A Sample AT Gear List (Packing List)
A Sample AT Gear List
By Chris 1 Feb 2005
Rather than write a formal article about gear for beginners, I thought it would be better to take advantage of the interactive nature of whiteblaze and put it into a thread. What follows is the gear I took with me, along with some notes, on my recent AT section hike between Damascus and Manchester Center. It is rather long and incorporates some previous trail shoe reviews that I have written. I have included these simply to make people aware of them, although I am doing so at the risk of losing readers who don't want to wade through everything. I am hoping that others, particularly the experienced members of the forum, will add something similar or make comments or suggestions for others to follow. Specificially, alternate pieces of gear, ideally with weight and cost attached to them. I also hope that people who have questions will pipe up. For example, "Why don't you use a hammock?" Or, "What is a good alternative to the MEC Northern Lite Pullover?" If there are enough responses, we can edit them together and create something like a collective knowlegde document that could form an article for new hikers.
This is the stuff that I hauled with me on the AT in 2004. I started from Damascus on May 9 and ended at Manchester Center on June 24. It is, mostly, what I would take with me if I was starting from Springer in late March or early April, or south from Katahdin in early or mid June. Gear choices are personal things, so get to know your gear before you start a long distance hike. I tend to be conservative, particularly with clothing. I could cut another pound or two from this list if I was willing to be a bit more liberal with my risk level and if I was willing to spend a few hundred dollars to buy slightly lighter versions of what I already have.
Base Gear
Hauling and Sleeping
ULA Zenith Pack (19 oz) ($125)
Dancing Light pack liner (2.5 oz) ($20)
3/4 length Z-rest pad (12 oz) ($30)
Western Mountaineering Highlight Sleeping Bag, with stuff sack (19.3 oz) ($240)
Integral Designs Silk Sleeping Bag liner (4.8 oz) ($35)
Henry Shires Tarptent Virga with extended beak, in silnylon stuff sack (17.3 oz) ($180)
6 stakes (3.3 oz)
Tarptent poles (2) (4.6 oz)
2 mil painters drop cloth ground sheet (4.8 oz) ($2)
Total: 87.6 oz ($632)
Cooking and Food
Lackwit beercan stove with coffee can pot support (1.5 oz)
MSR windscreen (1.6 oz)
1.3 L Evernew Titanium Pot (5.8 oz) ($45)
2 Bic lighters (1.6 oz)
Plastic spoon (0.2 oz)
2.4 L Platypus waterbag (1.4 oz) ($7)
20 oz. soda bottle for fuel (1.5 oz)
20 oz. soda bottle for olive oil (1.5 oz)
Silnylon stuff sack (large) for food (1.1 oz) ($9)
Polar Pure (2 oz) ($7)
Bear bagging cord, 40 feet (2.8 oz) ($5)
Total: 21 oz. ($73)
Clothing
Silnylon stuff sack (large) for clothes (1.1 oz) ($9)
MEC midweight thermal top (8.3 oz) ($27)
MEC midweight thermal tights (6.2 oz) ($27)
Wigwam hat (2 oz) ($8)
Fox River liner gloves (1 oz) ($3)
2 pair Wigwam Ultimax socks (4.6 oz) ($12)
MEC Northern Lite II pullover (13.3 oz) ($60)
O2 Rainshield jacket (7.3 oz) ($30)
O2 Rainshield pants (5.6 oz) ($30)
Total: 49.4 oz ($206)
Utilities
Toothpaste and brush (2 oz)
Toliet paper and gelled alcohol (2.8 oz)
Medical kit, slim (4.9 oz)
2 Photon Microlights (0.5 oz) ($30)
Documents (Drivers license, ATM, health, phone, 2 credit cards)
Cash
Wingfoot, "The Thruhikes Handbook" (5.1 oz) ($16)
Olympus Sylus Epic Camera (5.3 oz)
Film (4 36 exposure rolls, various print film) (4 oz)
Journal and Pen (3.3 oz).
Total: 27.9 oz ($46)
Base Weight: 185.9 oz ($957). Or, 11.6 lbs.
I would generally wear:
MEC Rapidi-T (basic T-shirt)
Patagonia shorts (basic shorts)
Wigwam ultimax socks
Asics 1090 TR Trail Runners
Kmart watch (1.5 oz)
Bandana (1 oz)
Andiamo skins (2.9 oz)
Notes:
In retrospect, I would probably make a few changes in the gear list if I was to go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail again. First, I would not bring the Rainshield garments. Instead, I might spring for a jacket made out of E-VENT, such as those made by Integral Designs and Pearl Izumi. I would not bring the rain pants, but instead might bring some wind pants that I have for running, or a basic set of semi-water proof pants made by someone like Go-Lite. I was highly unimpressed by the breathability, water resistance, and fit of the Rainshield products, especially for a wet trail like the AT. Another option I would highly consider would be using a wind shirt made out of Epic (Wild Things makes one) along with an umbrella. This makes a lot of sense to me looking back, even if it seemed foolish when I started out.
The ULA Zenith is no longer made, but has been replaced by a better, and heavier, pack called the Fusion.
The cost of the gear could be dropped, but I already have the gear and acquired it over a few years. Moreover, I'm still using this gear, and used it heavily before my recent AT section hike (on the PCT, for example, and on the GDT). As an example of cost savings you could use an Oware Cat Tarp (about $70) instead of the Virga. I like the weather protection of the Virga and the fact that it has good bug netting, but these might be less important for others. I like the Western Mountaineering Highlight and will continue to use it, but could buy a $99 Kelty or Marmot 40 degree bag (more like 50 degree) and know that you'll have to wear insulating clothes to bed. I had to do this frequently on the PCT and would rather sleep in my skin.
In terms of foot wear, I have written two different thread called "Four Trail Shoe Review" which you can find on this site. However, here they are anyways:
Brooks Adrenaline GTS
I really liked this pure running shoe for the the hot, hot Southern California section of the PCT. There is enough mesh in the shoe that when the wind blows, I feel it in my toes. Keeping my feet ventilated was very important in a land where the ambient temperature would get into the upper 90s or low 100s on a daily basis. The surface temperature was correspondingly higher. I wore this shoe from the Mexican border to Mojave, CA, a distance of 563 miles.
While the sole is a standard running pattern, the rubber is soft enough that I had only a few slipping problems. Traction is certainly better than the NB 806s listed below. Durability was good, with only one small tear in the side mesh of the shoe and some chunked up areas on the sole. Since this is a road shoe, your feet have much less protection than with other shoes. Walking on rubble is not fun with these shoes. I could have gotten another 150 miles out of the shoes, but wanted something with big time tread for the Sierra.
If I were to hike the AT, this would be the shoe that I would use through northern Virginia to Vermont.
Asics Eagle Trail
I wore the Eagle Trail from Mojave to Sierra City, traversing the length of the Sierras, a distance of about 630 miles. The Eagle Trail have a massive tread on them, better than my regular hiking boots and only a step below my mountaineering boots. I can't believe Asics put such a sole on a running shoe! Traction is very good. You get a stiffer carriage and a bit more protection than the Brooks shoe, but still less than I would like.
The Sierra consisted of a lot of big mountains, scores of raging rivers, and tons of snow. My feet were wet all day, every day, for the better part of 3 weeks. The shoes took an absolute pounding and looked it. From kicking steps in frozen snow and constantly bouncing off rocks, I grew two large holes near my big toes after a few hundred miles. There were rips in the sides as well.
Despite what seems like a durability problem, these would be my perfect trail shoe if Asics would put in a more protective sole and if REI continued to carry them in size 15 (Asics makes them in size 15). The shredding of the shoes is a testament to the terrain that I went through, rather than design flaws in the shoe.
Were I to hike the AT, I would wear these shoes from Springer to central Virginia and in northern New England.
New Balance 806
I really hated this shoe, even if it is about the most popular model out there. Others love the shoe. I wore the NB 806 from Sierra City to Sisters, OR, a distance of around 780 miles. The NBs are built like tanks, and there was absolutely no damage to the shoes when I ditched them in Sisters. Internal cushionning was going, but structurally the shoes were still good. The shoes have very little mesh in them and are the least breathable of all the shoes I wore. These shoes were also the most protective, making rubble walking easy and painfree.
The NB shoes did not fit me as well as I might have hoped. The toe box was a bit too narrow and the heel cup a bit too wide. The result was a sequence of small cracks or cuts on the pads of my toes. Some days these would be rather painful. The shoes might fit you better than they did me, but I have a fairly standard shaped foot. The traction of the NB 806 is substandard. There were times I would slide on things I could take my wingtips down safely. When things got wet, the situation got worse. The tread pattern is poor and not aggresive enough. The rubber used is very hard, which helps to protect the feet, but limits how grippy the shoe can be.
I would not wear these shoes again and cannot recommend them. I won't use NB products until they improve the traction (I had similar problems with the 904 model).
Asics Gel Trabuco V
I wore these trail runners from Sisters, OR to the Canadian border, a distance of about 670 miles. I liked these shoes alot, as they provided fairly good traction and a much better fit than the 806s I had been wearing previously. It took about 10 days for my feet to recover from the damage the NB shoes did. After that, I had happy feet the rest of the way to the border.
The Gel Trabucos are a lot like a running shoe, only a little stiffer and with a grippier, more protective sole. There is a lot of mesh, which helps keep your feet cool, but also lets in mud and micro rocks.
The durability of the shoes was very good, with no noticeable wear on them when I finished. They now have a tear on the top. I wished for more foot protection, but the amount the Trabucos provided was adequate. Traction was second best to the Eagle Trail.
Were I to hike the AT and could not get the Eagle Trail, I'd use these shoes.
Brooks Trespass
This is really a great shoe, although it has been discontinued in favor of the Trespass 2. Traction is superior and the sole utilizes a series of directional ridges. In the front of the shoe, the ridges angle backward toward the heel, in an attempt to improve traction as you hike uphill. In the rear of the shoe, the ridges angle foward, toward the toes, in an attempt to improve traction as you go down hill. While I have no scientific evidence that this is an improvement over a standard sole pattern, from experience it does seem to produce a shoe that is very sticky on dirt or loose rock. The shoe itself follows the normal Brooks pattern of being nice and wide in the toe box, but a little too wide in the heel for my particular needs. However, no blisters or feet irritation occured. The Trespass feels light and almost non-existent, which also means that it isn't very protective. The sole is hard enough to be comfortable while walking over rocky terrain, but if you kick rocks ro bang the sides into roots, you will definitely feel it. I wore the Trespass for about 600 miles total, including a lot of hiking in the Smokys, in the Middle East, the Grand Canyon, the Santa Catalina range in Arizona, around Indiana, and on the AT between Damascus and Pearisburg. Durability was very good, with some fabric degradation, but no holes. The soles were battered, but still quite functional when I trashed the shoes. Cushioning was starting to break down, as expected. Highly recommended.
Asics 1090 TR
I've had great success with Asics' shoes in the past and was happy to see a new trail shoe from them at a bargain price. The 1090 TR is a medium weight shoe that offers average, but acceptable, traction and protection. The shoe doesn't do anything wrong, although the cushioning began to break down after about 300 miles and the sole was not hard enough to compensate for this. Hence, in PA I began to feel the rocks rather alot. I wore the shoes between Pearisburg and Unionville, NY. Durability, except for the cushioning, is excellent and there wasn't even a sign of fabric degradation or structural compromise. The shoes are cheaper than most anything I have seen, outside of closeout specials. For the AT, I would say that they are an ideal shoe, but one must accept the (relatively) quick breakdown of the cushioning. Recommended.
Asics Gel Trabuco VI
Another Asics shoe that I like a lot. I used the Trabuco V last summer on the PCT and found it to be about perfect for that trail. The Trabuco VI has since been replaced with the Trabuco VII. The Trabuco VI is medium-light and very protective, especially on the soles. Traction is acceptable, though not as burly as the other shoes in this review. The sole pattern is only slight more rugged than what one finds on Asics normal road running shoes. Durability was spectacular, with almost no degradation at all. I wore the shoe betweenUnionville, NY and Manchester Center, VT on the AT, and for a distance of about 300 miles between Waterton and Field, BC, on the GDT. If the sole pattern was a little more aggresive, this would be my standard shoe, period. For the AT and most of the PCT, I have not encountered a better shoe for a long distance hiker.
Asics Eagle Trail III
The Eagle Trail III has a massive sole pattern which, combined with relatively soft rubber, gives traction that is almost equivalent to my mountaineering boots. The central problem is in durability and cushioning. As with last year's model, I wore holes in the front, inside toe areas and the cushioning broke down very quickly. I would still use these shoes for hiking, but would expect to replace them every 400 miles. If Asics would put the tread pattern of the Eagle Trail on the body of the Trabuco and increase the hardness of the rubber, an ideal hiking shoe would be born. I wore the Eagle Trail between Field, BC and Mount Robson, BC on the GDT, a distance of about 350 miles.
