Kifaru Shape Charge: Convince me

[TubbsTru]

I’ve been running the Kifaru Urban Zippy for a while. I love its layout—its classic design.

But that Shape Charge has got my attention. I’ve put it in my cart several times.

Anybody had both?

The fact that the SC has a framesheet, more space, and belt seems to make it a no-brainer. But there is something so simple and classic about the Urban Zippy.

Mainly using it for hiking, mushroom foraging, canoe trips and camping, not so much hunting.

So, any thoughts?

 

[thinhorn_AK]

Lots of good options for packs like this right now, I think I’m going with a stone glacier for a hiking pack.

 

[Cantharellus]

Never used an Urban Zippy but I have the Shape Charge now. I always like having a belt on my packs so the UZ wouldn't even be something I would really consider owning. The SC is starting to grow on me, all of the pockets and features are well thought out. I like the option of adding pockets to the inner webbing matrix as well as the outer one. I used both this weekend on an ice fishing trip. The Sherman Pocket pairs really well with the pack if you need a bit more capacity.

I will be using my Shape Charge for plenty of hiking, mushrooming/foraging, and fishing trips this year. As well as a carry on for the occasional trip, or weekend bag when I'm on the road. I think you could get away with a quick overnight camping trip if you pack light or are using another method of gear transport (canoe or car). The SC would also make a great EDC bag. I hang my laptop from the chamber pocket attachment points using a Tom Bihn Cache.

 

[TubbsTru]

Never used an Urban Zippy but I have the Shape Charge now. I always like having a belt on my packs so the UZ wouldn't even be something I would really consider owning. The SC is starting to grow on me, all of the pockets and features are well thought out. I like the option of adding pockets to the inner webbing matrix as well as the outer one. I used both this weekend on an ice fishing trip. The Sherman Pocket pairs really well with the pack if you need a bit more capacity.

I will be using my Shape Charge for plenty of hiking, mushrooming/foraging, and fishing trips this year. As well as a carry on for the occasional trip, or weekend bag when I'm on the road. I think you could get away with a quick overnight camping trip if you pack light or are using another method of gear transport (canoe or car). The SC would also make a great EDC bag. I hang my laptop from the chamber pocket attachment points using a Tom Bihn Cache.

Hey- great handle.

Thanks for the good thoughts.

 

[Cantharellus]

Hey- great handle.

Thanks for the good thoughts.

I figured you might notice it with the mention mushroom hunting!

 

[Pardner]

Have both, still use both. I like the SC over the UZ because it's got structure, is taller and more streamlined, grab and go into the woods with a heavier load with the use of a load bearing belt, and the best feature for me is the two separate external pocket up top since it really fits my needs. Worst thing for me about the SC is the lack of a black color for urban edc.

I like the UZ over the SC because it is more compact (goes nicely under an airline seat, diner chair, conference table chair, etc.) grab and go into the city since it's lighter and so simple that it blends in very nicely, and the best feature for me is that I bought one in black before they discontinued that color. Worst thing for me is the position of the side pockets due to the side openings, because of this it is higher and adds to the tippy nature of the bag when setting it down, but worth the trade-off for me.

I highly recommend both. However if I could only have one, because I do a lot of travelling in sketchy countries and this bag will be with me almost all the time, the compactness, simpleness, and blackness of the UZ makes it my choice... but I would rather keep both. SC in black please if Kifaru is reading.

For the OP stated use ("Mainly using it for hiking, mushroom foraging, canoe trips and camping, not so much hunting.") I would recommend the SC over the UZ because it is better in the woods with its structure, height, dual top pockets, molle, and ability to use an omni belt.

 

[TubbsTru]

Have both, still use both. I like the SC over the UZ because it's got structure, is taller and more streamlined, grab and go into the woods with a heavier load with the use of a load bearing belt, and the best feature for me is the two separate external pocket up top since it really fits my needs. Worst thing for me about the SC is the lack of a black color for urban edc.

I like the UZ over the SC because it is more compact (goes nicely under an airline seat, diner chair, conference table chair, etc.) grab and go into the city since it's lighter and so simple that it blends in very nicely, and the best feature for me is that I bought one in black before they discontinued that color. Worst thing for me is the position of the side pockets due to the side openings, because of this it is higher and adds to the tippy nature of the bag when setting it down, but worth the trade-off for me.

I highly recommend both. However if I could only have one, because I do a lot of travelling in sketchy countries and this bag will be with me almost all the time, the compactness, simpleness, and blackness of the UZ makes it my choice... but I would rather keep both. SC in black please if Kifaru is reading.

For the OP stated use ("Mainly using it for hiking, mushroom foraging, canoe trips and camping, not so much hunting.") I would recommend the SC over the UZ because it is better in the woods with its structure, height, dual top pockets, molle, and ability to use an omni belt.

Excellent thoughts

Thank you

 

[mateen]

...

SC in black please if Kifaru is reading.

...

Agreed, would buy a Shape Charge in black today if it were available.

 

[WVHunter90]

I know the SC isn’t considered a load bearing pack but with the internal frame what is everyone’s opinion of how much weight would be comfortable to carry?

 

[JollyRoger]

I know the SC isn’t considered a load bearing pack but with the internal frame what is everyone’s opinion of how much weight would be comfortable to carry?

I can’t tell you an exact weight, but I’ve been using mine a ton. Loaded down with a few MREs, 4 liters of water, a few spare radio batteries, poncho, woobie, spare socks, smokes, and some other items I easily had 25 to 30lbs or so in mine. It carried just fine with its suspension. This was all without a hip belt. It might do better or carry more with the belt, it just wasn’t needed for me in this role


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WVHunter90]

I can’t tell you an exact weight, but I’ve been using mine a ton. Loaded down with a few MREs, 4 liters of water, a few spare radio batteries, poncho, woobie, spare socks, smokes, and some other items I easily had 25 to 30lbs or so in mine. It carried just fine with its suspension. This was all without a hip belt. It might do better or carry more with the belt, it just wasn’t needed for me in this role


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for the reply, I’m an eastern game hunter mostly but come out west every year for elk was just looking for something to treestand hunt with yet I could also use on my frame for short day hunts as well if I wouldn’t be staying for extended days and need my big bag.