sheep pack weight ?????

[bigwhiteys]

Personal preference only - I don't like having things dangling or bulking off the hip belt. I'd have shot the water bottle you have off the side swinging like a pendulum within a day. (tried it just once with a smaller nalgene).

haha I don't even notice the Nalgene there. It doesn't swing at all when full of water. It's the easiest place to access and put away the bottle for me as I don't have the mobility in my shoulders (rugby injuries) to reach back with a full pack and pull a water bottle out of the side pockets and I don't like having camelbaks or bladders inside my bag.

To be honest, I'd have to see what packing a ram is like in a MR over considerable distance to make a judgement call for myself.

You could always use it as an excuse to shoot a dink! "well, I needed to shoot this ram, because I am testing a pack you see..."

we've made clear 120lbs is 120lbs.
we know the packs don't defy gravity.
we know that it boils down to personal preference on "fit" & "feel"

It's unfortunate for the people that want to buy these packs that Barneys or MR don't have a larger network of dealers, or even boutique shops that carry their gear or at least FIT the gear with demo models, and then the owner of the shop that fit the user gets a little $$ for their time win/win.

Any of these packs are $$$ to buy sight unseen, hence why I am doing my own comparison, based on my own use and publishing it on my site.

Carl may have missed your point a bit about the meat shelf/sleeping bag thing (ie. that its pack volume that doesn't count in the advertised cubic inches because its outside of the pack bag). But he is correct about the utility of that space on an MR pack (the lower compartment), especially considering the size of sleeping bags these days.

My old synthetic sleeping weighed about 4lbs, and along with the sleeping pad nearly took the entire MR lower compartment up. I upgraded to the Valandre bag which weighs 2lbs, and takes less than 1/2 the space. Now I can see how useful the comp. really is.



Carl

[Kody94]

My pics aren't great, but here are a few of my MR NICE 6500 in use...

Loaded up for a 5 day spike out from a base camp...there was plenty of room, as one would expect, for adding a sheep if necessary. I had lots of cold/wet weather gear and a fairly skookum sleeping bag on this trip.





A little better view of it, but not full (you can see my solo tent in the background)..



Here's day 2 of an 8 day hiking trip (not the same gear as a sheep hunt, for sure)...

[Kody94]

I think you're missing that I do not use capacity whatsoever as a reason for using a bag.

That's not how I read your commentary above.

Overall utilization of the pack is what comes to mind on a sheep hunt and the layout design. Capacity is just a small part of the piece.

Agreed.

The user of a MR pack told me the pack is awsome and packs great going in. I've never doubted that at all. Carrying a heavy ram load, he concluded his partners Barney worked better under heavy loads and he was wishing he had one after using the Barney for a few miles.

I'd like to know more...could he pinpoint the difference? Did the waistbelt not fit correctly? Is he using too small of a yoke on his MR? Was it the thicker shoulder padding on the Barney? Did he just prefer where the load sat with the Barney?

The first time I used my MR I wasn't doing back-flips, but since I have learned what adjustments I needed to make (larger yoke, better ascender adjustment, etc), it feels MUCH better under load now.

I wouldn't want to make a decision to upgrade to the Barney based on a persons preference, if I wasn't sure that he had at least considered what might be wrong with the set up on his MR when he was comparing.

To me personally, that is what is important. Those comments really resonate considering they're hardcore sheep hunters as well. Just about every modern high end backpack on the market with comparable space these days will pack comfortable up to 45-65 lbs.

I agree. That kind of feedback is gold....but I'd want to be sure that it was a fair comparison.

Until I get a new sleeping bag as you pointed out (the one I have is ancient and has seen alot of time in the mountains) that compacts smaller and yes there's plenty of room room inside the backpack for it. Until then, my lightweight sleeping bag which is bulky / heavy by today's standards will have to be lashed under. SSS however, was able to stuff his inside.

Thinking about it, I am sure one could utilize the space under the Barney bag regardless...a waterproof stuff sack with clothing or food comes quickly to mind.

[Kody94]

Carl, you mentioned that the waistbelt on the Barney was tighter, but maybe less comfortable....could you explain a little more? Does the Barney just have greater adjustability (ie. less padded area), and so is more "one-size-fits-all"?

[troutseeker]

[quote=bigwhiteys;825648]


Is this going to be your final pack job? My MR fully loaded up, is smaller and with a lower profile.

__________________________________________________ ____________

Hi Carl,

not my final pack job, lol, just stuffed the bag to show how big it can expand to. In my opinion there is tons of room for all the gear you'd need and a sheep if the stars align. Side pockets for better organizing, maybe. And it's pretty easy to tie stuff on hte outside with all these military style loops.

So far I've only used the pack on one 4 day hiking hunt. I had 48 pounds in there and it carried comfortably. Unfortunattely, the big 5X5 mulie would not let me get close enough to put an arrow in him, so no pack out with load...

I am very interested in your Valandre sleeping bag. I read the review on your web site, and it sounds like a great bag. Amazing how little room it takes to pack!

Cheers, Clude

[bigwhiteys]

Carl, you mentioned that the waistbelt on the Barney was tighter, but maybe less comfortable....could you explain a little more? Does the Barney just have greater adjustability (ie. less padded area), and so is more "one-size-fits-all"?

The Barney frame appears to be one-size-fits all. I can see where a larger guy would max out the waist belt, and some other solution would need to be applied.

The MR adjustable waistbelt could be fit to a much larger person.

The MR waistbelt has thicker padding, especially for the small of your back.

The Barney waistbelt interior has a very grippy rubberized coating, to stop slippage, which is a nice feature.





The Barney waistbelt when tightened around your hips sort of has a bit of a natural curve to it that is supposed to rest on your hips.



The shoulder straps on the Barney are clearly more padded, but I much prefer to have the load bearing on my hips/legs than my shoulders back.



With the MR being very cushy in the HIP area, and the Barney lacking. And Barney being very cushy in the SHOULDER area and MR lacking. A combination of the two would be awesome.

Carl

[Kody94]

Thanks Carl! That is very helpful to see like that!

I like to max out my ascenders and keep as much weight as possible off of my shoulders...and have it ride entirely on my hips/back and chest. Conceptually at least, it looks like the MR system would accomplish that best, or at least make it most comfortable.

I agree that a combination might be best. The thickly padded shoulder straps do like nice, and sure couldn't hurt!!

The "rubberized" hip belt makes a lot of sense...all of my packs, (incl. the MR) do tend to slip down my synthetic pants (or bib rainpants), etc, especially when I'm pushin a good bead...and require regular re-adjustment.

[BCrams]

The shoulder straps on the Barney are clearly more padded, but I much prefer to have the load bearing on my hips/legs than my shoulders back.

With the MR being very cushy in the HIP area, and the Barney lacking. And Barney being very cushy in the SHOULDER area and MR lacking. A combination of the two would be awesome.

Carl

Not a problem packing the Barney on the hips under regular loads and no weight on the shoulders.

The extra padding comes handy when you've got a sheep down and 120 lbs or you're packing elk quarters. You're going to notice it on both hips and shoulders irregardless and more so with thin shoulder straps. The MR hip padding probably stays and rides better on the hips than the Barney but I havn't had too much trouble and thats where body type / hip fit comes into play.

A combination would work for sure.

Overall between the two packs. The MR offers way more versatality and use for an array of hunts. The Barney is a work horse pretty much made for one or two things.

Guys ask me what they should get. A MR or a Barney.

I ask them what they want to do with it and it usually entails a pack to do it all, short hunts, long hunts, deer, elk, goat, sheep and from overnighters through to longer trips. I tell them to go with the MR pack without hesitation.

If a fellow says he wants a pack for an annual 2 week sheep hunt and solely for sheep hunting with some other use like maybe packing elk or moose quarters. I recommend the Barney.

So a pack with more bang for your buck and getting use out of it other than sheep hunting - definatly the MR or other packs like eberlestock etc.

[Maxx]

Not a problem packing the Barney on the hips under regular loads and no weight on the shoulders.

The extra padding comes handy when you've got a sheep down and 120 lbs or you're packing elk quarters. You're going to notice it on both hips and shoulders irregardless and more so with thin shoulder straps. The MR hip padding probably stays and rides better on the hips than the Barney but I havn't had too much trouble and thats where body type / hip fit comes into play.

A combination would work for sure.

Overall between the two packs. The MR offers way more versatality and use for an array of hunts. The Barney is a work horse pretty much made for one or two things.

Guys ask me what they should get. A MR or a Barney.

I ask them what they want to do with it and it usually entails a pack to do it all, short hunts, long hunts, deer, elk, goat, sheep and from overnighters through to longer trips. I tell them to go with the MR pack without hesitation.

If a fellow says he wants a pack for an annual 2 week sheep hunt and solely for sheep hunting with some other use like maybe packing elk or moose quarters. I recommend the Barney.

So a pack with more bang for your buck and getting use out of it other than sheep hunting - definatly the MR or other packs like eberlestock etc.

What do both of these packs weigh empty?

[bigwhiteys]

What do both of these packs weigh empty?

MR = Approx 9lbs
Barney "hunter" = Approx 11lbs.

That is with the frame included and no attachments. They are both heavy packs. There are many mass produced mountaineering packs on the market that are lighter with larger carrying capacities than these bags, but their frames cannot handle the weight 100+ consistently. I broke the frame of my lowe alpine with 100lbs. Ripped right through the bag

Carl