the Strapmaster 3000

it looks like a dong when you take the accessory pockets off, and it weighs in excess of 13 pounds empty

the only useful components of that entire setup IMO  was the buttpack, side pockets and the stuffsacks


the ILBE pack weighs in at ~7.5 lbs

Soldier Systems has a writeup about the ALICE pack that includes a brief mentioning of the Gregory pack. Looks like it's an okay pack for civie usage, but not ideal for a combat environment.

http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/28/the-baldwin-files-alice-pack-trilogy-part-1-of-3/

*******
* From the article above*

A number of packs have been tested or fielded in the interim intended to replace the ALICE. The first contender I encountered was the Lowe LOCO pack (top left) which came out in the early 80s. That eventually morphed into the CFP 90 (top middle) which in turn led to the Gregory SPEAR pack (top right) and the USMC’s Arc’teryx ILBE pack (not shown). All of these were high end backpacks designed by leaders in the civilian backpacking industry. They had suspension systems that were much more comfortable than the ALICE. Yet none remained in service very long or were ever very popular with troops who live, work and fight with a rucksack on their backs. And the reason for their rejection was simple. None of them were very good combat patrolling rucksacks. The very features that made them attractive to civilian outdoorsmen made them less than ideal for soldiers as compared to ALICE. Three common characteristics in particular were problematic. Their height, the internal frames, and the extended padded waist belts.

SPEAR was a suite of products made by a variety of vendors

the UM21 is a bianchi gregory collaboration and shares NO design lineage with ALICE

Its capability in exceeded now by many available packs.

If you're buying it for a collection, go for it.  I find the history of the development of various combat packs and rucks and other individual equipment fascinating.  It would make a great conversation piece as part of a larger collection of period gear.  (On that note, if you collect extensively and your heirs have no interest in your collection, make plans to will your collection to a deserving museum.)  If you intend to use it heavily, there are tremendously better options available these days.  No way I would plan to use it.

Its a heavy motherfucker with a shit ton of straps that will constantly need adjustment.

That said, its a pretty cool pack for carrying big heavy loads in a civilian situation where you are not wearing tactical gear too.

I really like the suspension.  I've used mine a lot.

That said....  mine was free.  For the cash price, I'd probably go elsewhere.

I can never un-see that now.

A minor derail but:
Egg, I understand that you're in the gear making industry. You always have fantastic insight into the history of various bits a pieces.
Have you ever considered writing a book or even a few articles about significant pieces of gear?

I agree with this.  It's actually surprising how heavy it is compared to other packs.  It is comfortable, though.

Although this one is near and dear to my heart (I worked at Gregory and Bianchi when it was being made), I'm kinda gonna have to go with Eggy here and say don't get it.  Unless you just want the system, for shits and giggles.  If it's for a practical application, there are many more rucks to chose from.

The biggest issue is it's a long-back ruck.  And by that I mean it's designed to work with a wrap-around hipbelt snugged down on your waistline.  So you can't run a battlebelt.  Now you can transfer everything to a chest rig and rock it out, like the SAS and SBS raiders, back in the day, but today's current thought usually includes a battle belt, with a short-back ruck, that allows for it.

I always thought the "Strapmaster 2000"  was a bit overkill, as in an engineering study that tried to be all, do all.  If you look back to the Gregory "Snowpeak" design, circa 1990, you'll find what I consider to be the pinnacle of their design work.  If this design had been brought forward, it would have beat the "CFP-90" to shit, and given guys a good tactical internal frame ruck.  I would consider this design to be an inspiration for Dana Designs and the MR stuff that followed, although you might get some argument from them about that!

Hmmm, no.  This is an antiquated system.  Now don't get me wrong, if it's all you got and you need to ruck out of somewhere, go for it.  But if you have the time and money, you can do much better.  For example I really like the Karimor SF 45L from Gray Ghost right now.  It's a perfect size for a 1-2 day patrol, and it's a short back, designed to work with belt kit.

Or, there's nothing wrong with the old classic ALICE rucks.  Combined with the new polymer frame (Down East) and perhaps an upgraded suspension (your pick), it's hard to beat.  If someone came out with the ALICE bags in a newer color, say CB or MC, they would be on par with all lot of the current offerings.  Especially if you added a little molle webbing on the sides.  Yeah, I know MR came out with the "Mountain" (aka "Timberwolf") ruck, which would be perfect, but a little pricey too.

OK gotcha.  For what you're doing, in MC, the molle II rucks are GTG.  I like the molle II large, with internal sleeping bag compartment, and the assault pack.  That's a very good system for the money.  Now if you could rig the molle II large ruck onto the Down East frame, you'd essentially have the Jarhead system, which ain't bad.  My only complaint with it was the shoulder straps had to be rigged fairly low so the frame would clear the battlebelt, but it's workable.  I did a few mods to it, like cut the waist belt down to a lumbar pad, just like the ALICE, and then ran a 1" belt around the belly.  Just enough to stabilize the load, but stays out of the way (no big double belts).

Compared to what you have, the Gregory ruck would be a huge step backward.  Even if it was MC.  I have rucked the thing, and honestly preferred my heavily modified CFP-90.

Appreciate the offer, but I completely re-designed mine with a nice version of the Gregory Snowcreek suspension.   I sewed in 1/4" closed cell foam under a layer of "pack cloth" on the back panel for some rigidity,  then added a Velcro/hypolon "ladder" system, which the shoulder harness "weaves" into, (kinda like the precursor to molle, only 2" slots), then made the hip belt detachable with a web and Velcro flap.  The top load stab straps are sewn directly on top of the stay tunnels, so you are pulling weight directly on top of the alum stays.  The bottom stab straps have SR buckles for the detach feature.   Nothing wrong with the pack bag once you get rid of that POS suspension Natick Labs came up with.  It is still a long-back, but I can just make it work if I keep it under 40 lbs, and rig the belt kit low, ranger style.  Probably one of the most comfortable rucks I've ever humped.  But that was all Wayne Gregory, not me!

These guys have been making what you describe for years.

http://www.promedkits.com/csar_ruck.shtml

I have them in CB and MC, but I wouldn't have any of these if they weren't issued to me.  Their price is out of control.  You can typically find them for sale from time to time on eBay and the likes for reasonable prices if you're interested in one.  I don't run the side pouches they show in their pic on mine.  I pulled them off and put canteen pouches on the packs and I'm waiting on DEI frames and mountain pad sets so I can set my kids up with some good GP hiking packs.

Very nice kit, but for that price I'd rather have a MR Timberwolf, with the NICE frame and suspension system.  Although the PJ's ain't no dummies; I'm sure that's a great ruck.

The Spec-Ops Recon. USA made, only $80. ALICE from modern materials.  

http://www.specopsbrand.com/recon-ruck-ultra-tactical-rucksack.html

rescue gunner

explain to me how a medium sized ruck runs 620$


Diz

Good to see you... its been far too long.  Older Gregorys cant be beat... albeit my favorite is the the old Mountainsmith Bugaboo rucksack

Raf

the patrol pack is a contrivance of a bag that is shallow in depth, heavier than what the volume predisposes
..  as I said earlier, the butt pack is the the only bag component that I took away from the system

the Loco was not the design predecessor for the "CFP90", but rather one of the few offerings of the Lowe Vector pack company in the early to mid 80s



THIS is what predated the CFP90 (which was never a designation)  it eventually became the IIFS FPLIF (field pack large internal frame)
 Lowes LCS84... which was a far superior pack

Oh yeah an outgrowth of the same effort was the TLBV that like the 84 pack got bastardized by big Armys lowest bidder mentality


the loco was a much smaller pack made of lightweight packcloth vice the 1000D equivalent texturized nylon of the -84... what made it slick was that the waist belt could be converted into a climbing swiss seat and separate from the pack body

if you take a razor blade and cut the radio pockets out it saves some weight.  I used mine on a backpacking trip and was happy with it

It shouldn't.  But since the .mil is probably their only major consumer for these, they likely shot for the moon on pricing and the government bought them anyways.  Again, I didn't pay for mine - they were issued.  Had I not gotten them for free, I wouldn't own them.  I like them, but not at retail pricing.  

Right place, right time I guess, but I own the Timberwolf too.  It's a nice bag, but I have a few complaints about it though.  

1) I wish it was able to be run with their Future yoke system (sans the NICE frame), much like the RATS pack can be done.  Since it's basically a medium Alice, I don't always want to stuff it full of heavy gear.  The Alice can be run without the frame.  I think this would do well in that role.  The frame is nice, but it's also bulky and not always necessary.  It isn't a deal killer for me since I own some 3 day assault packs as well, but it would have been nice.  

2) The detachable side pouches are mounted a bit low for awkward loads.  I like stuffing my sleeping gear, a change of clothes, and a towel inside an OR dry bag and clipping the bag to the frame using attached webbing and cobra clips.  For a load with a fixed shape that can be positioned inside of those side pouches, I can still use those side pouches.  If I need to carry a chainsaw or something else awkward that doesn't hang below those pouches, I'm unable to use the pouches because the shape bends the bottom of the pouches outward, pinching the pouch off a third of the way.  For awkward loads, I find that I end up using a load sling on a frame instead.  

3) I wish it had a flat flap on top of the pack.  The Daypacker lid is great when I want to scale up my load, but it sucks as a flap when there's nothing in it.  It's heavy and it droops down the front of the pack too far due to how high on the NICE frame the top buckle clips are positioned.  This allows water and debris easy access to the top of the pack.  Again, I don't always want to scale up for an expedition, so when I don't, I'm stuck with a system that has some obvious flaws.

10-4, like I said, I knew you guys ain't no dummies.  Thanks for the 411 on the Timberwolf -vs- the PJ ruck.  I did not have the depth of experience as you on that deal.

Oh man, check out the berets on that old add.  Classic!  I believe the Vector had the original "ladder-lock" suspension, before Natick Labs added their design.  Correct me if I'm wrong, Eggy.  Hey good to see you still up and running too.  This was a very sound design concept, used by both Lowe-Alpine and Gregory.  Lowe-Alpine used webbing, woven in and out, much like the current molle system, which was then anchored at the bottom with a ladder lock, conveniently under the lumbar pad.  Gregory chose Velcro, so the harness again weaves into the back, but uses itself as an anchor.

The MR stuff builds on this concept, but with full width components, versus just webbing.

The NICE frame versus Futura.  Yup, the eternal debate.  External or internal.

Now, if I could just find that old beret...