Canadian Army 1964 Pattern Rucksack

We are going to have an in depth look at the Canadian Forces 64 pattern rucksack. Sorry about the wind noise in the video, the battery in our mic was dead.

[@hunterphfr]

I used a ‘64 pattern ruck in the Canadian army until I got out late 90s. First as a reserve paratrooper, then while attached to 2 commando and ended my career still using it with 1 PPCLI. It worked very well with the web gear. It was light years better than the ‘82 pattern ruck which I ditched as soon as I was eligible and never looked back. I still use my ‘64 recreationally.

[@Cpl4th]

Although everyone refers to these aluminum framed rucksack as "64 pattern", they are actually universal rucksack C2. The real 64 pack was that horrible frameless sack shown in the pic at the beginning of the video. The C2 ruck was only for arctic use when first adopted. Its popularity got it universally adopted in the mid 70s. They were never issued with A7A straps, troops added those themselves in order to cinch the valise and main bag together as one. Without A7A straps, the main bag and sleeping bag valise are sort of separate and bang around.

[@althepal6818]

Used it a lot. The plastic buckles where slipping under too much load. Especially the lower back one…ouch! So, lots of « gun tape » was added. On non tactical long March, we would hook the FN carrying handle through the side of the frame! Love it, for the sleeping bag being on top. So, in bivouac, contrary to the 82 pattern, it would stay upright. Don’t remember those large strap. Must be added later or my memory fails. But, I clearly remember passing those straps through the D eyelet of the sleeping bag cover. (Would stop the bag from slipping sideways on the move.

[@brucemacaulay1235]

Still have mine used it from 79-92 was modified with the 84 shoulder straps when the new ruck came out. Jumped from 82-86 and we all used the older ruck as the system we used to hook to chute PELS would not work with 84 pattern. When you said the waist belt was missing no surprise most guys binned them. You could pack ton of gear into them and most times we carried so much weight you would need help getting off the ground. If you find one with green chicken pad from jump helmet gun tapped to top bar chances it belonged to jumper. When jumping dam thing would be hitting your shims ruck was in front of you and upside down, rifle snow shoes attached together on your shoulder and tied into PELS. Enjoy the videos brings back many memories and I think some of us still have buckle marks in back from using these lol.

[@tjmorrison1909]

nice ! was bored just surfing around and found this video. I was issued one on these 1983 and it was very popular, often used more than the new 82 pattern which i didnt see issued to my unit until 85. Soldiers would often buy the frame and goto QM to get all the parts which were in bins to take ! It was bombproof.

[@joeydepalmer4457]

note when buying an old 64 frame or full 64 ruck, just because they want more money for it, it dose not mean it is worth it. CHECK THE FRAME and make sure it is solid and not falling apart from use. notably around the joints.

[@markfisher8206]

It was called the cargo pack sat at the bottom of my boxes common soldiers one ( barrack box) for years I turned it in in 2000 when I got out.Had to explain to the sup tech what it was.We used the universal rucksack.Best rucksack I ever humped.

[@FordManiac76]

I still have my 64 pack that I purchased from a surplus store in the late 80s for use while I was in cadets. It’s still in pretty good shape. I’m planning to put it back into use.

[@notlikely4468]

Carried one through JNCO in 78 All the plastic buckles on the shoulder straps failed (the center bar pulled out over about 60kg of total load).. I think my pack was running about 55kg before the platoon stores (belt for GPMG, 2 Carl G rounds and 4 60mm mortar bombs) got tossed aboard...plus a few rocks for grenades So we had to waterknot the shoulder straps tight Sit on the ground to put our packs on...roll onto our hands and knees...then stand up using our FN's as a prop I still have the scars on my hips from that pack riding low for a week of field training

[@Clarence-Hoppington_III]

Only thing I don't have for that pack it would seem is the A78 straps that you had fastened over the top of everything else. Forgotten what mine cost overall but picked it up as individual components, the frame coming from China and the rest from Canada shipped to the UK. Also got the 60's sleeping bag and matching valise for it, the valise being the same material as the ruck. Sleeping bag differs from the later one in that the inner and outer have draw cords at the head end to adjust the width around the shoulders instead of it being stitched to a certain tightness and the foot end has snap studs to adjust the length for user height. The hood is identical to the later pattern of sleeping bag.

[@lib556]

A few historical comments: a. the original pack you showed in the first minute was known as 'the cargo pack' and it sucked; b. the framed ruck we refer to as the 64 pat ruck was originally issued to the US Army in the 60s and was known as 'the lightweight pack'. Used mainly by units of 173rd AB Bde and 101st AB Div. Although generally replaced by the Alice pack, many AB units continued to use it. There are a bunch of collector vids on YT about the lightweight and its variations as well as the 'jungle pack'; c. the 64 was not discontinued in 82 as 82 pat equipment wasn't issued until summer of 85. I joined in 83 and was issued 64 pat webbing and ruck; d. when carrying heavy loads, the original straps etc on the 64 pat ruck sucked. The waist belt was a 1 in wide joke. Support for small of back sucked. We quickly figured out that 82 pat padded straps, back pad worked well on the 64 frame; e. you make it sound like A7A cargo straps were issued...they weren't. We had to hunt those down for ourselves as the existing straps were almost too short; f. a feature not mentioned are the 2 anchor points and tightening straps on the main bag just behind the side cargo pouches. These can be used for extra pouches or 1 qt canteens. If more water is anticipated to be needed, you can secure the US 2 qt canteens on these points. g. as for access to the main bag, see my comments on another video where our recce guys would run a 64 bag on the bottom and an 82 bag on top. This provides 7 external pouches and easy top access.

[@Thomas-kg8pf]

Outstanding research on the 64 pat ruck I also own one under the top flap it’s misunderstood to be a map pocket it’s not it’s also for a collapsible jungle canteen my theory is this ruck is tropical and a early American prototype and disregarded for more modern nylon materials on other note the ruck in the video is an airborne modification with sleep system on top mine works fine with it under the bag,I also used the 82 pat in the 80s and found the wire frame too narrow for the sleep sys and watching everyone in a wrestling match trying to secure it tight and stay stable you notice in pics that that sleeping bag is leaning to the right or left just can’t win with this issue thank god I just hang mine on my vehicle!

[@Thomas-kg8pf]

Just one more point that ruck in particular is not 64 the frame and straps are but that bag is not but the shape materials and design is might be early design rare good collection item

[@Leon-ec9ge]

I bought pattern 82 rucksack a couple days ago, and I'm in love with that thing.

[@kilroywuzhere1]

Haha everyone gets rid of those as soon as they can in the Infantry.

[@OshawaBushcraft]

Welcome to the club!

[@michaeldbhawker3556]

@@kilroywuzhere1 no joke. Anyone who likes the 82 never humped that shit loaded. Was and still is garbage.

[@joeydepalmer4457]

the 2" wide straps on the front, we where told, they where there for airborne operations to keep everything tight and kept in place while jumping and landing. they where also good when the ruck is hanging on the side of armoured vehicles.

[@jacktoy3032]

That is correct. I put A7a straps on my 64 pattern ruck when I jumped. Plus, with a heavily loaded bag, the straps kept the bag from sagging.

[@andrewrice4513]

The cargo pack was *not* designed to be humped. Rather they were designed for Mechanized warfare. They were generally issued to mech units in Germany. We issued them to most members of 3 Mech The 64 aluminum framed version was issued to me in Jump School, 2CDO, OCS, and Combat Arms School. Most of us after a while moved the pack up on top with the sleeping bag underneath. The higher you move the weight...

[@filupe01]

Thanks for a very informative video as I recently managed to snag a CADPAT '64 pack, valise and frame down here in Australia of all places. Interesting to see how you went with your pack evolution compared to us Down Under - we were not much better and had different packs issued after Vietnam in 88, 94 and 2000s. Our Airborne were issued Large ALICEs as standard and many others went out and got private purchase packs of various designs. The two part main ruck and separate valise is a different concept - the favoured concept here was the two ended main bag with supplementary pouches on the outside.

[@craigpierre2765]

I can remember seeing these things around when I got in. Not issued but some of the guys were retrofitting the strap system from the 82 pattern to it. Made a great pack. Still have my complete 82 pattern.. loved that pack but as a trucker I didn’t have to hump it very far..LOL

[@OshawaBushcraft]

Hi Craig, I actually have a video on the 84/82 hybrid rucks. I'm still packing an 82.

[@hunterphfr]

I used my modified ‘64 from the late 80s through the late ‘90s when I got out.

[@turtlewolfpack6061]

I just found a C2 style ruck myself on an original welded frame, the belt and back support are clearly tagged CP Gear, the shoulder straps do not appear to be Warrior Gear or CP but seem to be decent but the bag baffles me. It is Cadpat with a floating lid, no attached pouches, tons of molle and a ton of metal buckles and webbing to attach it to what appears to be almost any pack frame in the world. I haven't ever seen one like it and can't find a single picture anywhere. It is mounted high like an 82 pattern or a ski ruck as well although it could easily be mounted low. If work would slow down I really have to bite the bullet and try to make some videos to reach out for help to ID it.

[@kowalski363]

Great video

[@althepal6818]

One more comment. I can’t see really good on the video but it was made of a greyish/green rubberized material. Very different from the 82 pack material.

[@gregevans9869]

cant wait ti see more tell

[@mikesmith5583]

Used that pack in the airborne up to 92 when I got out don't know how long after they still used them , much better than the newer packs we used in the leg battalion mine was 2 RCR

[@michaeldbhawker3556]

They still use them depending on mission set. Modified of course as he showed.

[@hunterphfr]

I used mine up until the late 90s with 1 PPCLI. They were a lot less structured than the RCR. I never would have made it as a Royal….

[@hikeCANOEcamp]

I've got the full frame and full bag height to top of frame. Probably around the 90's? Canadian Military.

[@joeydepalmer4457]

that's an 82 jump ruck. 1982 ruck parts put onto a 1964 pattern frame. a lot of use liked the frame but liked the bag on top and not on the bottom also it fit better with the 82 pattern web gear

[@jeanmorin3247]

Eh, we used to jump out of aircraft with that pack (1972). They may look old and of bad design now, but you should have seen what was used before. We did not dislike them when they were not wet. When wet, they weighed a ton! I do not recognize the buckles on your wide main straps. Ours were narrower and with plastic buckles. Nice video

[@michaelstapleton3890]

This is not a 64 pattern rucksack. It is called Rucksack, Universal, C1. The 64is the other, non framed pack

[@Utoo4200]

I have one of the originals so hard to find any information on the original p64

[@Utoo4200]

Found it in an abandon house awesome condition

[@joeydepalmer4457]

one note for you, 64 ruck, it was useless as a regular ruck but good for mountain use and day use when not required to carry all the battle gear, mainly the sleeping bag, ground pad, and the tent. it was no good for winter or airborne use. the biggest problem with it was fitting the sleeping bag in the bottom.

[@michaeldbhawker3556]

Got a bad wrap. If you have ever handled one they are one tough piece of kit. For short distances and moderate loads they were good kit but as said good luck fitting the sleep system

[@hunterphfr]

Wait what? ‘64 pattern ruck was the only ruck used by the Airborne Regiment and airborne reserve units through the 80s & 90s. Many of us at 1 PPCLI kept using or bought their own. It was light years better than the ‘82. The ‘83 totally sucked, especially when worn with web gear, the frame was just way too long. In fact there are several places you can buy modern variations of the ‘64 pattern, bag, and frames in good condition are highly sought after.

[@damonstrembiski2409]

Anybody know where to find one of these, or the frame for one of them

[@OshawaBushcraft]

What region are you in?

[@damonstrembiski2409]

@@OshawaBushcraft Petawawa, ON

[@OshawaBushcraft]

@@damonstrembiski2409 I dont know what surplus stores are operating around there anymore but Kijiji and Facebook marketplace are probably your best bet. Warrior Gear operates out of Pembroke and many of there packs end up on the base, you see used ones quite often. Another option we developed specifically because these are so difficult to find is the commando pack, I have a video on it.

[@smclaughlin2562]

We also could take the bag off and use it as a pack frame

[@smclaughlin2562]

Airborne used them for years after

[@berner]

Nice video as always :) I was wondering something though, I recently had a conversation with someone who told me he has a "jump ruck". I had never heard of a jump ruck before and though I'd ask if you might know what that is and if there's a difference. I would have asked him what a jump ruck is, but I didn't wanna sound dumb so I just nodded along. Oopsie.

[@OshawaBushcraft]

The 64 pattern is often referred to as the "jump ruck", it's likely what he was refering to but please let me know if it's something different.

[@grantnorthcott5112]

@@OshawaBushcraft They're the same. The reason why the ''64 pattern are called a jump ruck is that the frame won't crack apart when used with airborne forces. the '82 pattern rucks were useless for jumping. I joined in '74 and served through to '96

[@andrewrice4513]

Ex CAB here. The "jump ruck" was basically the 64 pack with the jump rigging attached...a wide H strap system that fixed the drop line from the ruck to your chute harness. At approx 100 feet you cut the release straps away and the ruck, rifle , (the old FN) and in winter snowshoes..dropped away on a line in preparation for landing. Otherwise it was *exactly* the same as the ruck I was issued at OCS, Combat Arms School, AI, etc etc. Every unit had specifi SOPs as to what you carried in what pocket, but with minor changes it was the same ruck.

[@hunterphfr]

80s & 90s a jump ruck was usually referring the ‘64 pattern. The airborne reserve units and Airborne Regiment all used them. Most guys kept when they went back to battalion and many there bought their own. With some simple modifications worked much better than the ‘82. That’s how I got mine. I kept using it when I went to 1 PPCLI.

[@markusschaffer9712]

64 pattern rucksack was a backwards design. No wonder the guys who taught use BMQ hated them. To them,the pack made ZERO logic.

[@hunterphfr]

Yet guys that had to hump ridiculous weight over long distances loved them. The Airborne Regiment and the reserve airborne units used them exclusively through the late 90s. When easily modified properly they worked very well. Especially while wearing webbing, the ‘82 was way too tall for this. Many of us kept using them and many others bought their own in 1 PPCLI. Several websites are still selling modern variations. I ditched my ‘82 my first year in and spent the last seven of my eight years in carrying a ‘64. At Battalion many guys purchased their own.