Backpacks <br>I'm looking for a good, sturdy backpack for some car camping and general use. I need something bigger than a school backpack. <br><br>I like Jansport's travel gear, they seem to be well thought out, Eagle Creek is another alternative but I don't know if their gear is any good. I don't need one of those big framed backpacking packs, but something big and substantial enough for a trip of several days. <br><br>By the way, are Jansport and Eagle Creek pro-conservation, Antis, or neutral? (yes, it matters). <br><br>Recommendations?<br>

For a trip of several days you would need a pack with a least 4000 cu in, quite likely even more, unless you are going ultralite. Quite a few manufacturers off suitable packs in this range. I would definitely stay away from external framed packs. Internal frame packs are available which can fit well and carry easily. They also stow better in boats, planes, etc. Fit is all important, so it is a good idea to buy from a good store, or follow the fitting instructions carefully if you buy mail order.<br><br>Neither JanSport or Eagle Creek would be my first choice. I am not aware that Eagle Creek makes anything in this size range. They seemto do a competent job on smaller items. Based on their products back in their early days, I think of Jan Sport as producing second rate equipment. I am not sure if this is true today, but why take a chance.<br><br>Good equipment manufacturers for your backpack include Gregory, Dana, Mountainsmith, Arc'teryx, and Kelty. Many of these are owned by larger firms; I am not aware of any pro- conservation policies on their part.<br><br>In that regard, I would suggest REI, which seels the brands I hve mentioned above and also supplies a very decent line of house branded packs which you might consider (they are a verygood dollar value). REI does divert a portion of their profits into conservation efforts, although they have emphasized such activities in their recent literature. None of the companies is as consistently environmental in thier policies as Patagonia, the gold metal winner in this category. Unfortunately, they do not make a pack in the size range you need (great smaller stuff though).<br><br>Backpacker magazine does fairly decent product reports which have been objective and reliable enough in my experience. Consumers Reports has never rated the larger backpacks, although they have done smaller backpacks in the past.<br><br>Fit is everything. I would advocate buying in a store, and load up the pack with a realistic load to see how it carries, paying particular attention to the feel of the pack as you make awkward off balance moves as if you were climbing or bushwacking. Even people who intend to stick to trails sooner or later have to crunch brush.<br><br>I now use a Mountainsmith model which is eleven years old. Bought with care and not abused, though well used, it still serves me well. On the job I recently carried a smaller Arc'teryx model which impressed me with its quality, comfort, and durability. I would carefully at their models, as well as Dana which has a very good reputation. <br><br>A pack of this type is a major, significant purchase. I would make sure to get a model that meets my needs (and my body), that is comfortable and that works well in off trail situations. I would then pay whatever it costs. Money won't count when you are deep in the boondocks, humping your gear around.

Patagonia is indeed the most active environmentally. A quick look through the major conservation publications will discover a few. There are some I would avoid. Coleman for one, is a major supporter of the controversial park pass. Nation of assembly will tell much also. We had a discussion over buying mainland Chinese products after the spyplane fiasco. Don't think celebrity clothing lines alone employs child and slave labor. Don't overlook surplus! Aside from the miserable ALICE gear, some of the European stuff is well made, in decent condition and cheap.

Hikerdon did as good a job of answering as anyone’s likely to, but a pack is such a critical, and personal, piece of equipment that I think you’ll find a lot of experienced hikers sort of reluctant to offer specific advice. I wasn’t reluctant to respond to a question as to whether or not you needed a pad with a sleeping bag, that’s pretty straightforward, but a bad choice in packs is not trivial. It can cause you pain and misery over many, many miles, it will hurt you, change your plans, and cause you to be a burden to your others in your party. It could potentially cause injury, and it could put you in real trouble if it fails and you’re really “out there”. Lugging real weight through the woods is always going to be hard work and sweat. That’s why the ultralight movement attracts so much attention. No pack can make the weight go away, or substitute for strength or conditioning, no matter what the salesman says… but some can make it worse, or a lot worse.<br><br>If a skydiver asked what parachute to buy, how many people would be anxious to answer? It’s your life, it may depend on this equipment, and nobody can take the responsibility of this decision for you. By asking such a wide-open question, you sort of give the impression that maybe you haven’t looked into the issue enough yourself to have opinions and preferences, and maybe you shouldn’t be on the verge of a purchase quite yet. If you're going to be using it for car camping for awhile, why not just get a duffel for the time being, and save the much more critical pack purchase for later?<br><br>I own both external and internal frame packs- they both have advantages and disadvantages, and everyone has their preferences. An external frame really comes into it’s own in country with generally good footing, not a lot of brush, in hot weather- especially hot and dry- because of the increased ventilation at your back, which is very welcome. If I were hiking the Sierras in summer or the mountains in Arizona I would be very tempted to use an external frame. In heavy brush, on boulder fields, and on airlines, they’re a pain.<br><br>When looking at packs, I generally look at Gregory and Lowe first, but that’s just from my own limited experience, and there are many excellent brands I haven’t tried. I have a Kelty that’s held up very well to a lot of abuse, but is not really a favorite, and I don’t use it often. I hear good things about Dana, but haven’t tried them. On the other hand, some manufacturers seem to regard outdoor equipment as “consumer items”, not “critical gear”. I don’t usually look at JanSport, and won’t consider Camp Trails or Coleman or a slew of other "consumer" brands. I wasn’t even aware that Eagle Creek made wilderness packs- I’ve only seen their travel gear.<br><br>Unlike Hikerdon, I’m not impressed with the quality control of REI house brand packs. I’ve seen them actually missing buckles that were supposed to be sewn on (and this on the floor demo), they seem to be generally thinner fabrics than the competition, and at least some of them seem to lack taped seams. No doubt some are fine.<br><br>One thing I think is important that most buyers don’t consider, most manufacturers don’t seem to, and most salesmen try to make you feel silly for considering, is color. I favor subdued gear in general. I’ve had my tent robbed once because it was visible from too far. I’ve had occasions to evade what seemed to be groups of local toughs on foot and (illegally) on dirt bikes, and I’ve had run-ins with rangers who were taking a very literal interpretation of restrictions against camping “within sight of the trail” where there were lots of switchbacks (so you couldn't get very far from the trail) and no leaves on the trees. On the other hand, with subdued gear I’ve had packs of chattering Girl Scouts pass within 40 feet in the woods and never know I was there. My experience is that if your gear is subdued, you can always use one bright item to make yourself visible if you need to.. but if your gear is bright, you can’t just suddenly decide you don’t want to stand out like a traffic sign anymore.<br><br> I personally find bright colors in the deep woods jarring and sort of obnoxious. It may be my imagination, but I think I can see things in more detail in the “green world” when there isn’t some artificial neon color in my field of view.. and there is some evidence that bright colors might attract curious bears.<br><br>On the other hand, if you’re going above timberline a lot, and you need to be as visible as possible to other members of your team, and possibly to avalanche or air rescue, then your priorities might be exactly the opposite. IMHO, while color certainly isn’t the most critical quality, it’s not trivial.<br>

You make some excellent points. It is often possible to rent backpacks for a weekend and try them out. The last time I bought a pack I did this a couple of times, rejecting a well regarded brand that just didn't seem to fit my bod just right. Packs are a lot like boots - fit is nearly everything...

Thanks for the kind words. For the reasons stated, I was reluctant to respond at all.. in the end, I hoped that stating the reasons for reluctance might itself be helpful.<br><br>I have often thought of renting packs to try them, but never done it. You're right about fit- it seems to have gotten more critical as suspensions got more sophisticated with more adjustments, instead of less. We used to joke that the manufactuers kept putting on more and more adjustments until the customer was always convinced the pack was uncomfortable because they were doing something wrong, instead of blaming the pack...<br><br>Your experience shows through in your posts- I'll check out Arc'teryx (I can't help thinking Archaeopteryx... what else?) next time I have the chance.<br>

Thanks for mentioning the color conundrum... I greatly dislike having my eye caught by the distant glint of brightly colored outerwear, packs, and tents favored by many folks these days, and I, too, seek less jolting colors out of habit.<br><br>Seems to me that it's getting harder and harder to stay visually "quiet" without looking like a walking advert for Soldier of Fortune. So far the worst I've had to put up with are some dark maroon and dark blue packs as the kids grew out of various packs and outer wear. Several years ago I DID purchase a couple of close-out bookbag-sized day packs that are blaze orange for stowing (packed as "Be Prepared" packs) in wife and my vehicles - they are branded "Remington" but I have no idea who actually made them. I wanted those for that purpose specifically because they are so visible.<br><br>We used to carry various bits of "day-glo" items inside our packs to help convert from "quiet" to "loud" when needed. Way back, I cut up a VS-17 (military signaling panel) into appropriate size pieces, but that was unduly heavy and bulky. Later cut pieces out of a couple of "retired" blaze orange hunting vests, and still later sewed up a couple of scraps of blaze orange ripstop nylon and set a few small grommets and ties on the perimeter. Those are lightweight and compact. <br><br>Right now I have a couple of 36"x36" pieces of blaze orange cotton cloth sewn on the edges (like a big bandanna), and although a little bulkier and heavier than the ripstop, those are looking very promising as multi-purpose gear. The various discussions here about bandannas was what gave me the idea to try the cotton "yard of cloth" idea. Haven't had them long enough to decide if they are keepers or not; only three weekend trips. So far, so good. When I get around to it, I'd like to try a couple just like those, but in silk - if I can find the color. Rain may decide things back in favor of the ripstop ones we've been using, though.<br><br>Also usually have a small roll of blaze orange surveyor's tape stowed away, but that is for other purposes. The small amount we carry has proven to only slightly increase ones visibility when tasseled on the outside of a pack and I found it a bit annoying as it fluttered and scraped in the breezes.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom<br><br>

Actually, I think it’s a little better right now than in some previous decades. In the 1970s it seemed like every piece of equipment was either blaze orange or bright red; I think it was in imitation of serious high-altitude climbers. In the 1980s the gear went through a period of lime greens, teal, pinks and purples in combination- just fashion, I guess. Walking around an REI or EMS these days, I see more stuff that’s not bad… sage and gray are common… but I’m not sure the buyer is any more conscious of the issue, and some manufacturers refuse to cooperate.<br><br>It’s a pity that the media demonization of “survivalists” in the ‘80s had the side-effect of creating such a social stigma about camouflage. After all, it’s inherently useful, and since it's the state of the art in “subdued”, gear can only get subdued so far without approaching it. There’s no practical reason why outdoorspeople, regardless of their personal politics, shouldn’t be able to use camouflage without suffering the PC wrath of Mrs. Grundy and her ilk. Perhaps the broad support for the current war will eventually remove the negative associations from “military” enough to allow us the social freedom to use it again- it’s too early to tell.<br><br>I have a large internal-frame in sage green that doesn’t raise many eyebrows, but I have a rain cover for it that’s (old-style hunter) camouflage on one side and blaze orange on the other, reversible. It’s a nice compromise in color usage. I’ve also seen tarps that are bright on one side and subdued on the other. This helps solve the problem of subdued tarps/tents being dark and gloomy inside… but these days, I get the impression than any piece of gear where the coating can successfully be a different color than the fabric is heavier than it needs to be for backpacking.<br><br>I have a couple of the “survival bandanas” that have been mentioned here, with various info printed on blaze orange cotton blend. They’re not bad- but they’re not 100 percent cotton, and they’re only about 21 inches square, so I doubt their usefulness for signaling. I prefer my black silk 36 inch squares for general use.<br><br>My general rule of thumb is that if an item is small enough to be easily shoved in a pocket, it’s usually better in a bright color to prevent loss- larger items I prefer subdued. FWIW, I’ve always considered small items like flashlights in camouflage ridiculously counter-productive… you drop it, it’s pretty much gone…<br><br>Truth is, I haven’t really got much use for any large bright items in the woods. No kids to keep track of, I haven’t been above timberline in a long time, and I’ve never, thankfully, been the object of a rescue attempt, and don’t intend to be. Besides, I’m under the impression that it typically takes much more than a yard or two of bright color to be spotted from the air, and that reflections and fires are much more effective. My last few real backpacking trips were solo, so nobody really needs to see me, and I'd generally just as soon they didn’t. So far, I’ve avoided more problems by not being seen than I could have ever solved by being seen.<br>

I know absolutes tend to be frowned upon but IMHO there's nothing to match Lowe Alpine, particularly at the larger end of the pack scale.<br>It's the back system, particularly on the "crossbow" models that really swings it for me, but the general build quality and attention to detail is also superb. They manage to provide all the features that you're likely to need without being "fussy" and I appreciate that.<br>For extended trips I use an Alpamayo 70+20 with the addition of a pair of Lowe generic side pockets if I've lots of bulky stuff to haul around. <br><br><br>Nick in Belfast

Hi Chris,<br>I have been checking out Alice gear from Military Surplus. I noticed your comment about them. Doesn't seem that you like them. Can you tell me why?<br>I've been thinking about buying one just to go out camping with. I think for the $ you can't go wrong.<br>Thanks for any information.<br>Joe