Clothing

Gear

Accessories

Unconditional money back guarantee – Welcome to gear gluttony
Uploaded By:
Was this helpful?
Close
Flag This
Close This Window
Kelty Trekker Backpack - 3900-3950cu in

Kelty Trekker Backpack - 3900-3950cu in

Item #KEL0649|5 in Stock – Ships Wicked Fast & Free
$139.95
Close This Window

Please choose an option to order this item.

Woods Green, 3950cu in (139.95)
Khaki, 3900cu in (139.95)
Quantity:
Add this to my Gear List  
This product has been added to your XX List
  • Pass It On

Kelty Trekker Backpack - 3900-3950cu in

The Kelty Trekker Backpack offers a no-fuss, tried-and-true, original backpack design. Purists love an external frame, and why mess with a good thing? Hydration compatibility and a breathable back panel add modern comfort to this pack.

  • Sleeping bag compartment holds your sleep-stuffs
  • Reservoir sleeve holds water bladder so you can just sip as you go
  • Daisy chain and ice axe loop on the pack’s exterior hold extra equipment
  • Top loading design offers classic ease of use
  • Sternum strap, foam waist belt, and adjustable suspension let you distribute weight comfortably
  • Ventilating design and mesh back panels hold the pack away from your skin for tons of airflow

Bottom Line: A simple, indestructible old school backpack.

Product Wall

Talk shop with all the gear freaks out there: ask 'em questions, upload/browse photos, and give your 2¢.

Hi, throw your review on the Product Wall to show your Gear-telligence.
Hi, got a question? Ask on the Product Wall.

I have a 17.5" torso, I'm 6'2" male with broad

I have a 17.5" torso, I'm 6'2" male with broad shoulders and I'm skinny (32" pant waist, 34.25 at the iliac crest.

Which pack should I get, the 3900 or 3950?

I wouldn't mind having an extra 50 cubic inches, but it isn't necessary. I somewhat like the tan color better, but that isn't a deal breaker for the green. Also, the belts on the two models look like they are different (vertical) widths, are they?

If the belts are different widths, should I opt for a wider belt, or would that just make me warmer, or less mobile?

I've hiked on some really ruggid terrain with an old Kelty frame pack. I don't know what people are talking about when they say stick to the internal. I'm going backpacking, not walking down a street, of course the terrain is ruggid. And wet, dry, cold, hot, miserable and fun, the external never let me down.

By:
July 30, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

The 3950 fits a toso range of 16-22". The 3900 fits a torso range of 14-20". The waist belts are the same, you won't have a problem fitting your skinny waist! You're basically in the middle of each range, I'd go for the extra 50 cu in.

By:
July 31, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

would this be good for someone just getting into backpacking?

would this be good for someone just getting into backpacking? i like the look of external frame packs, but im not sure if it would be right for me.

By:
July 11, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

I have to agree with chris. External frame packs have their strong points (monster load capacity and tons of lash points) but today's internal frame packs are generally more comfortable and easier to live with. They fit more closely to your body and would probably be the better choice in the Cascades.

I would suggest walking into your nearest outfitter and trying on a few different packs before buying one. They'll get you set up for the correct torso length and help you sort out the features you might want in a backpack.

By:
August 8, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

Frame packs are great if you plan on hiking on well maintained trails without low hanging branches. They're easy to pack and can haul a ton of gear. If you plan on doing a lot of hiking on uneven ground or off trail, I'd recommend an internal frame pack like the Red Cloud 6650 or Coyote 4750. Hope that helps.

By:
July 13, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

What's the difference between this year's model Kelty

What's the difference between this year's model Kelty Trekker and last years I get pick up for a bit cheaper?Thanks,Doug

By:
March 13, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

The color and the material. This year's color does not look like an angry forest demon made the pack. This year's material is 600d poly ripstop vs. the old 210d poly ripstop. Last year's version is also 4oz. lighter. Unless you plan on putting the thing through a wood chipper or carrying swords, last year's model should do nicely.

By:
March 29, 2009

Was this helpful? (0) (0)

Flag

Change me.

Tech Specs:

Material:
600D Poly ripstop, 600D poly oxford 
Volume:
[Khaki] 3900cu in (64L); [Woods Green] 3950cu in (65L) 
Suspension:
External 
Hydration Compatible:
Yes, bladder sold separately 
Torso Adjustment:
Yes 
Detachable Pack:
No 
Sleeping Bag Compartment:
Yes 
Rain Cover:
No 
Access Types:
Top 
Pockets:
1 Main compartment, 1 sleeping bag, 1 top, 5 external zip, 2 mesh bottle 
Snowboard Carry:
No 
Ski Carry:
No 
Gear Loops:
3 Daisy chain 
Ice Axe Loops:
Shovel Pocket:
No 
Weight:
[Khaki] 5lb 6oz (2438g); [Woods Green] 5lb 7oz (2466g) 
Recommended Use:
Backpacking 
Manufacturer Warranty:
Lifetime 

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought: