It makes a difference, sacrificing strentgh for weight savings is a step in the wrong direction for a hunting pack. I suspected the lack of a 6500 meant the load hauling will be compromised slightly. 87lbs is good but what about 100+ or 125 over 15-20 miles and awkward like 60% strapped externally to your camp. I dont think I can get 7-10days + game into 5200 anyway and am sure I wont be able to justify the premium for a pack I can only use for 3-6 day hunts based on how my hunts seem to go. I am a little skeptical but hopeful too, nice to see someone shaving away everything but the bag and a few straps. I just dont think this is the UL Hunt pack for me yet. Cant wait to see one though.....ahem.....Alaska_Lanche, im talking to you:) Looks like a sweet packrafting setup!
I will be watching for those used G2 LHG's to hit the classifieds.
Likely these werent meant to replace LHG's but fill a gap somewhere else and jump into the UL market, im sure they will be a hit and depending on where they are priced I might end up with one in my gear pile, time will tell.
I'm not so sure that is the reason they didn't come out with a 6500. The Elk Reaper posted on Bowsite, and maybe here as well, that he loaded 150 lbs. in it several times and that he even took a spill and rolled down the hill before a log stopped him and that the pack held up fine. At 6' 170lbs., that is about 50lbs. more than I could manage regardless of the packs volume. I'm thinking that with this pack being geared toward the ultralight backpack hunter that they figured 5200 c.i.'s of space is sufficient for a week or more in the back country for most guys that are willing to give this pack a shot. Likely because they have already minimized the weight and bulk of all their other gear making a 6500 unnecessary thus allowing them to keep the pack at 5200 c.i.'s to save a few more ounces and keep a slighter slimmer profile. Of course I'm just speculating purely for conversation.
My kit is pretty dialed so I do understand how it works, I would be hard pressed to get much smaller. Im not ruling it out but it probably wont be a hunting pack I would use a lot. Short hunts yes, but I just dont do that many short hunts. I like the one sack concept no extra bs. With a little forethought and organization it is easy. The thing with pods is they add weight and snag spots, no big deal for some but I like to buy a bag and use it, I dont want to pay for more [bleep] to hang off of it. How much does it weigh by the time I get it to 6500? How much is the difference in weight savings compared to my G1 now? Which hauls a load better?
These are the things Im weighing out, not trying to bash the pack. I love the idea and could put one to use in several different scenarios. I had some questions while the testers were available and now they are answered. I now have a better idea how I could use it.
Trust me, I want this pack to carry like my older Kifaru pack, more than you know.
It makes a difference, sacrificing strentgh for weight savings is a step in the wrong direction for a hunting pack. I suspected the lack of a 6500 meant the load hauling will be compromised slightly. 87lbs is good but what about 100+ or 125 over 15-20 miles and awkward like 60% strapped externally to your camp. I dont think I can get 7-10days + game into 5200 anyway and am sure I wont be able to justify the premium for a pack I can only use for 3-6 day hunts based on how my hunts seem to go. I am a little skeptical but hopeful too, nice to see someone shaving away everything but the bag and a few straps. I just dont think this is the UL Hunt pack for me yet. Cant wait to see one though.....ahem.....Alaska_Lanche, im talking to you:) Looks like a sweet packrafting setup!
I will be watching for those used G2 LHG's to hit the classifieds.
Likely these werent meant to replace LHG's but fill a gap somewhere else and jump into the UL market, im sure they will be a hit and depending on where they are priced I might end up with one in my gear pile, time will tell.
I'm not so sure that is the reason they didn't come out with a 6500. The Elk Reaper posted on Bowsite, and maybe here as well, that he loaded 150 lbs. in it several times and that he even took a spill and rolled down the hill before a log stopped him and that the pack held up fine. At 6' 170lbs., that is about 50lbs. more than I could manage regardless of the packs volume. I'm thinking that with this pack being geared toward the ultralight backpack hunter that they figured 5200 c.i.'s of space is sufficient for a week or more in the back country for most guys that are willing to give this pack a shot. Likely because they have already minimized the weight and bulk of all their other gear making a 6500 unnecessary thus allowing them to keep the pack at 5200 c.i.'s to save a few more ounces and keep a slighter slimmer profile. Of course I'm just speculating purely for conversation.
My kit is pretty dialed so I do understand how it works, I would be hard pressed to get much smaller. Im not ruling it out but it probably wont be a hunting pack I would use a lot. Short hunts yes, but I just dont do that many short hunts. I like the one sack concept no extra bs. With a little forethought and organization it is easy. The thing with pods is they add weight and snag spots, no big deal for some but I like to buy a bag and use it, I dont want to pay for more [bleep] to hang off of it. How much does it weigh by the time I get it to 6500? How much is the difference in weight savings compared to my G1 now? Which hauls a load better?
These are the things Im weighing out, not trying to bash the pack. I love the idea and could put one to use in several different scenarios. I had some questions while the testers were available and now they are answered. I now have a better idea how I could use it.
Trust me, I want this pack to carry like my older Kifaru pack, more than you know.
You know one thing I didn't take into consideration in my last post was the fact that you're in Alaska. I'm sure that simple fact would make your whole kit much different from mine which throws my whole theory right out the window. I'm down here in Southern California which might as well be Disneyland compared to Alaska. All I have to worry about is carrying enough water and the only scary things in the woods are mountain lions and tweakers. You've got a lot more variables (i.e. weather, freaking grizzly bears, etc.) so I can understand your desire for a straight 6500 c.i. pack without having to deal with additional pods. I bet if this line takes off, like I'm sure it will, they'll probably come out with at least one additional size but from the reviews so far it sounds like they wont have to do anything to beef up the frame cause 150 lbs. in 5200 c.i. is still 150 lbs.
Out of curiosity, how long are your typical hunts? (days and miles)
Also is there any chance that you've ever posted up your gear list that you might have a link to? It would be cool to compare.
6500 is handy in winter. Everything is bigger. You can pm me an email if you want a gearlist or talk further off topic.
150lbs is 150lbs and more then I care to carry. I didnt register on bowsite strictly for the review, probably would have answered most of my questions.
FishKilla, I agree with ya. A 6500 3lb pack on the same frame would be more ideal. Much rather have one larger pack than a smaller one with a bunch of stuff hanging off of it. I like to think I have my gear figured out pretty well but I still struggle to find places to put my gear when I get an animal down. Granted I don't strap anything to the outside of my pack as I like for everything to be contained inside.
Maybe in a few years there will be an option for such a pack from Kifaru.
But for a short hunt pack or simply a lightweight summer packrafting pack with lots of space if not hunting then the would be a great option. I just don't like stuff hanging on the outside of my pack due to my pack being too small. Regardless I will likely buy the 5200 to try it out anyways.
I too like the idea of a 6500-7000 ci bag on the same frame, but with a large pod and two long pockets you are pretty close to 7000 and they compress down well, so they aren't flopping around.
Maybe not as convenient and streamlined as one big bag but pretty versitile. The UL accessories aren't going to add much weight and in my experience it's going to carry better by far than a G1.
Looking at it, it seems like a good plan. Being that its a lighter material like sylnylon that should be a much less expensive material to put together than something like heavy cordura. One would expect that material costs would be less, maybe the pack will come in less cost wise also than a comparable size normal pack.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
So what the hell is everyone going to do with their current Kifaru packs? I assume the resale vaule will be dropping. What is the point of Kifaru even selling the old style packs now, everyone will want the newest and lightest.
Anyways, this looks to be awesome stuff and i will be waiting with credit card in hand on the 15th.
I will keep my Longhunter and G2 Late Season. The UL dont really appeal to me too much but that is just me. Everyone has their own thing. I bet they are going to be badass packs thou as anything kifaru makes is simply awesome.
Add another vote for a 6,500+ version. I know you can add pods and such but I like to have the room in the pack to begin with. Not a big concern as I'm doubting these are going to hit a price point for me to replace my G1 Guide any time soon.
I too like the idea of a 6500-7000 ci bag on the same frame, but with a large pod and two long pockets you are pretty close to 7000 and they compress down well, so they aren't flopping around.
Maybe not as convenient and streamlined as one big bag but pretty versitile. The UL accessories aren't going to add much weight and in my experience it's going to carry better by far than a G1.
Ed,
Yeah you can get the volume up to 6500+ pretty easily with pods. How does the 5200 UL pack compress down when empty?? Is it floppy?? If not do you think the 6500 could be designed similar??
I can't remember what my torso length is for the life of me. But at 5'9 do you think that would warrant the 26" stays or would the 24" stays be sufficient in the 5200?? Could the same pack be fitted to my 5'3 wife if the stays were the shorter 24" version??
I say this with respect, because I hold Ed T's contributions and experience in extremely high regard, but that load in that pack looks a little "slumpy". The top of the pack drooling back and away from your head doesn't look very comfortable to me.
I know that my dana externals an internals will keep things in a nice rigid column with up to and including ludicrous loads (like the boned neck, backstraps, brisket, tenders, and misc. flanks and such from a big moose - loaded to overflowing the ancient Dana alpine I picked up for $50 on craigslist - I only had to carry that one 3/8 mile on flat hard ground).
I'll be interested in seeing additional pics of that rig loaded heavy with a typical one-trip load on other big one-trip animals.
Dana terraframe with same:
The cape was dried to the state of a popcorn fart, and the clothes on the drybag were very light as well. The old sheep guide bush pilot complimented me on the substantial meat haul - he was worried I shot a goat out of season before seeing the sheep horns at the airstrip. His words: you brought out a lot more than some do...
Oh, and the pack pictured is ~6500 in^3. There was still some volume available in the top of the tube, but I wanted to leave that at a height where I could secure the horns as shown with the top compression strap. Hence, the clothing and cape riding out back.
The pictures I have of my 7 day trip are to large to download, but I will post them on the other site. Sorry about that, but here is a pic if the pack compressed.
One, the load is with the extension collar fully extended, so it is well abouve the stays. Just bulky light weight gear there.
Another thing you are seeing is someone with a severe forward curvature of the cervical. It would be nearly impossible to have a pack that would accomadate my curvature.
I have owned a bunch of Dana's and the KUL 5200 is far more comfortable than any of them were.
Also, the stays - they're carbon fiber over hardwood. They don't sound like you can shape them to the curve of your back, as you do with the aluminum dana internal stay. Is stay-bending a necessary part of fitting a kifaru pack?
The pics on bowsite are great - it looks like it would take quite a concerted effort to get the weight of a crushing pack load up to where it's centered between my shoulder blades like I prefer. Will be interesting to see where this goes. A 3-lb pack would be a 5-6 lb weight saving for me.
