I've been forced to do the order and return method for buying a backpack for our summer trip, as no stores near me have a very good selection (and I live in the NE on the 95 corridor--not like we're out in the boonies or anything...though maybe that would help for backpack purchasing!) I just received my Kelty Redwing 3100--the bag that after LOTS of research I thought would be best (we will be gone for three/five weeks--him/me) And, well...it is REALLY big. i'm thinking of returning it for the 2650. any input on this is greatly appreciated, as the contstant returning and ordering process is kind of annoying. thanks in advance!
Posted by
Pensacola
9110 posts
Assuming the numbers are cubic inches; go for the little one, no way you want to tote all that junk that will fit in the big one.
Kelty doesn't ride well on me, so no opinion in that regard.
Posted by
Boston
4132 posts
From my point of view this is a choice between too big and ginormous. (But, some people like to bring a lot of stuff.)
Go with the smaller of the two at least, but maybe you can find something more in the 2k range.
Posted by
Puyallup, WA, USA
881 posts
Kelty bags as a rule tend to be large, and heavy. I'd agree, go with the smallest one you can use.
Posted by
Seattle, WA
17401 posts
I wouldn't put the Kelty Redwing in the "large and heavy" category. It is a well-constructed, sturdy bag. My adult son has traveled to Europe 3 times with his. He doesn't use it for backpacking (hiking) in the US;; he has high-tech gear for that. But the Redwing goes to Europe as his luggage.
Looking at the dimensions of the two, I'm thinking the 2650 would be better if it will hold all you want it to. It is carry-on size (22 x 13.5 x 16), whereas the 3100 is too tall (25 x 14 x 16).
Posted by
Plymouth, USA
9 posts
I've used my Redwing 2500 Wms for 4 2-week trips in Italy. It's perfect for me. I pack very light but do take an extra pair of shoes, packed bag weights 15-17#s. I like its compression straps & mesh water bottle pockets (also good for carrying not-quite-dry socks). I use the sternum strap when wearing the bag but removed the waistbelt since I don't usually have to carry the bag further than a couple miles. Very comfortable to wear; I'm 62 years old & average size woman.
Posted by
Goldsboro, NC, USA
31 posts
I have never used one of those. Personally, I like Red Oxx's Ruck Sack and have found it incredibly strong and reliable. See: www.redoxx.com
Posted by
Norcross, GA, USA
1 posts
I purchased my first Kelty 2650 in 2007 and absolutely love it for travel! It is small enough to fit in the overhead compartment when fully packed or under the seat when moderately packed. I have never had to check it at the gate while boarding because it was too big for those small planes where most rolling suitcases have to be checked. I've used it for several different week long trips in Europe, and it definitely meets my needs perfectly. I also use this to carry my climbing gear here in the states when we go for a little climb, so it has a good range of use as well. Several friends of mine have seen it when we travel, and now 4 other friends of mine have converted to this bag as well due to its size and usability. I recently went out and bought a 2nd one so I can dedicate 1 to climbing and all the "dirty" outings while I keep the new one for international travel.
Posted by
OP
Macungie, PA, USA
463 posts
@DJ--wow, that makes me feel a lot better about ordering two of them, then! this post is old--since then i've returned the 3100 and purchased a 2650 for both my husband and myself. and i would not, in any way, consider them too large or too heavy, though i was afraid of having to check them, as they are three inches above the linear inch max for carry-ons. but, then, so is my actual carry on that i've used many times! my husband used his already for a short trip and packed it full (it was winter and he was camping) and it weighed in at 20 pounds--the max for our airline is 22, so i feel good about it. again--thanks for the input!