New McHale Pack
Jan 8, 2022 at 7:05 pm #3736470
Little big daypack 34. Really happy with the way everything turned out!Jan 8, 2022 at 7:09 pm #3736471Jan 9, 2022 at 5:23 pm #3736533
Very nice! I love the color scheme! I assume the avalanche pocket is detachable, yes?
Also, that back panel looks very straight; what kind of frame is hiding in there?Jan 9, 2022 at 6:23 pm #3736536
Is is indeed detachable! There are dual gram stays in there, I do believe they are both removable as well. He makes great stuff!Jan 10, 2022 at 5:45 am #3736554
I like detachable stays; they end up weighing a bit – okay, a lot – more than other frames, but they make up for it in their versatility.
What weight are you at, all in?Jan 10, 2022 at 7:50 am #3736557
lol agreed, I just took it on it’s maiden voyage yesterday and the pack rides so well. I just tried to use my scale ( small food scale) and couldn’t get a super accurate read but somewhere around 2100 grams. Obviously heavy for a day pack , but the damn thing works so well it’s like there is no weight on my back! Also the Back pouch, bottom , and hip belt’s are all made of “diamond hide” fabric which is incredibly sturdy and dense. I think that’s where a lot of the weight is coming fromJan 10, 2022 at 6:58 pm #3736608BPLwiiaBPL Member
That’s a gorgeous pack. I had a backpack made by Dan a while ago. The quality is superb.Jan 10, 2022 at 7:35 pm #3736612
It’s a gorgeous pack. I’m assuming it would find use in winter on day treks, maybe skiing, where you’d need a shovel and emergency shelter and maybe even a bag? Or if you’re carrying stuff for a group any time of year.
Otherwise, I need a pack for carrying a bag and tent and canister, etc. This isn’t that pack. OR, I need a very light pack for dayhikes. This is overkill for me.
what’s 2100 grams in ounces? I can never figure that out.Jan 10, 2022 at 7:36 pm #3736613Stephen MBPL Member
@stephen-mLocale: Way up North
<p style=”text-align: left;”>Nice, Dan makes great packs.</p>
Jan 10, 2022 at 8:30 pm #3736617
So I just checked it out with a converter and it says 4.6 pounds. But I really feel like my scale is off a bit (i had to try to balance the pack on a tiny scale and couldn’t get a clear reading). The purpose of me getting this pack was for all sort of mixed errands in the mountains of Colorado. I have been using my LBP (AKA Sarc-Casm) as a daypack for the last year, and that it totally overkill for a day pack. I tend to bring Camera gear, Binoculars, lot’s of food, and many just in case items. I don’t want to pretend like I am Ultralight in any sense of the word. But for me I prefer the extra space so I can loosely pack my gear. And sometimes when doing longer peaks where I am out all day I tend to carry a bit more gear.Jan 10, 2022 at 10:13 pm #3736623
Also according to Dan the main bag is 2000+ cubic inches, and the utility pouch is around 200 cubic inches. So roughly a 40 liter bagJan 13, 2022 at 10:09 am #3736825
That’s a good weight for a serious 40L. And I agree with you on how well a custom pack can carry; my bags aren’t the lightest in the world, but they feel weightless due to the suspension systems.Jan 13, 2022 at 12:25 pm #3736837
I know about myself that even carrying extremely light weight with most packs will mess my neck and shoulders up. This is from injuries that never really healed. So having a pack that rides exclusively on the hips is a god send for meJan 13, 2022 at 1:01 pm #3736843
I can never figure out liter volumes. Now I’m thinking that without a bear canister, you could use this on an overnighter or weekend trip…correct? Tent strapped on the outside. I completely agree that having a well structured pack that transfers weight to the hips is crucial, for me too.Jan 13, 2022 at 4:24 pm #3736875
This could absolutely be used as a multi night pack. Not necessarily for me because I haven’t fully embrace the ethos of ultralight, but for someone with a doubt in gear set up I would think you could do a three day to four day trip and that’s no problem.Jan 13, 2022 at 5:41 pm #3736885
Overnight/weekend in the winter, week-long in summer/shoulder, winter summits, etc. 40 is a good size.Jan 13, 2022 at 6:25 pm #3736893
I suppose a Bearikade Scout would fit in this bag. That’s good for five days (first and last days sans breakfast/dinner; carrying first night dinner.)
Still, I might rather have a larger volume single bag rather than the second back bag. I understand that this last makes the whole pack more functional/modular for a variety of uses. But for several days long trips, I wonder if the weight in the second attached bag doesn’t cause issues of ‘pulling back’ and possibly more sway than a single larger bag would give.
Of course, one could fill the back bag with lighter stuff, like a rain jacket and down vest and socks, etc.
In the end, the pack I have is significantly lighter than this (more than a pound) with more volume and equal or better load transfer.Jan 13, 2022 at 6:43 pm #3736897
The avalanche/crampon/puffy/whatever pocket is usually reserved for stuff that doesn’t need to go in the main bag for one reason or another. Also: perhaps I was misreading the info, but I didn’t think that its volume was figured into the total. That’s not a usual method of calculating volume, to my knowledge; the 40L should be the main bag, by itself.
Load transfer is very subjective; your pack may work well for you, but whether or not it works for someone else is an entirely different matter…and vice-versa.Jan 13, 2022 at 7:09 pm #3736902
Jscott, I loaded that exterior pouch with a good amount of weight and didn’t sense any pulling. Im glad that you have found a pack that works for you. Im glad I found one too :)
Bonzo, The backpack it’s self is around 2200 cubic inches, and the exterior pouch is around 200 cubic inches. These are the rough measurements Dan gave me. Plenty of space for me plus someJan 13, 2022 at 7:13 pm #3736906
Oh, okay, so you’re at about 36L in the main bag. My mistake…but that’s so close to 40L that it doesn’t make a ton of difference. I’d still use that as an overnighter (might be tight if you take The Warm Bag) and it’s a great size for going up a hill.Jan 13, 2022 at 7:27 pm #3736913
Pack with no zipper pouchJan 13, 2022 at 7:36 pm #3736914
Sexy.Jan 13, 2022 at 9:59 pm #3736924
Shae, you have a sweet pack that fits your needs and will last you for a lifetime. I’d love to try yours on. Who knows, I might get one for myself! McHale packs are famous for comfort and fit and construction.
Good to hear about the back pocket not tugging things back. If you want. shoot us a picture of the pack loaded up and you or someone you trust wearing it!Jan 17, 2022 at 10:18 am #3737213
Shae: here are the images of my Alpine Machine that we were discussing the other day via PM. Sorry that it took a few days to follow up; comments and questions welcome.
General idea of the shape:
Pocket attachment zone. Kind of hard to see. It snaps underneath the daisies.
Hope that helps. 👍Jan 17, 2022 at 11:10 am #3737215
Bonzo, this pack is sick! You can tell the craftsmanship is top tier. I’m personally more fond are heavier duty materials like this that will withstand the test of time. Some gear that I have owned which is constructed with Dyneema has shown me that I am not a massive fan of the fabric. With very minimal use it has already started to flake away like my shoulder skin on a beach vacation. Again, this goes with my theory of “buy once, cry once”. I would rather spend more money on gear that is sturdier/ heavier, knowing it will last me a long time. Obviously am a member of backpacking light, so there are certain parts of ultralight backpacking that I try to follow. But it won’t be at the expense of durability and safety.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
August 4 @ 5:30 PM US MDT: Member Q&A • Backcountry Photography & Cameras
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.