24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
-->
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 574
J
JWP58 Offline OP
Campfire Regular
OP Offline
Campfire Regular
J
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 574
Anyone using this pack? Could you give some feedback on the pro's and con's?

thanks.

GB1

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 574
J
JWP58 Offline OP
Campfire Regular
OP Offline
Campfire Regular
J
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 574
Wow nobody huh? Well it looks like a decent pack to use for a 3-4 day trip, and at 130.00 on sale I think its going to be mine!

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,327
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,327
I have a Kelty Coyote, which is in the same family I believe, perhaps a little smaller than the Red Cloud. It has an adjustable torso length. For whatever reason even though I'm fairly tall (6'2") I seem to have a relatively short torso at around 18". I cannot get the Coyote to hold the length it is set at with any load of consequence. After a few miles, the belt and shoulder straps keep getting farther and farther apart.
After using it a couple of times and being disatisfied, I found a used Dana Design Terraplane on Ebay. It is a very comfortable pack.
I don't hate the Kelty and will probably keep it if for no other reason than my daughter can use it when she's a little older. I doubt I'll use it any longer.

I looked at the Red Cloud when I bought the Coyote a few years ago. I've never used a Red Cloud and so, I'm not sure this info is even useful to you.

I suppose it would depend on what you intend to use it for, how heavy the loads you intend to carry, whether you plan to pack meat, etc.
For the money, a used Dana Terraplane is a pretty good pack in my opinion. I feel it is head and shoulders above the Kelty. Taking the time to keep monitoring Ebay can produce one in good condition for not much more than you mention the Kelty sells for.
But there are guys on here with FAR more experience and knowledge than me. In fact, they steered me toward the Terraplane.

Last edited by snubbie; 11/15/13.

Gloria In Excelsis Deo!

Originally Posted by Calvin
As far as gear goes.. The poorer (or cheaper) you are, the tougher you need to be.


gpopecustomknives.com


Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860
T
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
T
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860
Originally Posted by JWP58
Wow nobody huh? Well it looks like a decent pack to use for a 3-4 day trip, and at 130.00 on sale I think its going to be mine!


Is this just for hiking? Or humping out a buck?

If you don't want to spend Kifaru money, the best carrying pack out their is a Dana frame pack. I paid $115 for one and $80 for another, and they weigh about what that Kelty weighs, but of course, you'll have to do some searching.

Sometimes a G1 Kifaru Longhunter comes up fairly reasonalby, say $250 or so. Nothing carries as well as those packs that I've tried, and they'll haul all you can carry. Hill People Gear has made all sorts of gear to pimp them out and cut weight, IE, a "compression panel" pouch and straps that allow you to carry most of your load in a Big River Dry Bag.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,448
T
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
T
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,448
I haven't used one. I looked at one real hard. I don't know if my response is qualified or not. You decide:

I looked one over in the store and decide "no." It doesn't look to me like it'll handle meat very well, even less like it'll handle meat + camping gear well, and for just backpacking, it's a lot bigger than I want: 55-65L is about all I want before I switch to an external frame pack.

Tom


Anyone who thinks there's two sides to everything hasn't met a M�bius strip.

Here be dragons ...
IC B2

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,774
K
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
K
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,774
New ones have been redesigned. $130 price point is excellent. They are specifically made for loads up to 130lbs. They handle 70lbs handily. There are more comfortable packs out there. But the Redcloud 110l is a great pack to start with.

Sincerely,
Thomas

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 574
J
JWP58 Offline OP
Campfire Regular
OP Offline
Campfire Regular
J
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 574
Originally Posted by T_O_M
I haven't used one. I looked at one real hard. I don't know if my response is qualified or not. You decide:

I looked one over in the store and decide "no." It doesn't look to me like it'll handle meat very well, even less like it'll handle meat + camping gear well, and for just backpacking, it's a lot bigger than I want: 55-65L is about all I want before I switch to an external frame pack.

Tom


That is my main concern, it handling meat.

I'm very much on the fence about it. Maybe a Horn Hunters full curl system or a Tenzing tz6000 would be better options for 3-5 day back country backpack hunts.

I like the load shelf on the horn hunters and the Tenzing has a ventilated meat compartment. They are both about the same price so that's a wash. But as of now those are the ones I'm considering.

I guess I could always buy both and return one. I do like the fact that the HH is made in the USA. The Tenzing is made in china I believe. The HH is very modular too. Looks like it could work as a day pack/or backcountry pack all in one system.


Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
AX24

509 members (17CalFan, 10gaugeman, 204guy, 007FJ, 2500HD, 06hunter59, 47 invisible), 2,638 guests, and 1,256 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,190,598
Posts18,454,390
Members73,908
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 


Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.072s Queries: 14 (0.003s) Memory: 0.8158 MB (Peak: 0.8894 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-04-19 03:57:15 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS