Post by: BiggMayn on January 24, 2014, 02:03:35 PM
http://outdoorsmans.com/outdoorsmans-optics-hunter-pack-system/ (http://outdoorsmans.com/outdoorsmans-optics-hunter-pack-system/)
Post by: spin05 on August 08, 2015, 12:55:18 AM
Post by: Dbax129 on August 08, 2015, 05:34:53 AM
Post by: aaronp13 on August 08, 2015, 07:38:47 AM
The frame is also made of a flexible type material, so it forms to your back. Pretty nice. The guy at the show loaded it with 60 pounds and let me take a walk around. Felt great, but I only wore it for 5 minutes. Can't say how it would do over the course of a week long hunt, but from what I can tell, it would be great. Also, the storage compartment layout is ideal. Lots of places to store your gear securely.
I bought an Eberlestock Blue Widow before I knew anything about how a pack should fit. Turns out it is much too short for my torso, so it doesnt do a great job at distributing the weight for me.
Aaron
Post by: jackelope on August 08, 2015, 08:04:25 AM
Post by: jackelope on August 08, 2015, 08:06:26 AM
http://themeateater.com/gear/hunter-pack-system/ although it takes you to that same dead link.
:dunno:
Other Outdoorsman pack systems:
http://outdoorsmans.com/collections/backpacks/optics-hunter-pack
http://outdoorsmans.com/collections/backpacks/long-range-pack
Post by: grundy53 on August 08, 2015, 08:51:30 AM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: 7mag. on August 08, 2015, 11:40:21 AM
Do the load lifters work?
No, they don't. I can't understand how these companies keep making and selling packs for several hundred dollars without load lifters. I guess 99% of hunters don't know how a pack is supposed to fit.
Post by: kentrek on August 08, 2015, 12:40:42 PM
Do the load lifters work?
No, they don't. I can't understand how these companies keep making and selling packs for several hundred dollars without load lifters. I guess 99% of hunters don't know how a pack is supposed to fit.
Lol you should let Steven know that his pack doesn't fit him and he's been uncomfortable all this time in the field ;)
Post by: j_h_nimrod on August 08, 2015, 12:49:39 PM
:yeah:Do the load lifters work?
No, they don't. I can't understand how these companies keep making and selling packs for several hundred dollars without load lifters. I guess 99% of hunters don't know how a pack is supposed to fit.
Quote from: kentrek link=topic=146019.msg2374848#msg2374848
date=1439062842
date=1439062842
Do the load lifters work?
No, they don't. I can't understand how these companies keep making and selling packs for several hundred dollars without load lifters. I guess 99% of hunters don't know how a pack is supposed to fit.
Lol you should let Steven know that his pack doesn't fit him and he's been uncomfortable all this time in the field ;)
I have seen a lot of people sponsor stuff that is garbage just because there is $$ in it for them. It is a business and they are selling the products, so obviously they want everyone to think it is the best.
Not sure about the flexible frame, I use a pack frame because I want the rigidity. If I was fine with flex with heavy loads I would do all my packing with my internal frame pack. Also I like the weight on my hips, not my shoulders, and those "load lifters" are nothing of the sort. They just cinch the frame closer to your back, putting more pull on your shoulders.
It looks like it has some good features but it needs some work before I would buy it.
Post by: jackelope on August 08, 2015, 12:55:21 PM
Do the load lifters work?
No, they don't. I can't understand how these companies keep making and selling packs for several hundred dollars without load lifters. I guess 99% of hunters don't know how a pack is supposed to fit.
Lol you should let Steven know that his pack doesn't fit him and he's been uncomfortable all this time in the field ;)
My question was honestly a little on the sarcastic side. Clearly those load lifters do not function. If I was looking into a pack designed for hauling heavy loads, this is not the pack I would pick. I think the layout of the pack is cool, and I almost bought one a while back.
I think they run $400 or so depending on how they're equipped. I know the construction is heavy duty, etc. Just not sold on the load carrying ability.
Nate Simmons and Co from Western Hunter all wear those packs too.
:dunno:
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on August 08, 2015, 01:58:11 PM
IMO some hunters think the terms fit and comfort, fall hand in hand with function and ability. And that is true for some of us. But for most they do not. The fact that one pack is less comfortable with X amount of weight, has nothing to do with its ability to carry X amount of weight. And because IMO a small percentage of hunters will ever cross the threshhold where X is greater than a given packs comfort level, and an even smaller percentage that will exceed its ability. It makes sense that many pack companies cater to that market. :dunno:
Post by: j_h_nimrod on August 08, 2015, 06:20:17 PM
I certainly agree with that. Sadly, most hunters might use their pack once or twice a year and that is not enough to realize the difference in load carrying ability and comfort. I have carried well over 150# in a good pack and it felt every bit of it's weight but was manageable and as comfortable as that can be. I have also carried 40# in a crappy pack and thought I was going to die after a mile, but that is because I already knew what a good pack was supposed to feel like. If I had not known better I would have just thought that it sucked but that was what it should feel like.
I agree the pack has some good features but it has too many things wrong with it for me to drop $400. I would much rather look at a Kuiu, Mystery Ranch, Badlands, or something similar.
Post by: 7mag. on August 08, 2015, 06:21:27 PM
I don't think Rinella and Simmons are endorsing them for the money, but even if they were the Outdoorsmans pack certainly seems like a product worth looking at. I know I have, and found alot of appealing features for the price range.
IMO some hunters think the terms fit and comfort, fall hand in hand with function and ability. And that is true for some of us. But for most they do not. The fact that one pack is less comfortable with X amount of weight, has nothing to do with its ability to carry X amount of weight. And because IMO a small percentage of hunters will ever cross the threshhold where X is greater than a given packs comfort level, and an even smaller percentage that will exceed its ability. It makes sense that many pack companies cater to that market. :dunno:
They most certainly are 100% endorsing them for the money. That's how you make a living hosting a T.V. show. Look how many times the Eastman's has changed the gear they use over the years. Going from Swarovski to Nikon? No one will ever convince me that they like Nikon optics better. They use the products that are paying the bills, simple as that.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on August 08, 2015, 07:07:23 PM
:yeah:
I certainly agree with that. Sadly, most hunters might use their pack once or twice a year and that is not enough to realize the difference in load carrying ability and comfort. I have carried well over 150# in a good pack and it felt every bit of it's weight but was manageable and as comfortable as that can be. I have also carried 40# in a crappy pack and thought I was going to die after a mile, but that is because I already knew what a good pack was supposed to feel like. If I had not known better I would have just thought that it sucked but that was what it should feel like.
I agree the pack has some good features but it has too many things wrong with it for me to drop $400. I would much rather look at a Kuiu, Mystery Ranch, Badlands, or something similar.
I agree with your statement..... Except I dont find it sad. The less they use theirs the more I can use mine! :tup:
I am sorry if I was unclear, I dont use the Outdoorsman Pack. I simply beleive they would function as they should for the money. I have hauled heavy loads +100, in enough packs to truly believe that my Kifaru duplex is the most comfortable pack I have ever worn. It is also the most expensive. For MY use and budget that expense was justified. That said I have hauled 100+, in Eberlestock , badlands, cabelas alaskan, and other frames. Not nearly as comfortable, but plenty ABLE. I think many manufactures have elevated their game, and the majority of packs should handle a 40 pound load reasonably well.I don't think Rinella and Simmons are endorsing them for the money, but even if they were the Outdoorsmans pack certainly seems like a product worth looking at. I know I have, and found alot of appealing features for the price range.
IMO some hunters think the terms fit and comfort, fall hand in hand with function and ability. And that is true for some of us. But for most they do not. The fact that one pack is less comfortable with X amount of weight, has nothing to do with its ability to carry X amount of weight. And because IMO a small percentage of hunters will ever cross the threshhold where X is greater than a given packs comfort level, and an even smaller percentage that will exceed its ability. It makes sense that many pack companies cater to that market. :dunno:
They most certainly are 100% endorsing them for the money. That's how you make a living hosting a T.V. show. Look how many times the Eastman's has changed the gear they use over the years. Going from Swarovski to Nikon? No one will ever convince me that they like Nikon optics better. They use the products that are paying the bills, simple as that.
I should have been more clear..... I dont think they are endorsing "garbage" (reffering to j.h earlier post regarding some celebritys endorsing garbage just to get a dollar. I agree their are many of those, but I dont think these guys fall into that category) Yes they go where the money is. I simply dont see them as being deceitful by endorsing these packs. From what I have seen they certainly appear to be a quality product and company. I am not arguing that Swaro are better glass than nikon or that the eastmans crew are saying they like them better. I dont know I dont watch the show. But for someone to endorse Nikon as quality glass is not outlandish. Especially considering the price point these companies are competing at.
Post by: Stein on August 09, 2015, 08:28:20 PM
The older I get, the less I worry about gear.
Post by: 7mag. on August 09, 2015, 10:19:21 PM
At the end of the day, the pack doesn't carry the weight, the person does. Some could be better or worse, but most of us would be better off fixing our abilities rather than looking for the ultimate nylon solution. People have successfully carried tons of weight long before carbon fiber or 1,000 D nylon was invented.
The older I get, the less I worry about gear.
Might as well get rid of phones, automobiles, refrigeration, computers, etc. Who needs advances in technology anyway? I'll just dig out my dad's old wooden frame pack and get compressed disks like he did.
Post by: MountainWalk on August 09, 2015, 10:49:44 PM
Post by: 7mag. on August 09, 2015, 11:00:25 PM
Post by: BiggMayn on August 10, 2015, 08:24:39 AM
I ended up getting the optics pack about a year ago and like it a lot. I've carried it empty and with 100 lbs (and everywhere in between). The layout is good, my only negative feedback is how heavy it is empty...but compared with other external framed packs I've tried it is similar in weight and price.
If anyone in interested in the pack let me know and we can try to meet up for you to try it out. That is what another member on here did for me.
Post by: kentrek on August 10, 2015, 08:59:39 AM
I ended up getting the optics pack about a year ago and like it a lot. I've carried it empty and with 100 lbs
You didnt have load lifters so you actually didn't like your pack... :chuckle: okay okay I'm done ranting and actually should apologize for being alil rash in my previous post
Any loaded down pictures? ?
Post by: BiggMayn on August 10, 2015, 09:38:38 AM