[pct-l] Monte's trip to the book store

[chelin at teleport.com (Sharon & Chuck Chelin)]

My thanks to Monte for bringing back some interesting memories of
backpacking years gone by.  Early in the '50s I used a Scout pack that was
little more than a fabric sack holding something like 2500-3000 cu. inches.
With no frame, no padding, and no belt it weighed about 25 oz. but you could
tie extra stuff on the outside if necessary.  Later I bought one of the
"Trapper Nelson" packs that Monte mentions because it was said I could carry
"great loads" with comfort.  Why it seemed like a good idea to carry "great
loads" escapes me at the moment, but I did use it later in the '50s during a
hiking trip through Philmont.  Currently I use a new invention:  It is a
pack that is little more than a fabric sack holding something like 2500-3000
cu. inches.  With no frame, no padding, and no belt it weighs about 15 oz.
but you can tie extra stuff on the outside if necessary.  The only real
difference is that ripstop has replaced the cotton canvas.

In those early days, most sleeping bags were filed with a kind of synthetic
stuff, which I suspect was actually industrial lint from some other
manufacturing process because it would lump and bunch badly.  At that time
the low-tech fill was kapok, a relatively heavy natural fiber most suitable
for lining mouse nests.  On the high-end of the scale, the lunatic fringe
used real goose down bags from Eddie Bauer.  As a teenager I bought one of
the Bauer K2 expedition bags.  At that time it was big-bucks for a kid,
about $65. as I recall, but I was never cold in it, even down to -22 F
without shelter.  The problem was, it weighed over 6.5 lbs., far too heavy
for someone as lazy as I am.  The fix at the time was a different Bauer down
bag, this one weighing slightly over 2 lbs.  It was pretty minimal, it did
not even have a zipper, only ripstop and down.  Nowadays, I have gone modern
with a robe that weighs slightly less than 2 lbs.  It is pretty minimal, it
does not even have a zipper, only ripstop and down.

In the early days the most common shelter was an Army surplus pup tent.
They had problems that I cannot even begin to describe, so I soon began
using only an Army surplus nylon poncho.  I could wear it in the rain, sleep
on it, or tie-off the hood and pitch it as a shelter with a couple of sticks
that I found on-site.  Here again I have gone modern, and I now use a nylon
poncho that I can wear in the rain, sleep on, or tie-off the hood and pitch
as a shelter.  The difference is the new poncho is about 20 oz. lighter.  I
think it is made of waterproof smoke.  In balance, though, I now carry the 2
sticks with me, 10-oz in each hand.

In those old days I had a low-weight set-up for cooking even though I had to
settle for aluminum rather than titanium.  No stove and fuel combination is
as light as a campfire.  I got away from that because not only is a campfire
ecologically crummy, it is a real pain.   I begin using the Svea 123 gas
stove that Monte mentions.  That noisy, wretched, little fiddle-project was
a greater pain, so for a while I went even lighter with the dry and cold,
no-cook philosophy.  Nowadays I use the same little alcohol stove that
everyone else seems to use.  It adds back some weight, but I guess I have
sold out to comfort in my old age.

In the '50s there was no Goretex.  Pile was something we made in the woods
after the previous night's meal of Chile-Mac and Vegi-Rice took effect, and
Lifa was something the other campers swore they would take if the Chile-Mac
eater didn't immediately go to the woods and make a pile.

I was in the Puget Sound area during the World's Fair, which I attended, but
I do not remember REI.  At that time the Army was supplying all my camping
gear.  They are not exactly lightweight equipment fanatics, but the gear was
free while the choice was not.

So, there you have it.  There has been gear improvement in the last 50
years.

Steel-Eye