asm 411 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I have been wearing one pair of switchback pants since before my son crossed over a little more than two years ago. I have worn them to every troop meeting and campout and I have only missed three campouts. I also wear them to district and council training. They have been to two summer camps. There are holding up great. No complaints. Fortunately, I am going to have to get new pair because I have lost quite a few pounds since Thanksgiving and they are getting too big. Last night we had a couple come in to do Canoe training for the Crew that is going on a high adventure trip to Tinnerman Canoe Base this summer. The couple had two boys in our troop about 15 years ago. During the training session they were talking about appropriate clothing material for canoeing in. They both stopped walked over to me and asked if the pants I was wearing were Scout issue. I said yes and they said it was about time we had functional pants. I told them the shirt was wicking material too. They were dumb founded. They proceeded to go on about how terrible cotton was and how that is what their boys had. I remember the old uniforms all too well myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John-in-KC Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 ASM411, Problem is, those switchbacks got dropped from the BSA Supply Corporation inventory. We have something else now, and at least one version is water-retaining, not moisture-wicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fgoodwin Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 My problems with the original switchbacks: they pill far too easily and my belt got so twisted up that I had to remove it and use a standard belt. I haven't bought a pair of the new switchbacks, but they appear to be made of a heavier fabric and hopefully won't pill as easily as the originals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asm 411 Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 I am disappointed to see the new pants don't have zippers at the end of the legs. Fgoodwin - mine never pilled and the belt never gave me grief. Makes you wonder if the had made several runs of the original switch backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisabob Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 My son has had a pair of the original switchbacks for 2 years or so. He loves them, probably wears them three times a week. He wears them camping. He wears them to troop meetings. He wears them hiking. He even (happily) wears them to school on a pretty regular basis. They have held up wonderfully. Although they were on the expensive side, at least I feel we've gotten our money's worth out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narraticong Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I'm with Lisa. My son wears his switchbacks everywhere. Scouts, school, church, he gets the wear out of them. I think he's on his third pair and I have not noticed any problems at all. Both the original and new versions. He also is comfortable wearing his Scout T shirts to school. It's just no big deal for him. But I think he likes when people ask him what Philmont is. There may be a little pride going on there. He is too young for a trek but did an overnight in the backcountry and also hiked the trails while I was at PTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjscout Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I like the old switchbacks. I jumped at the chance to get two more when there was a BOGO (buy-one-get-one) offer last year so that I would have extra pants/shorts for summer camp. My wife thinks they are a little short for shorts. My first pair did start pilling some from rubbing on something (I can't remember what it was). I haven't looked at the new pants, yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Skipper Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 My wife thinks they are a little short for shorts. Has she ever seen the first issue ODL pants? Now those were short! But I really do like the (old) switchbacks. I have not seen the new ones enough to compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Ahhh, the old ODL "hot pants". Made one talk a few octaves higher, too! I'm glad the did away with the cuff zipper. I have a 28" inseam and can't wear ANYTHING off the shelf. I like a cuff that can be hemmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relapse Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I've noticed a bit of pilling on my supplex shirt on the back where the top of the pants go. Had to use the sweater shaver to get rid of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relapse Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I've noticed a bit of pilling on my supplex shirt on the back where the top of the pants go. Had to use the sweater shaver to get rid of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolesrule Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 "I'm glad the did away with the cuff zipper. I have a 28" inseam and can't wear ANYTHING off the shelf. I like a cuff that can be hemmed. " That. Unfortunately I'm an exact average of my mom's 4'11" and my dad's 5'7". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraut-60 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 The original SB's just plain worked...I could care less if they pilled, I bought 'em to use...not pose in and wear to a formal inspection. These pants are what is needed for outdoor wear, and they NEED to have the ankle zippers...sorry if I ruffle a couple of feathers here, but having to hem pants doesnt necessarily mean they had to lose the ankle zippers. I bought 3 pair at the BOGO sale, and I had to get what I could in the waist size...at the cost of 2" too much in the inseam...bummer right? WRONG! Took said switchbacks to the local seamstress and had her alter the inseam by folding the material under the zip-off (the lowers)and seam it...Presto! 2" less inseam and the FUNCTIONAL ankle zippers are still intact. Those who feel the ankle zippers are frivilous never had to hike at Philmont and zip-off the leg lowers of pants without the ankle zips, yup...off comes the pack and the boots...time wasted on the trail. BRING BACK THE ANKLE ZIPPERS...function before fashion! rant ends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolesrule Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I never had a pair of the old switchbacks. How long were the ankle zippers? They'd have to go away from the new idea of one inseam length per waist size, which I assume was done to reduce inventory needs.(This message has been edited by nolesrule) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraut-60 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 nolesrule; I want to say 8" to maybe 9"...I dont have mine with me here at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now