UKH

Hi Folks,

I'm looking for a climbing + bivvi / tent pack. We're just looking at getting out to some higher crags and camping for a few days, any my 40l pack is too small.

I'm 6' 1" and find a lot of packs a little too short in the back. I tried an Crux AK47 recently but unless one comes up second-hand there a little pricey for limited use.

So ideally something 45 - 55 liters that I can also climb with. Any recommendations please?

Crux AK47-X - ideal but expensive  (Second hand size 3 anyone?)

Low Alpine Halcyon 45:50 - I have a feeling I found this a little short, and that the hip belt didn't tighten up enough.

Deuter Guide 45+ - not a great fit on me.

I could get a general large hiking pack and just stuff a small daysack in, but figured I'd see about climbing specific options first, i.e ones that also suitable for winter should I get into it.

Patagonia Ascensionist 55 maybe? Or Black Diamond? They also (used to) make climbing packs with different back lengths. 

I use the older Ak57... not much more in weight but enough volume for quite some days if packed carefully.

Inded they're pricey, but given how tough they are (and also nice touches like being waterproof), I'd say it is worth the cost.  I bought mine before I saved up for a proper jacket... I still don't regret it

I tried one a while ago, nice packs but a little short iirc. Though I noticed they've updated them since, so might be worth another look.

We're currently doing a group test on all-rounder packs in the 40L sort of ballpark - models that are good to climb with, or go out walking for a day, but also big and supportive enough to carry overnight gear if needed.

At least a couple of these are around 42-44 litres, which sounds like the sort of size you're after (you may end up carrying rope etc on the outside even still, but you have to draw the size line somewhere if you're also wanting to winter climb wearing it - and for me that'd probably be around 45 litres).

I'm 6' and I find most fixed length day packs are too short on me. Some are available in different sizes, and I guess there are a rare few that have adjustable length backs (none in the group test that I can think of).

Of the models I'm personally using, the Mountain Equipment Fang 42 (plus) is the best fit on me - I find it long enough for the hip belt to sit where it should and do its job properly (not the case for me with several other packs). It also offers a good combination of capacity, excess packing (floating lid, daisychains etc), support when heavily weighted, and still good to climb with. It'd be a very decent winter climbing pack for instance.  

I looked at the 57, but the 47 with a floating lid looked huge when fully packed, it seemed closer to 50/52. So I was thinking it'd do for rack, tent, down bag & food. Plus the 47 should be a little more versatile, though the roll top opening did seem a little narrow tbh.

I have seen the Fang but I've just sold on my Ogre 42, which would have been too small I think, plus it was a little short in the back tbh. Is the Fang much different to the Ogre?

Cheers

Michael

Standard response would be good ol' Aiguille Alpine, since they'd make you one made to measure... 

Yea they look good, particularly the 47+10. Much cheaper than Crux and I kinda like the retro look. Have you any idea how they carry loads compared to others?

Cant comment on the roll top, as mine is before they started with those.  But for multiday stuff I find the 57 is really required... once you start chucking in food for a few days (even freeze dried), its full quickly.  And with the decent compression straps, having it under packed isn't an issue.  I've even used it for day multipitch with only a few items in.  Nothing moved about, but there was a lot of excess strap.

The floating lid is ok, especially for chucking rope under, but I'd try not to rely on it for volume as it then makes the pack very high (problem for looking up with a helmet on).

Afraid I've not used the Ogre to comment personally, but the Fang is a more traditional lidded affair, and I find it pretty roomy for its stated size

you can often find second hand Mac Pacs around 50 ltrs online. I got one for £20 years ago and it was like new. Absolutely bomber and I lived of it for weeks at a time when I worked doing expeds. I'd get one of those if you can. Great for cragging too.

Lawrence

Lowe Alpine do a 35:45 option thats super expandable and i've used for weeks at a time. Mine has always sat a bit high on me as I'm 6ft 2, but its still comfy

https://www.millets.co.uk/350609/lowe-alpine-airzone-pro-3545-rucksack-3506...

At airport checking on our first trip me and the Mrs couldnt figure out why my bag fitted but hers didnt (by a few cms, emminently blaggable). Turns out she had bought the longer back version, which I didnt know existed!

I use the AK 57 for camping trips, however I use the extra 10L over the AK 47 for cameras, drones and lenses, the 47 would probably be fine space wise for your needs.

bomber rucksack and pretty light.

Mine at 40l has a simple padded back and hip belt design, no plastic preformed cantilevered engineering here. My aim backpacking is to carry a load light enough not to need a big heavy pack.

Not sure about their bigger packs though.