding doesn't weight that much! Lets be honest, packs get to be over 3 pounds because they either:

1. Are made from the same materials they used a billion years ago for packs (I'm looking at you, WWII ear wax covered canvas rucksack)
2. Are made of a bombproof material that is meant to survive extreme abuse (e.g. military combat) so that pack makers doesn't have abusive users returning them for a warranty replacement.
3. Contain numerous "organization features" (marketing people love these) and compartments for someone that can't bother to learn the skill of packing a pack and keep track of his diddys.
4. Are external frame packs made for carry heavy amounts of mountaineering/climbing gear.

Either way, a weekender or thru hiker or anywhere in between is better served avoiding as many of those traps as possible.

i am switching to something smaller this year, as ive been able to get my load weight down and i dont need as much room for 3 season backpacking. i love the atmos, and may just get an atmos50.without food and water im around 23lbs fully loaded

Probably a fine choice, but I'm sure you could be just as comfortable with a lighter option.

[hikerboy57]

HYOH, of course, but my god that's heavy.

Sure. But suspension and shoulder padding doesn't weight that much! Lets be honest, packs get to be over 3 pounds because they either:

1. Are made from the same materials they used a billion years ago for packs (I'm looking at you, WWII ear wax covered canvas rucksack)
2. Are made of a bombproof material that is meant to survive extreme abuse (e.g. military combat) so that pack makers doesn't have abusive users returning them for a warranty replacement.
3. Contain numerous "organization features" (marketing people love these) and compartments for someone that can't bother to learn the skill of packing a pack and keep track of his diddys.
4. Are external frame packs made for carry heavy amounts of mountaineering/climbing gear.

Either way, a weekender or thru hiker or anywhere in between is better served avoiding as many of those traps as possible.

Probably a fine choice, but I'm sure you could be just as comfortable with a lighter option.

hyoh indeed, preferably without condescending comments. i know how to pack a pack,ive been backpacking for over 35 years. those pockets are very useful in keeping necessary gear at hand. bombproof is a good thing for a thru hike unless you just want to buy two packs,and there are also a few here with multiple thruhikes that still prefer an external frame.its not that important to many of us to shave evry ounce. if i can carry the gear i want to bring comfortably for 15-20 miles, im cool with that.
i am considering ula, but i ve never put one on,the atmos is a comfortable friend so im probably going to just downsize a tad .jurys still out

[MuddyWaters]

Is 3-1/2 to 4 pounds considered heavy for a backpack?. I'm talking about just the backpack itself with nothing in it.

Not really. Its about middle of the range today overall.

However, in the world of long-distance hiking, it would be considered to be at the heavier end of the spectrum.

Does it matter? Nope.

Plenty of folks carry a 2.5 lb backpack, with a 15 lb base weight.

What is better, that or a 4 lb backpack with a 12 lb base weight?

Lighter overall is better, doesnt matter much how you get there as long as your needs are met.

[rocketsocks]

Not really. Its about middle of the range today overall.

However, in the world of long-distance hiking, it would be considered to be at the heavier end of the spectrum.

Does it matter? Nope.

Plenty of folks carry a 2.5 lb backpack, with a 15 lb base weight.

What is better, that or a 4 lb backpack with a 12 lb base weight?

Lighter overall is better, doesnt matter much how you get there as long as your needs are met.

Ya know, your right, It is more towards the heavey side of middle....I didn't really factor in that packs are getting so ridiculously light, and was thinking more of old school traditional numbers. where a 2lb. pack would be considered light weight. But as you and many have said...Doesn't really matter, unless it matters to the user...bottom line!

[shakey_snake]

hyoh indeed, preferably without condescending comments.

I'm not intentionally being condescending, you are coming across as extremely defensive, though. e.g.

i know how to pack a pack,ive been backpacking for over 35 years.

I wasn't saying you didn't or even implying so, so why respond in such a manner?

I'm simply saying that organizational features like a bunch of pockets and zippers (aka weight) are features that put people at ease when contemplating their purchases, before they develop those skills. In a consumer culture like we live in, manufacturers are selling that peace of mind to the customer, not just the product (and it's performance) itself. Whether that continues to be important for someone that has developed those skills (like yourself) should most certainly be reevaluated if you are going to purchase a new pack, rather than simply going with what has worked in the past. Of course, known fit and the value of your time obviously an important factor into the equation, too.

Now, not to make this all about you, but to be informative for the thread starter: if he's already asking about weight (given the thread title) maybe he's questioning exactly what he gets for that added weight? IMO, as indicated by my first post here, he should get mountaineering ability.

bombproof is a good thing for a thru hike unless you just want to buy two packs

Are there no ULA packs that make it the whole way? Do they really fail more often than heavier packs?

[oroy38]

3.5lbs is about middle of the road in the mainstream pack market. It's not particularly heavy, but it's not terribly light either. You could certainly find more on either end of the spectrum. I carry a Kifaru MMR and that weighs around 9lbs, so by comparison a 3.5lbs pack is very light. The only other brand out there I've ever tried that can haul weight as comfortably as a Kifaru is Mystery Ranch, but their packs are also very heavy by mainstream standards due to the materials used, the frame, suspension system, etc.

Don't worry too much about pack weight. Focus more on getting your kit streamlined before you worry too much about what pack you're carrying it in.

There are three basic factors when looking at packs:
Durability - The quality of construction and the durability of the materials used.
Support - Internal/External frame, no frame, etc
Features - Ice Axe loops, water bottle holders, daisy chain, doo hickeys and dealy bobs

All of these have an impact on pack weight, and it's up to you to look at the load you'll be carrying and then prioritize. Most important, however, is how the pack carries the weight of your gear. If you find that a 4lbs pack carries the same load much more comfortably than a 2lbs pack, then why bother with the weight savings if it's not as comfortable?

[hikerboy57]

I'm not intentionally being condescending, you are coming across as extremely defensive, though. e.g.
I wasn't saying you didn't or even implying so, so why respond in such a manner?

I'm simply saying that organizational features like a bunch of pockets and zippers (aka weight) are features that put people at ease when contemplating their purchases, before they develop those skills. In a consumer culture like we live in, manufacturers are selling that peace of mind to the customer, not just the product (and it's performance) itself. Whether that continues to be important for someone that has developed those skills (like yourself) should most certainly be reevaluated if you are going to purchase a new pack, rather than simply going with what has worked in the past. Of course, known fit and the value of your time obviously an important factor into the equation, too.

Now, not to make this all about you, but to be informative for the thread starter: if he's already asking about weight (given the thread title) maybe he's questioning exactly what he gets for that added weight? IMO, as indicated by my first post here, he should get mountaineering ability.

Are there no ULA packs that make it the whole way? Do they really fail more often than heavier packs?

i am still contemplating a ula.it would be a lot easier if stores carried them as i could look at size, fit it properly etc.see how i could pack it, etc.
anyhoo, if there were really just one right pack for everyone, wed have nothing to discuss, would we.suffice it to say yes 4lbs is getting toward the heavy side and you can be sub 3lbs and be fine as well.

[yellowsirocco]

I tried a UL pack this past summer. REI Flash 62. It wasn't uncomfortable, but it wasn't comfortable either. I returned it and got a Gregory z65 that weighs a good bit more. It carries like a dream.

Don't fret about an extra pound on your back if it makes the thing more comfortable.

[Venchka]

Any pack must fit well. Feel good. Handle your imagined loads (any season, unless you can afford more than 1 pack) all day. Day after day.
A 2 pound pack that doesn't fit right, tortures your body or isn't large enough to hold your winter bag and tent is useless or worse. Conversely, us cavemen love our hundred pound Terraplanes for a weekend or a month.
There is no one answer. It depends. Would I like my Terraplane better if it performed as well and only weioghed 3 pounds? Sure. Am I willing to pay $100 or more per pound to shed those 3 or 4 pounds? Nope.
Buy on fit, carrying capacity, fit and comfort, your budget, weight.

Wayne

[rocketsocks]

I was gonna drag my old Kelty pack behind my truck, but decided to keep it unless I ever need to hump 4600ci+ of stuff.

[Rasty]

I'm not intentionally being condescending, you are coming across as extremely defensive, though. e.g.
I wasn't saying you didn't or even implying so, so why respond in such a manner?

I'm simply saying that organizational features like a bunch of pockets and zippers (aka weight) are features that put people at ease when contemplating their purchases, before they develop those skills. In a consumer culture like we live in, manufacturers are selling that peace of mind to the customer, not just the product (and it's performance) itself. Whether that continues to be important for someone that has developed those skills (like yourself) should most certainly be reevaluated if you are going to purchase a new pack, rather than simply going with what has worked in the past. Of course, known fit and the value of your time obviously an important factor into the equation, too.

Now, not to make this all about you, but to be informative for the thread starter: if he's already asking about weight (given the thread title) maybe he's questioning exactly what he gets for that added weight? IMO, as indicated by my first post here, he should get mountaineering ability.

Are there no ULA packs that make it the whole way? Do they really fail more often than heavier packs?

i am still contemplating a ula.it would be a lot easier if stores carried them as i could look at size, fit it properly etc.see how i could pack it, etc.
anyhoo, if there were really just one right pack for everyone, wed have nothing to discuss, would we.suffice it to say yes 4lbs is getting toward the heavy side and you can be sub 3lbs and be fine as well.

You can try mine in August. It's a medium/ medium Circuit.

[atmilkman]

I was gonna drag my old Kelty pack behind my truck, but decided to keep it unless I ever need to hump 4600ci+ of stuff.

I love my Kelty Trekker. Weighs 5.02lbs. I use it for basecamping and overnighter where I'm also bringing a camping stool. Hikes are usually 8mi. max.