I've decided to get a HMG pack but I still can't decide which one. I've narrowed it down to the Porter and Windrider 3400. Both have the same volume in the main compartment. The Windrider has a 600 cu in external mesh pocket included. With the Porter I would have to purchase the detachable pocket for $30. The Windrider comes with hip belt pockets. This is an additional $10 with the Porter. Both weigh close to the same but the detachable pocket for the Porter would add almost 5oz making it around 5oz heavier than the Windrider. However I'm thinking about going without pockets. The Porter is more configurable so I can use it without pockets. If I decide later that I want a pocket for some trips I can add it. I do enjoy a good bushwhack sometimes so the mesh pockets on the Windrider might not work for me anyway. I'm leaning towards the Porter but having a hard time deciding. If anyone has experience with these two packs and has any advice on which one to get I would appreciate any input.

I have the HMG Expedition pack, essentially a taller version of the Porter. I used it on a 5 day trip in the Colorado Rockies over the summer, and the performance was excellent. Light, carries well, and very comfortable.

My take on the difference is that the Windrider is more of an ultralight pack, with a main capacity of 2400 cu in, and an additional 600 cu in between the front mesh packet and the side pockets. The Porter is a straight 3400 cu in, all of which is inside the pack. With the Windrider, you'd probably use the outside pockets to dry items, or maybe carry a tarp, but they would be exposed to the elements. With the Porter you can always add a front pocket or use the daisy chains for added capacity.

You can't go wrong with either.

Thanks for the input Don. I've heard nothing but positive things about HMG packs.

FYI, HMG makes a version of the Windrider with 3400 cu in capacity for the main compartment. Same size as the Porter. The larger Windrider 3400 is what I am considering along with the Porter.

Hmmm, never saw that one before. Also hmmm, they just redesigned their website literally since I answered your previous post.

Okay, anyway, I guess the issue is do you want the mesh pockets or not? Convenient for storage, not so convenient if you do a lot of bushwacking, because I'd *assume* that they'd get snagged on brush easily.

I picked up the mesh front pocket for my Expedition pack, and used it on my CO hike. Very useful for storing odds and ends, but because it's directly behind me, less likely to snag on things. Just a thought.

Nice to have choices.

Wow, your right Don. The website was just changed within the last couple of hours and now I can not find the 3400 cu in Porter. Now they are showing the Porter at 4400 cu in. Hopefully I can still get a 3400 cu in Porter cause that's what I was leaning towards.

Really weird. They have exactly *2* packs on the website now, the 3400 Windrider and the "4400 Porter (Expedition)." Nothing in the 1600 or 2400 categories. I'm going to assume that we're watching a work in progress, and that they're still in the middle of revising the site.

If you click directly on the "PACKS" link, it lists all the packs including the 3400 cu/in Porter.

Well, it does now. :-)

Again, I assume that they were just in the middle of updating their website. Now, all 10 packs are displayed, and normality has been restored to the universe.

Anybody go from Windrider to Porter or vice versa? I'm currently using a Windrider, but I'd like the versatility of adding/removing the Porter pocket and water bottle holsters depending on the situation. I'd also copy Douglas Ide's mod to use your own hipbelt, as the stock one likes to slip down when I'm using a windshirt, and the pockets are a little too far back.

From my experience having owned the original size wind rider (2400 ci?) and the Porter, I think the aluminum stays are much more substantial in the porter. I could be wrong as I didn't own both at the same time and perhaps they upsize the stays in the larger windrider. Anyway I would assume that the porter is better suited to carry heavier loads.