Osprey Packs Mutant 38 Pack

Osprey Packs Mutant 38 Pack
Buy if you're looking for a tough, high-quality mountain pack that'll cope with British mountaineering and climbing and alpine use too.

Our Review

Reviewed: 21 January 2010 by Jon
What's It For? The Mutant's a minimalist mountain pack aimed at day and lightweight alpine use by climbers, mountaineers and scramblers. It's intended to be simple, tough and efficient. The Techy Bits Tough fabrics are the starting point for a robust-feeling pack. Mostly it's a minimalist affair, but there are a number of ...  Continue reading

Gallery

6 images of Osprey Packs Mutant 38 Pack See all


See all images...

Reader Reviews

1 user review of Osprey Packs Mutant 38 Pack See all

Overall reader score
I wasnt going out to buy this pack. I wanted a Talon 44 for winter walking, but after a chat with the assistant he suggested I try the Mutant. As soon as I tried it on it was comfortable. The backpanel isnt wha Continue reading...

Discussions

I've seen this sack in stores several times (fairly expensive) and the materials appear very flimsy & floppy to me. Are the materials tougher than they look?

Not sure if I like the idea of leaving my protection clipped to my sack. I guess its usually ok but if you ever have to remove your sack (e.g. to tackle a chimney - perhaps clipper the sack to your harness or hauling it later), you might regret doing that when you reach for an ice-screw and find there is none on your harness/bandelier. Also, semi-permanently fitting krabs would seem to negate much of the super-light benefit.

I like the idea of different sizes - but stores rarely carry a size selection & often don't know the size of a particular sack (it is rare to see size on the sack & tags often go missing), so quite likely you will end up with the "wrong" one

Posted: 22/01/2010 at 15:01

i dont know if this is any help but i bought the Exos 58 litre which ways in at an amazing 1.1kg for a framed sack. The materials are very similar but its not a climbing sack.

I know what you mean, when i opened the package i thought what the hell have i bought? being used to the usual bomb proof Lowe Alpine. However, its performed very well and after several uses i've got to appreciate the very thin yet what seems suprisingly durable material. I'm not sure how i would feel about hanging crampons off it.

So far its all seems fine now that my heads got round the psychological barrier. The Mutant does seem a very popular sack, i've seen a fair few in use.The Large size back fits me really well (6ft tall)

Posted: 22/01/2010 at 20:24

In general, Osprey's materials are deceptively durable. They also often combine tougher materials with lighter stuff so that high-wear areas can take it, and low wear area's aren't unnecessarily heavy. The Talon series, for instance, uses Dyneema in some areas, which is weight-for-weight stronger than steel.

If a store doesn't have the size range in they can almost certainly get you the size you want to try. If not, then it's probably not the best store to be buying from anyhow. There should also be somebody there who can properly measure your back length and recommend the correct size. Osprey and Lowe Alpine both produce their own piece of kit specifically for finding the correct back size in their packs. 

The key is to identify the features that you need,  find a few packs that fulfill as many as possible, and then try them all on with some weight in and test each of the features as realistically as you can within the shop.

Hope that helps!

Posted: 22/01/2010 at 21:35

Sizes are usually on a tag attached to the side seam at the bottom of Osprey sacks.

Posted: 23/01/2010 at 03:47

I have an Osprey pack and its the best I've ever had. I was looking at the Mutant yesterday- love the name!!

Posted: 24/01/2010 at 13:08

"uses Dyneema in some areas, which is weight-for-weight stronger than steel. " so is spider web. more concerned about scraping a hole in it or puncturing it.

Posted: 24/01/2010 at 14:43

The dyneema thing was just an example of how overall weight can be saved without necessarily compromising the performance/durabilty of a product.

The blunt answer is that no, in normal use you will not wear a hole in your pack or puncture it. 

 

Posted: 24/01/2010 at 22:53

I think the materials are deceptively tough - modern fabrics are generally more abrasion resistant than equivalent weight stuff from, say, ten years ago - and I think it'll be fine for normal climbing use and a good compromise between weight and durability.

If you're looking at something you're going to haul regularly - in the real world not many climbers haul packs repeatedly ime - then maybe you should be looking at a heavier pack, or even a haul bag.

Heavier duty? Pod or Macpac probably, Lowe Alpine, possibly the Haglofs Roc as well. Light and still tough? Crux, who use Kevlar/Corura fabrics.

Posted: 25/01/2010 at 00:27

Mr. X wrote (see)
 Not sure if I like the idea of leaving my protection clipped to my sack. I guess its usually ok but if you ever have to remove your sack (e.g. to tackle a chimney - perhaps clipper the sack to your harness or hauling it later), you might regret doing that when you reach for an ice-screw and find there is none on your harness/bandelier. Also, semi-permanently fitting krabs would seem to negate much of the super-light benefit.

Well, just because the gear loops are there, doesn't mean you have to use them, the nice thing about the arrangement is that when the crab attachment points aren't being used, there are no empty loops hanging off your hip belt. You can wrap the belt back around the sac and use your harness loops. Or, as you say, a bandolier.

It's not really a 'super-light' pack, more a 'not heavy' one, if that makes sense

Posted: 25/01/2010 at 10:18

Had one for nearly two years now and its worn really well, coping with everything that the UK can throw at it. No sign of wear and still going strong. I am a huge fan. BUT, recommended it to a friend who bought one and managed to gash the front fabric badly during a haul. Given my own experiences, I suspect that he was just unlucky - but worth throwing into the debate.

Posted: 26/01/2010 at 09:29

Sign up to our twitter feed

Latest news

GPS help and user guide