Osprey Mutant v Patagonia Ascensionist

Hey I'm back again with another gear comparison for y'all! This time I'm looking for some opinions on the Osprey Mutant 38 and the Patagonia Ascensionist 35. I'll mostly be using this pack for ice climbing and some winter hiking/camping.The Mutant weighs 1270g (2lb 12.8oz) and the Ascensionist 890g (1lb 15oz).

I've had the chance to look at them in person, although not side-by-side. The Mutant is definitely more sturdy with a solid back panel and it has a removable lid which I'm rather indifferent too. The Mutant is maybe more comfortable; however, I didn't have much weight in either when I tried them on and I'll be wearing more layers while climbing.

But the Ascensionist seems to have a more durable fabric used in its construction. I wasn't sure if the Ascensionist could carry skies or not but that would be a welcome feature. I think that Patagonia's ice tool carry system might work better for my tools, Nomics, with the cut out in the middle where the picks go. Seen here:

Ascensionist ice tool carry:

Mutant ice tool carry:

Anyway I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on these packs and which one you like better and which you'd think would suit me. Thanks!

I have the old gen ascensionist in 45L and it's really a solid pack. The front daisy chains let you attach crampons/ water bottle/ anything to the front of the pack and all of the straps are removable. If you're not concerned about the difference in comfort between the two packs, save some weight and get the Ascensionist and then you can carry that much extra wet rope on the hike back to the car. 

Yeah that's one thing I thought was really cool about the Ascensionist, all of the straps can come off. It seems really nice to simplify the pack when they're not needed. Both packs do have daisy chains but to put crampons on but I'll need to buy some cord for either one.

No experience with the Ascensionist, but I’m on my second season with my Mutant 38 and I love it. Cragging, adventure climbing, ski touring, mountaineering, even boring old regular backpacking.

One of the best features of the Mutant is the way it carries when it’s less than full. A lot of the volume of the pack is up high, so you can cinch it all down with the lid and compression straps when empty. It’s the only 30L+ pack I have ever owned which doesn’t feel floppy and obnoxious when you empty it out and use it to carry shoes and snacks up a multipitch route. 

1lb lighter and burlier material, what's there to think about?

Any pack with side compression straps can carry skis in A frame. 

I've had the Mutant 38 for 5 years and think it's a great ice pack. The toggle system is by far the best way to carry modern tools with no hammer or adze. The Helmut carry is very nice and frees up space inside the pack.

I will say that at least on the OG Ascensionist carrying a rope is a little awkward with the weird half brain as you have to fold the top of the pack over the rope, but it looks like the fixed that in the picture you posted above.

Also from experience with packs that had similar strap systems to the mutant for attaching the tool hilt to the bag, the elastic has a tendency to work itself loose when you're bush-wacking to the base of the climb and make your ice tool attachments loose, but maybe the mutant has magically solved this problem. And maybe you won't be swimming through as many Alders as we have up here in AK

I don't have experience with the mutant. But I've had two Ascencionist packs, and I love them. The first got worn out from years of abuse, n Patagonia replaced it for free. I have the 40 liter. It's great because it packs well, and h ok kids a lot of stuff (summer climbing I can fit rope and rack inside)  but also can cinch down nice and small to carry up a climb. The waist belt is high so it doesnt interfere with a harness. Carrying skis can be a little floppy if the pack is basically empty but has not been a problem for me. Holds ice tools well too. 

Take a look at the ME Tupilak 37, similar design to the ascentionist but the material doesn't soak up water like a chamois, and the hip belt padding is removable so you can easily wear it with a harness and not have any rubbing/crossover (my beef with the mutant when its loaded up). 

minimum weight 1 lb 4 oz, max 1lb 13 oz, The material is buuurrrllyy and the inner waterproof collar can be inverted and give you extra storage. 

https://www.mountain-equipment.com/products/tupilak-37

It comes down to ones preference of comfort/features (Mutant) vs weight/simplicity (Ascentionist). I have the previous version of both these packs and hated the way the Patagonia carried weight. When full, that pack curved away from back in all directions and felt like I had a barrel on, conversely the Mutant is the most comfortable pack I own. The weight difference between the packs vanishes, for me, because I forget about the Mutant when on my back and spend the whole approach adjusting the Patagonia.

I had a mutant and now have the new ascentionist. You can read my review of the ascentionist 35 on the Patagonia website. I'm not crazy about it, but I'll send it to you for a fair price if you want it. I found the mutant, while it fits well, got in the way when climbing (too tall) and didn't like the lack of any kind of basic pocket if the brain wasn't being used. Neither pack disappears when used on a route, but the patagonia does better from a climbing standpoint. 

Though not a climbing specific pack, I do really like the BD cirque 35. 

I have the older ascentionist for around 3 years and the older mutant for around 2 years. I think that if your looking for a comfortable pack that you can carry shit for long approaches the mutant is the way to go as it has proper back support and beefy hip belts whereas the ascentionist has little padding and back structure and somewhat shitty belts in my opinion. Another annoying this about the ascentionist is if you pack cams they sometimes stick out on the back and rub against your back sometimes. I find that rope carry on top of the pack on the mutant is much better than the ascentionist has does not ever fall off. basically the mutant has a tone more features and higher weights whereas the Patagonia bag is pretty stripped down for simplicity but still is a great bag that I would take on alpine adventures or where I need a simpler pack. another personal issue with the Patagonia bag is the top pouch as it carries very little and it's hard to fit a first aid kit plus phone and wallet whereas the mutant is great for shoving tones of shit in the top. 

Tatum Del Bosco wrote:

stick a couple panels of a z-lite in the sleeve where the plastic frame is

I have the model before the plastic frame with no access to the padding. 

For what it's worth, I think "lightweight, big, burly packs" like the Ascensionist are nice for climbing hard in big mountains, when you have to climb with all of your camping gear in your pack and you might have to haul your pack.  

But they aren't as good as heavier packs (Mutant) for comfortably carrying heavy loads and they aren't as good as small, lightweight packs (Black Diamond Blitz) for climbing without your your camping gear.  If you were planning to climb multi-day, carryover routes like Liberty Ridge on Rainier, then I would recommend something like the Ascensionist.  Otherwise, the Mutant would be my preference.  

I usually prefer to hike with a big pack that carries heavy loads well to base camp and then use a small, light pack for climbing.  The small pack can usually be packed inside the big pack without taking up much space or strapped to the outside.  

The Mutant ice tool carry works well enough for Nomics.  I wouldn't worry too much about ice tool attachment systems.  

No issue with Nomics on my Mutant 38, with or without hammer/adze. Really like how comfortable it is. Has some weird Osprey features but I started using them and actually am glad they're there. Helmet carry, key clip in pocket, nice long rope strap, floating lid for when the pack is overstuffed. Extra pound or two, eh, I'll get stronger.

My biggest gripe about the ascescionist is how there isn't a place to put your helmet on the outside... 

Is it realistic to expect to carry a 2-3 day trip with either of these?  Bag, mat, tent, stove, rack, harness, rope, shoes, shell, puffy, clothes, food, filter, 1ltr water, 1st aid, (tools, crampons) 40#?

...or does my partner need a 60L?

RJNakata wrote:

Is it realistic to expect to carry a 2-3 day trip with either of these?  Bag, mat, tent, stove, rack, harness, rope, shoes, shell, puffy, clothes, food, filter, 1ltr water, 1st aid, (tools, crampons) 40#?

...or does my partner need a 60L?

I can manage 2-3 days pretty well with the mutant 52L with a 0F degree bag. Don’t think the 38L would cut it for most people unless you pack really light/thoughtfully and strap a lot to the outside.

I’d anybody has the older version of the ascensionist in the 25L and wants to sell it, I’ll make a compelling offer!

I don’t think I could pack for a 2-3 day climbing trip in the 38, unless I went with a bivy and a very light rack. 

RJNakata wrote:

Is it realistic to expect to carry a 2-3 day trip with either of these?  Bag, mat, tent, stove, rack, harness, rope, shoes, shell, puffy, clothes, food, filter, 1ltr water, 1st aid, (tools, crampons) 40#?

Super realistic!  I think that the biggest variable is the size of the rack, a light alpine climbing rack is a lot easier to manage than a double rack of wide cams.  The other factor is weather, if it's really cold the extra layers can be tough.

I've used 30L and 40L BD Speed packs (quite similar in size and features to these) on several overnight alpine climbs, and the Osprey Mutant 38 on one.  Happy to chat more about gear loadout but I don't want to unnecessarily derail this thread.

This is a decent rundown of packing a 30L for a multi-day trip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEVbQfg7nvg