After sending two messages to forrest@outdoorreview.com in three days without any
acknowledgment, I decided to post my review of the Inex Alpineer in this location since there is
nowhere else for me to place it. My review follows.

For too many years I rarely questioned the persistent discomfort in my shoulders
and along my collar bones (as well as waist strangulation) because I learned to accept that
discomfort as normal. Over time, I blocked most of the pain from my immediate
awareness because the discomfort was expected. It was not until I began wearing McHale
packs that I experienced a truly pain-free, load-carrying (internal-frame) backpack. It also
was at that time that the discrepancy between wearing a McHale and wearing anything
else made me cognizant of just how much pain I had been blocking all those years. When
I now look at other manufacturers' packs, I cannot help viewing them with ridicule.

I received my Inex Alpineer Bayonet in July 1997. I waited several years to order
a McHale pack (McHale manufactures only internal frame packs) because I was
unfamiliar with McHale's products and business practices, which I later realized is much
more consumer friendly than the way most other pack manufacturers handle their
businesses. The other reason I hesitated to purchase one of his packs is their cost, which
typically is about $100.00 to $200.00 more than comparably voluminous packs that are
available from most other so-called high-end manufacturers. Now that I have owned two
McHale packs for approximately 2.5 years (see my review of the Critical Mass SARC
elsewhere), I actually consider the cost inexpensive because I wasted many more
hundreds of dollars and many years convincing myself that other manufacturers offered
equivalent products; 2.5 years after my purchases, most other internal-frame pack
manufacturers still do not come close.

At a cost (at the time) of $575.00, I feel my money was well spent even though I
use my Alpineer infrequently. It's important for me to have the right pack available when
I need to haul a large and heavy load. I can use the pack almost without consideration for
the quantity of gear I will pack or its weight because the pack allows me to comfortably
carry any load I can lift. The only thing I need to be wary of is packing more weight than
my body realistically can handle.

The most weight I carried is 71.5 pounds (that is the combined weight of the pack
with its contents). I weigh about 140 pounds and am 5 feet 8 inches tall. That load is
roughly equivalent to 50% of my body weight. On a percentage of body weight basis,
that is not a load I would recommend for extended trips, but I was ecstatic to discover I
could carry that much weight and have the load feel as comfortable as a 50 to 55 pound
load in my Dana Design Terraplane. Additionally, the greater load in my Inex was more
stable than the lesser load in my Terraplane. Until I actually felt it for myself, I was
unwilling to believe the McHale pack would make that much difference.

Everything Dan McHale (owner and founder) states about his packs is true. The
Inex is superior to any other internal frame pack I ever used, and over the years I owned
or tried most of the high-end packs (such as Lowe, Gregory, The North Face, Dana
Design, Osprey, Arc'Teryx, etc.) and a number of lesser quality packs.

The bag of my Inex is comprised of a combination of 840 denier untexturized
(junior ballistics) nylon in the bottom, lower third, and harness side with 1000 denier
Cordura Plus nylon for the rest of the main bag, exterior pocket, and lid. (I understand
that 840 denier nylon is no longer offered.) All patches and the single, exterior pocket are
stitched onto the pack as overlays. The patches are constructed of 500 denier Cordura
Plus nylon. You can select a different combination of fabrics so long as McHale has
them available.

The interior of the bag has a shelf about two fifths of the way up that is held in
place with ladder-lock buckles for easy replacement or removal. The interior also has
two compression straps for the sleeping bag in the bottom compartment and about a
seven-inch extension sleeve at the top. (The extension sleeve appears to be made of 420
denier untexturized nylon that is coated for water repellency.) The bottom third of the
pack appears to be lined with 210 denier untexturized nylon. The exterior of the pack has
a bottom protector that also appears to be a sheet of 210 denier untexturized nylon
attached with ladder-lock buckles. Finally, the entire pack interior is well coated with a
water-resistant substance.

The overall bag construction is exemplary. The seams are well stitched, and there
is no loose fabric anywhere. By the obvious attention to details, it is clear to me that the
personnel at McHale and Company take pride in their work and appear to be
perfectionists.

McHale's literature states the Inex's maximum volume is over 7,000 cubic inches.
I suspect that figure does not take into account the lid's volume, which I estimate is about
750 to 900 cubic inches. This would place the maximum volume of the total pack at
about 7,800 to 8,000 cubic inches. The Inex is McHale's second largest pack.

I read other reviews of McHale's packs that criticize the lid design. The
criticisms center around the lack of flaps to more aesthetically integrate the lid with the
rest of the pack. I notice that with the current lid design I easily can shift the lid's
position on top so that it rests back away from my head when wearing the pack. This
positioning not only provides more head room with a full pack but also aids in controlling
a large load. I don't think this design feature is an accident, and this lid positioning
would not be as easy to execute with lid flaps. I, for one, do not wish the current lid
design to change.

The pack's frame really shines and is the primary distinguishing feature of this
internal-frame pack relative to the internal-frame packs of all other manufacturers. Two
vertical stays are bolted at their base to a curved, horizontal stay that extends along the
pack at hip level. To add height to the pack, there are two more stays (the bayonet
portion of the pack) that partially overlap the lower stays via thick, nylon sleeves. These
upper stays can be inserted into or removed from the sleeves at the user's discretion. All
stays are composed of 7075-T6 aluminum.

This frame is the most substantial I have seen in an internal-frame pack. As I
noted above, the frame actually controls the load, which is the reverse of my experience
with every other expedition-size internal-frame pack I used (in which the load controlled
the pack). The stays are outwardly migrated at the base of the pack, which not only is
largely responsible for the pack's stability but also avoids placing the frame directly
behind the base of the spine. The discomfort I sometimes experienced with other
manufacturers' packs brought about by the frame impacting my coccyx simply does not
occur with the Alpineer.

The full-wrap belt of the Alpineer is attached at its base to the horizontal frame
stay with two bolts. There is no other connection between the belt and the pack. This
concept of designing a belt for internal-frame packs that places more belt in contact with
the user's body (instead of passing a portion of the belt around part of the pack frame) to
more evenly and effectively distribute load and pressure is so basic that I cannot
comprehend why other manufacturers don't follow McHale's lead. This essentially is the
manner in which belts are designed for external-frame packs.

The fourth pack component - - the harness - - also is unique. The stabilizer straps
and shoulder-pad straps are separate subcomponents in the Bypass harness system and are
adjusted independently of one another. Although both straps are anchored at the same
base point, the stabilizer straps travel through nylon tubes along the dorsal side of each
shoulder pad and are anchored at the tops of the vertical frame stays, which is the better
part of a foot above the point at which the shoulder pads are anchored when the bayonet
stays are inserted. This might not seem much different from standard shoulder harnesses,
but the Bypass system permits you to adjust the stabilizers without affecting the
positioning of the shoulder pads and vice versa. As with the rest of the pack, the Bypass
harness system functions precisely as advertised.

With one minor exception, this pack was perfect when I received it. Although the
pack has a removable back pad, the pad did not extend far enough (downward) to protect
the lower thoracic region of my back -- between the bottom edge of the back pad and the
top edge of the hip belt -- from being poked with sharp objects in the bag. Furthermore,
the bottom edge of the pad was stiff enough to cause minor irritation when wearing only a
shirt. This was an annoyance more than anything else, but I thought the problem easily
could be eliminated by extending (increasing) the back pad downward just enough to
reach the bend in the lower frame stays but not far enough to overlap the hip belt.

After carefully measuring the additional length required, I telephoned McHale and
Company with the request to construct another pad to my specification, and they readily
agreed to the substitution at no cost. The longer pad was perfect and functioned as I
expected by eliminating any gap in back protection, and since the bottom edge of the pad
ended very nearly where the top edge of the lumbar pad began (that is, the back pad and
lumbar pad edges almost were flush with one another), there was no longer any irritation
from the edge of the back pad itself when wearing little clothing. (I experienced the same
problem with my Critical Mass SARC and employed the same remedy.) If the lumbar
pad is replaced with a sleeping bag, then the sleeping bag fills the gap. With the longer
back pad the entire harness side of the pack provides something soft - - either foam
padding or sleeping bag - - to shield my body from the pack's remaining contents. The
longer back pad extends just to the bend in the vertical frame stays but no farther. If the
back pad extends down past the bend in the frame stays, then the frame stays could thrust
the lower part of the pad into the lower back, which could result in discomfort.

After that minor alteration, I had the perfect expedition pack. After only a few
weeks, I was so spoiled by the Alpineer that I ordered a Critical Mass SARC and, except
for one (2500 to 3000 cubic inch) day pack, eventually sold my other (non McHale)
packs. I had great difficulty bringing myself to wear anything else. Comparing any
other company's packs to McHale's left me only one clear choice, and it wasn't "theirs."

I have come to the conclusion that it really is unfair to compare McHale's packs
to other manufacturers'. There is no common basis for comparison. McHale's packs are
in a class by themselves and superior to everyone else's packs.

I especially recommend a McHale pack to people who currently regard internal-
frame packs with disfavor. If you cannot afford to purchase multiple packs for your
needs, investigate either the smaller Alpineers or the Alpine II - - both the Critical Mass
and non-Critical Mass versions. These selections possess the Bayonet stays that permit
detachment of the upper portion of the vertical frame essentially providing an owner with
two, differently sized packs for the price of one.

Customer Service

Please see my review of the Critical Mass SARC.

Similar Products Used:

Please see my review above.

I received my Critical Mass SARC in October 1997. After purchasing an Inex
Alpineer Bayonet a few weeks earlier (see my review of that pack elsewhere), I decided to purchase a smaller McHale bag.

At a cost of $419.00 and total volume of about 5,000 cubic inches, this pack
meets the majority of my load-hauling needs. The stated extended volume of this pack in the literature I received is 3800 cubic inches, but that has to be a misprint since the figure is inconsistent with the other volume figures presented. That is, even though the Critical Mass SARC is designed to be larger than the standard SARC, it is stated to have the same extended volume. Additionally since you can order a SARC with varying sizes of lids, I suspect the lid volume is not taken into consideration in the stated volume.

Relative to the other volume figures given, I estimate the extended volume of the
main bag to be about 4300 to 4500 cubic inches. The lid is the standard size available with a Critical Mass SARC with a volume I estimate to be approximately 600 cubic inches. This places the total pack volume at about 5,000 cubic inches.

The most weight I have carried so far in the pack is 61.5 pounds (that is the
combined weight of the pack with its contents). Usually, my loads with this pack are in the 45 to 50 pound range. However, even the 61.5 pound load felt rather comfortable to carry. The frame controlled the heavier load admirably, and my usual loads are completely painless.

The bag of my Critical Mass SARC is comprised of a combination of 840 denier
untexturized (junior ballistics) nylon in the (double layer) bottom, lower third, and
harness side with 1000 denier Cordura Plus nylon for the rest of the main bag and lid.
The bag contains no exterior pockets. All patches are stitched onto the pack as overlays. The patches are constructed of 840 denier untexturized nylon. As with McHale's other packs, you can select a different combination of fabrics so long as McHale has them available.

The interior of the bag has a shelf about one third of the way up that is held in
place with ladder-lock buckles for easy replacement or removal. The interior also has
two compression straps for the sleeping bag in the bottom compartment and about a
seven-inch extension sleeve at the top. (The extension sleeve appears to be made of 420 denier untexturized nylon that is coated for water repellency.) The bottom third of the pack is unlined but the entire pack interior is well coated with a water-resistant substance.

As with my Alpineer, the overall bag construction is superb. Again, the seams are
well stitched, and there is no loose fabric anywhere.

The pack's frame is comprised of two vertical stays bolted at their base to a
curved, horizontal stay that extends along the pack at hip level. It is this curved,
horizontal stay also present on all Alpineers that distinguishes the various Critical Mass SARCs from the non-Critical Mass SARCs. This design adds considerable strength to the SARC frame relative to SARCs not containing this additional, horizontal stay, and since I weigh 140 pounds and am 5'8" tall, it is the primary reason I opted for a Critical Mass SARC as opposed to a non-Critical Mass SARC: I wanted the extra frame support. As with all McHale's packs, all stays are composed of 7075-T6 aluminum.

The vertical stays are outwardly migrated at the base of the pack and extend about 3 or 4 inches above my shoulders with an unloaded pack. The shoulder pads themselves, which are not part of the Bypass harness system with this particular model SARC, are attached to the top of the vertical frame stays and not only function to manage some of the load but also function as the pack's stabilizers. This system does not permit the load-carrying capability or grant the comfort affordable with the Bypass system, but then this (Guide) harness system is not intended to be used with packs designed to carry really large loads. The Critical Mass SARC is one of McHale's smallest packs.

I have to emphasize the comfort of this pack with fifty-pound loads. The fact that
the vertical frame stays extend above the shoulders and are manufactured from 7075-T6 aluminum alloy are the main reasons the pack can so comfortably handle such weights.

This is precisely where the internal frames of most other manufacturers fail in
their designs. The frames are too short, too weak, or both. Those design flaws cause
packs carrying heavier loads to collapse onto the tops of your shoulders. If the frame is not long enough to extend above your shoulders, then the pack weight invariably tugs on the shoulder straps pulling the shoulder straps down onto your shoulders. In that situation it does not matter what material the frame is made from. The frame has to be both long enough to extend above your shoulders and strong enough to flex but not collapse under the load you carry.

The frame of the Critical Mass SARC permits you to hip load most of the weight,
and the weight managed by your upper body is kept off the tops of your shoulders by the strong and long frame. The frame, not your shoulders, controls the load. This is the way all internal-pack frames should be designed, but only McHale's are. Since my SARC came with the Critical Mass frame, it also came with a full-wrap belt (see my review of the Alpineer for more details).

As with my Alpineer, my Critical Mass SARC arrived with one minor flaw: the
pack's removable back pad did not extend low enough to prevent me from being poked by sharp objects in the bag. Also as with the Alpineer's pad, the bottom edge of the Critical Mass SARC's back pad was stiff enough to cause minor irritation when wearing only a shirt. I successfully dealt with this matter as before by telephoning McHale and Company with the request to construct another pad to my specification, and they again readily agreed to the substitution at no cost.

Also as with the Inex Alpineer Bayonet, the Critical Mass SARC comes standard
with a summit flap. The summit flap is integrated into the lid/main bag of the SARC but comes as a separate, attachable piece with the Alpineer. The lid can be removed and summit flap employed to reduce the overall pack weight while still completely covering the top aperture.

Additionally, the Critical Mass SARC is designed such that the area below the
shelf and above the sleeping bag is large enough to store a good deal of clothing. This makes access to that clothing via the horizontally arced zipper easy. However, the Critical Mass SARC, since it is a smaller bag, does not have as much space in this area as my Inex so my preference is to store my 2+ person, convertible tent in this space and store my clothing above the shelf. I can live with this decision since I primarily use my Critical Mass SARC as a three-season bag and don't require as many clothing changes as I do in the winter. (With my Alpineer I have sufficient space between the shelf and sleeping bag that I can store some clothing in addition to my tent.)

All McHale's Critical Mass SARCs and Alpineers utilize a full-wrap hip belt that
generally comes with twin, cam-lever-action buckles. Although side-release buckles are available upon request, I did not request them since they are not as sturdy for heavy-load carrying or as easy to open or adjust as cam buckles. The full-wrap belts also generally come with handles and gear-attachment straps located on the exterior side of the belt above the handles. The method of bolting the belt to the frame (through the pack bag) permits relatively easy belt substitution.

Finally, all McHale's Critical Mass SARCs and Alpineers come with an adjustable
and detachable lumbar pad, the pad is not required if you carry a sleeping bag in the
sleeping bag compartment. The sleeping bag itself functions as the lumbar pad. The vertical frame stays do not impact your pelvic structure since they diverge from one another at the base of the pack to straddle your pelvis. This is one reason McHale packs are so comfortable with heavy loads.

I now own two, perfect McHale and Company packs with which I could not be
happier. I never will purchase a backpack from any other manufacturer.

In fact, 2.5 years ago I retained a smaller Dana Design Bomb pack that I still use
for carrying loads under 30 pounds or for traveling on airplanes (as carry-on luggage) but in which I occasionally carry loads exceeding 40 pounds. The pack is great for loads under 20 pounds, but I find that even 25 pounds will pull down on the shoulder pads to such an extent that I feel some discomfort after about 30 minutes. The Dana pack is not a rucksack but contains a frame comprised of a single vertical 6061 series aluminum frame stay reinforcing an HDPE frame sheet. However because the frame is so short, the frame just as well might be non-existent; it is not at all effective in controlling the load despite Dana Design's hype.

I have become so disgusted by the fact that carrying 25 pounds in my Dana pack
is not as comfortable as carrying 50 pounds in my Critical Mass SARC, that I recently
decided to purchase my third McHale pack: a Zero SARC, which is McHale's smallest
pack. Soon after I receive my Zero SARC, I intend to sell or donate my final, remaining non-McHale pack. Good riddance.

Unless you have worn a McHale pack, you might think I am being unreasonably
critical of other manufacturers' backpacks. If I had read these reviews 5 or 6 years ago, I also might have arrived at that conclusion. However, it took owning only one McHale pack to change my viewpoint to what you read here. More information on McHale backpacks can be obtained at http://www.mchalepacks.com. All McHale packs are tailored to your needs and specifications and manufactured in the United States.

Customer Service

Customer Service is great. They worked with me to resolve a minor problem I had with their back pads.

Dan McHale personifies integrity. He really is interested in helping you purchase the best pack for your needs.

Similar Products Used:

(Please see my reviews for details.)