Bushwalk Australia

Not that I am even remotely thinking about buying anything. But the new LW bag from them has 200g of 800FP down and no zip. The only problem I foresee is it may not be big enough to fit fellers with wide shoulders.
https://www.macpac.com.au/macpac-large- ... 20079.html
Just got the infomercial email

Out of interest did anybody buy one of these?
I have always thought of something this light as better used as a liner/extender for a large cut shoulder season bag.
BUT
I was in Macpac Geelong today buying Nikwax for the basecamp down bag and had a look at the one they had on the rack.
I actually fitted inside reasonably well.
On clearance and as this was the last one in the store I was offered an extra 10% off.
At that price it would pay for Remote to add another 100 grams to bring it to 320 grams fill.

I'd buy it if going UL. Very handy bag, for sure. Also use a down jacket to allow for a greater min. temp. use.

I'm taking it to Remote Repairs and having them add another 100 grams of down to it.
I phoned yesterday and they are running 3 to 4 weeks behind so yesterday I washed and Nikwaxed an old behemoth to tide me though.

gbagua wrote:I'd buy it if going UL. Very handy bag, for sure. Also use a down jacket to allow for a greater min. temp. use.

Unlike my other wriggle in bag this is cut skinny and no room to wear a downie, not even an UL one like the Uniqlo, at least there won't be after the top-up.

I'm interested in peoples thoughts about this UL bags temperature rating after it gets the extra 100g of down added. The boost will be just short of 50% taking it to 320g of 800FP down.
I'm still amazed at the light weight of modern fabrics and how compact they are when compressed into a modern carry bag.

No amount of construction trickery would make a conventional stand alone bag with only 300g of 800 down warm enough for me.

stry wrote:No amount of construction trickery would make a conventional stand alone bag with only 300g of 800 down warm enough for me.

Neither could I, but this purchase and top-up is for my "Oh-Shit" gear when day touring. The rebuilt Goretex bivvy plus this bag is half the weight and bulk of what goes into my pack now.
Saves me almost half a kilo
Afterwards it will find use as a booster bag.
I may have tackled the job myself if my sewing machines could handle this UL and extremely slippery fabric

That should work.

When I get it back I'll try and measure the free loft accurately. The insulation thickness is really the best determination of warmth, followed by down density.

It's hard to measure accurately but about 65 - 70mm free loft now with the 100g added down.
So averaged out I guess it's a good inch of insulation.
As a liner/booster it certainly worked and I was never cold at the temperatures reached. -5C to around -8C using the combination of LW bags plus OQ

I'm looking around to buy a suitable sleeping bag myself at the moment.Thinking of buying the Dragonfly 400 https://www.macpac.com.au/macpac-standa ... safari.com
It's a bit heavier than what you're looking at though.

My first thought when I saw these last season was that like the lighter Firefly it really needed another 100grams of down in it.

It is a daring departure from design norms for MacPac to show off a sleeping bag without a zip. Granted, a few expedition sleeping bags are designed like this, with triple or quad muffs, but obviously, even with good and snazzy looks, any bag sans-zip is going to be a new and possibly irritating experience to wiggle in and out of compared to the ease of just running a zip open and closed! I couldn't imagine myself using one. Never found myself wanting anything other than a full length muffed zip that never tangles or breaks. As for saving weight without a zipper .... drrrrrft.

Adding another 100gm of fill defeats the design purpose. If you need more fill/loft, you move up in the sleeping bag range.

It's always beneficial to actually visit a Macpac store and try out a sleeping bag rather than speculate online about features (or lack of such). No doubt the Firefly has a ready, waiting and enthusiastic market, just that it is obviously not going to be suitable for everybody. Visit a store and examine all the sleeping bags for size, fit, features, loft and especially weight.

Biggles wrote:It is a daring departure from design norms for MacPac to show off a sleeping bag without a zip. Granted, a few expedition sleeping bags are designed like this, with triple or quad muffs, but obviously, even with good and snazzy looks, any bag sans-zip is going to be a new and possibly irritating experience to wiggle in and out of compared to the ease of just running a zip open and closed! I couldn't imagine myself using one. Never found myself wanting anything other than a full length muffed zip that never tangles or breaks. As for saving weight without a zipper .... drrrrrft.

Adding another 100gm of fill defeats the design purpose. If you need more fill/loft, you move up in the sleeping bag range.

It's always beneficial to actually visit a Macpac store and try out a sleeping bag rather than speculate online about features (or lack of such). No doubt the Firefly has a ready, waiting and enthusiastic market, just that it is obviously not going to be suitable for everybody. Visit a store and examine all the sleeping bags for size, fit, features, loft and especially weight.

Actually visited, tried on etc and own the UL zipperless bag and they do; I reiterate DO in my opinion hit the shop floors massively underfilled.
Very few bags out there in the market are properly filled.
Personally I've never had a problem using wriggle in bags and losing the zipper is the easiest way I know of to save a hundred grams of packed weight. Obviously YMMV.
Go back far enough and zips in sleeping bags were a novelty or at least heavy and unreliable

Biggles wrote:It is a daring departure from design norms for MacPac to show off a sleeping bag without a zip. Granted, a few expedition sleeping bags are designed like this, with triple or quad muffs, but obviously, even with good and snazzy looks, any bag sans-zip is going to be a new and possibly irritating experience to wiggle in and out of compared to the ease of just running a zip open and closed! I couldn't imagine myself using one. Never found myself wanting anything other than a full length muffed zip that never tangles or breaks. As for saving weight without a zipper .... drrrrrft.

Adding another 100gm of fill defeats the design purpose. If you need more fill/loft, you move up in the sleeping bag range.

It's always beneficial to actually visit a Macpac store and try out a sleeping bag rather than speculate online about features (or lack of such). No doubt the Firefly has a ready, waiting and enthusiastic market, just that it is obviously not going to be suitable for everybody. Visit a store and examine all the sleeping bags for size, fit, features, loft and especially weight.

I was in the Macpac store in Melbourne yesterday and tried getting into the Dragonfly 400. It fits perfectly and the zip does not bother me. I was going to buy it but was about to head over to the MCG to see Essondon take on Carlton! Very dissapointed with that result!

Stamina wrote:

Biggles wrote:
I was in the Macpac store in Melbourne yesterday and tried getting into the Dragonfly 400. It fits perfectly and the zip does not bother me. I was going to buy it but was about to head over to the MCG to see Essondon take on Carlton! Very dissapointed with that result!

I think you mean Collingwood.

Yes Collingwood. Great game!

Had a good long chat with the floor staff at Macpac and the two short zip bags are the same shell with different levels of fill so if that's the case then I'd get the Dragonfly 600 rather than the 400

The 600 is almost 300gm heavier and another $100 or so. The thing is, where are you heading off to? If you go somewhere really cold then opt for a higher rated option. That's my thoughts.

Stamina wrote:The 600 is almost 300gm heavier and another $100 or so. The thing is, where are you heading off to? If you go somewhere really cold then opt for a higher rated option. That's my thoughts.

I make the difference 250 grams so there must be higher baffles as both bags felt the same when I tired them on for fit yesterday.
If I was in the market for a midweight sleeping bag I think I'd put the 600 on my shortlist