Back an earlier gear thread I asked about people’s experience with Dry Bag portage packs. I got a lot of good responses, but most people just said, “I like mine, you might too.” So with that, I thought I’d throw something together to help the next person to come along to make the same decision.

My best friend and I have been using traditional portage packs and decided to try dry bag styles for our September 51 mile circumnavigation of the Weeny PMA out of LIS entry #14. Good thing too, as we got lots of rain. We mostly single carried 7.2 miles of portages. We bought two different packs so a gear showdown between NRS and S2S was what we needed and on our mind all week.

Carry Comfort: Major differences include the hip belt and loadlifters present on the S2S, compared with the minimal waist strap on the NRS and no load lifters. The NRS had slightly better shoulder straps. We both carried both packs in “food mule” and “canoe head” roles. There was no discernable difference in the way that the bags carried, even though the S2S had more “features.” Counterintuitively, we felt the waist belt didn’t seem to support much because of the frameless nature of the packs, even stuffed tight. Last note on carry comfort: Neither of the chest straps were particularly effective when carried over a PFD (which was almost every time.) This was essentially a wash and a fairly large surprise, we expected there to be more difference: Advantage, neither.

Materials: The NRS bag is significantly thicker than the S2S bag, even more so on the bottom. It’s essentially a tube of White Water Raft material. The S2S is more like a traditional heavy duty dry bag and much more flexible. The advantage that the S2S had here was that it was easier to fold outside itself when loading, making the bag shorter and therefore easier to load (these things are about 4 1/2 feet tall.) NRS appears to be more wear/tear proof due to materials. Because we both got black colored bags, they were both huuuuge black holes, and difficult to see the bottom of. Fair warning – brighter bags will be easier to see what’s inside. Advantage: slight advantage to NRS for durability.

Build: A few build items stand out – Both bags’ harnesses were removable with a similar attachment method, a sort of hook through a strapping loop. The NRS bag’s harness attachments were bigger, more robust and less likely to accidentally come off. The S2S bag had a bad habit of releasing its hip belt right when you’re grabbing it as a handle. This was extremely frustrating and happened about half the time. Removable harnesses seemed of dubious advantage, maybe someone can enlighten me on why they’re great. Closure: The bags have different sealing methods, S2S has a traditional dry bag buckle top, while the NRS uses four straps, two on the side and two over the top. I think both will be sufficiently water tight, but the NRS straps over the top was a nice place to stuff my wet tarp. Both styles served sufficiently as grab handles. Tiedowns: The S2S had 4 tiedowns on the outside, nice for attaching a helmet net for exterior gear. The NRS didn’t have very good attachments for this accessory, but they can be added. Advantage, horses for courses, but NRS because of that dang S2S hipbelt that kept coming off.

Cost: NRS is about $170, S2S is about $220. Either can be had with a discount if you wait for a sale. I got 15% off my NRS at back country which brought it to ~$150 with tax. Advantage, NRS by $40-ish.

Misc: Both of them need a grab handle on the bottom, the waist belt and hip belts were sorry substitutes. The NRS comes with a storage sack that makes it into a nice compact tube. It seems like a small thing, but it’s huge for the storage that this will live in 99% of its life. Advantage, NRS.

Overall impressions. First, I wish we had someone with a Sealine pro pack to compare, but such is life. Second, we determined that either one of these packs were totally up to BWCA tripping duties. They carried equally well, kept everything dry and the decision to pick either one comes down to personal preference of fine details. In the end, we both felt the NRS had a slight advantage.

Interesting review. Thanks for writing it up. One thing is that NRS has a big focus on serious whitewater and so their stuff will be designed to work well even if a bag gets lost in a rapids. It's easier to keep stuff dry in the calm waters of the BWCA. The old Knupac dry bags were designed for lakes and opened on the side and closed like the NRS bags. That means you have a longer seal and maybe it is less secure if it got sunk in a rapid. But that feature made it really easy to load and find stuff. Dry bags for calm waters may be too much of a specialty to drive a market but that was a nice feature.

Thanks for testing and writing up the review. Since the bags are very long, was it difficult to single portage? I suspect the top of the bag would be well above head height.

jdmccurry: "Thanks for testing and writing up the review. Since the bags are very long, was it difficult to single portage? I suspect the top of the bag would be well above head height."

Hey JD, both packs fit well under both the canoe and our food bag saddlebag setup. When closed, they roll down like a dry bag, so they're not much taller than a Duluth Pack. Single portaging was the rule, except for a few really steep ones. We each carried about 45 lbs in our drybags (chairs!) food bag was about 30 (we eat well!) and the canoe was about 45.

Thanks for the nice comparative review. Maybe someday you'll get to use the Sealline pack for comparison.

We tried a 110l Bill bag on our vacation and it ripped on the second day. Returning it for a SeaLine 110l.

Once again I feel that people who design some of these "things" do NOT spend much - if any - time in a canoe.

I personally find the larger bags, well, too big. You end up loading so much into them that with only one compartment, you find yourself unloading everything just so you can get that thing down in the bottom.
As well, we are people of habit. When we see that there's just a little more room in the bag - what do we do? We put something in it. And it just keeps getting heavier and heavier. We take too many things we don't need and suffer on the portages.

I'm looking for the perfect 55-65L dry bag with handles, waist belt, attachments, etc.

Right now this is the next one on my list:



Thanks for your detailed review.

70L dry pack

KarlBAndersen1:Right now this is the next one on my list:

70L dry pack "

I was just in MEC in Vancouver BC a couple of weeks ago and looked at the big brother of this one (115l). It is a nicely designed pack, and I might get one to replace my Sealine Pro of the same size which I don't like (nicely made but poorly designed). The MEC pack actually has places on it where you can grab it. I think there are more Canadians that know something about canoeing than Mericans.

I just received the MEC dry portage pack which Karl linked to earlier ( MEC portage pack ) . Although I haven't used it yet, I thought I'd give some first impressions. First of all, it is much better thought out than either the NRS Bill's Bag (I have one--it's a rafting pack, not a portage pack), or the SeaLine ProPack (have one of those, too, before they improved it this year), with superior harness and actual grab loops. I got the 70l pack, which is about the same size as the CCS Pioneer (have one of those, too--do you see a pattern? Don't ask me about climbing/backpacking packs....). I got the CCS and the MEC packs for relatively lightweight solo tripping: packs that will fit in my skinny Wenonah Voyager. Both packs fit--MEC is taller and skinnier (fits both fore and aft of the paddler in the Voyager), the CCS is squat (you have to screw it into the Voyager aft of the paddler). The MEC pack has aluminum stays for the internal frame, which should improve portaging comfort, keep the bag from keeling over when you're looking for something in the bottom, and doesn't affect boat storage. The MEC shoulder straps are stiffer than the CCS, but I expect them to loosen up with use, as have all my other packs for the last 45 years. I've included some photos for your viewing pleasure. And yes, both come in different colors (I don't want to lose a pack, either on the portage trail or in the river). FWIW, I used my SeaLine Pro pack on an extended trip last summer, and though it worked, it had some serious issues, some of which have been addressed with this year's latest model.

Thanks for that review on the MEC pack.
In my never-ending quest for the right sized pack I have also gained an interest in this one:
Sea to Summit dry pack

It has a different enclosure without the cinch straps so it just has that roll-up affair. Since it will be mostly full it will not be much of an issue that I can see.
I do like the idea of that internal aluminum frame on the MEC.
I think my canoe partner and I will get one of each.

KarlBAndersen1: "It has a different enclosure without the cinch straps so it just has that roll-up affair. Since it will be mostly full it will not be much of an issue that I can see. "

On my old dry portage pack, it had the side and top tie downs for the rollup. I really like the top tie downs, and even extended them--great for stowing your PFD, wet tent fly, etc. for the portages. My day dry pack just has the single clasp, which I think is appropriate.

I used the SealLine Boundary pack 115L on a 10 day trip back in 2015. It did its job well, kept all my gear dry. As others have said, my only complaint would be how everything is in a single tall compartment, and the lack of grab handles and internal frame. Even though I packed it a little heavy, none of these issues were deal breakers. Strategic packing made things a little better, but still found myself having to take everything out on a few occasions. The rest of my party were in their 50's and trusted the Duluth packs. Myself being in my mid twenties, they thought I had overdone it. At first they weren't too impressed with my gear. But after the first day they all wish they had most of my equipment.