Going to get a SWD Big Wild. 70 or 95l?

[Joey G]

I really want the 95l for the 53 inch circumference at the top. Would be great for packing.

I can get my gear in a 70l without anything on the outside, but barely.

Any downsides to getting a larger pack (95l )?

 

[Bill Budney]

The usual arguments for smaller packs are:

1) Less space encourages you to not over-pack.

2) Smaller packs stay closer to your center of gravity, therefore possibly carrying better.

OTOH, you can always under-fill a larger pack, and any decent pack will have compression systems allowing you to snug it up so that whatever load you carry will ride as close as possible.

A larger pack is handy for Winter when you carry more insulation. Especially if you carry synthetic insulation and/or CCF pads, which tend to be bulky.

Smaller packs excel for trail runners, racers, and mountaineers who are concerned with bounce and inertia in their packs. If you’re just walking on a trail, then a larger pack gives you more options. (Unless, of course, you’re the type to fill up whatever space you have…).

[bradmacmt]

The only real downsides of a larger pack are its additional weight and getting a smaller load stacked correctly and close to one’s back. Sometimes that additional volume can work against you to achieve good loading. For cold weather, or more gear intensive trips, the 95L is a no-brainer. Having said that, I think there is a happy medium, and for me a 70-ish liter pack is that place for regular backpacking (my go-to is a 70L SWD Wolverine).

[Murali C]

SWD packs are narrow and tall and they run small in volume compared to other manufacturers. A 55L HMG will be much bigger than a 70L SWD…so if you are barely fitting stuff in a non-SWD 70L pack – then I would recommend the bigger 95L SWD.

I have a 50L SWD Long Haul which is 60L with external pockets and I can fit more stuff in other manufacturers true total 48L  (MLD Prophet) or even 38L backpacks (Zpacks Nero/GG Kumo). The front stretch mesh pocket is really narrow and really tight.

[bradmacmt]

SWD packs are narrow and tall and they run small in volume compared to other manufacturers. A 55L HMG will be much bigger than a 70L SWD…so if you are barely fitting stuff in a non-SWD 70L pack – then I would recommend the bigger 95L SWD.

That’s absolutely not my experience with the 70L Wolverine. It’s on par capacity-wise with other 70L packs I own, nor do I find it narrow. Can’t speak to the 50L SWD’s as I’ve not used any.

[Murali C]

What 70L backpacks have you used?

Pictures tell a 1000 words!

Here are 3 pictures – SWD Long Haul 50, HMG 55 aka 3400 and Unbound 40.

HMG 3400 or 55:

[Murali C]

Unbound 40:

[Murali C]

You will find that the SWD Long Haul 50 is almost maxed out at the top – probably 2 folds of roll top left. HMG 55 and HMG Unbound 40 has enormous amount of roll top still left. I have frameless packs from SWD as well and I have the same conclusion with respect to frameless packs from other manufacturers compared to SWD. I can post those pictures as well :-)

[Murali C]

Bonfus 80L compressed like crap to fit my typlical 48L load out….

[bradmacmt]

You have no experience with a 70L SWD, yet you think you can speak to them based on a 50L.

I made no claims to know about 50L SWD (and pointed that out) because I have no experience with one, so confined my comments to the 70L (and other 70L’s).

The 70L is the size in question here – not your 50L’s.

See the trend here?

 

[Murali C]

I am comparing 50L volumes between two companies and concluding that SWD runs small in volume. I have also compared volumes of frameless SWD and other companies and conclusion is that SWD runs smaller in volume. Based on that, I would assume 70L would similarly have the same problem. It is a logical sane common sense conclusion.

Because that is what I have and I don’t have a 70L. But you can make generalizations based on what you have seen from SWD and other companies for other volumes. Magically suddenly, some manufacturer is not going to get 70L correct compared to other manufacturers while other volumes run low.

You haven’t answered the question about what other 70L you have used and are comparing against. If you have pictures of you load out with 70 L Wolverine against another manufacturer, post it – else I guess we have to take your word for it… as I said a picture is worth a thousand words.

See the trend here?

 

[Murali C]

And you don’t have any experience with OP’s load out or volume and yet you think you can say 70L is enough???? I don’t know what makes you think you can speak to sufficiency of a 70L for him. He has already said that 70L from another manufacturer barely fits. So personally based on that statement and my experience with SWD’s volumes (2 different volumes) compared to other manufacturers, 70L SWD will not be enough for OP.

[David U]

These are great packs.  One caution, 0f which has been mentioned, is that they are narrow and tall so much of the extra volume is going to be above your head.  Personally I would go with the 70 and pack efficiently.

FWIW I have a Wolverine 70.

[bradmacmt]

Please show me where I said he should go with a 70L over a 95? You won’t find it because I never said it. Please read more carefully.

You’re making a WAG about what SWD’s burlier 70L packs are based on your different 50L. Again, that’s called guessing – something I’m not doing with my points.

As to posing in front of a mirror or defending myself on the internet to someone I don’t know or care about, no thanks. You seem like an angry argumentative person…

[Murali C]

Oh my God! You must be blind I posted pictures of SWD and other backpacks and said how much of roll top is available for the 3 backpacks of similar volume. And any sane person can see that SWD is tall, narrow and smaller volume compared to other backpacks of similar violume and BTW confirmed by David U as well recently.

By the way – you were the one who started this argument after I suggested he should get 95L. So calling me argumentative is rich.

You still haven’t answered what other 70L backpacks you have used.

You have no data to show – just words – where as a “random guy on the internet” has shown pictures as proof. And you are hilarious – are we not all random people on the internet on backpacking light.com :-)

You should go read your posts and you will realize where you said 70L will be enough.

Anyways life is too short to be arguing with you. No more replies from me…I think I have proved my points against someone who just talks….no proof.

 

[Murali C]

Now I remember – your name “bradmacmt” sounded familiar. You are the same guy who argued pages after pages of replies to Kevin @ SeekOutside about forward pulling belts. Oh yes, I remember that thread. People had enough of your arguments that people suggested if you cannot figure out how to make existing belt work or rig up a forward pulling belt, then you should not be backpacking :-) Argumentative!!!!! Ha ha!

[Author]

Posts