Recommendation needed on pack size

How big is you current pack and how much of its volume does your gear consume?

I guess another question is, will a bear canister be part of your gear?

My current pack is a Gregory Baltoro75, and it swallows the newer gear…It had room left over with my Hilleberg Soulo, and heavy winter gear .

My hope is that if I go with the 2400 either I’ll have enough room, or that I’ll adapt to having a smaller pack!

my consideration for the 3400 is that it is a roll top configuration,and I could easily roll the top down…..

im just not too good at judging the smaller packs

Hi John,

I struggled with this over a few weeks in Dec/Jan and ultimately got the Windrider 2400.  I’ve trial packed it and am looking forward to an upcoming trip.  My trips are also 2-3 days.  I read a review on the Hiking Life and got some good feedback…

“If you’re happy with your current base weight, go with the 3400. For $40 and 3.8 oz more, it will give you a bit more flexibility for those future trips you mention.

On the other hand, if you are seriously considering dropping your base weight to around 10 or 11 lbs, then opt for the 2400.

Either way, it’s a very good pack!”

Full disclosure, HMG also suggested I go for the 3400, but I wanted to err on the side of less.  I may still be closer to 15-16 lbs, but I can fit what I need with a tarptent notch or hammock setup, and I aspire to reduce my base weight more.  I don’t usually use a bear canister, but like that it can be strapped on top if needed.

I usually use a stuff sack for a bear bag as most of my food is dehydrated and sealed….lotta bears around here, but never had an issue in over 40 years in the woods

These are my feelings too… I would like to get my weight down more too, and feel the smaller pack may force me to leave unnecessary things at home, just want to make sure the necessities fit.

I am a dedicated UL hiker. On occasion, I head out for around a week with SUL gear or very close to it. I think a 3200ci pack is HUGE. It seems like I could pack my house in there, and swallows food for two for two weeks or fishing gear and three weeks food for one. I usually use a 2200ci pack for two weeks out, solo.

However, with your gear, I would recommend a minimum of 3500ci. This is right around the 2400 spec. IFF you need a bear ball, go with the 3400. Both are heavy packs, but reasonable for their size. You are right at the cusp between them. If you plan on smaller (usually smaller is also lighter) gear in the future, then go with the 2400 as you learn. It will handle the heavy loads for a 2 night trip. And, it will give you good service for the next year or two as you learn. While I believe anyone can go ultralight, I also believe in erring on the side of caution (and YOUR comfort level.)

If you’re like most of us you’ll end up with multiple packs to cover all the bases.

Since warm weather is around the corner maybe get the 2400 (~39 liter) and see how the transition to winter goes. No matter which you get now, you’ll probably end up wanting the other one sooner or later as volume requirements for different seasons, trip lengths and locations dictate.

I hike year-’round and I’ve got packs of 28l, 36l, 52l and 62l, and I think I’m pretty typical.

get the 3400 …. 55L or so will work for many things

one advantage is that you dont have to worry about trying to stuff everything tightly in the morning

also in the colder/wetter seasons you can bring more insulation, or even synthetic quilts/bags

small packs look cool, but unless you need the mobility for things like climbing, there isnt much reason to  go smaller if the weight difference is small …. especially with roll tops that compress well

;)

Agree with eric … in the case of the HMG packs the 2400 and 3400 are really the same with respect to dimensions except for height … extra height can easily be rolled down. The weight difference is minimal and the added flexibility go the pack is significant.

The 2400 Windrider is pretty small. It seems like an optimistic 2400 to me. I would go for the 3400. It’s basically the same pack but with more roll-top, so you’ve got more volume when you need it and basically a 2400 pack when you don’t. The weight difference (50g?) is pretty minor relative to the versatility that the 3400 adds.

I appreciate all the replies…Thank you!

Still tossing it around….kinda leaning towards the 2400 as going lighter is my goal….a lot of injuries in the past, coupled with getting older = the lighter the better. I hope to have another 30  years of hiking left in me ! But still haven’t ruled out the 3400…

If you’re like most of us you’ll end up with multiple packs to cover all the bases.

Sigh!  The reality is that there are quite a few pieces of gear that require duplicates to meet the requirements of the trip…Backpack, shelter, quilt/bag, shoes, clothing, stove/pot, rain gear…pretty sure I left out a lot of other things :)

I long ago gave up trying to find any one piece of gear that “does it all”.  If your trips are varied in either length, season, or goals…multiples of individual items is nearly unavoidable.

Get a box that is roughly the width and depth of a backpack and load your gear in it, measure the height and calculate the volume and I would add a generous fudge factor. That gives you a *rough* idea.

In general, I would go with the larger pack, especially if it can be rolled down/compressed. Definitely go with the larger if a bear can is a possibility.

+1 on more than one pack if you vary between minimalist summer overnights and 3-season multi-day trips (or live with the extra bulk and weight).