Customer Reviews

Kelty Trekker 3950 External Frame (Evergreen/Charcoal)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

My first frame pack was a Kelty while I was in the Boy Scouts, and I know my father paid a premium price for it. That pack lasted me for many, many years (10+) of weekend and week-long camping. I got rid of it before a move, and regretted it.

Fast forward to today. After spending some time using an internal frame pack, I decided to go back to an external. For me, I like that I can carry heavier loads with an external frame (especially important for week-long wilderness treks where I carry all of my gear and my food). I also like the fact that the frame allows for some ventilation along the back--something especially nice while backpacking. With my internal frame pack, with its padding against my back all the time, my back would sweat much more--not something you want to be doing at the end of the day in the late fall (getting wet increases your chance of experiencing hypothermia).

When I picked up the Trekker 3950, the first thing I noticed is that most of the frame tubing is much thinner than was in place on my first Kelty. It caused me to pause a moment--I wasn't sure if the thinner tubing was a cost saving measure, or something afforded by better engineering in the past couple of decades. My first trip down the trail settled that argument--the frame may seem thin in places, but it is strong.

I'm a big fellow (52" chest, 44" waist, with a longer torso), and I was pleased that I was able to wear this pack comfortably. I was able to widen the shoulder strap palcement using one the sets of pre-drilled holes on the frame, and I was even able to get the waist belt fastened (though in doing so I had to loosen one end from the secondary D-ring that normally would keep the slack end from dangling--it doesn't harm the pack and is not a big deal to me). I actually picked up a second identical pack for my eldest son, whose frame is much smaller than mine (he's proably a 36" chest, 32" waist, and a normal torso), and we were able to adjust it to fit him well, too.

The compartments are laid out in a pretty classical pattern. The large main compartment is suitable for most clothes and gear, and can be extended above the frame when packing extra gear for a long trip. The lower compartment is perfect for a sleeping bag (higher-end stuffable sleeping bags should fit, but entry level recreational/hunting bags will be too big), but I sometimes use that for a stove and a change of shoes. There's space at the bottom of the pack to strap on a larger sleeping bag and/or pad or some other gear (remember to pack heavier items at the top of your pack). The top flap and straps are long enough that you can strap a tent or sleeping pad on top of the main compartment, and still keep the top covered.

One change from my original Kelty was replacing the top pouch on once side with a water-bottle holder, and that's a nice feature (I like it more than the mesh pockets that were on the butt-end of my internal frame pack). I like the way they've improved the pouch zippers, too. Instead of zipping up around the edges, the zipper is on the center-front of the side pouch. I find these easier to zip and unzip. Then, the top flat rests over the zippered pouch, but itself is not zippered. This means you can squeeze your hand into a pouch for something without needing to unzip. The flaps are designed to stay snug, and I've not had anything fall out when I've inverted my pack.

The pouch on the main body of the pack is sized perfectly to fit a Boy Scout Handbook *and* a Fieldbook simultaneously, while still leaving some room for a large flashlight, spare socks, or other miscellaneous gear. Of course, if you're not a Scout, that just means you have another convenient and generous pouch for more of your gear.

I've been doing the backcountry camping thing for a long time now, and am glad to have returned to using a Kelty pack. I plan to use it for the next 15 or more years, as long as my body will tolerate time in the wilderness. This pack is well worth the expense, and would be a great pack both for a beginner and for someone who knows what they want in outdoor gear.

Kelty has changed this pack for 2010. I really don't know why other than to make the zipper pockets more secure. The 2009 version is wonderful! I absolutely love this pack. It is such a strong pack, comfortable, made to adjust for a personal fit in so many ways, quality Kelty made and in my humble opinion much more pleasing to the eye than the 2010 version. The side pockets on the 2010 appear to be smaller or at least are placed further apart resulting in a lot of wasted space on the sides of the pack that is unusable. The 2009 version does not appear to have this problem. The only downside to this bag (2009 version) is probably something that made it innovative when it was released....the side zippers. The zippers on the older version zip down the center, have no flaps covering the zipper itself and can easily work it's way open. If you don't check these pockets occasionally you could unknowingly lose some of your gear. The material on the 2010 is a little heavier also, but personally I think the material on the 2009 version is more than enough. I guess it gets down to personal tastes in looks with these two packs. With either version, you will be getting a quality product that will last for many many years with average care. I love my 2009 version! The color and style are truly eye pleasing as well as functional, well thought out, and rugged. If I ever need another pack, I will undoubtedly turn to Kelty! They make high quality and innovation...affordable!

As with all Kelty products, the fabric is light and strong enough. 2 main compartments with several side pockets and a main easily accessible pocket. Seems like an ideal starter or the no frills utility pack.

We got this for our son to go to Boy Scout Summer Camp... and not knowing much about which type is best to get I took a gamble and it looks like it will be fine... it is very light weight and that was a concern as to how he would have this weight on his back ... He tried it on and it is fine
Looks sturdy - I suppose the real test will be when he returns and he judges it for himself