# Prepping / Emergency Preparedness > Bags, Kits and Vehicles >  Packing Heavy loads on a Backpack 100+ Pounds

## Sourdough

For those few who are thinking of heading to the wilderness with a heavily loaded backpack. Information on how professionals load there packs.

http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...unds-quot-idea

----------


## BENESSE

Thanks SD, very informative!

----------


## BENESSE

btw...never thought of buying a walking stick until now.
Whenever I needed one I'd find just the right branch and make one, then ditch it. But I can see a reason for having a real good one. Where do I start? Are there retractable ones?

----------


## Sourdough

> Where do I start? Are there retractable ones?



Yes, there are retractable ones, many here just use ski poles. I often use a climbing Axe (I put a piece of Hose over the the sharp point end, for safety).

----------


## Rick

A walking stick is an invaluable tool in my book. I use the heck out of it not only for helping with balance but to check the other side of that log before my foot goes over. Mr. Snake isn't too discriminating what he strikes at. It's also a great tool for helping someone else up or down an incline. Just hold it out let them grab hold then pull them along or vice versa.

----------


## beetlejuicex3

I'm just asking because I don't know.  

I put together a 7-10 day pack for 34 lbs (dry, without water) before.  It is hard to imagine carrying 50lbs for more than 5 miles but then again I am 165lbs dripping wet and out of shape.

What types of things are people putting in a 100lb packs?  Extended food and water rationing? Hunting gear and ammunition? Maybe there is a previous thread someone could point me to.


greenbeetle

----------


## Rick

Elk, sheep and moose parts.

----------


## DOGMAN

> I'm just asking because I don't know.  
> 
> I put together a 7-10 day pack for 34 lbs (dry, without water) before.  It is hard to imagine carrying 50lbs for more than 5 miles but then again I am 165lbs dripping wet and out of shape.
> 
> What types of things are people putting in a 100lb packs?  Extended food and water rationing? Hunting gear and ammunition? Maybe there is a previous thread someone could point me to.
> 
> 
> greenbeetle


The only time I carry loads like that is when I am packing out an Elk. An elk quarter can easily weigh over a hundred pounds, but if you load it correctly you can put it on a frame, and then get the whole thing out in a few trips....

Carrying a 100lbs pack is not as tough as it sounds...once you get use to it. 

The hardest part for me is always getting the pack on and off.  I usually try to find an elevated spot to load the pack, so I can then step into it and not have to do a big lift.  I also really plan my path and choose a route that has the most gradual gradient as possible.  I also rest alot...literally take a few steps then pause.  I normally never want to take the pack off...i will rest with it on, I'll find a big rock and slide up next to it and get the pack on the rock and get the bulk of the weight off me.  I also really watch my footing, and travel slow- you don't want to fall down with a pack on that heavy.

with the right pack (packed correctly), the right boots, and the right mind-set you can really surprise yourself with how far you can walk with a big load....Mind over matter...if you don't mind- it dont matter

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

I don't think twice about loading a pack with 100 pounds.....and throwing it in the boat!

----------


## pgvoutdoors

The pack I use for heavy loads while guiding is the Dana Design "Longbed".  I also use the "Shortbed" which handles 80 lb. loads. Unfortunately they are no longer made.

----------


## Winter

I've carried many 100+ lb rucks. Keep the weight low and close to your back and it still sucks worse than a brutal hangover.

If your are not in uniform and carrying that much crap, you are wrong.

----------


## beetlejuicex3

> The only time I carry loads like that is when I am packing out an Elk. An elk quarter can easily weigh over a hundred pounds, but if you load it correctly you can put it on a frame, and then get the whole thing out in a few trips...Mind over matter...if you don't mind- it dont matter


I see.  Thanks for the explanation.  I'm not a big game hunter as you an tell. If I ever get the notion, though, I'll be sure the area is 4-wheeler accessible because my spine is still cracking thinking about a 100lb pack!

greenbeetle

----------


## Old GI

I've humped a ruck on occasion and jumped static line and freefall with one.  The comment about a 100 pound ruck when not in uniform is spot on.

The very first thing taught in the fieldcraft portion of my SF training was packing a ruck, with emphasis on throwing stuff away.  Sounds elementary, but a lot of experienced grunts learned some new tricks.  I learned a bunch.

The distinction between external and internal frame is something I never thought much about until reading the website.  I guess my partiality to the load riding high comes from the external frame ALICE days.

Regardless of the weights involved, to quote some older guys, your ruck will talk to you, don't listen.  They were right, my ruck talked to me a lot and was quite persuasive.  Oh for the days of a misspent youth!

----------


## NCO

> I've carried many 100+ lb rucks. Keep the weight low and close to your back and it still sucks worse than a brutal hangover.
> 
> If your are not in uniform and carrying that much crap, you are wrong.


+1

So true, BUT on the bright side, skiing with one isn't half as bad, but Lord help you if you fall over in deep snow!

----------


## Winter

True story.

In LRSLC I weighed 165 lbs. My ruck weighed 186.

I was "combat ineffective".

Our general rule was that if you didn't use something in 3 days and nights in the field; get rid of it.

----------


## chimpac

A lot of weight can be moved on a single track trail with a wheel.
Set up like a wheel barrow a cart or a bicycle. 
The north Viet Nam army moved tons of war materials into the south on bicycles.

----------


## Rick

Well, the ones that got past Carlos Hathcock did.

----------


## Old GI

> Well, the ones that got past Carlos Hathcock did.


Now thet thars funny ......... ! :m107:

----------


## crashdive123

Hehehe.  I wonder if any of the 93 confirmed were riding bikes.

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

> +1
> 
> So true, BUT on the bright side, skiing with one isn't half as bad, but Lord help you if you fall over in deep snow!


The right tools for the right job. Snow shoes and a sled. Hundreds of pounds are easily handled.

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

I don't carry 100 pounds but my gear can be combined to get into the 50 pound range. Since mine are a progresive line of kits I have made them to be carried a number of ways. My Survival packs are small enough to be carried as a chest pack with my camping pack pack. Smaller kits can be straped to shoulder straps or waist belt. Being able to disperse load works best for me. Being able to carry in various ways also has the advantage even if that is all I carry because I can shift to another method if I muscles begin to ache I can put the strain on other muscles.

----------


## Rick

I recall reading a story of a kid that was hauling rifles on a bike. Hathcock apparently took out the front tube at some distance. I don't remember now, maybe 1000 yards. He did so because it was just a kid. The kid managed to load the bike back up and started pushing it. Hathcock took out the front fork. When the kid started slinging them over his shoulders Carlos took him out. That's entirely by memory on that story.

----------


## Rick

I had to look it up. I was close....sort of....

 "At one point, he took careful aim at a courier carrying a load of  AK-47's and ammunition on a bicycle. He had second thoughts when he saw a  12-year-old boy in his sights, but after considering the intended use  of those weapons, he decided to disable the bicycle, hitting the bike  frame. The boy tumbled over the handlebars, grabbed a gun, and  immediately began firing back, so Hathcock returned fire, killing him."

----------


## randyt

speaking of heavy loads I read in paul provenchers last of the cour de bois that some of the cree would portage up to three, four hundred pounds or more. there are pictures in that book showing a cree with a big callous between their shoulder blades from the portages. now of course this was short distances. and I'm going off memory too.

----------


## kyratshooter

> speaking of heavy loads I read in paul provenchers last of the cour de bois that some of the cree would portage up to three, four hundred pounds or more. there are pictures in that book showing a cree with a big callous between their shoulder blades from the portages. now of course this was short distances. and I'm going off memory too.


That is quite true.

And according to HBC records the most often recorded cause of death among the courriers/engagees was strangulated hernias.  The most recorded cause for retirement was crippled spines. 

Pain is not weakness leaving the body, it is a warning.

----------


## DOGMAN

also about the cour de bois, their packs were much different than modern packs. they used large envelope style bags with tump lines- taking much of the weight off their back and shoulders and deviding it between their forehead, neck, shoulders and back

----------


## NCO

> The right tools for the right job. Snow shoes and a sled. Hundreds of pounds are easily handled.


True, but then again I prefer skis to snowshoes, even when pulling a sled. And I have pulled a sled or two in snow with heavy loads. Snowshoes are complete waste of energy compared to skis... :Online2long:

----------


## Camp10

> True, but then again I prefer skis to snowshoes, even when pulling a sled. And I have pulled a sled or two in snow with heavy loads. Snowshoes are complete waste of energy compared to skis...


Skis arent so great climbing hills and picking through small, thick hemlocks and other under growth.  I like covering more ground with skis but they arent always practical depending on the terrain.

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

> True, but then again I prefer skis to snowshoes, even when pulling a sled. And I have pulled a sled or two in snow with heavy loads. Snowshoes are complete waste of energy compared to skis...


Uphill? I have to ask, have you used modern snowshoes with hinged crampons? It all depends on terrain and how heavy the load. Snow shoes have much more traction. I've pulled a few loads in the last 50 years in Alaska too.

I quess we were typing at the same time.

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

Snowshoes don't care about snow condition either. They don't drop as deep in the snow either leaving less of a trail.

----------


## NCO

Yes I have used modern hinged snowshoes. And I really like skis better. They are good for uphill when you get the technique right. And yes, snowshoes have more traction, but with right kind of treatment the skis can do pretty good job on all snow conditions and with very heavy loads. Besides, the Finnish terrain isn't that bad and bogged with heavy undergrowth or bushes. Choosing a good route is naturally part of the trick.

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

Get real. You can't sidestep up a hill on skis with as much pull as you can go straight up with snow shoes. I like ski's too but even the best ski's with skins and crampons are not as good no matter what kind of technique you use.

----------


## DOGMAN

If you really want to get serious about hauling heavy loads in snow- get SLED DOGS!

----------


## Rick

Or hire a guy that has them....right Dogman?

----------


## DOGMAN

> Or hire a guy that has them....right Dogman?


even better idea! that way you dont have to feed, house, and maintain them!
Great post- i'll give you some reps for that!

----------


## NCO

> Get real. You can't sidestep up a hill on skis with as much pull as you can go straight up with snow shoes. I like ski's too but even the best ski's with skins and crampons are not as good no matter what kind of technique you use.


Get real? Please... Should I take this as badly as it sounds? I'm sensing this undermining tone in that post, and I don't like that very much. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that one.

Sidesteps?
Who ever talked about sidestep, Of course you would do chicken steps(or what ever it is called there, face the hill.)

I don't honestly know if our perspective of a hill differs or something, but you can pull 70kg load with you fairly nicely with good skis and good sled, in terrains common in Pohjanmaa, Kainuu and Savo(the regions of which I have personal experience with a sled and skis). 70kg is about 150lbs?

If you feel that this is inaccurate, please come over here during the winter and try for your self.

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

I see the problem. I don't call 150 pounds a heavy load for sled. We may have a different concept of hills as well. I don't need to go Finland to know about snow, I'm buried in it 7 months a year and places near by the snow never melts. I would love to see Finland though. What we should do is calaborate this winter on some threads about Arctic Survival, Skiing,etc. Winter opens up a lot of territory here you can't access most of the year and I get out a lot to hual building supplies out, logs in, and just plain exploration. It will be better to compare and share. Pictures of loads, hills and methods will settle this and make for better discussion, till then....

----------


## BENESSE

> Sidesteps?
> Who ever talked about sidestep, Of course you would do chicken steps(or what ever it is called there, face the hill.)
> 
> I don't honestly know if our perspective of a hill differs or something, but you can pull 70kg load with you fairly nicely with good skis and good sled, in terrains common in Pohjanmaa, Kainuu and Savo(the regions of which I have personal experience with a sled and skis). 70kg is about 150lbs?


I'm sure you're right NCO, I just have a hard time visualizing it. Facing the hill while climbing up _with_ your skis on, pulling/carrying a heavy load. 
I did sidestep once with 10lbs (nothing compared to150) on my back but can't fathom how I could have gone  straight--skis pointing up. Would love to see it done especially with a heavy load.

----------


## NCO

> I see the problem. I don't call 150 pounds a heavy load for sled. We may have a different concept of hills as well. I don't need to go Finland to know about snow, I'm buried in it 7 months a year and places near by the snow never melts. I would love to see Finland though. What we should do is calaborate this winter on some threads about Arctic Survival, Skiing,etc. Winter opens up a lot of territory here you can't access most of the year and I get out a lot to hual building supplies out, logs in, and just plain exploration. It will be better to compare and share. Pictures of loads, hills and methods will settle this and make for better discussion, till then....


I agree. The 150lbs as an example was based on the fact that we were talking about loads of above 100lbs... I would not pull a +200lbs with skis, never mind up a hill.




> I'm sure you're right NCO, I just have a hard time visualizing it. Facing the hill while climbing up with your skis on, pulling/carrying a heavy load. 
> I did sidestep once with 10lbs (nothing compared to150) on my back but can't fathom how I could have gone straight--skis pointing up. Would love to see it done especially with a heavy load.


Not skis pointing up, face the hill.
I found a picture of the technique. It's not very good pic, but should help you get the basic idea.  :Smile:  You should walk up the hill with your skis  like that, using your poles as support too.
Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## BENESSE

Thanks NCO, I get it now.
I know one thing: no way _I_ can pull even 50lbs like that for too long.  You've got to be in top notch shape, so I'm impressed.

----------


## crashdive123

It's been a long time since I've skied, but we used to call that technique - herringbone.

----------


## NCO

Well that fits.  :Smile: 

And BENESSE, you know that you do take one step at a time when doing that, and not "skate" up the hill? 50lbs is about 20-25kg, and that's pretty light on a sled...

----------


## BENESSE

> Well that fits. 
> 
> And BENESSE, you know that you do take one step at a time when doing that, and not "skate" up the hill? 50lbs is about 20-25kg, and that's pretty light on a sled...


Oh sled! I was imagining doing it on my back. 
Never tried pulling sled behind me uphill.

----------


## Beans

> Our general rule was that if you didn't use something in 3 days and nights in the field; get rid of it.


Right on. Newbees with Boom boxes, tape recorders, batteries for such which ended up "lost" in a couple of days. replaced by "C's" water and ammo.

IIRC Until you got used to the 100 Lb Pack.  getting it on made you look like a monkey humping a football or one of the three stooges.

AHHHHH Youth.

100 lbs nowdays is 2 packs in the back of  my jeep.

----------

