Lightweight Pack - Thru Hiking and Hunting

[NDF]

For you all that hike and hunt, have you found one pack that works for backcountry hunting and hiking that keeps the total weight reasonable for both activities

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

Not really. Even an Ultra fabric hunting pack that is designed to carry 100+ lbs is going to weigh 4 lbs.

For lightweight backpacking, where 30 lbs is a more realistic weight, a sub 2 lb pack is more ideal. Everyone loves Hyperlite Mountain Gear packs, and I have a Porter 4400, the lack of load lifters is annoying. If I was going to buy a lightweight pack today, I would order a custom one from Southern Lite Packs.

 

[nnmarcher]

There will be some trade-off between load carrying capability and weight of the pack. A hiking pack will be at its heaviest at the start of the trip and get lighter as you go, so the pack may only need to be comfortable with ~40lbs (or whatever your anticipated weight is for an X day length backpacking trip). A hunting pack has to do that AND be "comfortable" with an additional load of meat, so now you are looking at 70+lbs. That capability usually has a weight penalty.

I would look at Seek Outside's Backpack hunting packs. They are lighter than many other hunting packs but still carry loads well. It would be easier to use a heavier hunting pack (SG, Exo, Kifaru, Seek Outside) for backpacking than a lightweight backpacking pack for hauling meat.

 

[BBob]

Nope. As said above a hunting pack is north of 4lbs (some are well north of 4) and a light through hike pack is south of 2lbs. If 2lbs isn’t an issue then pick any one of the hunting packs, put an appropriate sized bag on it and go. My latest light pack is a Durston Kakwa which is south of 2lbs and carries very well. It has functional load lifters.

 

[justinspicher]

I use the same pack for both adventures. To me, the weight of the pack is irrelevant. It’s what’s in the pack that makes it heavy.

 

[Speaks]

I use the same pack for both adventures. To me, the weight of the pack is irrelevant. It’s what’s in the pack that makes it heavy.

I generally feel that super light packs are more about chasing numbers on a spreadsheet than comfort. A well designed back makes carrying weight more comfortable. Not saying a pack rated for 100lbs is optimized for 30, but its better than a frameless dyneema sack with shoulder straps.

 

[justinspicher]

I completely agree. I’m also too cheap to buy another pack for a single purpose. Might as well buy a pack just to practice walking with weight at that point.

 

[Clarktar]

There will be some trade-off between load carrying capability and weight of the pack. A hiking pack will be at its heaviest at the start of the trip and get lighter as you go, so the pack may only need to be comfortable with ~40lbs (or whatever your anticipated weight is for an X day length backpacking trip). A hunting pack has to do that AND be "comfortable" with an additional load of meat, so now you are looking at 70+lbs. That capability usually has a weight penalty.

I would look at Seek Outside's Backpack hunting packs. They are lighter than many other hunting packs but still carry loads well. It would be easier to use a heavier hunting pack (SG, Exo, Kifaru, Seek Outside) for backpacking than a lightweight backpacking pack for hauling meat.

This is the way!

 

[BBob]

frameless dyneema sack with shoulder straps

Some of the newer designs like the Durston's have a frame, are curved to match your back, etc... and do much better than the old lightweight sack packs of the past. The Durston is not uncomfortable at all carrying 35lbs. He says it'll do more but that's all I've needed it for.

 

[RyanSeek43]

There will be some trade-off between load carrying capability and weight of the pack. A hiking pack will be at its heaviest at the start of the trip and get lighter as you go, so the pack may only need to be comfortable with ~40lbs (or whatever your anticipated weight is for an X day length backpacking trip). A hunting pack has to do that AND be "comfortable" with an additional load of meat, so now you are looking at 70+lbs. That capability usually has a weight penalty.

I would look at Seek Outside's Backpack hunting packs. They are lighter than many other hunting packs but still carry loads well. It would be easier to use a heavier hunting pack (SG, Exo, Kifaru, Seek Outside) for backpacking than a lightweight backpacking pack for hauling meat.

Our Gila, Divide and Unaweep are good Sub 3 lb. packs that can also haul out elk quarters. They use the same frame as our tru hunting packs.

 

[Luke S]

I hiked the Colorado Trail with a 2 pound pack and played the SUL (sub 5 pounds gear weight) game before I got into packrafting and then hunting. So I tried them all.

For a compromise my Seek Outside Unaweep is around 3.5 pounds. It handles packrafting gear way better than a 2.5 pound HMG pack. It can pack out a caribou with 100 plus pounds of meat. A moose quarter won't fit in it. But if you aren't packing out moose it works. I use it for almost everything now (especially since I carry extra gear for my wife that I didn't use as a single guy).

My main concern with a "do it all" pack is blood and wear/tear. Right now I just hose out my pack after a hunting trip. If I hiked in Wyoming (lots of protected bears) I'd have a separate hunting pack and hiking pack to minimize the chances of meat/blood smells creating an incident.

If I was shopping for a "hiking" pack I'd look for something with a light frame in the 2-2.5 pound range. You can save a few oz with a frameless rucksack but that only makes sense to me if you stiffen it with a foam sleeping pad. If you want an inflatable pad you might as well spend a few oz for a comfortable frame.

 

[Truck24hr]

If hikes were sub 15 mile days, I think your hunting pack would be fine.

I hike a lot. Most days are 30-40 miles for me, so I go UL there.

My hunting pack is 5 and a half pounds empty. I think my hiking packs are 20 oz and 32 oz

 

[Speaks]

Some of the newer designs like the Durston's have a frame, are curved to match your back, etc... and do much better than the old lightweight sack packs of the past. The Durston is not uncomfortable at all carrying 35lbs. He says it'll do more but that's all I've needed it for.

I would imagine the Durston one is nice.