Backpacking kilt

[biblemonkey]

For my backpacking and rock climbing excursions I wear a Blackwatch Sportkilt. I don't worry about messing it up and am more comfortable than my shorts wearing friends


http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/m...one-last-look/

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/m...ering-you-got/

Darn picture insert didn't work.

[Tobus]

Mine are Army surplus, purchased online. I have a second pair, practically identical, that I got from eBay. You can find them all over by searching for WWII leggings (they were not called gaiters). I had a thread on it a while back, but I'm on my phone so I can't really search right now for the link.

There are reproductions out there too, for those with larger legs who can't find originals to fit.

[RAF]

Mine are Army surplus, purchased online. I have a second pair, practically identical, that I got from eBay. You can find them all over by searching for WWII leggings (they were not called gaiters). I had a thread on it a while back, but I'm on my phone so I can't really search right now for the link.

There are reproductions out there too, for those with larger legs who can't find originals to fit.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[MacMillans son]

My go to rugged use kilt is this one from buyakilt.com in Scottish National tartan.



I believe it is the same kilt that you bought in Monterey, Alan.

It's that Asian, Middle Eastern Poly Viscose. That's what they advertise it to be, so that's what I am calling it. It is heavy weight, course, and 8 yards or so of material. It is pleated to the ??? but it looks, wears, hangs, and moves like a traditional kilt, which is why I like it. It is low cost and durable so if it gets damaged I am not out a lot of money to replace it (less than a hundred dollars). I sit on rocks, stumps, grass, what have you, and never worry about it.

Heck, I even invent new yoga poses in it:




As far as packs go, I obviously prefer the internal frame type, which I guess makes me part of the IN(ternal) crowd Tobus. I prefer the compact contoured shape of the internal frames. The externals tend to be more top heavy and wide above the shoulders (see Tobus' photo) making scrambling type activities more awkward, and at my age, more dangerous. The Osprey I'm wearing here is a 65 liter pack which can keep me out about a week if I pack right. A true minimalist might go longer with it. They make them up to about 85 liters, but If I need that much room I'll rent a mule... or a motel

Cheers,

Brooke

[brewerpaul]

Ok my 10 cents in this conversation again because 2 cents aint enough. I like the ideas of the sport kilts with the higher traditional waist. Ill take that into consideration this winter when I get some performance fabric and make some running and hiking kilts. I think for running the low waist, jeans measurement is the way to go but the normal navel waist for a hiking kilt sounds good. Belts can be an issue as the Elkommando has a narrow 1 inch belt, though adequate, would be better at 2 inches on a navel measured kilt.

Now to packs as I have seen much talk on this thread about them. I owned an outdoor retail store for a few years and believe me I sold alot of gear to the "in crowd" who wore North Face mountaineering coats on nothing rougher than a gravel parking lot. It happens that gear turns into trend. I come from a background of mountaineering and hiking. The former pushes me to using internal frame packs. Like most gear it is personal preference and like most gear it is what someone will sell you. Most people hiking the lower 48 trails will do best with a frame pack for a few reasons. They for one are a half to third less expensive than an internal. Beyond that they fit well for most backpacking adventures that dont require snow and glacier travel. They are made light weight, have plenty of room for all your gear, fit well and are quite adjustable and have the wonderful coolness on your back because the frame keeps the pack away from your body. They are great for most hiking and backpacking as I said before. This said beyond the "in crowd" when I am on Baker, Rainier, Denali or any other glacier covered mound of of rock I wear my Osprey internal frame. It packs well, keeps the load tight to my body and gives me room to slap on the items that do end up outside your pack such as Ice axe, pickets, crampons, wands and other oddities. This is an apples to oranges discussion as it is the preference of the individual and the use at the time. Would I do the Maroon Bells in Colorado in a frame pack, yes. Would I do Rainier in an internal ,,, yes. Application and preference. They both have their place and are sometimes bought for the wrong reason. ..

The leggings look great yet on a glacier I need my gaiters. In the realms of WW gear I have my grandfathers gas mask from WW1.

[Alan H]

Now to packs as I have seen much talk on this thread about them. I owned an outdoor retail store for a few years and believe me I sold alot of gear to the "in crowd" who wore North Face mountaineering coats on nothing rougher than a gravel parking lot. It happens that gear turns into trend. I come from a background of mountaineering and hiking. The former pushes me to using internal frame packs. Like most gear it is personal preference and like most gear it is what someone will sell you. Most people hiking the lower 48 trails will do best with a frame pack for a few reasons. They for one are a half to third less expensive than an internal. Beyond that they fit well for most backpacking adventures that dont require snow and glacier travel. They are made light weight, have plenty of room for all your gear, fit well and are quite adjustable and have the wonderful coolness on your back because the frame keeps the pack away from your body. They are great for most hiking and backpacking as I said before. This said beyond the "in crowd" when I am on Baker, Rainier, Denali or any other glacier covered mound of of rock I wear my Osprey internal frame. It packs well, keeps the load tight to my body and gives me room to slap on the items that do end up outside your pack such as Ice axe, pickets, crampons, wands and other oddities. This is an apples to oranges discussion as it is the preference of the individual and the use at the time. Would I do the Maroon Bells in Colorado in a frame pack, yes. Would I do Rainier in an internal ,,, yes. Application and preference. They both have their place and are sometimes bought for the wrong reason. ..

The leggings look great yet on a glacier I need my gaiters. In the realms of WW gear I have my grandfathers gas mask from WW1.

I have, just once or twice, XC ski'id with more than a day pack on. In that situation, a narrow width internal frame makes a lot of sense. Well, so it seemed to me, anyway. I suspect that for ice climbing, glaciering...really anything where a whole lot of the movement requires quickness and exceptional balance, over other considerations, then an internal frame makes sense. That's pretty much what you say as well.

But as you say, for us....external is the way to go and hang the fads. We backpack in the Sierra Nevada every summer without fail and rarely in the California desert. I sweat like a pig! Ventilation is GOOD. Access is good. While our Jansports in not inexpensive packs, they are also nowhere near the upper end of the internal frames. Then again, for the 15+ years of use that a good pack will give us, what's $100?

I think that it's too bad that the external frame market has shrunk so drastically.

[Tartan Hiker]

Here's another vote for external frames!

[Nighthawk]

Here's my usual hiking kilt:



It's also my usual warm weather camping kilt.

[Tobus]

Tobus, you look like a total BadA$$! What a great look. I might just have to get a Utilikilt now just for hiking. Seriously.

Hah, thanks! I felt rather disheveled in those pictures. I took them after a pretty grueling hike over some rough, steep, gravelly slopes. I was tired and ready for some grub.

I wear my UK for light hiking too (day hiking, no pack - usually just a Camelbak). Here's another picture of it without the pack on, showing how I wear my UK higher up towards my waist than most folks wear it.



This just seems more comfortable to me when hiking, as opposed to wearing a kilt down on my hips like a pair of trousers. I get better range of motion with my legs, and better ventilation too.

On the subject of WWII leggings, here is the old thread I had posted a while back, with more info on where to get them, etc.

A word of caution on these leggings, though. They were intended for wearing over traditional leather low-rise boots. So they don't work very well with modern hiking boots that have a lot of padding around the tops. It's just too much bulk, and they won't conform to the shape of your legs properly. In these pictures, I'm wearing some old leather boots, but I also use them with some new hiking boots. I just had to be particular about the type of boots I purchased, so they would work with my leggings.

Lacing up the leggings takes a few minutes, and there's a particular way you have to do it. But once they're laced up, they really help with lower leg protection and support. So I tend to wear them even if I'm not hiking through thorns. They have become a natural part of my hiking kit. I ALWAYS carry spare laces for them, though. The hook-and-eye design is rough on laces, and if you break one, you're SOL if you don't have spares.

Most people hiking the lower 48 trails will do best with a frame pack for a few reasons. They for one are a half to third less expensive than an internal. Beyond that they fit well for most backpacking adventures that dont require snow and glacier travel. They are made light weight, have plenty of room for all your gear, fit well and are quite adjustable and have the wonderful coolness on your back because the frame keeps the pack away from your body. They are great for most hiking and backpacking as I said before. This said beyond the "in crowd" when I am on Baker, Rainier, Denali or any other glacier covered mound of of rock I wear my Osprey internal frame. It packs well, keeps the load tight to my body and gives me room to slap on the items that do end up outside your pack such as Ice axe, pickets, crampons, wands and other oddities. This is an apples to oranges discussion as it is the preference of the individual and the use at the time.

Sure, absolutely. I can see where internal frames would be the right tool for the job when rock climbing, glacier scrambling, etc. But when it comes to plain old backpacking, the external frame really fits the bill. One of the best features is, as you said, the fact that it stands off your back and lets the air circulate. Down here in Texas where it's over 100 degrees for most of the summer, I couldn't imagine wearing a pack against my back the whole time!

[Riverkilt]

How'd I miss this thread? Lots of great info.

My favorite kilt to backpack is the UK Survival II - because I like carrying my water bottles in the cargo pockets - low - easy to reach.



Old pic from a hike down to Supai Village in the western Grand Canyon a few years back.