ALICE capacity

[The B]

howdy

been looking for a capacity figure for the GI Large ALICE rucksack... cubic inches or liters.. i can convert. not finding anything on the internets, so i figured i'd check if anybody happens to know here...?

a weight would be good, too.. if anybody just happens to know- i could always throw mine on the scale, but then i'd have to go get it out of the garage and carry it into the bathroom. you know how that goes...

Read More

 

[pokerace]

take the scale to the garage

 

[Bon Sauvage]

I believe you're looking at 22"x20"x19" or 137 liters.

 

[The B]

take the scale to the garage

thats even more effort..

I believe you're looking at 22"x20"x19" or 137 liters.

i've done it that way, but there's something wrong with the conversion. the largest of gigantic expedition packs are 105-110ltrs... and the ALICE isn't as big, let alone bigger, than that. so either the way packs are rated is weird or the above doesn't take into account something.

basically, at the root of it, i'm looking for a comparison between expedition packs and the ALICE for capacity. im guessing the ALICE would come in around 50ltrish... but its just a huge guess.

 

[EMP9596]

This might help, some GI ones in the herd.. Dimensions too.

Army Surplus Alice Gear Nylon Alice Packs Shoulder Straps Belly Straps Kidney Pad Alice Frames

 

[moose]

there's something wrong with the conversion

... . im guessing the ALICE would come in around 50ltrish... but its just a huge guess.

Main compartment 18x12x9 or 1,944 cubic inches. Individual pouches 9x5x4 or 180 cubic inches x 3 = 540 cubic inches. That gives us a total of 2,484 cubic inches or about 40 liters.

 

[John Gault]

I saw these the other day at a local Army/Navy surplus store. What do you guys consider to be the advantages to this style of pack over the more conventional backpackers type pack available. The ridgid frame seems uncomfortable at best. More durable I'm guessing? Molle capable I get it.

THx

 

[The B]

I saw these the other day at a local Army/Navy surplus store. What do you guys consider to be the advantages to this style of pack over the more conventional backpackers type pack available. The ridgid frame seems uncomfortable at best. More durable I'm guessing? Molle capable I get it.

THx

i don't know if it's the only reason, but the main reason the military uses the low-clearance rucks is because taller packs limit head movement too much. even without a k-pot on, there's no way to lift your head up to take aim when in the prone, and with a k-pot, you can't even really glance in the upward.

the materials used are pretty heavy duty, but there are definitely expedition/sport end packs that are almost, or as, durable.. they can get pretty spendy, as packs go, but civilian packs in general really aren't too bad overall, compared to other mountain equipment. GOOD quality packs can be had for $150-200, easy.

the ALICE ruck is NOT a bad pack, though... it gets a bad rap from people who hate them because they just hate everything in general.... soldiers.. :-D (shuddup, i was one, once- i know). they're actually pretty light, for being as burly as they are, and do hold bubblegum well. it can be a pain to get it balanced well between hips and shoulders, because of the way they shoot off your back, torquing against your lumber.. but with a quality strap upgrade from Tactical Tailor (like $25, i think... cheep), that problem is mitigated. bonus is, you can fight while wearing it, it's virtually indestructable, and you can get them for $0-$50. and they've got a ton of pockets- most civ bags have few, if any, outside pocket/pouches.

 

[The B]

Main compartment 18x12x9 or 1,944 cubic inches. Individual pouches 9x5x4 or 180 cubic inches x 3 = 540 cubic inches. That gives us a total of 2,484 cubic inches or about 40 liters.

excellent.. so the "dimensions" usually given are basically OD, and not intended to give an idea of capacity...? thanks... that sounds right.