My favorite for this is Clear Duct Tape .

Put down one piece of tape, write on it with your permanent marker, and put another layer on top of it.

You don't have to worry about the ink rubbing off and if you change what's in it

you can swap tape easily.

I've personally found paint pens to work quite well.

You can find them at Wal-Mart in the craft section and most likely any craft store.

They are the brand "Painters" made by Elmer's.

I use the ones with fine tips for labeling, which is slightly more defined than a Sharpie.

They also come in a variety of colors so you could even color code different medicines if you so desire.

I've washed items labeled with a paint pen many times

and it still holds up.

It will eventually wear down, but it takes quite some time.

If the surface to be labeled is glossy it helps to take a Scotch-brite pad or some fine sandpaper to scuff it up

and then the paint pen label will last even longer.

I occasionally have to label smooth plastic surfaces around the office that get handled regularly.

As you say, even a sharpie mark wears off after a while.

What I do is to write the label with a sharpie, then put a piece of tape over it.

Don't use the clear "scotch" tape, but the more permanent milky kind.

Make sure it is well stuck down with no air bubbles (rub with fingernail as needed), and it should stay on nicely for a long time even in moist conditions.

I will probably use a small paper and put this latter inside the tube so it can be visible from the outside.

This solution might not be the best solution if the tube is not fully transparent or very small.

I use tape medical plaster for labeling tubes: wrap your tube in it and then write over using a pen or permament marker.

The plaster just makes the surface less smooth and the writing can't be rubbed of that easily.

It's not waterproof, though.

The other idea which has just occured to me is to use some sharp object to carve your lables in plastic.

So even if the marker paint goes off, you'll be able to read the label.

Question: For my first aid kit, all of the medications are repackaged.  I use nalgene snaptop vials like  these .    I have found that even permanent sharpie marker rubs off fairly quickly when hiking.  I can usually recognized the difference between medicine, but I may not be the one pulling out the kit.    What system can I use to label containers so that it will not rub off?

What can I use to label my medicine tubes?

Methods include writing the label with a sharpie then taping over it. Clear duct tape is good. Using medical tape and writing on it is another option. Paint pens are also recommended, as are carving names into the plastic or putting a paper label inside the tube.

Labelling can be done with tape, paint pens, paper and by carving labels.

Paint pens, carving labels with a sharp object and paper can be used for labelling.


Smart Wool main claim to fame is that their treated wool doesn't itch as bad or shrink as much in washing machines.

Otherwise, its all the same stuff as far as its insulating capabilities go.

On the short run, the answer is no .

You will not put yourself at more risk wearing a cheaper product.

On the long run, the answer is not so clear.

There must be a reason behind a cheap price: Is it because of the materials used?

Is it because of cheap labour?

Is it because the Kirkland brand was able to do an amazing offer?

It is very hard to answer those questions precisely.

One thing is sure that on the long run, your sweater will endure more stress.

It might fail or succeed.

I was curious to do the same comparison in a store that I trust and who is known to be a fair trade store.

The merino sweaters were sold between $50 and $100 depending on the model.

If I compare with your two items, I would probably say that you selected two extremes.

I will probably choose to buy an item whose price will fall between the two for a normal usage.

For an extended usage, I will go for the topnotch which is not always the most expensive but rarely the cheapest.

As with everything -- it depends.

My wool socks from wal-mart have outlasted literally everything else

we have purchased, including most of our gear.

They still keep my toes toasty warm.

Wal-mart is a go-to kind of store for hunters in the south because they have good inexpensive warm clothes.

Wool socks from wal-mart generally last me around ten years/pair...

However, walk two aisles over, or even in the same aisle, and you will find things that will fail in ten days.

The question could more generally be stated as "does price guarantee quality", and the answer is no.

While the stuff two aisles over at wal-mart might fail, the same is true of most other stores.

For instance we never buy several of the "Name" hiking brands because they have failed us and rapidly at that

(I leave out names because I don't want to smear a brand).

Whether or not you will be more "at risk" depends solely on following one rule.

NEVER test new gear at the extremes , no matter how cool, or what you paid for it.

Test where failure is not fatal.

And that goes just as equally for "name" as for "generic"

I think your basis for this question is a bit out of skew with the myself more at risk clause.

The difference between truly top end

Merino Wool and lesser quality wool is the micron (µm) being used.

The really good quality stuff, say, Icebreaker, uses the highest quality micron which results in a warmer garment that is able to handle ‘peripheral temperature regulation - and therefore thermoregulation - better for most outdoor activities.

If, however we address the subject question you are asking, Is department store merino wool less effective than branded (i.e. SmartWool)

merino wool in staying warm and wicking moisture? than the answer to that, as explained above, is absolutely, "YES".

It will be highly superior in regards to helping you stay warm in a broader range of temperatures and helping 'wick away moisture' from your body through the Merino next-to-skin base layer and into your other base layers.

But there is sooo much more to this question.

What are your other base layers?

Do they have a high enough MVTR to take the moisture from the next-to-skin layer to the second layer, and to the third layer, and out to the soft shell layer if the conditions require you to wear one.

If just one of these base layer garments is not doing its job, you are going to sweat out the sub-layer garments, at which point none of this matters.

But, anyway, yes, the top name Merino wool outdoor garments that use the ultra high micron wool are far better than some no-name random garment off the shelf.

Like being said you could also ask if price scales with quality.

That's not true in general as we all know.

What hasn't been said is that there are big differences in terms of labor conditions, sustainability, environmental influence and animal protection.

Especially the latter is a very critical issue in the Merino industry.

I am not going to blame a brand here but please have this in mind.

Fair gained quality wool or down has its price.

But we don't have to buy the most expensive stuff therefore.

(similar discussion for e.g. recyclable Hardshells)

Also, On top of it all.. someone has to pay for advertisements as well.

The more hype a company puts out, they need to make that money back which then raises there price of items.

That's why Costco can sell things so cheap as well as purchasing so many at a time which then reduces the overall price for you.

On top of that, you pay a membership fee at Costco (As do I).

I actually just purchased 71% Merino wool socks from costco for hiking (4 pairs for 12 dollars) while I was about to click "Buy" on a website for 2 pairs of Smartwool PhD's for 50 bucks.

Huge difference?

Probably not..

Did I save 38 dollars and end up with double the socks that feel just as good?

Yup.

Comes down to preference.

Also, Costco purchases name brand items and throws there "Kirkland" Logo on it.

Just do your research.

Great post by the way.

Question: At my local Costco, I see a Kirkland brand 100% merino wool quarter-zip sweater being sold for $25.  On EMS, I see a SmartWool 100% merino wool half-zip sweater costing $140.  Would I be potentially putting myself more at risk if I wore the Kirkland sweater as a layer?

Is department store merino wool less effective than branded (i.e. SmartWool) merino wool in staying warm and wicking moisture?

High quality clothing from Icebreaker, for example, uses the highest quality micron which results in a warmer garment that is able to handle ‘peripheral temperature regulation - and therefore  thermoregulation  - better for most outdoor activities.  It also claims to itch less and not shrink as much. However, in the short run, the cheaper garment may be fine, but time will tell.

High micron wool is best and apparently does not itch or shrink in the wash as much. The difference is likely to become clear in the long run.

High micron wool is superior and supposedly doesn't itch or shrink in the wash as much.

It depends and is likely to become clearer in the long run.


Your legs aren't as sensitive to temperture extremes.

Right now it's winter here

and I'm walking around outside with a regular shirt, a wool sweater, and a wind breaker on my torso.

Inside

I take off the windbreaker an sweater.

However, inside or outside, I'm wearing the same single-layer pants and it's not a problem.

My legs don't feel hot inside or cold outside.

If I had that same single layer on my torso, I'd be pretty cold outside.

Legs just don't care that much.

Changing layers on your legs is more of a hassle, especially with shoes on, and you can't take it to the same level in public without getting arrested.

We do have layers for legs, it's just that most people don't think the extra bother is worth it for most conditions.

Consider long underwear, various types of regular pants, and special wind/rain/snow pants.

I'm not sure why pants don't receive the same attention but the layers are available.

You can easily find base , insulating , and shell layers.

Olin's answer gives some good reasons layering pants may not seem as common.

In reply: (2) There are full-side-zip pants for mountaineers (crampons) and wide-opening pants for skiers/boarders and regular boots.

Any time it's cold or wet I've used layers, and so did the people around me.

Because a jacket is easier to put on

everyone starts there when that is sufficient of course.

Actually, layering of clothing on the other parts of body is discussed, but not so often.

There are many reasons for it: The warming of the chest is crucial.

This is where such vital organs like the heart and liver are placed, so the lowering of the temperature there is the most dangerous.

In fact, your body can reduce the blood flow to arms and legs to help keep the core temperature.

It's easier to layer your chest than your legs.

It's relatively easy to take off your jacket while walking; try to do it with trousers.

Legs consist mainly of muscles, so they are better isolated from cold.

Legs are actually producing a lot of heat while walking as they are doing the most of the work.

I live in Edmonton and just walking outside at all means everything needs a couple layers.

Many of my friends routinely wear full snowpants around

, I wear a floor length snow skirt that snaps all the way to the bottom

so it’s easier to deal with than changing in and out of long underwear once at work.

It’s true, legs don’t “sense” cold in the same way

but it doesn’t mean they aren’t cold, and I’m pretty sure my thighs at the knee are frost bitten.

They generally go from cool to sharp pain below -15°C which is a warm day in the winter here, and when we all fill our gas tanks, get groceries and a car wash.

No one is really deterred in their activities even at -40°C.

I have to kind of laugh at windproof cotton/poly pants as being good enough, or that walking makes your legs warm.

Not here, I walk everywhere, and it’s the act of walking that brings the top of my leg in contact with pants and closer to the -25°C outside temp.

My advice is get awesome snow pants with a full zip for easy in/easy out AND long thermal underwear, AND good pants, and based on your activity, use any combo of those.

There are a few reasons.

This first is that legs are mostly bone and muscle, which if you're walking is doing fairly constant work.

Compared to the head and torso your legs are much less bothered about being a bit too hot or cold.

Secondly it is generally much more hassle to put on and take off leg-wear, especially over boots

so you loose the main point of layering which is to make it easier to adjust clothing to the conditions.

Also if you are walking etc adding layers to the legs can quickly become an impediment which is annoying and wastes energy.

In my experience any sort of moderately windproof trousers (eg polycotton) are fine in most conditions, even when I'm wearing quite a few layers on my body and it is pretty rare that I would bother with waterproof trousers at all.

In colder conditions many people will wear some sort of thermal leggings under trousers indeed before stretchy sports leggings became a thing many people wore women's nylon tights as they add quiet a bit of extra insulation, dry fast and don't add much bulk.

Often the biggest problem is at the waist where you can get a gap between the top and bottom half of the clothing so in really cold conditions single piece suits or salopettes are often the preferred solution.

Question: Whenever I see clothing articles geared toward hiking and backpacking that discuss layering (base layer for wicking, mid layer for insulation, etc.), they always seem to discuss these things in terms of things you wear on your chest.  How come we don't apply the same principles to our pants?  How come I can't seem to find base layer and mid layer pants when trying to select gear for cold weather hiking?

Why don't we apply the principles of layering when it comes to pants?

Compared to the head or torso, legs generally don't feel cold or temperature extremes in the same way and are often warm from doing a lot of work. It is also easier to layer the chest area, while it is more of a hassle to add and remove layers on the legs. However, layers are available for legs.

It's easier to add layers on your chest and legs are mostly muscle, as such they are not as sensitive to cold.

Legs do more work when walking and produce heat. They are mainly muscle and less sensitive to cold.

It's easier to put extra layers on your chest, especially when you're wearing boots.


Warning!

I am not a medical professional.

However, I asked my favorite doctor and she seemed to think it would be okay.

She said rust would just look like iron to your body and it would be consumed like food.

So, I guess it is broadly safe.

She also said that she wouldn't do it under any circumstances.

If the container is rusting so extensively you swallow sharp flakes of metal, you can die really horribly.

People do not realize that their public water are delivered by iron pipes buried 20 to 80 years ago.

I was an engineering student and if you cut those pipes you will see rust around the pipes.

So people do not realized that they are drinking water through rusted interior of water pipes.

No one has died from it.

Rust is not harmful to consume in either form (red or black)

Black rust is magnetite and is what makes cast iron cookware black.

What is dangerous is being cut by something rusty, and danger has nothing to do with the rust itself.

It is simply a great place for tetanus bacteria to live.

I'd be wary of drinking from anything rusty personally - I'm not aware of the type of metal your thermos is made from, but several can start to produce potentially poisonous chemicals when they begin to oxidise.

Sure, you could be ok

but I wouldn't say it's worth the risk.

In terms of cleaning it, try something like Zud cleanser (readily available in the UK, not sure about other parts of the world.)

Does a really good job at removing rust on anything I've tried it with!

Put dish wash powder in and fill with hot water it will fizz let sit over night (don't put cap on gases

will blow it off)

was out it will look like new.

It's harmless.

Rinse out anything loose.

If you want, add a handfull of gravel, a cup of water, and shake for 10 minutes to get stuff out.

A thermos is going to be food grade metal.

So the alloys will not be exotic ones with chromium or vanadium in quantity.

In passing: a 1 or 2 liter bottle with a pair of heavy socks pulled over it works nicely as a cheap thermos.

I've used this for coffee on all day orienteering in winter, and even by day's end the coffee is at least warm.

Question: I've got a thermos for coffee and/or water storage that I use on hikes and for bike touring since it keeps things hot for hours.  However, it seems like the inside is rusting a bit.    Is this safe to use as is? Is this easily remedied, and how can I protect it from rusting again?

Is it safe to drink out of a rusty thermos?

While some say that rust is not harmful to consume, it is best to avoid swallowing sharp flakes of metal or being cut. Some metals may produce poisonous chemicals when they start to oxidise. Clean it by adding dishwasher powder and hot water, Zud cleanser, or add some gravel and water and shake for 10 minutes to get rid of loose flakes.

Rust is not harmful in itself but drinking sharp metal flakes is. You can clean and rinse these out.

To avoid drinking sharp metal flakes, clean and rinse out anything loose.


I wish I was still in Yosemite for this one.

I used to climb with some fairly well known climbers back in the day, "

Big Wall Pete" Takeda, the Parker Brothers, even happened on Peter Croft after he taught a class and we climbed for about 45 minutes.

Big Wall used to work for "Climbing" and did a number of photo shoots, I know how they get the pictures from above and away from the rock using bivouac style set ups, but I never asked about taking the big cameras up.

We used to take cheaper cameras up.

We would tape a loop on them, throw a biner on it and drag it up that way.

Almost always wrapped in a protective padded bag attached separately.

If you drag it behind you and in its own case, it is easier to get to than say in the center of your food bag.

Just remember that the camera is never to come un-clipped.

You could rig up something with a 6' sling attached to the back of your harness and then a second carabiner closer to the camera and clip it to say your hip, with a camera bag for protection.

This will give you quicker access, if that is an issue, but at the cost of being in the way.

The biggest reason why we stopped taking cameras up had more to do with the relatively lame angles you get from taking it from another climber's perspective.

Either you get their feet or the top of their head.

To get better shots, you need a separate team climbing ahead with bivouac gear to push you away from the rock, this will give you a lot better angle to shoot from.

And if you are going to be taking a DSLR, I am guessing you are a lot more serious about the shots, so you might want to look into getting that set up figured out.

For quicker and easier shots, you can lock off and stand horizontal off the rock.

This is easier, and more of an angle than just hanging, but might not bring justice to taking a DSLR up the rock.

My strong recommendation is one of the BlackRapid straps.

Black Rapid

- THE WORLD’S

MOST TRUSTED CAMERA STRAP

They are solid products.

Need some checking before setting off to make sure it's connected securely.

I'd personally probably add some sort of redudancy to the system if I was to go climbing with it, but I've done long hikes and it keeps the camera out of the way until right when you need it.

I recently got the Mantona Elements, an interesting hybrid camera/trekking backpack: The lower part of the pack contains a small removable camera bag, while on top of it there's some space (not too much, though) for gear, food, clothes, etc.

Alternatively, you can reconfigure it without the camera bag to use the entire space like a regular backpack.

I'm pretty happy with it

, it's comfortable to carry and not too large.

I've used a Black Rapid (clone) shoulder strap and added a carabiner that I attach to my belt loop to keep it from swinging or banging against the rocks.

I also connect the carabiner to the clip that attaches the camera to the strap so it holds the camera firmly at my waist.

I use this strap for biking:

It's a crossbody strap with a stabilizer that keeps the camera securely on your back while biking.

It's perfect for mirrorless or compact cameras, but could hold a DSLR.

It works for skateboarding, hiking, and I imagine it's great for climbing when you want to keep the camera out of the way with both hands free.

Just coming back from a climbing weekend where I manage to bring my camera around the rocks: I've added a peak design clip at the back of my harness and a simple strap.

The clip allow quick and easy manipulation of the camera, and the strap is only to assure not dropping the camera.

With this configuration, the camera is exposed, therefore I wouldn't advice to lead a hard route because in case of fall, the probability to break your camera would be quite high.

Here is how it looks (sorry for potato image quality, the good camera is on the picture...):

After a couple of usage, I'd add this method is really nice because it is really quick to be ready to take pictures.

The downside is that it is not that easy to clip back as you don't see what you are doing.

I use the Manfrotto Offroad 30L pack.

This does have a very good adjustable & comfortable fit and works well when you have a loaded harness.

It is not too bulky and I rarely need all the space even with overnight bivy and all inside.

The camera gear stays at the bottom in it's own are, (only room for camear plus 2 lenses

so Canon 80D 12-28 f4 & 70-200

f 2.8), I tend to carry a little more gear than I should

but it's no difference in reality & the bulk is tideied away.

An APS-C DSLR is the right size for me, cold wet hands and a micro 4/3 doesn't work.

I have the PD Capture Clip V3 also but haven't yet found where to put it when Scrambling / Climbing, but for Multi-pitch the DSLR with 12-28 f4 is within reach to get out but not so easy to put back in, but when the photo is worth it I can do it.

Actually for climbing this works very well, it is the tricky scrambling which I have to plan better for with this setup.t

is a little larger than the Mantona Elements and the same as one of the LowePro's.

I'm so happy with mine

I have two!

When I need more camera gear I have an additional insert in the top and still enough space for overnighting up top.

Question: I am interested in hearing how people take their dslrs ( digital single lens reflex camera ) onto multi-pitch-rock-climbs. I have carried mine up in a small pack, but I end up taking hardly any pictures, since it is so cumbersome to get to it. What do professional climbing photographers/videographers do?

What's the best way to carry a dslr camera when rock-climbing?

Using a strap and clip is recommended, as are Black Rapid straps, along with a carabiner to attach the camera firmly at the waist. Special packs are also available, such as the Manfrotto Offroad 30L pack, or the hybrid Mantona Elements pack.

Manfrotto and Mantona backpacks, tape loops, clips and straps are effective.

Manfrotto and Mantona backpacks work well, as do tape loops.


Cheese : Long time.

Especially hard cheeses.

You can just cut any mold off the edge that might creep up.

Cheeses sealed in cheese wax (gouda) are a good bet.

I've had extra-sharp cheddar un-refrigerated in the AZ desert for 8+ days, in the rocky mountains for 15+ days with no issues (aside from sweat.)

Blocks last longer than a pile of shredded cheese.

Be smart.

Keep an eye on it.

If it smells foul, don't eat it.

Eggs :

With shells intact, raw eggs last surprisingly long.

In the Borneo rain forest (just below the equator = hot) we would get pallets of 300

+ raw eggs shipped up to camp that we would store, un-refrigerated in the shade, for 30 days at a time.

(This was after however long un-refrigerated in the truck, the shop, and the supply boat...)

Sure, there was some spoilage - but a very small percentage.

Just crack them into a separate container first before tossing them in your dish.

Or use an old farmers test

: put your raw eggs in a bucket of water, "If they sink, they're safe.

If they float, they fail."

Other people suggest cracking the eggs into a sterilized lexan bottle (rinse with bleach first) and then freezing (or not).

These reportedly last for several days.

(<-I have not tried this).

As a distant last option -- they are doing some pretty decent things with powdered eggs these days...

Caveat:

These are my personal experiences.

I am sure there are some official FDA guidelines and other related official paranoia.

Possibly even tails of death and disease from eating day old cheese.

Fine.

Follow those if you choose.

Or step outside of commercial convention and open a world of gourmet back-country dining.

Related:

How long does mayonnaise last unrefrigerated in the back-country?

I've never tried it myself, but I met people trekking (sorry, tramping) in New Zealand who had pre-scrambled eggs with them, on the 5 day Heaphy track .

They were cooked quite hard, and so could be easily carried in a freezer bag without worrying about breaking them, and then warmed up, or eaten as is.

It was only day 2, so perhaps they didn't expect to keep them for long, but I remember them looking a lot nicer than all dried nonsense I was eating at the time!

I guess their shelf life would be down to the weather at the time.

Personal anecdotal experience: hard cheese

: lasts about a week in cool climate boiled eggs: lasts 3 (maybe up to 5 days) before they start to get weird unboiled eggs

: I have never even thought of taking them backpacking, but I know they are safe for two weeks unrefrigerated.

(This might be a joke to try to carry with you though?)

hummus: about a week, unrefrigerated

To carry raw eggs, leave 'em in their shells, put them in an old peanut-butter jar (plastic, watertight, wide mouthed).

FILL the rest of the jar with water and close the lid.

The water keeps the eggs from breaking, as long as there isn't any air space, and they will last at least a week in good weather.

That's less than 90° greater than freezin'.

This method is For Sure worth the weight and the size - specially if the choice is powdered....

Fine for baking,

BUT...

,'sides the jar is great for water or collecting when the eggs are gone!

Fresh Un-Refrigerated Egg Storage:

On many wilderness excursions I've backpacked with store bought eggs (in crush-resistant container) for 7-10 days (or longer when coated with mineral oil) with no problem as long as the shell is intact.

You can water-test

the eggs - Sink’s is Good / floats

it’s Bad.

More info can be found here: Safely Preserving Eggs .

The problem with raw eggs seems to be mainly that they dry out.

As long as the shell is not cracked, no bacteria can get in

Some recipes from old books: Cover the shell with vaseline.

Put them in a glass with a 10%solution of sodium silicate.

Keep in a container with slaked limesolution.

The last two are said to preserve the eggs for many months.

Luckily I was in no need to try.

The slaked lime solution sounds best to me.

The solution keeps the eggs moist and kills any bacteria

I've gone 3 days with eggs in the backcountry

but I live in the Rockies where it stays cool in the shade and night.

I've been told if you keep a few eggs in a tin of flour that they'll keep for a week.

Question: I have taken some hard cheeses onto backpacking trips quite successfully without spoilage, but I have not dared taking more than I can eat in about 3 days. Eggs I have not dared to take. I am interested in how long people have gone in arid climates before their cheese/eggs became inedible. I don't mind sweaty cheese or even some mold, but I do not care much about food poisoning in the backcountry.

Cheese and eggs on backpacking trips

Raw eggs can be taken on backpacking trips, with a few tips. Make sure the shells are not cracked; rub with Vaseline; and store in a tin with flour. If a raw egg sinks in water, then it is safe, and some say that they have kept raw eggs in the shade for 30 days. Cracking eggs into a sterilizes Lexan bottle is another suggestion. Cheese lasts for a long time although it may sweat. Blocks of cheese or wax-covered cheese are better than shredded cheese. If it smells foul, don't eat it.

Eggs can be preserved by keeping the shells intact and covering, if they sink in water they are fine. Waxed sealed cheese can last a long time, but should be avoided if it smells bad.

Raw eggs can dry out, but keep the shells intact and cover them. If they sink in water, they are safe.

Cheese can last for a long time, especially blocks sealed in wax. Avoid if it smells bad.


When I get to the "simmer" part of cooking on the Whisperlite, I take the pot off the stove, put the lid on, and wrap it in a towel including underneath and on top.

Whatever I am cooking will stay simmery for at least 20-30 minutes that way.

It's great for making a sauce with dehydrated ingredients.

While the sauce is sitting aside staying hot, I can cook pasta or rice with the stove.

It's one of the tricks to eating well in the backcountry without taking a lot of equipment.

Pasta with sauce over it, or rice with sauce over it, tastes better than a one-pot all-mixed-up meal.

And if you have kids with you, you can accomodate their desires for more sauce, less sauce, or the sauce not to touch the starch.

Everybody wins.

The short answer: don't.

Edit: Instead of simmering on the stove, remove the pot from the flame and keep it insulated to retain heat.

See @KateGregory's excellent answer for more details.

The long answer: you can reduce the pressure in the fuel bottle, and this will reduce the flow rate of the fuel.

This is done by pumping fewer times!

The exact number will vary over bottle size and amount of air in it--how full it is.

After you brought your pot to a boil, using the stove at regular pressure as per the manual, remove the pot from the stove and turn off the gas valve.

Once the stove is off, take a hold of the bottle, hold it up vertically, and carefully unscrew the pump to release the pressure.

Do this carefully, and be sure there is no flame immediately nearby, because if the fuel vapour lights up, you are going to have a very bad time.

Once the pressure is released, re-seal the pump on the bottle, give it one or two pumps, open the fuel valve and relight the stove.

If your flame is still too strong, repeat this procedure with fewer pumps.

Ultimately, it's the pressure in the fuel bottle that determines the flow to the stove.

The vapour coming out as you depressurize the fuel bottle can catch fire if you are not careful.

You must be sure there are no fire sources nearby that will light it!

Given the risk involved, I think it's best to avoid doing this.

I have been able to make fancy rice, soup, sauce, eggs, pancakes, and other types of meals that benefit from simmering on this stove with regular operation.

An easy solution is to simply elevate the pot higher over the fire.

If you know you will be in a setting that calls for long-term simmering, then an LPG stove will do a much better job of it.

Edit :

Here's an article on how to do this, including a short video

Use a food Thermos to retain heat and simulate a pressure cooker.

Save fuel.

Opens up the burner for cooking other dishes.

Thermos can be used to carry other items when not in use.

Cheers

As an alternate solution, if you are doing a lot of simmering and don't mind taking an additional piece of equipment, look into heat diffusers.

There is even a company that makes back-country ovens based on the principle of heat diffusion and insulation.

All these ovens are is a heat diffuser, a pan with a lid and a thermometer, and a cozy for the pan.

While the depressurization trick does work very well, its also not necessary.

I've used the whisperlite to simmer just by turning the flame down real low.

You have to be very gentle on the valve and be looking right at the flame to gauge it, but it works.

Based on experience using this stove for 70+ days of trail work (breakfast and dinner each day).

After reviewing many blogs on this topic and running some experiments, I think I found something else helpful.

I have an old Whisperlite from around 1999 or 2000.

When Coleman gas could not be controlled, I cleaned it out thoroughly and switched to MSR Super Fuel.

The Super Fuel is wonderful and I am able to control a steady simmer without problems on a clean stove.

I also applied the low pressure technique (from the start) and works great.

Part of my kitchen is 3 twelve inch gutter nails.

When a pot needs to simmer, it goes on the nails, which act to increase the distance from the Whisperlite's flame.

Lots easier than working to adjust the gas pressure.

To improve the simmer: Remove one of the corrugated rings in the dome.

Install the kerosene jet, but burn gasoline.

This results in a smaller flame at all levels, including simmer.

Works great for small pots like the toaks titanium ones.

Don't over pump to compensate.

If you have extra fuel, extra water, and a spare frypan you can also use the double-pan technique.

Put the water in the frypan and then your pot in the water.

The water in the frypan will buffer the temperature of the stove a bit more and if you turn off the stove it’ll buffer the cooling as well.

It’s hugely wasteful of gas and water though.

Question: MSR WhisperLite backpacking stoves are ubiquitous, but they lack a key function: the ability to simmer easily. How can you set a WhisperLite to simmer without having to constantly watch the stove and micro-adjust the fuel valve?

How can you make a MSR WhisperLite stove simmer?

There are many suggestions, including removing one of the corrugated rings in the dome; using the double-pan technique; using a thermos as a pressure cooker; heat diffusers; or elevating the pot. Simply turning the flame down low may work. Some people remove the pan from the heat and then wrap it in a towel for insulation. Reducing the pressure in the gas canister may also help.

You do not need to depressurise the fuel bottle but this works, you an also remove the pot from the flame and keep it insulated. Lowering the heat, higher placement and spare pans work well.

Higher placement, spare pans and lowering the flame are effective.

You do not need to but you can depressurise the fuel bottle, or remove the pot and keep it insulated.


On your descent, assuming you don't have an overhang, you simply place your heels against the wall, feet about shoulder width apart and lean back until your legs are horizontal, holding the rope above the knot and walk or bounce gently as your belaying partner lowers you.

The only things that will cause a swing are- climbing a pitch adjacent to the one your rope is for (as Don says) holding on to the wall on your descent

Top-roping or lead-climbing?

I haven't seen this happen in top-roping except when using the wrong rope - that is, for the rope next to the route i'm climbing.

When you top out you should be near the pulley.

If you're way off to the side, then, yeah, you should expect some swinging.

If you're 5 feet from the pulley, you should expect to swing 5 feet each way until the swinging dampens.

Spinning

you should be able to control by leaning back and keeping both feet on the wall, which works unless you're passing an overhang.

For lowering on top-rope: Grab a quickdraw and attach one end to your belay loop and the other end to the belayer end of the rope.

For lowering on lead: Same idea, but you will have to unclip the quickdraws on the wall as you go down essentially cleaning the route before getting stuck on the quickdraw attached to your belay loop

As others have mentioned if you're within reach of the wall then keep your feet on the wall and walk down backwards (keep your butt level with your feet).

As for an overhang, provide you're top-roping, the easiest thing to do is to have your belaying partner stop you (don't descend until your stable), then reach out and grab the section of rope between your belay partner and the anchor and use it to stabilize yourself.

Once you're stable let go of it and tell your belay partner to lower you (be sure to communicate when you want to stop and when you want to go).

Keep in mind

it's pretty much always best to get yourself under control while you're as high off the ground as possible.

You're less likely to collide with a wall, other climbers, or other people on the ground.

I'm presuming your on an overhanging wall here as if you can touch the wall you should walk down preventing this issue.

It's very common to twist and spin a little when being lowered off overhanging terrain

so don't worry about it!

Keep calm and relax.

If you tense up and try and correct any spining or swinging your likely only going to make things worse.

Do not grab the wall!

You may well hurt yourself.

Parry it away with your hands and feet but don't hold onto a hold.

You could down climb (but this is likely going to become very tiresome very quickly)

I tend to let my arms hang loose by the side of my body and lean forwards slightly.

If I spin or swing (providing I'm not going to hit anything)

I let it happen and just stay loose.

If this becomes too violent, your belayer should slow down or stop, let the swing finish then continue.

The belayer should do this without you having to shout and tell them if they are paying the correct attention.

If your belayer doesn't do this consider talking to them (ideally when you get down "next time can you not do that, etc"), they may not see it as an issue, but if you do they should adjust their technique according to what you want

(climber is always in charge).

Question: I recently started indoor rock climbing at a local spot.  I got to the top and (after appropriate communication) my partner started to belay me down.  I instantly starting swinging and spinning pretty wildly, more than 10' arcs.  I was able to catch the wall, but every time I let go the same thing would happen.  I didn't see anyone else having this problem.   How does one descend in a relatively vertical fashion without swinging like a pendulum?  (edit:  Top-roping)

How to avoid pendulum descent when belaying?

On your descent, assuming you don't have an overhang, you simply place your heels against the wall, feet about shoulder width apart and lean back until your legs are horizontal, holding the rope above the knot and walk or bounce gently as your belaying partner lowers you.   For lowering on top-rope: Grab a quickdraw and attach one end to your belay loop and the other end to the belayer end of the rope.   For lowering on lead: Same idea, but you will have to unclip the quickdraws on the wall as you go down essentially cleaning the route before getting stuck on the quickdraw attached to your belay loop.

Lean back and make good use of your belay loop.


I am a decent climber and a better scientist, and I strongly suspect there is no scientific answer to your question.

I have been on my long climbs and backpacking trips where I had to carry a pack.

The most important factor in how much weight

I (or my friends) carried was not height, weight, or gender, it was fitness.

Your strength, endurance, and your experience carrying weight will determine how much weight you can carry comfortably.

I know this is probably not what you wanted, but I believe it is correct.

It is not your weight that is limiting your ability to carry heavy backpacks, it is your strength.

You should determine your backpack weight based on strength and what you've previously carried, not your bodyweight.

I used to apply the 30% rule, and for out of shape adults it works pretty well.

But I worked with teenage males, ranging from the 70 lb dripping wet grade 7 to the 160 lb lean as a rake grade 12 just starting to come into his adult strength.

But in between were a bunch of butter balls.

They were already carrying excess weight.

Those older boys (which we shamelessly used as pack mules on trips with the younger ones) would quite easily carry 80 lb packs.

And Ive heard of climbers doing the same on journeys to base camp.

Those 70 lb grade 7's didn't have much trouble with a 30-35 lb pack either.

So the rule I came up with was 50% of lean body mass.

In practice we took an eyeball look and categoried like this: Visible ribs.

50%Can see muscles, but not bones.

40%Layer of baby fat

30%Obvious Molson Muscles overhanging belt line:

25% Small plump kids could barely carry their own clothes and gear.

We made a point of finding something bulky but not massive so they would still feel like they were contributing to the group.

Egg noodles and scalloped potatoes.

Once on the trip, we sometimes had to shift things around.

The goal was to equalize the discomfort.

This estimation rule usually meant we only had a couple of individuals whose load we had to lighten.

You can train yourself to carry heavier loads.

When I was in university, I borrowed a couple of lead bricks (35 lbs each) and kept them in the bottom of my book bag.

Had to restich the bag every few months -- they aren't designed for that kind of weight.

I lived a mile from campus, and biked or walked to class.

(Warning: Biking with a pack that heavy is very odd)

The key is that you develop habits of posture that minimizes the pain.

While daily work this way is best, setting up a pack at 40% and carrying it for an hour or so at a time on walks in the park.

(wear the shoes you will on the hike too.)

will help, either by training you to the higher weight, or by motivating you to leave stuff at home.

Though there is no scientific answer, you can make use of some experience-based guidelines.

They vary much and none is "true".

There are some of our local considerations: Our club's empirical threshold is 30% of you body weight.

Which simply means, that if your pack is heavier than that

and you don't have much experience, you should strongly consider either removing some unnecessary items or choosing a shorter trip (so you can carry less food).

Of course this varies wildly and body weight is just one of the variables, along with strengths/fitness/endurance, skll, motivation, age, sex (girls are stronger in %), backpack quality, ...

In our trips you sometimes have to carry food for about 2 weeks (and all the technical and camping gear), so this 30% guideline is somtimes violated.

And our fathers, when things were much heavier, used to carry as much as 50% of their weight.

And sherpas routinely carry up to 100%.

Backpacks do damage you health, if they are more then your personal limit.

So it's wise to increase it slowly (starting from shorter/easier trips).

Note, that heavy backpack needs some skill to put it on right, otherwise you can damage your back before even walking out of the door.

Regardless of the limits, if you can make you pack lighter without jeopardizing safety, do it.

Poetically, if you pack is 100 g heavier than your friend's, after you come to a camp after a day hike he starts to relax and you first have to run with a 10 kg bucket of water for 5 minutes.

To sum up, I wouldn't recommend having >30% on your first mountaineering trip, but you shouldn't constrain yourself within any particular "theoretical" limit.

If you want to stay healthy, listen to your body.

Your backpack weight should be 20% of your body weight, and get a 30-40 litres backpack.

The backpack should fit nicely on your back with it resting slightly above your butt, and it should not obstruct your head movement.

Backpack weight distribution is 40% on shoulder strap and 60% on your hip strap.

Question: I am eager to go mountain climbing but cannot carry heavy backpacks because of my light weight. I want to know if there is any scientific equation to help me know how much weight is safe for me to have on my back.

What is scientific relation between body weight and backpack weight in mountain climbing?

Some clubs recommend that the weight of the backpack should not exceed 30% of your body weight. Other people recommend 20%. Backpack weight should be distributed between 40% on the shoulder strap and 60% on the hip strap. Others say that your strength, endurance, and your experience carrying weight will determine how much weight you can carry comfortably.  This varies wildly and body weight is just one of the variables, along with strength/fitness/endurance, skill, motivation, age, sex (girls are stronger in %), backpack quality, etc. You should determine your backpack weight based on strength and what you've previously carried, not your bodyweight.

It largely depends on your strength, fitness and experience, though 30% of your body weight is a good rule.

30% of your body weight is a good rule, with 40/60 distribution between shoulder and hip straps.

Strength is the key factor, as well as fitness and experience.


The bowline knot is very safe if loaded correctly .

This is the usual, safe way to load it: The chair foot is the body (sorry for not offering naked models), the part of the rope leading away from the picture will take the load.

In this use case the knot should hold perfectly.

On the other hand, you might get the idea to use the bowline knot to create a sling, say to rappel down from a tree:

This is wrong and

if you rappel down from that carabiner you might get yourself killed, because the knot can slip when loaded “sideways”, pulling the main loop apart.

There are other similar wrong use cases, all depending on the knot being able to hold when pulled sideways – which the bowline knot isn’t.

This was discovered during an investigation of a fatal fall in Germany in the 1960s.

The case went to the court and after that the Germans have done a series of tests on the knot to realize that it can indeed slip under side load, which is why it’s considered unfit for climbing today.

See Pit Schubert, Sicherheit und Risiko in Fels und Eis .

In the context of rock climbing, compared to a figure-8 knot, bowlines are: About as strong under ideal circumstances

BUT: Can come untied on their own when unloaded Are more difficult to visually inspect (important, because climbers frequently rely on partners to check their knots, and may be tying and untying knots when they're tired and / or distracted).

Both the figure-8 and a bowline (and its variations) will fail if loaded in the manner your picture indicates.

Any knot is only useful for the scenarios it was designed for, and part of knot-craft

is knowing what the knots are designed to do, not just how to tie them.

In addition to zoul's excellent answer, the Bowline has another drawback in that it can come loose (or even undone) after repeated load/unload cycles (i.e. weighing and unweighing the rope).

This means that the bowline is not as good as the figure-8 to use to tie-in a climber, especially for multi-pitch climbing, gym climbing, etc...

(That said, many good climbers do use the bowline to tie in.)

None of the photos show the bowline with the loose end tied off.

In this (untied off) form the knot is unsafe as there is a strong chance of slippage.

It's also easy to tie badly with fatal consequences.

On the plus side its possible to tie one single handed in about 4 seconds.

When tied off with a single or better double hitch though then this knot is pretty safe, for most situations it still would not be my knot of choice though.

The Bowlines best application is possibly tree or post belays, but even here after moderate loading it can be hard to untie and a better choice would be round turn + 2 half hitches.

For heavy loading situations the double figure of eight (or fig 9 for super heavy) is a better knot but lacks the ease of set up.

In the first instance, the simple #1010 Bowline (as shown by the OP) - is not and never was intended for climbing.

Its sort of like asking; "Is a Lamborghini sports car suitable to drive off road in very rough terrain?"

Clearly, the answer is "No".

The simple #1010 Bowline was 'invented' hundreds of years ago for nautical (sailing) purposes.

It was not designed (or intended) for life critical applications such as rock climbing.

There are many different types of 'Bowlines'.

If you are going to select and use a 'Bowline' for life critical applications, you should select a type that is 'inherently secure'.

Inherently secure knots do not require any form of 'backup stopper knot' to make them secure.

Inherently secure 'Bowlines' include: The EBSB Bowline ; and Harry Butlers Yosemite Bowline variant ; and Scott's locked Bowline ; and Lee's link Bowline .

All 'Bowlines' have the advantage of being Post Eye Tiable (PET) and totally jam resistant.

Question: The bowline knot (picture below,  source ) has a great reputation as a very safe knot. Is it really completely safe in all situations and loads, or are there use cases where it may fail?

How safe is the bowline knot in different situations?

The bowline knot is very safe  if loaded correctly. It is also easy to tie badly, with fatal consequences. It is abut as strong as a figure-8, but not as good to tie in a climber.

Bowlines are dangerous when tied badly and were not invented for climbing, though they are very safe when loaded correctly.

Bowlines were not invented for climbing, but are very safe if loaded correctly. They are dangerous when tied badly.


Haba Xueshan (Haba Snow Mountain 哈巴雪山) is a commonly summited peak here in Yunnan, China, at the eastern extent of the Himalaya.

It's not as high altitude ("only" 5396 m) but

it has high prominence (1794 m), and is situated picturesquely above Tiger Leaping Gorge.

I understand that people summit without a lot of expertise, but it requires overnighting and a guide.

It has the additional advantage of being easy for foreigners to travel to (fly in to Lijiang or Diqing airport via Kunming with no need for special permits), unlike many peaks in Xizang (Tibet), and in Tibetan areas of Sichuan.

Haba Xueshan (left), with Yulong Xueshan in the foreground and the upper Yangtze River below

It might be both an obvious choice and not a "real" mountain, but what about Kala Pathar, the "black rock"?

It's a 5545 meter hill facing Mt. Everest, and is the final destination of the Everest Base Camp Trek.

Despite appearing unimpressive from Gorak Shep (the last and highest tea house in the area), it's still a harrowing hour or two to get to the top.

The view of Everest is great, and the views along the nine day journey from Lukla, the nearest airport, are also fabulous.

Getting back to Lukla from Gorak Shep and Kala Pathar can be done in a lot less time - two or three days, even.

There's also the possibility to cross over to the Gokyo Lakes region by going over the 5370 meter

Cho La pass .

I liked the Gokyo area, and the pass, though difficult, was worth the effort, since it means you return to Lukla by a different route.

The area is very touristy and often crowded, but the atmosphere is pleasant and there's a good spirit of camaraderie among the tourists.

In Nepal there is Thorong La which is a high altitude pass in the Annapurna that is doable without, in my opinion, much experience.

It is fairly popular trek and you will likely encounter organized groups even during the off season.

There are accessible trekking routes with accommodations and progressive acclimatization.

You will need to acquire permits and may want to consider hiring a Sherpa.

I climbed the Stok Kangri some years ago.

I went to Langtang (Nepal)

last March/April.

The Tsermo Ri is at an altitude of around 4900m (if I remember correctly).

It can be walked up easily without special equipment from Kyanjing Gompa.

It is a day trip from the Kyanjing Gompa village.

The summit might not be as high as the Stok Kangri but the view is really worth the walk!

In the same Langtang valley, the Yala Peak is a trekking peak and can be done according to the people we met on the trek without climbing.

But you might need porter and guide for the route...

Especially if like this year the snow is still covering the route.

I had a chat with a local guide during my last trip and he said that the road for jeeps to the Thorong La was finished.

I saw the construction work in a previous trek in the Manang Valley in 2006...

So the Thorung La might not be interesting for trekker after this season...

Unfortunately.

This is sad, the trek was really beautiful.

There are few peaks like : Ekdant - 6128 mtrs (A name for Lord Ganesh), Kartik - 5113 mtrs(named after brother of Lord Ganesh).

I had planned for these two on a single trip, though I could not execute the plan.

There is Parvati Parbat (6,257m) above the Satopanth Glacier.

I have the Himalayan Journal of year 2009 which has expedition reports and lots of useful notes on above said peaks.

Try and get a copy of that from Himalayan Club.

Or even this link here may come handy.

But, the above are less trekable than Climbable peaks.

As of now, if you are looking for Absolute Trek'able thing around Himalays, try and do Mt. Everest Base camp trek from Luk'la, Nepal.

Its an amazing experience to have!

I have planned the same in next year August.

EBC is not technically difficult at all, but the Altitude and Weather part together make it more challenging.

Its also about the distance you cover.

In the EBC trek, you can summit Gokyo Ri as well, Now of Gokyo Ri Trek

, I've heard so far, is tougher than Stok Kangri.

One more option, which is less Trek'able as you expect, is relatively difficult, is: Doing a Trek upto

the Advance Base Camp (ABC) of the Saser Kangri in East Karakoram.

Set your Base Camp at 4750 m and then an Advanced Base Camp at 5360 m. If you are good with ration and equipment

then you can also try and reach to Camp 1 at 5880 m. Beyond Camp 1 (usually called C1) its no longer easy.

I believe with the kind of thing you are looking for, reaching ABC of Saser Kangri is a good fun.

Beyond that, you may choose whether to continue to C1 or fall back.

Or you have route like, Kanchenjunga Base Camp, Annapurna Circuit.

Have a look at this site as well.

Question: Recently  climbed a summit  name  Stok Kangri (6153m) in Leh, India. I wanted to know if there are similar high altitude peaks which can be climbed without much of mountaineering expertise required in the Himalayan range.

Trek-able peaks in the himalayan range

Suggestions: Stok Kangri, Tsermo Ri, Ekdant, Kartik, Haba Xueshan, Kala Pathar and Thorong La.

Stok Kangri, Tsermo Ri, Ekdant, Kartik, Haba Snow Mountain, Kala Pathar and Thorong La are all feasible options.


I'd need to know a bit more about your winter hiking conditions and duration.

If you're erring on the side of active, I'd suggest a Labrador.

If you're doing colder and shorter, something like a Bernesse Mountain Dog would do amazing.

I love running with my Labrador since she can handle heat decently

(I don't run with her when it's very hot), she can handle cold better than I can (has had her whiskers and chest get ice covered), and can handle decent distances in comfort (6-10 miles consistently to age 9).

My only real tips for running with any dogs - be considerate of the heat and make sure you have some good water sources for them.

Update (after 2 years):

Our Labrador, now 12, has some hip issues

so she's limited to running an easy 2 miles.

I never considered Western medicines in the past but acupuncture seems to work wonders for her.

We also adopted another dog which we believe is a Lab / Catahoula mix and, holy crap, can that dog run.

I have never heard of Catahoula's before

but she has no problems keeping up on 15-mile mountain bike rides.

My trail runs don't tire her out unless I'm doing 10+ miles, which means she's probably doing 2x that.

I'm glad to see them on the list but wouldn't have put them under long slow runs!

As far as running, this article on Runners World should answer; Ref: The Best Types of Dogs for Runners

Australian cattle dog or other types of working dogs.

Mine loves backpacking.

Cattle dogs have very high energy levels and are bred to travel long distances.

Excellent for trail running and hiking long distances.

They can carry their own food/water and will do so without whining or stopping (working mentality).

They have a very active mind and are very alert, good as a watchdog but have very sweet temperaments.

They require very little in terms of grooming.

They have a short to medium-length double coat which is naturally rain-resistant but also can be dried quickly.

They are medium-sized, in case you need to carry it if injured.

Very trainable if you're looking on taking it out off-leash.

Also to note, if you're going to get a long-haired dog for backpacking in the summer, be sure to have its hair cut very short.

It's a myth that hair keeps dogs cool--

they get really hot really fast.

I also have a long-haired Australian Shepard that goes summer camping in Texas weather with its summer haircut.

Somehow, I can't see a Corgi keeping up.

I have a 20-pound terrier mutt.

She does great with me trail running at distances of 6-7 miles.

After we get home, she runs around the back yard in circles like a rocket.

Dogs are just much more efficient runners than humans, especially in cool weather.

As far as I can tell, humans only seem to be at all competitive with dogs at distances more like 12 miles.

(I haven't taken my dog that far, but have seen my running buddy's larger dogs act tired at that distance.)

There is a theory that humans evolved for a hunting niche on the plains of Africa, in which we were specially adapted to pursuing prey for long distances in hot weather, but we're talking about really long distances.

For hiking, the problem I've found isn't really my dog's ability to do it physically, it's that she tends to injure her feet.

You can get various kinds of booties.

It's hard to find ones that fit correctly and that stay on.

Keep in mind that if your big dog hurts a foot in the backcountry, you're going to have big problems getting him out.

Mine I could carry out if I had to.

The wolf, the wild ancestor of the dog, has extreme running endurance.

According to this article , many wolfs travel more than 50 miles daily searching for food.

I've read somewhere, that wolfs can chase moose for a few days, but I can't find that now.

Wolf is very similar to us in that domain, human hunters can also run for days.

This can be another reason that two species have formed so special relationship so early.

Looking for great dog runners, look on dogs that are the most similar to their ancestors, such as the German Shepherd (in my country, this race is called Wolfie).

If you choose Husky, you can even count for sleight transport if you are tired.

Probably it would be you who would have problems to cope with the distance.

A 3 to 7-mile trail run every day is a bit for most dogs.

It wears down their cartilage over time.

I wore out a couple of labs doing fewer miles than that.

At age 8 they had joint problems.

I just stay with 1 mile walk a day now.

I would consider a dalmatian coach dog.

It is bred for running with the coach.

They are also bred to accompany, protect, and warn.

Question: Which dog breeds are best for backpacking?  I know malamutes do well in the cold and on mountains, but what if I'm backpacking in the summer?   Which dog breeds are good for daily trail runs?   I would love a dog that would wake up with me every day and go on a 3 to 7-mile trail run. Somehow, I can't see a Corgi keeping up.

Dog Breeds for Backpacking and Trail Running

Wolf-like dogs, such as German shepherds or huskies. Australian cattle dogs, Bernese Mountain dogs, Dalmatians and Labradors are also suggested.

Wolves run well, working dogs are a good option and labradors handle heat well.

Wolves run well, huskies can carry sleighs.


From my experience, water resistant means that the item will survive a splash of water but not any form of prolonged exposure.

Water proof suggest that it is Impervious to or unaffected by water.

For waterproof items, there is often an IP number provided which helps you understand the level of waterproofness the item offers.

IP codes are widely used in the industry.

For example, a E+LITE from Petzl is rated as IP67 per the manufacturer.

IP67 means you can expect the light to work if it is submerged in water less than a meter for no more than 30 minutes.

For outwear such as jackets, the bigger issue is that if your jacket is fully waterproof, you will end up wet from your own sweat.

The balance between breathability, waterproofness and longevity of the material are all equally important factors in this case.

"Waterproof" means that no water will penetrate.

"Water resistant" means that there exists a limit of exposure at which water will penetrate.

Watches are normally water resistant to a particular depth below which the water pressure is too high and the seals are breached.

Breathable clothing quite of often states some comparable metric indicating, for instance, the weight of water which would be required for water to penetrate the fibres.

The problem with the terms is that there is no regulation and so we might buy a rain jacket and call it "a waterproof" even though it is not.

Some manufacturers will also state that an item is waterproof to some limit, which is confusing.

What you need to look for a test that has been performed or something stating limits.

I'm not a native speaker, but being waterproof suggests more endurance to water than being only water-resistance.

But linguistic nuances doesn't make law.

More important is, what are the norms and regulations about using such definitions, in the country where that equipment is produced or sold.

If there are such regulations, false promises may make manufacturer liable, if there are no regulation, anyone can sell anything under any name, and all such names are meaningless.

When it comes to norms, there are the ISO norms that define water resistance - see the Wikipedia article .

The article mentions, that the term waterproof is not defined in the ISO norms, and therefore it should not be used.

So buying water resistant gear you should check 2 things:

is there a water resistance rating compliant with ISO norms is the producer and manufacturer a stable corporation registered in country, which protects customers from companies giving false information in product description

In outdoor garments, water resistant means that it will keep you dry in light rain for some time, is not a garment to withstand heavy rain.

Water proof means that it will keep you dry in the rain, but then it depends on the quality of the material, and how well is designed.

Water resistant is often used where water resistance is quantified usually in terms of static pressure head.

An obvious example is watches which have long been classified by water depth in metres of pressure in bars or atmospheres.

Also fabrics for jackets, tents etc will be specified by the head of water which they will resist.

In many ways a specified level of water resistance is more useful than just 'waterproof'.

Waterproof is generally used for clothing and means that it won't be penetrated by rain, this is also complicated by the fact that breathability is also very significant in terms of keeping dry.

Similarity

some fabrics, like ventile , have some overall performance advantages in some circumstances in terms of durability, breathability and comfort.

Equally there are systems like Buffalo which focus on overall warmth and comfort rather than absolute waterproofing.

Question: I've gone camping for quite a bit, but when it comes to choosing between water resistant and waterproof gear, I always take the latter.  I'm actually curious if there's a difference between these two terms.  For me, water-resistant always sounded like some cheap marketing gimmick to make the product seem waterproof.  Is there any actual "real" difference?

What's the difference between water-resistant and waterproof?

Water resistant means that there exists a limit of exposure at which water will penetrate.  Water proof  suggest that it is   Impervious to or unaffected by water.

Waterproof means impervious to rain and implies greater endurance than water resistant, which has a limit.

Water resistant means a limit to exposure.

Waterproof means rain will not penetrate and it has more endurance than water resistant


Yes it does dry shoes much faster.

When long distance hiking it is definitely a nice thing to be able to stop in town and dry your shoes overnight using newspapers.

It will draw a lot of the dampness right out of your footwear.

This is a known trick and many people will attest to its magic .

First ball up some newspaper.

I usually use two large sheets per shoe , but I'm sure more motivated people could squish in more.

Once you have a ball of newspaper shove it into that nasty wet sneaker, and keep shoving in balls of newspaper until the shoe is full of newspaper.

Leave it overnight , and the next day your shoes will be dry!

If they're really wet, you may want to replace the newspaper after a few hours .

Some people will also wrap the outside of the the shoe with newspaper and elastic bands.

I've personally never used this before.

Before using the newspaper, I usually take a lightload towel and place it inside my shoe.

I will than press on it using my foot and extract as much water as possible from the sole.

I repeat the process until no more water is drawn and then use the newspaper.

I also use the towel trick on the trail after heavy rainfall except without the newspaper.

This helps not having to walk with two small aquariums attached to my feet.

Yes, they dry faster.

Newspaper ink got messy for me so instead I've used packing paper (the stuff that they wrap shoes with in the shoebox) for similar, yet cleaner, results.

I've reused it many times, too.

While airflow does dry shoes, it is much less effective than physically wicking moisture away using towel, some or paper.

Capillary action is very effective at removing water from anything, and wide fibre or coarse paper, such as newspaper, or better still, tissue or kitchen towel or swimmers' chamois are your best bet on the trail or after a wet hike.

If you have a dry airflow available (some huts have stands where heated air goes through the shoes)

, that is of course faster.

However, just leaving your boots stand does not lead to much air flow.

With (news)paper, you can easily take out the moisture and put in a new, dry paper.

That is actually the key: If you just stuff your boots with paper and leave the moist paper inside the boots, it won't help that much.

Of course you'll get some moisture out next morning with the wet paper, but if you replace the paper a few times over the evening (like @ppl does with the towel), you can get even soaked boots dry till morning.

outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/2404/cbeleites unhappy with SX

I've tried using newspaper in my boots several times.

- I hike at least once a week in normally wet, muddy conditions in BC Canada.

I usually stuff 4 large pages of newspaper in each boot.

It really works and the boots dry in a matter of 6 hours!

Before I knew this trick, I'd leave the boots to air dry, which took days and days.

Eventually they'd be rotten before they'd fully dried.

Question: In one of the trail journals I read, the author mentions packing her boots with newspaper to dry them out.  On the one hand I can see perhaps some wicking action, but this would greatly reduce airflow.  Will this actually help dry shoes out?

Does packing boots with newspaper make them dry faster?

Paper really works and the boots dry much faster, in a matter of 6 hours!  Capillary action is very effective at removing water from anything, and wide fibre or coarse paper, such as newspaper, or better still, tissue or kitchen towel or swimmers' chamois are your best bet on the trail or after a wet hike.

This works and boots will dry as quickly as 6 hours, though not if moist paper is left inside.

This works, but not if you leave moist paper in the boots.

The boots dry faster, as quickly as 6 hours.


.30-06 is a much more powerful round with flatter trajectory and greater impact energy.

That said, for shots on mid-sized game (like deer) at ranges out to 300 yards, it makes no difference which of those two rounds you use, only that your shot is accurate.

Both rounds are plenty powerful enough for those common hunting scenarios.

For long range shots or very large game (large bears, elk, African game, etc.)

.30-06 is a much better round.

Being a good marksman and only taking responsible shots (that you know will kill instantly with one shot) is by far the most important thing.

So the question remains.......what is the difference.

Well in my experience there is very little difference when we are talking about bullet weights up to 180gr.

A friend of mine has a 30-06 and I use a .308 Win.

We put our money together to purchase heads (Nosler custom competition 155gr HPBT) to reload ourselves and we noticed something very interesting.

Our first loads, we were both achieving MVs of 2550fps.

Both 26" barrels with 1:12 twists.

However my friend could not achieve good groups at those speeds.

He has had to go down to 2300fps to achieve acceptable groups.

So essentially what we have here is a .308 Win that is out performing a 30-06 LOL.

This is only because, I presume his rifle does not like that bullet when it is travelling faster than 2300fps......

but there you go.

A lot of the difference will also be dictated by the rifle being used.

I have owned, reloaded, and hunted with both 30 caliber rounds and have to say that they are both very effective and capable for almost all hunting applications.

The first comparison I can offer is felt recoil, the 30-06 is a little bit more than 308 in this area.

So For new shooters still getting use to shooting with a scoped rifle 308 will probably be the best option.

Secondly I have to mention the cost factor.

In today's market 30-06 is primarily sold for hunting purposes only, this is not the case with 308 win,there is a large variety of military surplus ammo cheep and plentiful.

This cost advantage gives you the benifits of being able to shoot more ammo, so more practice is being done at the range.

The 308 cartridge operates at a lower barrel pressure so a typical barrel 308 can last 5000 rounds before accuracy decline is noticeable, where as a 30-06 is typically half that ammount.

308 win has a good balistic coefficient so it is accurate and stable bullet.

If you reload for 308 or 30-06 the options of bullet types and powders avaliable are rediculous.

Either round is very good and will serve you well

but I think 308 is the best option for almost any thing you can use it for.

I personally don't think there's that much difference between the 2 calibers, they both use similar weight bullets.

I'd use either on most game in North America.

So I'd approach it from this angle, what caliber ammo can I find readily available in your area?

Now if you're talking primarily very large game such as bear, moose, bison, etc.

I'd probably go bigger such as the larger 30 calibers (338, 375, etc) or into the 40 caliber rounds.

If you're basically talking deer, elk, hogs, either of those rounds are fine.

Both .308 and 30-06 can chamber from 125 to 180 grains.

That is where the .308 stops.

The 30-06 can go up to 220 grains.

Therefore, with the 220 grain 30-06 you can take heavier and larger game such as elk, moose, black bear and though considered minimum at 220 a brown bear.

The benefit to you is one rifle is more versatile with 30-06.

Both are good calibers.

The 30-06 is better with 200 plus grain bullets.

Although for 200 grain and above I use magnum calibers.

That's just me.

I like lighter bullets for flatter trajectory, because it can't hurt for placement on longer shots.

The 308 is easier on barrels with less recoil.

A 30-06 has a bit more energy and speed.

Both are very effective large game rifles with proper bullet construction and placement.

Very similar in all around performance.

The two rounds are essentially the same.

To a newcomer, the differences are not going to matter.

If you are picking between these two calibers of the same model rifle, I would just get whichever has cheaper ammunition.

Question: As a relative newcomer to the shooting/hunting world, I am looking to buy my first big game rifle. Now, I know what  rifle  I want, just not what caliber to get it in.  The two calibers that I am left with after reading up on the subject are .308 and .30-06. So, what are their relative advantages?

What are the relative advantages of .308 and .30-06

Both are very effective large game rifles with proper bullet construction and placement. Very similar in all around performance. The benefit to you is one rifle is more versatile with 30-06, although it has slightly more recoil. The two rounds are essentially the same and to a newcomer, the differences are not going to matter.

Both are very similar, though 30-06 is more versatile and 308 has less recoil. Price should be a key consideration.

The 308 is best for newcomers because of lower recoil.


There is no such place.

F is a very narrow range.

F can be just from day and night variation, which leaves basically nothing for seasonal variation.

Even if you meant daytime highs, I still don't think there is any place on earth that fits this description, let alone anywhere in the US.

Let's flip this around and think of what would make a place have very low temperature variation.

Seasonal variations get larger towards the poles, so starting in the tropics is probably a good idea.

F is very low for the tropics, so that means moving up in altitude.

Even ignoring the rain criterion, this still sounds like a impossible goal.

Imagine looking for this place by trying different elevations in the Andes near the equator.

By the time you get to 60°F highs, you will be well below freezing at other times.

Obviously anyplace with snow on the ground, ever, doesn't fit your criteria.

Again, there is no such place here on earth in the open.

What you ask does exist in caves.

I don't think you will get consistent 40-60 daytime highs (what I assumed you meant) anywhere that isn't moderated by the ocean.

However Fiasco is correct: The Olympic Penninsula around Sequim is very close.

Summer temps are cool enough that tomatoes won't rippen outside of a greenhouse.

Winter has frosts, but not consitently.

The mountains nearby get significant snow.

Another possibility is the "Sunshine Coast" in British Columbia -- that's the east side of the Georgia Straight.

You have Vancouver island acting as a rain screen.

Not as dry as Sequim.

It however still gets frosts in winter, and on a summer day it will usually be in the 70's, and sometimes in the 90's Failing that:

In general you want the east side of a coastal range of mountains, a range that is high enough to precipitate out most of the rain.

Interior ranges will do the same thing to precipitation, but they will have more continental climates so the temperature range will be significantly greater.

As you move south, the temps get warmer.

Compensate for this by moving higher.

The tradeoff, is you get more cloud spilling over the tops.

Take a look at the east slopes on the north island of New Zeeland.

A final suggestion is the coast of Peru and Chile.

The Humbolt current is cold, and wrings out most of the moisture of clouds passing over.

Archeologies still talk about discoveries made after the 1923 Rain.

Apparently that's the last time it did rain.

Lots of fog, no rain.

However it is hot in summer.

You may want to migrate:

Have two households.

Become a snowbird.

I think Mauna Kea in Hawaii may meet your requirements.

The average highs at the summit are between 40.3 and 50.9 F with most months having less than an inch of rain.

The average lows at the summit are between 24.9 and 31.3 F making it a little too cold.

Further, the summit is above tree line.

Tree line (and the forest zone) is about 4000' below the summit so there should be a sweet spot where you can get limited rain, forest, and temperatures consistently between 40 and 60 F.

I was going to submit my hometown of San Francisco as a candidate.

It rains far less than in the Pacific Northwest and because of terrain and the micro-climates in this tiny city of 49 square miles, it stays pretty cool in a number of different neighborhoods.

The Sunset or The Richmond districts could be possible.

While there is no forest per se, there is the splendid, magnificent Golden Gate Park (larger than NYC's Central Park).

As you can see, it's quite large, is truly lush and NO SNOW!

There are several places in the US that meet your requirement if you exclude the requirement for forest, and you are will to accept no snow, in place of rare snow.

what place in america has forest, temperature ranges from 40-60 degrees year round, does NOT rain for days on end, and rarely gets snow.

( from question ) With requirements temperature ranges from 40-60 degrees year round does NOT rain...

no snow Most notably is Mammoth Cave

but it is in a national park, so it is not a viable solution for a long term living solution.

If you stay away from the entrance, the temp is mostly stable at 54 degrees, it never rains or snows.

There are several privately held caves with similar environments.

Your budget and space requirements would define the choice that best meets your needs.

How cold or hot can it get inside Mammoth Cave?

Temperatures inside the cave vary somewhat, but usually hover around 54°

Fahrenheit, year-round.

In the "variable temperature zones" close to the entrances, wind chills in winter can dip below freezing, or temperatures can rise to around 60°.

Source If you insist on Forest, then the answer by Olin, is the most correct the answer by StrongBad

looks promising but it does not clarify if there are privately held lands available.

Question: I just wanted to know what place in america has forest, temperature ranges from 40°F - 60°F (5°C - 15°C) year round, does NOT rain for days on end, and rarely gets snow.   I tried looking around on the internet for the answer to this question. The closest I got was Eureka, California. I don't care if it's cloudy most of the time, as long as it's not super rainy. But I had the impression that Eureka is really rainy.

What is a place in the U.S.A that is between 40°F - 60°F (5°C - 15°C) year round and doesn't get a ton of rain?

Mauna Kea  in Hawaii OR San Francisco are suggestions. Several places in the US meet your requirement if you exclude the requirement for forest, and you are willing to accept no snow, in place of rare snow.   However, even ignoring the rain criterion, this still sounds like a impossible goal.

Some think this is impossible, though candidates include Mauna Kea in Hawaii and San Francisco.

Mauna Kea in Hawaii and San Francisco are possibilities.


After considering the existing answers and doing some additional research, here's my take: Spray-on waterproofing Spray on waterproofing should be used on Multi layer garments.

You only want to treat the outer layer which reduces the chance that it will be 'wetting out' quickly, which allows the inner membrane to maintain it's porous properties.

I've found many references for gore-tex which state "

We do not recommend wash-in treatments, as they can hinder your garment’s breathability.

Wash-

In waterproofing Ideal for Single Layer waterproof or water resistant DWR fabrics.

Probably great for your tent's rainfly, cheap rain shell pants, or your single layer packable windbreaker.

Not so good for your multi-layer gore-tex jacket.

Though, you could probably use the spray-on coating for these type of materials as well with little difference in final result.

So, if in doubt, I'd use the spray-on.

Either way, you should keep your garments clean to ensure that body oils and sweat deposits don't clog the pores in the breathable membranes.

Most breathable garments recommend using a detergent free tech wash that won't wash away the DWR treatment.

Contrary to what a lot of people are saying, the wash-in treatment won't block pores of multi-layer fabrics (unless it's really dirty).The chemicals used are designed to break down particulates as small as possible.

The 'wash-in' also doesn't do a whole lot of actual waterproofing on the fabric, since it's soaked in water itself.

It simply removes dirt and helps the fabric to do its job better.

Your jacket will even look like it's been soaked through (because it has!)

after being washed.

Tumble drying on a low heat will re-activate the garment by expanding the fabric, and making the pores 'smaller' and more one way.

Obviously if the fabric isn't clean, it's not going to do as much, since the pores are blocked.

The spray on is a totally different bunch of chemicals, and would block pores!

It is essentially a water repellent.

This is best applied to a dry jacket and spread around with a small cloth or sponge (note that this material will also become water repellent), and left to dry or tumble dried on low heat.

Extra should be applied to high wear-and-tear areas, such as the shoulders, neck and cuffs.

This lay will be rubbed off over time, and should be applied about 3-5 times in between washes.

-Source:

Worked at a company making such stuff.

I have garments, such as pertex, with a pile (Buffalo Mountain Shirt) or microfleece lining

(Rab Vapour Rise Jacket).

It's useful to have a DWR treatment on the Pertex to help with water resistance where the lining still needs to cope with excess moisture.

In these sorts of garments you definitely want a spray-on treatment otherwise the action of the lining allowing it to move excess moisture away from skin or base clothing will be compromised if they also become hydrophobic due to the DWR.

For clothing with no such lining where you ant all the garment to be water resistant (or waterproof), then the wash-in sort of DWR, is more convenient and probably does the job better, too.

To emphasize what Liam and Paul hinted at, in all likelihood, too much nikwax wash-in and the like could potentially act against gore-tex by blocking the pores and preventing the fabric from breathing ( thus soaking in your own sweat ).

What gore-tex primarily recommends on their site and what I've had more success with is simply tumble drying the garment for 20 minutes to reactivate the DWR every once in a while.

Every so often, I also coat the seams in otter wax to really seal the deal.

From the Nikwax website: Wash-In "For the convenience of a wash-in product try: TX.Direct

® Wash

-In " Spray-On "For non-machine washable items or those with wicking linings use: TX.Direct

® Spray-On "

Question: There are both spray-on and wash-in products available for treating my DWR ( Durable Water Repellent ), gore-tex, eVent and other garments using products such as nikwax wash-in or nikwax tx-direct.  What types of garments is it more appropriate to use spray-on versus wash-in on and vice versa?

When should I use spray-on versus wash-in waterproofer for treating DWR garments?

Spray on waterproofing should be used on multi-layer garments. For clothing with no lining where you want the garment to be water resistant, then the wash-in sort of DWR, is more convenient and probably does the job better, too. Gore-Tex recommends  on their site is simply tumble drying the garment for 20 minutes to reactivate the DWR every once in a while. However, it is said that contrary to what some people say, the wash-in treatment won't block pores of multi-layer fabrics. The chemicals used are designed to break down particulates as small as possible.

DWR treatment is important for water resistance, spray-on treatments and tumble drying are also important.

DWR treatment is important for water resistance.

Spray-on treatments and tumble drying are effective.


I was a light infantry soldier all we used to do was roll each of the ends and use electrical tape to bind them leaving alowences for adjusting straps.

I also advise taking a spare roll of tape just in case you need to use the strap and then have to re bind them

The rucksacks that I own, have extra long straps as well.

But the manufacturer has provided an elastic band of sorts on the straps to fold them and tuck them within the band (I'll try to post a pic once I get back home).

Another option that I have tried is to tuck these longer straps into the side pockets (water bottle holders) and even tie up a lose knot of sorts on themselves to prevent huge swaying straps.

Personally I have never faced any issues as such with longer straps

(They don't tend to get stuck up somewhere).

It's more of a mental state where I feel the longer straps are kind of a nuisance.

As all rucksacks and packs I own have areas of webbing on most sides, I tie up any long straps with multiple half-hitches onto the webbing, so I still have the full length of the straps -

in case I need them - but have them safely out the way.

I have used rubber bands, kitchen ties, pipe cleaners, half-broken shoelaces and whatever other pieces of small cord

I've been able to place my hands on.

All except the rubber bands worked well but none worked for more than a day or two.

The rubber bands snapped too easily and I felt a little guilty about leaving little scraps of rubber lying in the wilderness.

I have also gone out with people that dealt with the strap issue by cutting them off!

No straps on the outside means nothing to get caught in nasty bush.

Clip together any unclipped compression straps even if you aren't tightening them, just to reduce the length that flaps around.

The adjustment straps on the top and bottom of the shoulder straps should generally be kept loose so you can adjust the load throughout a hike depending on terrain.

Osprey hip belt straps are often ridiculously long, however, and these are the only ones I ever really try to tuck away into the hip belt so they don't hang down too low.

I take a metal keychain ring and run it through the loose end of the strap and around the main strap.

As so:

I've unsuccessfully used elastic bands and duct tape.

Elastic bands break or slip off, and duct tape left a sticky residue.

I now use Web Dominator, an excellent strap management system using a small plastic clip with shock cord attached.

Here's a post describing my experience: http://packinglighttravel.com/travel-tips/health-safety-and-comfort/tame-dangling-straps-web-dominator/

This youtube video offers another option that I have found useful: Managing excess webbing straps on backpacks etc.

I purchased what is called in the US "Velcro One Wrap" at a fabric store, around $5 for a 3/4"

x 4' roll.

Much more than I needed for one backpack, over half is left over.

What I've done before is to place an elastic hair tie on the end of the strap, then just roll the strap up with the hair tie in the center, making a spool around the hairtie.

Then you just double up the hairtie repeatedly around the entire spool so that it holds the spool rolled up.

The nice thing about this is that it allows you to adjust the length of the loose portion without completely undoing the tie.

You can just roll out half a rotation of the spool and then adjust the elastic tie accordingly.

outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/14346/Monica Apologists Get Out

I just tie them together.

It may not look as pretty as other options but it's free, quick and can be done on the fly.

I often travel with my pack on planes and generally check my bag, tying the straps works here too.

Question: I bought a new rucksack. However, how can I tidy up and hide away the myriad straps so they don't flap about and get caught in things?

How do I fold in / tidy up the straps on my rucksack?

Tcking them into side pockets, tying them together, securing with rubber bands, kitchen ties, pipe cleaners, metal keychain rings, electrical tape  and hair ties are all options. Any unclipped compression straps can be clipped together. Web Dominator is  an excellent strap management system using a small plastic clip with shock cord attached.

You can tie or clip them together, use electrical tape or a keychain ring.

You can clip them together, use a keychain ring or electrical tape.


Give them to those who need them.

First of all, novice students in your gym or mountaineering school will be happy to use a bit heavier/older gear, but ease the burden of buying everything for their first trip.

Just make sure that carabiners are safe, because the newbies can't tell themselves.

Then, any local non-commercial groups, who organize rope fun for kids or everybody.

A hand-made fun park needs a lot of stuff.

Finally, if you are heading to a remote Asian mountain region this summer, you can take carabiners and old ropes, which the locals will happily use for many years in their households to tie their livestock, etc...

Of course, this is tricky because of limited airplane weight.

You probably already do this, but make sure you mark all 'retired' carabiners with their own color of tape so that you never accidentally climb with one.

Then let the fun begin.

If you do any backpacking, they are extremely useful for attaching things to your backpack.

A few other favorites: dog leashes, making clotheslines, or use with hammocks.

If you're feeling adventurous, maybe chain a few together and assemble lights to hang from the ceiling with said chain.

As Hillsons suggested a good way to use it, let me put in what I would do: You can use it as a Weight.

Simply knot a carabiner to the end of a rope that needs slinging over a pole or onto a roof.

The weight helps with accuracy.

Clip keys inside backpacks to loops for extra security Link a few together for your kid to play with while you are shopping.

Attach your water bottle to your backpack.

Hold electrical cords in a loop (Don't like to have cable-tie?)

Tie the neck-belt using the Carabiner to secure your pet to an anchor.

Tie up all your key-chains to it and hang it using a sling?

To hang whatever stuff

you

wanna hang.

Please bear in mind load specifications.

Obsolete biners are very useful for retreating.

If (as you state)

you've retired them because: made obsolete by an upgrade.

and they are generally solid.

Then it's well worth dragging a few of these along on climbs

you're worried you may not be able to complete.

I've been welcome of some old steel biners when retreating off of climbs in the past .

They're solid and dependable and I don't mind loosing them.

Well worth the extra weight.

You can drill some holes in your carabiner and use it as handle for mugs and other things in your home you need to lift. mug example

This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion because it's not nearly as "feel good" as helping remote Asian herdsmen.

(Which incidentally is probably one of few exceptions to what follows.)

Nevertheless:

It is my belief that unsafe carabiners should be destroyed.

In my opinion it is too great a risk that someone will get ahold of one and see that it has the right marking to be a "real" carabiner and use it for some kind life-support application.

Mind that I am strongly opposed to excessive safety regulations and

I firmly believe in using your brain and "swim at your own risk" etc.

This

notwithstanding

I feel that the risk outweighs the benefit when it comes to distributing unsafe carabiners.

(I also realize that even when new carabiners are dangerous for those who do not know how to use and inspect them but people do not usually give away brand new carabiners.)

For the uninformed there may be certain expectations of climbing equipment.

Just as "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" so too I believe is a bit of old climbing equipment in the wrong hands.

Worse, the "real" equipment may give a sense of validation to ignorant use that results in greater risk-taking than if hardware-store equivalents were used.

Now if the old carabiners are truly still safe to use then use them!

If your equipment doesn't wear out before it truly becomes obsolete you should make it a mission get out and climb more. :-)

If you're handy with welding (or a drill and screws, brackets, or a hot glue gun), you can make a pretty cool coat rack or key rack out of old carabiners.

You can remove the gate for a coat rack by knocking or drilling or cutting off the pins, or leave them on if you're making a key holder.

Just attached the carabiners with the hook down and out from the wall by welding, gluing, bracketing, or drilling and screwing it onto some form of a back plate.

To address the safety issue: once carabiners have been mechanically attached to a wood or metal plate and hung on a wall, no one will identify them as serviceable climbing equipment (except for children, who would probably recognize dental floss as suitable rope for rappelling off the roof before they could remove the carabiner from your wall).

A nalgene water bottle holder!

You can then clip it to the back of your pack, and it helps with carrying it around!

You may want to decorate yours though.

Also caribiners are nice just to always be attached to your backpack for anything with a loop!

Get a set of curtains and make the carabiners the rungs for the curtain, just make sure that the bar that it slides on is of a good diameter for the carabiners, or if you can find a bar sturdy and narrow enough you could take the core out of a retired climbing rope and put it over the curtain bar for bonus points.

"Make a Dog Lead" has already been said, but I use an ancient carabiner at the other end of the lead to clip it to my belt.

This enables hands-free dog walking , which permits me to put my hands in my pockets while out with the dog, Especially good in sub-zero winter conditions.

If you haven't got enough dogs, then your local dog pound might appreciate the donation of clips and rope that is no longer suitable for climbing.

Question: I seem to have accumulated a good number of carabiners that, while probably still safe, I won't climb on anymore. They might be worn, of questionable origin, or just plain made obsolete by an upgrade.  What are some creative uses for these carabiners? I already have plenty of shoe and leaver 'biners, so non-climbing uses would be most useful.

What are creative uses for retired carabiners?

Carabiners can be used to make coat racks, handles for mugs, curtain rungs, attaching things to a backpack, tidying electrical cord, attaching keychains, making dog leashes, hammocks and clotheslines.

Unsafe carabiners should be destroyed or marked as retired. They can be repurposed in several ways, including for attaching water bottles to backpacks and for dog leads.

Carabiners can be reused safely for numerous purposes.

They can be used for attaching water bottles to a backpack.