Development since Late 90’s. Fielded starting 2008. 13 Pounds for size Medium with all 4 accessory pouches and compression valise. Approximately 120l capacity. “Rubberized” polyurethane coating of the Material- arguably where much of the weight come from. The sizing rig was problematic- often sizing people with packs too big causing massive issues with abrasion points at the SI joint, and at worst MSK injuries. Bottom line, ~10 years to field from needs assessment acceptance, based on Commercial available Expedition mountaineering packs. Most of us were using a ‘64 pattern frame with private designed & purchased bags strapped on, or superior style COTS Mil style bags (Eberlstock, Kifaru, Mystery Ranch) until this was crammed down our throats. Add in the 18 pound PDB (Para Drop Bag), and we were at 30# of gear under canopy without anything in it. Colossal fuck up.
so regarding the add on pouches. When issued this ruck or the day pack you're given 2X 2L pouches and a long waterproof pouch with a central zipper (which i've only ever seen used as a portable water basin). You're given that set for each bag, so one could, in theroy mount 6 extra pouches to that rucksack, Personally I mount the 2, 2L pouches to the back of the ruck and one of the other 2L to the back of the daypack. Also the large size of the bag is very helpful, not just because you can carry more but because when you're on the fly you can very quickly load and close the pack, as opposed to the 82' pattern where if you were trying to fit everything in that the army usually wants you to carry around you had best have everything rolled and placed correctly or you'd be fighting with those pouches to get it all to fit. In the end we usually have a lot of freedom in what we bring but if you load the ruck to the gills just because it can fit everything that's your own dumbass fault. A CTS loaded to the kitlist of most units I've seen at is ~50-60 lb's, to which you would usually add 10-15 lb's of your own shit. Admittedly I've loaded that ruck, on exercises where i'm primarily vehicle based, to over 100 pounds but at that point its just an oddly built duffel bag. Also peoples statements that it's not useful when wearing body armor is silly, NO PACK is comfortable with a plate carrier because there is a ceramic plate on your back, It would be mighty difficult to design a pack that somehow is still padded when you place a plate between yourself and the padding. At least this ruck you can adjust the straps for when wearing the frag+tac vest as opposed to the 82 where you just hoped that you were "average" should size.
Deployed with it in 2010. Lived out of it for months. The only time we actually moved with it, we were mounted moving between leaguers/patrol bases and they were strapped to the outside of the LAV. We never patrolled with it dismounted in the field like the 82 pattern.
We just brought a valise and day bag when we deployed outside the wire overnight or on multi-day ops with LAVs. All of our issued rucks actually spent the entire tour piled up outside our tent on the FOB 😄
I use the sleep system pouch on the rucksac to put my extra clothings in and the main pouch to put my sleeping system. Its is fastest to pack in case of a pull-po and forces you to bring only the necessary in clothings since you have less space. Reducing the weight, my rucksac weights between 45 and 55 pound depending on the season.
I knew it was gonna be heavy the moment you mentioned multiple frame rods and showed how complicated the sleep compartment alone is. But damn 7 kilos is too much
Garbage equipment, I speak from personal experience. In the infantry (light battalions atleast). Troops go out and spend $400 on a full 64 pattern rucks (new bag, valise and pad set from warrior gear) because of how much this rucksack is hated. Good for 80% of the Military but the 20% of troops who actually rely on this bag despise it. Every guy I know (me included) the first thing he did when he got this issues was take the stupid back bar out (some keep the side poles in its personal preference). Also fyi CTS rucksack stands for Clothe the Soldier (from the clothe the soldier program in the early 2000's) But on a lighter note, great video! Really looking forward to your project with the 64 ruck!
I was issued one of these packs, I believe in a long/large torso size or something similar. As said, it was around 15lbs empty but held around 115 liters iirc. Ludicrously heavy but damn durable. It didn't integrate well with the Tac-Vest, nor with the frag-vest, but I actually liked the way additional utility pouches would securely fit onto the outside. Everybody seems to count PALS/MOLLE webbing as the gold standard for attachment, but the CTS (Clothe The Soldier) pouches would clip onto or off of the rucksack in a matter of seconds without weaving or messing around. Just clip a few buckles through a vertical webbing loop and you were good to go. Same went for the Tac-Vest/Small-Pack/Rucksack when it came to the standardized utility pouches in the CF. They all worked together according to the manuals corresponding with each piece of kit (that were promptly thrown out, upon issue). Small-Pack, Tac-Vest and Rucksack utility pouches were all compatible across the side and rear portions of each piece of kit, and even the sleep system compression sack could be attached to the rear of the tac-vest, which I admittedly only did once (and at this point can't remember how).
Glad I got to use the 64 pattern, probably the best ruck Canada has ever had. Other problem with both the CTS, and the 82 is they are both too long. Can’t be used very well with webbing that has a butt pack on it.
I served using the 82 Pattern. Maybe I lucked out, but my ruck always sat on my buttpack and took strain off my shoulders. I looked at it as the silver lining to forced marches every Friday afternoon :)
140lb loads are not uncommon. I was in the British Army where the PLCE Infantry Bergen was 120 litres, with everything including personal gear, rations, radio batteries, boxes of 7.62mm link for the section GMPG, platoon medical kit, additional water there was still only enough room in my short back Bergen (much better than the long back)
I retired in 1996 and it is great to see that the last ruck (82 pattern) was sent to the scrap heap. This one looks like its generations ahead of the ruck I used during the latter part of my service. Although the 64 pattern would be my first choice.. (I have two of those).
So, a few items come with the pack. As someone mentioned below, pouches x 3 and sometimes 4 were issued. I attached the longer zipper detachable flat pouch on the top flap for an extra 'immediate needs' pouch at the top. The 2 x 2 litre pouches would secure on the sides. A very important item is the sleep system stuff sack. This is a top loader nylon bag with tensioning/cinch straps (4) equal around the circumference. The top closes like a civ waterproof marine bag over top a drawstring collar type closure. One would fill the sack, cinch up the collar but leave the roll up style marine closure open. Then, a bit at a time and opposite each other (like tightening nuts on a car wheel) start cinching the compression straps. As the bag gets smaller you can put a knee on it and really cinch it up. Once it is as small as possible, the rool top is closed and secured with fastex buckles. You now have what looks like a cadpat nylon bowling ball. Turn it over and there's a web handle on the bottom. You pick it up by that and insert the 'ball' into the compartment at the bottom. Then you seal the outer closures as you showed. Although most soldiers I saw liked to secure the thermarest vertically on the side, there are 2 loop straps at the top of the main bag to secure it horizontally at the top behind the neck. I found this excellent and didn't interfere with one of my side pouches. Heavy? Oh yeah. If it were up to me, I would have made it in 500d Cordura instead of 1000d that it is. It could be much lighter. I wasn't issued it in time for my first Afg tour where I brought the ol 64 pattern. It stayed in the room the whole time. All travel etc was with a small pack that could take the same pouches etc that went onto the bigger ruck. I got the new ruck in time for second tour and, once the drawstring 'diaphram' divider was opened between main bag and sleep system compartment creating one long tube, it served initially as a kit bag with shoulder straps then stayed in my room.
So... I think this is a very early version of the CTS Ruck. The valise area is a bit different, and the shoulder straps aren't coloured black on the inside normally. Anyways, those changes make little difference. I believe there are 3? sizes of this pack, hence why the capacity varies a little bit. I've never been able to decide whether this is bad kit or not. On one hand, it's a massive step up from the 82 ruck. That thing was still heavy, it had no space, and the padding was a complete joke. This has an awesome waist band, great shoulder straps and you can get it to fit very securely to your body. You can shuffle with this on and it is actually pretty comfortable. People who've complained this pack is uncomfortable aren't wrong, there's tonnes of body types. But I've never found that. Now, the negatives. The weight is absolutely insane. It often means a soldier has to carry an extremely heavy pack which opens them to injury and fatigue, reducing their CE faster. I always hated the top pouch, that zipper meant all the stuff inside would fall out into the ground in the middle of the night. The outside pockets are trash, as the mechanism to secure them to the pack tightens the whole pocket making it tough to get things in/out. The second pair of stabilization bars is meant to contour to your back. Most troops remove them, as one drop of an MSVS or MLVW and they bend... you're SOL. It also meant you couldn't carry another soldiers pack should you need to. I've never had them, and never found an issue. But I'm a support trade, so we don't use these too much. I've only done a few rucks with plates in and this on, and it sucks but I can't say it sucks more than the 82!
I lol'd when you pulled out that jerry can. On my RadOp Journeyman's course in 2002 at CFSCE, one student met the wrath of the instructors and had to hand bomb a full water jerry during a ruck march during morning PT in FFO. When you pulled that one out from the ruck, I was like: "He could have just put the jerry in his ruck." Released in 2008, never saw this thing. I liked the 82 pattern webbing and have fond memories of the ruck, although I was always envious of that one Sgt. who had a 64 pattern ruck.
I have a camp backpack, probably close to that size, I bought 2 or 3 decades ago. Empty, it does have alot of weight. It is mostly canvas. I haven't used it for a long time now. With my health issue, carrying the pack alone would be enough for a long hike, so adding items would make it too much for me these days.
A couple of things to add: "CTS" stands for "Clothe the soldier" which was the name of the program that brought about all the new CADPAT stuff including the rucksack. It came into service in 2007 or 2008 I believe.
I like how my bigger camo pack is close to that height, but it is lighter, has external pockets (tall side pockets, a big front pocket and a smaller front pocket), and the main compartment opens all the way down both side to open the whole front up all the way to get at everything easy when you lay it down.
Majority of the weight on this pack is from the rubberized coating on the inside that makes it waterproof, I have an German rucksack that has it as well
The cts rucksack is the reason I went and built one of the 64 pat rucks from warrior gear in OD green.. the cts ruck fucking kills my back. I tried removing the metal bars they use as a "frame" but that only helped remotely to it curving with my back.. the 64 pack and frame to together I've found feels great on my back helps keep it straight and with the straps done up right my upper body is held nice and tight so you don't have to worry about any werid twists or anything.. and the ruck and valise fully loaded the weight is balanced out so nicely its ends up mostly being supported on your shoulders compared to the cts which I find puts a lot of it on your hips
depending on what you get issued, if brand new, you get like 4 small packs, not just one. and with the ballistic vest we typically remove the aluminum support bars
Excellent review. Don't be too hard on the designers - it's hard to design an all around rucksack for the multiple scenarios faced by the modern soldier ...but still, I hear you.
Active duty soldier here, I've used this pack for a year before going back to the '84 pattern because this one SUCKS. The hip belt will rub and burn through your hip skin before you can even start resting the weight on it. It is indeed too heavy even when empty. The problem with the size is the bigger it is, the more useless stuff you pack and get heavy. No wonder it can go up to 120lbs. There is no way, even for 2 weeks in the field, you need that much gear. Let alone carry that much weight and be efficient. The sleep system pocket is too small for all the sleeping gear you've presented in another video(well done by the way). The shoulder straps, hip belt and back have various sizes that can be interchanged depending on the CAF sizing chart. Problem is the chart is wrong, the only size packs that should be issued are small and medium, with large/x-large shoulder straps to accomodate frag vest and tactical vest anything else is either too big or too small. I'm not a fan of single big compartments because it's difficult to stay organized. The addition of external pouches makes it look clumsy and cumbersome in the woods (and adds weight). So if you're packing rations with your clothes, and the the ration trash, don't expect your clothes to stay clean long. The metal/fiberglass frame is useless, no benefit from it. If you shape the metal bars to your body then it creates weird pressure points when wearing armor, and vice versa. The fiberglass rods end up tearing through the fabric "pockets" holding them. I was forced to switch from the '84 to this one for administrative reasons. Worst move of my career, that's why I bought a surplus '84 and use it to this day. That's just my 2-cents ;) Nice feature description though, but you gotta use it to see how much it sucks.
When these things were fully loaded they still made us put sandbags in them for extra weight while on battle school I remember guys having to put it on table and then strap into it
wow that took forever to come into service. I was in the forces in 1996 and then rejoined in 2013 and I was about to say i never saw that the first time.
Nice pack I like it. I would use it to prestige gear. Yes it is way to heavy empty and holds more then you could carry. But if you want to stage gear in the wild it not bad.
We have a few more types of pouches that we can add that we are given but it holds so much we don’t really used them, some guys use them to organize the ruck a little more but eh I don’t really like them.
I have its little brother the pack small issue (or patrol pack) with all 4 pouches and straps for sleeping bag and waist strap..I have the 1st Gen small pack that does not have the quick release for the straps i also have the little insert that tells you how to set up the pack.The small pack has some weight to it but it is great for a 3 to 4 day trip and has far more attachment points.The pouches that come with the small packs as well as the large packs are 2 -5 liter and 2 -7.5 liter pouch's which add some versatility to the systems ..only issue i have with them is the base weight
Despite its flaws the cts is way better than the pattern 82 I had and that’s mostly because it came in SIZES the pattern 82 hip pad ended in my lower back. Now if they made a large (as in for tall people) pattern 82 I probably would have been fine with it.
dude, I was talking to an infanteer who went through DP1 5 years ago and he said your ruck weighs up to 120lbs PLUS your individual fighting equipment. 12km ruck in 2 hours 30 minutes.
We only do the 13km march with a total of 50 pounds including your combat load, it's not that bad lol and that's at the end of your DP1 after several ruck marchs that are even more difficult.
So I’m assuming the sleep system isn’t the complete sleeping bag??? It doesn’t look like it would fit no matter how much you compress it. Summer weight gear only!!
It doesn't. The valice is too small to fit both bags and your bivy bag in. And trying to jam it in the bottom compartment is just terrible and then you have wasted space to either side. A lot of people just keep their pers kit in the bottom and jam their sleep system (not in the valice) in the top.
I got my bivvy, 2 sleeping bags, ranger blanket and liner in with very little trouble once I got a hang of the compression sack, and I still have room. But figuring out the compression sack required a bit of finesse. Or a lot of sitting on top of the valise til every bit of air was gone and alot of testicular fortitude to pull the straps as tight as possible. I was issued a small ruck because I am 4'11"
@@RAWRImmaDino1100 good one Ashley... it does take a bit of finesse for sure. How I would generally pack mine for Ex is my wash basin would go in the bottom of the valise and then start packing everything thing in as i go and sart compressing. our complete kit was liner, inner, outer hood, and bivvy. I'm pretty sure I packed my ranger blanket in my ruck towards the top. one neat thing is if you check out CP Gear they make a combat pillow that you can pack your ranger blanket in. Its very rugged codura on one side and fleece on the other... Absolute must!!
Do what I did: ditch the compression sack, just use a heavy duty garbage bag as liner, I can easily fit my bivy+in/out sleeping bags+ranger blanket+ground sheet. One thing tho, you're gonna layer everything in order then sushi-roll them to let air out before stuffing them inside, but when you go to ground that sushi-roll really save time
Removing the frame would literally save ounces. It consists of two 1" x 1/4" aluminum rails that are bent to the shape of the individuals back. The only other part of the "frame" are the two fiberglass rods (which aren't practically removable, and would eliminate part of the load adjustment system).
That rucksack is horrible, it's uncomfortable, really heavy once fully loaded, and causes chafing, the daypack version in the other hand, it's really nice, you can add pouches of different sizes, to both rucksack and daypack/patrol pack,
so if you had payed attention when it got issued to you at supply you were given 2 aluminum bars with a guide to bend the back of the pack to your stance to avoid chafing. I'm guessing you either have the straight aluminum guide bars still installed and never bent them, or you pulled them out and are now complaining that an unsupported bag is chafing. Also "really heavy once fully loaded" don't put so much gear into it then, you could load the 82 pattern with 100+ pounds of shit and it would also be really heavy. You overloading your bag is your own fault, considering the CTS weighs less empty than the 82 pattern IIRC.
@@nilloc93oh yeah that aluminum bar? First thing everyone does is throw it away. It's garbage. Your spine shape doesn't matter when your wearing body armour. Garbage rucksack and garbage design. Hated by troops who actually rely on it. Also the CTS ruck is substantially more heavy than the 82 rucksack. It's 15 lbs unloaded for god sakes. There's a reason every reg force infantry unit ( RCR, VP, R22r) hates these things.
@@kilroywuzhere1 Is that like the people who tossed the knee pads out of their combat pants in the trash and then complain that supply won't take them back incomplete? Obviously if you're wearing the frag vest with plates and the tac vest it won't form to your back, but what will? You have fucking plates and 2 vests between your back and anything on your back. The 82 pattern also didn't form to your back if you were wearing the vests. If you're wearing vests you should still keep the bars i (but curved to the vests) so that the bag remains sturdy against the vests. And I hate to break it to you but being a ground pounder doesn't make you an expert in regards to rucking. The CTS is a more techincal ruck, you have to set it up right for you and know what you're doing. Just because some people don't know how to wear a rucksack properly doesn't make it a bad ruck. Like saying a stick shift is a bad tranny design because people don't know how to use it. There are many pieces of kit that people use wrong in the army and then claim the kit is trash, don't be one of those people, learn how to use the kit properly, stop listening to the ancient old man "advice" on how to wear a ruck from the guy with back and knee problems.
@@nilloc93 let me guess, your a POG? Also, people toss those knee pads because they are trash. Sorry you haven't used the kit enough to know that the people who actually depend on it can barely use it and have to resort to buying their own stuff. Yeah it works for 80% of the military who go to the field one or twice a year (if that) but for the guys doing the business, procurement fails them every time. Atleast now we are seeing some improvement with individual units saying fuck it and getting contracts with large manufacturers.
@@nilloc93 Yo how do you form the aluminum bars? I got issued a large CTS last year (even though I am like 5'7") and with armor, this thing is killing me... Being a sig with all the extra batteries n shit doesn't help either. All the guys in coy that I am supporting have jump rucks or something fancy, but I'm only a few years in and don't wanna spend the money
It is a good ruck. I had a REMF colleague who went on and on about how much stuff he could put in it, was not a field soldier! The ruck takes so much kit that only special activity needs more space. The ruck allows for too much weight for the average employment.
Do you have a frame pack that has a good review I can watch? I'm interested in getting a frame, but even if I can find one new, they're way too expensive.
You want to do something that takes way too long and costs too much to make, just ask any gov dept. I can't believe it's 15lbs empty. Military stuff is always so heavy. But I don't see that being 120L. Granted it's not full, but I have a 65L black diamond pack that looks just a bit smaller. Given that you're a bit bigger than me, I can't see it being much over 80..... but who the hell am I to say? 😊
i will keep my old jump ruck from the early 1980s over any thing they have come out with since. anyone who says they can not quickly pack it under fire has never done it. we where trained from day 1 how to do it and do it right
that thing is the worst investment the CAF have purchase since the LSVW, if you want to be operational and break yourself physically this is definitively not what you wanna have, and extremely heavy.
@@OshawaBushcraft yes they are issuing the 82. Capat rucks are for deploying of high readiness. This is due to not having a contract in place for new ones. I’m supply.
Meh. I wonder how much it cost the taxpayers in R&D for such a mediocre piece of kit? The CF should have got smart and bought something from a company that knows what they're doing. Like the USMC did with their ILBE designed by the pros at Arcteryx.
Ironic, seeing as Arcteryx is a Canadian company. But unfortunately they're based in BC. As we used to say, if it's not made in Quebec, you can't have it.
that ruck is GARBAGE!!! heavy empty very week buckles and for some reason everyone wants one... go spend the money at cdn tire and get a 60l pack. also the waste belt has a major flaw. good idea in theory but in practice the dual straps for adjustment only makes pressure points on your hip. the fiber glass torsion bars don't do a damn thing when you have a full load. they do ok with a partial.
@@OshawaBushcraft I liked the 82 ruck and the web gear. Solid reliable equipment that (with some thought and time) could fit quite well. Easy to repair/maintain,as well.
Yikes! $240 for a "made in China" knockoff is not a good deal. www.herooutdoors.com/canadian-military-style-cts-rucksack/ I would say that I have a backpack "problem"... I own more than 10, but less than 30 backpacks ranging in price from $650 to $120, and ranging in size from 85 liters to 25 liters. The few packs I have that are made in China are day packs only. I would never trust them on a multi-day trip. Osprey and Kelty are my go-to for trips. Maxpedition for day trips, and the large China packs for trips the to the gun range (because I don't actually have to carry them on my back, they are just a great way to move a lot of gear from the truck to the shooting benches.
Development since Late 90’s. Fielded starting 2008. 13 Pounds for size Medium with all 4 accessory pouches and compression valise. Approximately 120l capacity. “Rubberized” polyurethane coating of the Material- arguably where much of the weight come from. The sizing rig was problematic- often sizing people with packs too big causing massive issues with abrasion points at the SI joint, and at worst MSK injuries.
Bottom line, ~10 years to field from needs assessment acceptance, based on Commercial available Expedition mountaineering packs. Most of us were using a ‘64 pattern frame with private designed & purchased bags strapped on, or superior style COTS Mil style bags (Eberlstock, Kifaru, Mystery Ranch) until this was crammed down our throats. Add in the 18 pound PDB (Para Drop Bag), and we were at 30# of gear under canopy without anything in it.
Colossal fuck up.
Yup, almost 20 years to develop a rucksack that is garbage. CAF procurement ladies and gents
so regarding the add on pouches.
When issued this ruck or the day pack you're given 2X 2L pouches and a long waterproof pouch with a central zipper (which i've only ever seen used as a portable water basin).
You're given that set for each bag, so one could, in theroy mount 6 extra pouches to that rucksack, Personally I mount the 2, 2L pouches to the back of the ruck and one of the other 2L to the back of the daypack.
Also the large size of the bag is very helpful, not just because you can carry more but because when you're on the fly you can very quickly load and close the pack, as opposed to the 82' pattern where if you were trying to fit everything in that the army usually wants you to carry around you had best have everything rolled and placed correctly or you'd be fighting with those pouches to get it all to fit. In the end we usually have a lot of freedom in what we bring but if you load the ruck to the gills just because it can fit everything that's your own dumbass fault. A CTS loaded to the kitlist of most units I've seen at is ~50-60 lb's, to which you would usually add 10-15 lb's of your own shit. Admittedly I've loaded that ruck, on exercises where i'm primarily vehicle based, to over 100 pounds but at that point its just an oddly built duffel bag.
Also peoples statements that it's not useful when wearing body armor is silly, NO PACK is comfortable with a plate carrier because there is a ceramic plate on your back, It would be mighty difficult to design a pack that somehow is still padded when you place a plate between yourself and the padding. At least this ruck you can adjust the straps for when wearing the frag+tac vest as opposed to the 82 where you just hoped that you were "average" should size.
Deployed with it in 2010. Lived out of it for months. The only time we actually moved with it, we were mounted moving between leaguers/patrol bases and they were strapped to the outside of the LAV. We never patrolled with it dismounted in the field like the 82 pattern.
We just brought a valise and day bag when we deployed outside the wire overnight or on multi-day ops with LAVs. All of our issued rucks actually spent the entire tour piled up outside our tent on the FOB 😄
P@@HamSandwich277
I use the sleep system pouch on the rucksac to put my extra clothings in and the main pouch to put my sleeping system. Its is fastest to pack in case of a pull-po and forces you to bring only the necessary in clothings since you have less space. Reducing the weight, my rucksac weights between 45 and 55 pound depending on the season.
Why would you wanna reduce the amount that you can carry tho?
"CTS" stands for Clothe the Soldier. The project that designed this rucksack.
I knew it was gonna be heavy the moment you mentioned multiple frame rods and showed how complicated the sleep compartment alone is. But damn 7 kilos is too much
7kgs is nothing, you shoul try it on when it's Full.
Sleep compartment is not complicated at all. It’s quite easy to use and understand .
It hurt to return my day-pack when I got out of the CF, such nice kit.
You can get it at cannex. Just sayin
@@buchholzstephen7562 it's not the same branding or camo. It's not real CADPAT. Which is why the colour is off if you compare it to the normal stuff.
Day pack is nice until your unit doesn't have enough rucks and you have to run a radio + a week of kit in it.
One of the most useless day packs i've ever had the pleasure of owning. "Nice kit", lmao. It's heavy, and the size is practically useless size.
Garbage equipment, I speak from personal experience. In the infantry (light battalions atleast). Troops go out and spend $400 on a full 64 pattern rucks (new bag, valise and pad set from warrior gear) because of how much this rucksack is hated. Good for 80% of the Military but the 20% of troops who actually rely on this bag despise it. Every guy I know (me included) the first thing he did when he got this issues was take the stupid back bar out (some keep the side poles in its personal preference). Also fyi CTS rucksack stands for Clothe the Soldier (from the clothe the soldier program in the early 2000's)
But on a lighter note, great video! Really looking forward to your project with the 64 ruck!
I was issued one of these packs, I believe in a long/large torso size or something similar. As said, it was around 15lbs empty but held around 115 liters iirc. Ludicrously heavy but damn durable. It didn't integrate well with the Tac-Vest, nor with the frag-vest, but I actually liked the way additional utility pouches would securely fit onto the outside. Everybody seems to count PALS/MOLLE webbing as the gold standard for attachment, but the CTS (Clothe The Soldier) pouches would clip onto or off of the rucksack in a matter of seconds without weaving or messing around. Just clip a few buckles through a vertical webbing loop and you were good to go. Same went for the Tac-Vest/Small-Pack/Rucksack when it came to the standardized utility pouches in the CF. They all worked together according to the manuals corresponding with each piece of kit (that were promptly thrown out, upon issue). Small-Pack, Tac-Vest and Rucksack utility pouches were all compatible across the side and rear portions of each piece of kit, and even the sleep system compression sack could be attached to the rear of the tac-vest, which I admittedly only did once (and at this point can't remember how).
Glad I got to use the 64 pattern, probably the best ruck Canada has ever had.
Other problem with both the CTS, and the 82 is they are both too long. Can’t be used very well with webbing that has a butt pack on it.
I served using the 82 Pattern. Maybe I lucked out, but my ruck always sat on my buttpack and took strain off my shoulders. I looked at it as the silver lining to forced marches every Friday afternoon :)
6:45 This is why we use the bottom pouch for clothes/boots and the top compartment for the compression sack/outer layers like coats etc.
I just got mine issued with no classes on what is what, this just saved me big time. Big thank you ❤️
140lb loads are not uncommon. I was in the British Army where the PLCE Infantry Bergen was 120 litres, with everything including personal gear, rations, radio batteries, boxes of 7.62mm link for the section GMPG, platoon medical kit, additional water there was still only enough room in my short back Bergen (much better than the long back)
I retired in 1996 and it is great to see that the last ruck (82 pattern) was sent to the scrap heap. This one looks like its generations ahead of the ruck I used during the latter part of my service. Although the 64 pattern would be my first choice.. (I have two of those).
They still issue the '82 during basic training, army guys keep them for a while after depending on their unit's supply of new packs.
So, a few items come with the pack. As someone mentioned below, pouches x 3 and sometimes 4 were issued. I attached the longer zipper detachable flat pouch on the top flap for an extra 'immediate needs' pouch at the top. The 2 x 2 litre pouches would secure on the sides.
A very important item is the sleep system stuff sack. This is a top loader nylon bag with tensioning/cinch straps (4) equal around the circumference. The top closes like a civ waterproof marine bag over top a drawstring collar type closure. One would fill the sack, cinch up the collar but leave the roll up style marine closure open. Then, a bit at a time and opposite each other (like tightening nuts on a car wheel) start cinching the compression straps. As the bag gets smaller you can put a knee on it and really cinch it up. Once it is as small as possible, the rool top is closed and secured with fastex buckles. You now have what looks like a cadpat nylon bowling ball. Turn it over and there's a web handle on the bottom. You pick it up by that and insert the 'ball' into the compartment at the bottom. Then you seal the outer closures as you showed.
Although most soldiers I saw liked to secure the thermarest vertically on the side, there are 2 loop straps at the top of the main bag to secure it horizontally at the top behind the neck. I found this excellent and didn't interfere with one of my side pouches.
Heavy? Oh yeah. If it were up to me, I would have made it in 500d Cordura instead of 1000d that it is. It could be much lighter.
I wasn't issued it in time for my first Afg tour where I brought the ol 64 pattern. It stayed in the room the whole time. All travel etc was with a small pack that could take the same pouches etc that went onto the bigger ruck. I got the new ruck in time for second tour and, once the drawstring 'diaphram' divider was opened between main bag and sleep system compartment creating one long tube, it served initially as a kit bag with shoulder straps then stayed in my room.
So... I think this is a very early version of the CTS Ruck. The valise area is a bit different, and the shoulder straps aren't coloured black on the inside normally. Anyways, those changes make little difference.
I believe there are 3? sizes of this pack, hence why the capacity varies a little bit.
I've never been able to decide whether this is bad kit or not. On one hand, it's a massive step up from the 82 ruck. That thing was still heavy, it had no space, and the padding was a complete joke. This has an awesome waist band, great shoulder straps and you can get it to fit very securely to your body. You can shuffle with this on and it is actually pretty comfortable. People who've complained this pack is uncomfortable aren't wrong, there's tonnes of body types. But I've never found that.
Now, the negatives. The weight is absolutely insane. It often means a soldier has to carry an extremely heavy pack which opens them to injury and fatigue, reducing their CE faster. I always hated the top pouch, that zipper meant all the stuff inside would fall out into the ground in the middle of the night. The outside pockets are trash, as the mechanism to secure them to the pack tightens the whole pocket making it tough to get things in/out. The second pair of stabilization bars is meant to contour to your back. Most troops remove them, as one drop of an MSVS or MLVW and they bend... you're SOL. It also meant you couldn't carry another soldiers pack should you need to. I've never had them, and never found an issue.
But I'm a support trade, so we don't use these too much. I've only done a few rucks with plates in and this on, and it sucks but I can't say it sucks more than the 82!
I lol'd when you pulled out that jerry can. On my RadOp Journeyman's course in 2002 at CFSCE, one student met the wrath of the instructors and had to hand bomb a full water jerry during a ruck march during morning PT in FFO.
When you pulled that one out from the ruck, I was like: "He could have just put the jerry in his ruck."
Released in 2008, never saw this thing.
I liked the 82 pattern webbing and have fond memories of the ruck, although I was always envious of that one Sgt. who had a 64 pattern ruck.
I have a camp backpack, probably close to that size, I bought 2 or 3 decades ago. Empty, it does have alot of weight. It is mostly canvas. I haven't used it for a long time now. With my health issue, carrying the pack alone would be enough for a long hike, so adding items would make it too much for me these days.
A couple of things to add: "CTS" stands for "Clothe the soldier" which was the name of the program that brought about all the new CADPAT stuff including the rucksack.
It came into service in 2007 or 2008 I believe.
I like how my bigger camo pack is close to that height, but it is lighter, has external pockets (tall side pockets, a big front pocket and a smaller front pocket), and the main compartment opens all the way down both side to open the whole front up all the way to get at everything easy when you lay it down.
Majority of the weight on this pack is from the rubberized coating on the inside that makes it waterproof, I have an German rucksack that has it as well
Indeed, it is very heavy even when empty.
The cts rucksack is the reason I went and built one of the 64 pat rucks from warrior gear in OD green.. the cts ruck fucking kills my back. I tried removing the metal bars they use as a "frame" but that only helped remotely to it curving with my back.. the 64 pack and frame to together I've found feels great on my back helps keep it straight and with the straps done up right my upper body is held nice and tight so you don't have to worry about any werid twists or anything.. and the ruck and valise fully loaded the weight is balanced out so nicely its ends up mostly being supported on your shoulders compared to the cts which I find puts a lot of it on your hips
Apparently rucksacks are meant to sit mostly on your hips, not your shoulders
depending on what you get issued, if brand new, you get like 4 small packs, not just one. and with the ballistic vest we typically remove the aluminum support bars
Winter gear is typically space consuming, but fairly light. That probably why it's so big compared to other countries rucksacks.
Took getting use to when I went from a 84 pattern to the new rucks
Excellent review. Don't be too hard on the designers - it's hard to design an all around rucksack for the multiple scenarios faced by the modern soldier ...but still, I hear you.
Adam, you are exactly right. One item doesn’t fill every need.
Active duty soldier here, I've used this pack for a year before going back to the '84 pattern because this one SUCKS.
The hip belt will rub and burn through your hip skin before you can even start resting the weight on it. It is indeed too heavy even when empty. The problem with the size is the bigger it is, the more useless stuff you pack and get heavy. No wonder it can go up to 120lbs. There is no way, even for 2 weeks in the field, you need that much gear. Let alone carry that much weight and be efficient.
The sleep system pocket is too small for all the sleeping gear you've presented in another video(well done by the way).
The shoulder straps, hip belt and back have various sizes that can be interchanged depending on the CAF sizing chart. Problem is the chart is wrong, the only size packs that should be issued are small and medium, with large/x-large shoulder straps to accomodate frag vest and tactical vest anything else is either too big or too small.
I'm not a fan of single big compartments because it's difficult to stay organized. The addition of external pouches makes it look clumsy and cumbersome in the woods (and adds weight). So if you're packing rations with your clothes, and the the ration trash, don't expect your clothes to stay clean long.
The metal/fiberglass frame is useless, no benefit from it. If you shape the metal bars to your body then it creates weird pressure points when wearing armor, and vice versa. The fiberglass rods end up tearing through the fabric "pockets" holding them.
I was forced to switch from the '84 to this one for administrative reasons. Worst move of my career, that's why I bought a surplus '84 and use it to this day.
That's just my 2-cents ;) Nice feature description though, but you gotta use it to see how much it sucks.
If you are air force you need that space, and more! The Keurig portable coffee maker has to fit somewhere?
Owner of local surplus shop said it is not good for a short soldier. He wanted to mate old 82 pattern frame to the new pack.
When these things were fully loaded they still made us put sandbags in them for extra weight while on battle school I remember guys having to put it on table and then strap into it
wow that took forever to come into service. I was in the forces in 1996 and then rejoined in 2013 and I was about to say i never saw that the first time.
5:13 that’s were put we put our spare C6 barrel and air mattress usually
Nice pack I like it. I would use it to prestige gear. Yes it is way to heavy empty and holds more then you could carry. But if you want to stage gear in the wild it not bad.
Ah yes, the ruck that I'll never see unless i willingly go to PLQ
What unit are you with ?
That ruck also comes with a gortex compression bag for your sleep system. That is a good piece of kit. The ruck is what it is.
Meh, i just use a garbage bag
@@thisghy8126 garbage bags are the way
We have a few more types of pouches that we can add that we are given but it holds so much we don’t really used them, some guys use them to organize the ruck a little more but eh I don’t really like them.
I have its little brother the pack small issue (or patrol pack) with all 4 pouches and straps for sleeping bag and waist strap..I have the 1st Gen small pack that does not have the quick release for the straps i also have the little insert that tells you how to set up the pack.The small pack has some weight to it but it is great for a 3 to 4 day trip and has far more attachment points.The pouches that come with the small packs as well as the large packs are 2 -5 liter and 2 -7.5 liter pouch's which add some versatility to the systems ..only issue i have with them is the base weight
Despite its flaws the cts is way better than the pattern 82 I had and that’s mostly because it came in SIZES the pattern 82 hip pad ended in my lower back. Now if they made a large (as in for tall people) pattern 82 I probably would have been fine with it.
dude, I was talking to an infanteer who went through DP1 5 years ago and he said your ruck weighs up to 120lbs PLUS your individual fighting equipment. 12km ruck in 2 hours 30 minutes.
We only do the 13km march with a total of 50 pounds including your combat load, it's not that bad lol and that's at the end of your DP1 after several ruck marchs that are even more difficult.
So I’m assuming the sleep system isn’t the complete sleeping bag??? It doesn’t look like it would fit no matter how much you compress it. Summer weight gear only!!
It doesn't. The valice is too small to fit both bags and your bivy bag in. And trying to jam it in the bottom compartment is just terrible and then you have wasted space to either side. A lot of people just keep their pers kit in the bottom and jam their sleep system (not in the valice) in the top.
I got my bivvy, 2 sleeping bags, ranger blanket and liner in with very little trouble once I got a hang of the compression sack, and I still have room. But figuring out the compression sack required a bit of finesse. Or a lot of sitting on top of the valise til every bit of air was gone and alot of testicular fortitude to pull the straps as tight as possible.
I was issued a small ruck because I am 4'11"
@@RAWRImmaDino1100 good one Ashley... it does take a bit of finesse for sure. How I would generally pack mine for Ex is my wash basin would go in the bottom of the valise and then start packing everything thing in as i go and sart compressing. our complete kit was liner, inner, outer hood, and bivvy. I'm pretty sure I packed my ranger blanket in my ruck towards the top. one neat thing is if you check out CP Gear they make a combat pillow that you can pack your ranger blanket in. Its very rugged codura on one side and fleece on the other... Absolute must!!
Do what I did: ditch the compression sack, just use a heavy duty garbage bag as liner, I can easily fit my bivy+in/out sleeping bags+ranger blanket+ground sheet. One thing tho, you're gonna layer everything in order then sushi-roll them to let air out before stuffing them inside, but when you go to ground that sushi-roll really save time
I've heard people tell me you can lighten this pack by removing the frame. Nice review Sir. How does this compare to the 82 pattern rucksack?
Removing the frame would literally save ounces. It consists of two 1" x 1/4" aluminum rails that are bent to the shape of the individuals back. The only other part of the "frame" are the two fiberglass rods (which aren't practically removable, and would eliminate part of the load adjustment system).
Lol. Wow! I thought the US ILBE pack was heavy at 9lbs. True statement: "You don't want one anyway."
The jump ruck is still the best ruck around. I'll never move from it if I don't have to
I have a project for you. czcams.com/video/KUDSdfwdkYY/video.html
That rucksack is horrible, it's uncomfortable, really heavy once fully loaded, and causes chafing, the daypack version in the other hand, it's really nice, you can add pouches of different sizes, to both rucksack and daypack/patrol pack,
so if you had payed attention when it got issued to you at supply you were given 2 aluminum bars with a guide to bend the back of the pack to your stance to avoid chafing.
I'm guessing you either have the straight aluminum guide bars still installed and never bent them, or you pulled them out and are now complaining that an unsupported bag is chafing.
Also "really heavy once fully loaded" don't put so much gear into it then, you could load the 82 pattern with 100+ pounds of shit and it would also be really heavy. You overloading your bag is your own fault, considering the CTS weighs less empty than the 82 pattern IIRC.
@@nilloc93oh yeah that aluminum bar? First thing everyone does is throw it away. It's garbage. Your spine shape doesn't matter when your wearing body armour. Garbage rucksack and garbage design. Hated by troops who actually rely on it. Also the CTS ruck is substantially more heavy than the 82 rucksack. It's 15 lbs unloaded for god sakes. There's a reason every reg force infantry unit ( RCR, VP, R22r) hates these things.
@@kilroywuzhere1 Is that like the people who tossed the knee pads out of their combat pants in the trash and then complain that supply won't take them back incomplete?
Obviously if you're wearing the frag vest with plates and the tac vest it won't form to your back, but what will? You have fucking plates and 2 vests between your back and anything on your back. The 82 pattern also didn't form to your back if you were wearing the vests. If you're wearing vests you should still keep the bars i (but curved to the vests) so that the bag remains sturdy against the vests.
And I hate to break it to you but being a ground pounder doesn't make you an expert in regards to rucking. The CTS is a more techincal ruck, you have to set it up right for you and know what you're doing. Just because some people don't know how to wear a rucksack properly doesn't make it a bad ruck. Like saying a stick shift is a bad tranny design because people don't know how to use it.
There are many pieces of kit that people use wrong in the army and then claim the kit is trash, don't be one of those people, learn how to use the kit properly, stop listening to the ancient old man "advice" on how to wear a ruck from the guy with back and knee problems.
@@nilloc93 let me guess, your a POG? Also, people toss those knee pads because they are trash. Sorry you haven't used the kit enough to know that the people who actually depend on it can barely use it and have to resort to buying their own stuff. Yeah it works for 80% of the military who go to the field one or twice a year (if that) but for the guys doing the business, procurement fails them every time. Atleast now we are seeing some improvement with individual units saying fuck it and getting contracts with large manufacturers.
@@nilloc93 Yo how do you form the aluminum bars? I got issued a large CTS last year (even though I am like 5'7") and with armor, this thing is killing me... Being a sig with all the extra batteries n shit doesn't help either. All the guys in coy that I am supporting have jump rucks or something fancy, but I'm only a few years in and don't wanna spend the money
Not Available as surplus? So not True, Have found Dozens of them for sale on line at army/navy stores.
Nice pack. Super heavy-duty!
It is a good ruck. I had a REMF colleague who went on and on about how much stuff he could put in it, was not a field soldier! The ruck takes so much kit that only special activity needs more space. The ruck allows for too much weight for the average employment.
Very informative. Can you tell me the technical detail of the frame inside it? TY.
Do you have a frame pack that has a good review I can watch? I'm interested in getting a frame, but even if I can find one new, they're way too expensive.
You want to do something that takes way too long and costs too much to make, just ask any gov dept.
I can't believe it's 15lbs empty. Military stuff is always so heavy. But I don't see that being 120L. Granted it's not full, but I have a 65L black diamond pack that looks just a bit smaller. Given that you're a bit bigger than me, I can't see it being much over 80..... but who the hell am I to say? 😊
I have two packs from Arcteryx, an 80L and a 90L. That one is no bigger than my 80L. Maybe it's 120L with additional pouches.
@dancancade7101 the pouches are 2L bro the bag is at least 100L
OK so at a garage sale today I saw this pack and the official “patrol pack.” Is it legal to own one?
i will keep my old jump ruck from the early 1980s over any thing they have come out with since. anyone who says they can not quickly pack it under fire has never done it. we where trained from day 1 how to do it and do it right
Absolutely
what is the value of this bag ?
Nice Job Tell
that thing is the worst investment the CAF have purchase since the LSVW, if you want to be operational and break yourself physically this is definitively not what you wanna have, and extremely heavy.
The opinion on this thing in the infantry is extremely mixed. A part of my wants one but I love my 82 pattern.
Good man
Don't swap it
I'm about to do my basic training, is this what I'd get issued?
Most likely.
No, you will receive the old version. This version is mostly for combat trades
@@OshawaBushcraftI can confirm to you that recruits don't sign this model at the basic training/BMQ
@@altorhys are you serving now? Are they still issuing 82 pattern rucks?
@@OshawaBushcraft yes they are issuing the 82. Capat rucks are for deploying of high readiness. This is due to not having a contract in place for new ones.
I’m supply.
Meh. I wonder how much it cost the taxpayers in R&D for such a mediocre piece of kit? The CF should have got smart and bought something from a company that knows what they're doing. Like the USMC did with their ILBE designed by the pros at Arcteryx.
Ironic, seeing as Arcteryx is a Canadian company. But unfortunately they're based in BC. As we used to say, if it's not made in Quebec, you can't have it.
that ruck is GARBAGE!!! heavy empty very week buckles and for some reason everyone wants one... go spend the money at cdn tire and get a 60l pack.
also the waste belt has a major flaw. good idea in theory but in practice the dual straps for adjustment only makes pressure points on your hip. the fiber glass torsion bars don't do a damn thing when you have a full load. they do ok with a partial.
Let me save you 7 minutes of you lives here..it’s a true POS probably designed by a non combat arms team of “designer/engineers”
15 pounds dry weight? Thanks but no. I’d rather take an 82 pattern ruck and web gear.
This guy gets it!
@@OshawaBushcraft I liked the 82 ruck and the web gear. Solid reliable equipment that (with some thought and time) could fit quite well. Easy to repair/maintain,as well.
160L
Can i buy this?
They are not available on the secondary market.
Hero outdoors
@@davidoftheforest Heroes only stocks a knockoff.
Yikes! $240 for a "made in China" knockoff is not a good deal. www.herooutdoors.com/canadian-military-style-cts-rucksack/
I would say that I have a backpack "problem"... I own more than 10, but less than 30 backpacks ranging in price from $650 to $120, and ranging in size from 85 liters to 25 liters. The few packs I have that are made in China are day packs only. I would never trust them on a multi-day trip. Osprey and Kelty are my go-to for trips. Maxpedition for day trips, and the large China packs for trips the to the gun range (because I don't actually have to carry them on my back, they are just a great way to move a lot of gear from the truck to the shooting benches.
@@OshawaBushcraft damn
I would take American molle anyday of the week over that bag.
The FILBE of the USMC is the way to go. Semper Fi
Because they get pros from the private sector to design them instead of government morons.
And it came with 5 poaches
the Phz2000 is still better
Poor military.