Loaded day pack weight

[yycyak]

I'm a bit late on this, but to actually answer your question:

The royal "They" have done studies on this. And without nerding out a ton, the answer is: Roughly 30lbs for "max" performance. To word this another way: 30lbs is about the max a human can carry while still performing at the same level as if he were carrying nothing. Once you're over 30lbs, your agility and power are noticably impacted.

There's a ton of data out there that the militaries of the world have crunched the numbers on. See attachments for 3 of many.

Edit: my pdf attachments too large. Here's some links:

https://www.nsca.com/contentassets/e67109d9615d42a788069d43aa1787f9/tsac-report-67.5-load-carriage-programming-for-special-operations-forces.pdf

https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/pfw-images/borden/LoadCarriagePDF.pdf

https://mcoecbamcoepwprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/library/ebooks/Soldier's%20Load_dated%201980.pdf

Reading this stuff is one of the reasons I've switched my hunting style/pack weights. (For better or worse, TBD.)

Interesting responses. Yes, you can and should lighten up that pack a bit (sounds like you already have) without having to spend $1600 on a lighter pack, puffy etc.

I suppose that after reading the responses, my question is what kind of real performance advantage does one achieve with skimping down to "ultralight" hunting vs. "lightweight" for the purposes of day hunting?

Backpacking? totally get it as there is a huge difference between, say a 68 lbs pack weight and a 51 lbs pack weight for virtually everyone: fit, strong, tough, fast, 225 lbs or 165 lbs: you're going to notice that weight difference and associated fatigue difference.

At some point, however, you seem to hit a tipping point of "light" weight where a few lbs makes no perceivable or practical difference in performance for anyone who is in shape for carrying a pack and not racing for time where there are differences of seconds between the racers. 21 lbs vs. 16 lbs? I'm not sure I could even get an objective performance metric difference for myself if we did a hill climb for time with the two weights. If you're in a very light bodyweight range of, say 120 lbs, it may make a difference. If you put that weight on a dedicated runner or a SkiMo racer, they probably would have (and certainly notice) a performance difference, but somebody in shape for mtn backpacking, short of doing the steepest, hardest, longest, nastiest objective around, I wouldn't put much thoughts into it. In fact, for day hunting, I'd be more prone to throwing a thermos in my pack, bringing a 16 oz meatball sandwich or other luxury items simply because its a day hunt.

Also, you could put 11 lbs in a day pack without a frame and 21 lbs in a day pack with a frame and may perform better with 21 lbs on your hips than 11 lbs on your shoulders. All weight is not equal and optimal doesn't always = practical. At the end of the day, its a day hunt and if you're getting your ass kicked because of a 25 lbs pack weight, your problem is not the weight of the pack.

 

[mtwarden]

When push comes to shove My experience is having a 20-ish lb pack w/ a frame > than a 10 lb pack w/o a frame.

The frame adds weight sure, depending on the packs ~2-4 lbs; it is also generally a little less nimble (frame packs are taller and can get hung up easier), but being able to get a decent load out from the kill site imho outweighs any advantage of a smaller, lighter pack. If a person is hunting relatively close to where the hauler is (truck or base camp) and w/o a lot of elevation gain/loss, maybe a traditional daypack is a better option.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

The Stryker is xl is 3lbs alone. With all the other pack pockets and lid, you are up another 3 pounds or so. Your duplex frame is pushing 4lbs. You are right on with the guess. At least that’s my guess.

You are a serious candidate for a bigger main bag. You can get a much bigger bag at the same or less weight. And, do away with the extra. You’ll loose three pounds right there. Do away with the soft shell.

That’s just what I’d do.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

All I know is that it's kind of heavy, with all the optics, cameras and lenses, communications gear, rifle, cartridges, lunch, fluids jackets, vests, gloves, plastic garbage bags, meat/trophy processing tools, and all the survival/first-aid stuff I'm required to carry every day. Nuts

 

[fngTony]

@guitarpreston how was your trip? Any takeaways about your gear?

 

[guitarpreston]

@guitarpreston how was your trip? Any takeaways about your gear?

Already planning next years and making some changes. I ended up picking up a bedlam because I felt my 22 mag was too full, it was a nice pack but way too large for my needs. Pack was ib the 25-30 pound range. Left my stove at the truck with evening meals there and just carried my snacks and lunch. Used everything except my med kit and kill kit unfortunately. Ended up picking up a straight jacket now and really have been liking it with my whitetail saddle setup.

 

[guitarpreston]

Also pack weight was never an issue compared to the lack of oxygen. I thought I was going to die within sight of my truck at around 11k. Life got a lot better around 8.

 

[fngTony]

Already planning next years and making some changes. I ended up picking up a bedlam because I felt my 22 mag was too full, it was a nice pack but way too large for my needs. Pack was ib the 25-30 pound range. Left my stove at the truck with evening meals there and just carried my snacks and lunch. Used everything except my med kit and kill kit unfortunately. Ended up picking up a straight jacket now and really have been liking it with my whitetail saddle setup.

Bummer about not getting to use your kill kit but otherwise it’s nice when you end up using most things.

 

[guitarpreston]

Bummer about not getting to use your kill kit but otherwise it’s nice when you end up using most things.

Just picked up a muzzy this week. Trying to go back next year with a little more range I’m mad now lol.