>>2420857Pretty sure people have been going minimal and choosing lightweight materials since... we started using tools. You only have one body, I don't know about you but I'm not going to wear out my cartilage and fuck up my back lugging "bombproof" tat like some disposable pack mule. And I can tell you're a greenhorn by the way you seem to think that lightweight gear will fall into pieces immediately.
90% of military surplus gear is designed to be gruntproof, for disposable infantry to lug torturous loads for months if not years. It's not designed for elegance, ease of use, careful balance of material qualities. just to cost as little as possible and withstand getting ran over by a tank. It's designed by braindead military bureaucrats and manufactured by the cheapest contractor. The civilian market is hundreds of times bigger and more competitive, meaning way more options, R&D, superior materials and much lower prices. Is it any wonder that special forces and ex-military swap out to civvie options at the first opportunity?
Using poorly designed leftover crap from depressing wars is an insult to human ingenuity. It would be like giving Otze a crappy stone hand axe instead of his copper, a bag made of planks and bark instead of his shaped yew pack, earthenware instead of birch containers etc.
>savotta is my airport proof go toHAHAHA
I get it, you're an isolated guy struggling for an image of masculine authenticity, there's a lot of you - look at all the channels examining this musty old wartime tat or that "bombproof survival gear" (suspiciously unused). Isn't it odd how there's very little evidence of people doing any kind of cool shit with said gear? Can you post a single person who uses army bags to do any of the cool shit you described? I can instantly name dozens of hardcore long distance hikers and climbers who would donate half of the airsoft shit in this thread to the first homebums they encounter and pick up a bag actually designed for their activity.
