My one recommendation is to not get a pack bigger than a 50L for any mountaineering trips, anywhere in the world that's in the one week range. Start your mountaineering career by packing efficiently and pack light. Less is more. For reference I was able to pack for a 9-day trip for a few 6,000m peaks in Peru with a Black Diamond 50L pack and 10-day trip for a 7,000m peak in Kyrgyzstan with an ultralight North Face pack. After a while gear becomes less important.

I'm really leaning toward the Variant 52 right now. Not the lightest at ~3.5 lbs but Ospreys fit me well and it seems like it has a solid feature set and capabilities.

AndrewC wrote:I have considered the variant but not sure if it will be large enough. Probably is though. The south col is a bit out of my budget right now, trying to keep costs under $200. With sales all the above packs I can get for that price. The weight is not a huge issue at the moment as long as it's under 4 lbs, which they all are.

The SMD fusion 65 is interesting but again, not sure it's suitable for mountaineering. Again correct me if I'm wrong

I can pack everything, including a 60m rope, internally. It holds more than the 52l size would lead you to believe, and the material will take abuse. As another poster stated, it packs down to handle smaller loads very well. Even has climbing gear loops on the hip belt and spindrift collar. The crampon pouch is great and works well as a pocket to stuff a puffy or rain jacket if you need it quickly.

Steer clear of the packs on your initial list (although the Lowe option looks like the most decent of the three). EDIT TO ADD: the Granite Gear packs I've seen usually have sloppy compression straps and poorly thought out "features" that just clutter up the pack and lead to a sloppy carry. The Osprey options you list are both good backpacking packs but are terrible alpine climbing packs - poor compression strap designs, pointless "features", and terrible, overbuilt, over designed alpine pack back panel/suspension designs. A good alpine pack consists of a single compartment, is made of durable fabric, has a top loading design with attachments designed for ice axe/tools, a few well designed and placed exterior strap options for those heavy carries when it just won't all fit inside, a simple back panel/hip belt/suspension system (often with a removable bivy pad)...and not much else. 50L is on the large side but is a decent all around size and more than adequate for the objectives you list. Avoid packs with extra pockets and zippers. They are wasted weight, complexity and additional failure areas. Learn to pack well, bring appropriate gear and you'll have room to spare.

Packs that roughly meet this criteria are listed in a thousand different threads around the interwebz, but here are some recommendations to give you an idea of what to look for: CiloGear Worksack 40B or 45L, Crux AK47, Hyperlite Mountain Gear 3400, Cold Cold World Chernobyl, Wild Things Andinista, Black Diamond Speed 40.

There isn't a single pack on the market that I wouldn't make changes to if I could, but most of those get pretty close to what you need. Keep in mind that well designed mountaineering packs are dramatically different beasts than backpacking packs...for good reason. I'd take a alpinism oriented pack backpacking, but usually not the other way around.

logsden wrote: I'd take a alpinism oriented pack backpacking, but usually not the other way around.

Good point, and I understand the rest of your points. Many of the packs like Cilogear and Hyperlite are out of my budget right now, but I have definitely considered them. I've looked at the CCW chaos but with all the advice saying 50L is enough, Ill take a closer look at the chernobyl. The only thing that concerns me is fit, as most of these smaller brands I'm unable to try. That's why I'm favoring the Variant, which although I havent been able to find exactly, I have been able to try other similar Osprey models which have fit me great.

I currently rotate the Variant 52 and South Col 70. Both are similar in that they can carry enough gear and can compress down for a summit day. For my style of backpacking/peak bagging, the Variant was just a tad on the small side, which was good because it made me more of a conscious packer and think twice about the maybe/what if items in my kit. I went to the South Col because I like to have more room to dig around and not over load my pack. Both seem to carry the same.

1-2 nights I use the Variant 52. For 2+, South Col 70. For me, the weight of either pack is fine because they both fit and carry well.

Take a look at the Osprey Volt 60 http://www.rei.com/product/846409/osprey-volt-60-pack#tab-description

There is also a 75L option.

Regarding fit, generally speaking I view "fit" as a non-issue when buying an alpine pack (which are the only packs I buy at this point). If the torso length is in the ballpark then it comes down to properly loading the pack and tweaking the adjustments as necessary from there. Any pack that has been loaded like a junkshow and adjusted poorly...will carry like the sack of potatoes that it is. I can get just about ANY pack to carry pretty well. Any complaints about how it carries after that ... just get catalogued as whining. =)

Seriously, some have some features that help carry ridiculously heavy loads a little more securely or with a little more stability..but in the 30-45lbs range that most of our packs end up in...it makes precisely zero real-world difference.

kevin trieu wrote:My one recommendation is to not get a pack bigger than a 50L for any mountaineering trips,

logsden wrote:backpacking packs .. are terrible alpine climbing packs - poor compression strap designs, pointless "features", and terrible, overbuilt, over designed alpine pack back panel/suspension designs. A good alpine pack consists of a single compartment, is made of durable fabric, has a top loading design with attachments designed for ice axe/tools, a few well designed and placed exterior strap options for those heavy carries when it just won't all fit inside, a simple back panel/hip belt/suspension system (often with a removable bivy pad)...and not much else. 50L is on the large side but is a decent all around size and more than adequate for the objectives you list. Avoid packs with extra pockets and zippers. They are wasted weight, complexity and additional failure areas. Learn to pack well, bring appropriate gear and you'll have room to spare.

I'd take a alpinism oriented pack backpacking, but usually not the other way around.

Packs that roughly meet this criteria are listed in a thousand different threads around the interwebz, but here are some recommendations to give you an idea of what to look for: CiloGear Worksack 40B or 45L, Crux AK47, Hyperlite Mountain Gear 3400, Cold Cold World Chernobyl, Wild Things Andinista, Black Diamond Speed 40.

I agree with all of these sentiments.

AndrewC wrote: packs like Cilogear and Hyperlite are out of my budget right now, but I have definitely considered them.

One pack that I own and have recommended to others who have also liked it, is the Montbell Balance Light 40 http://www.montbell.us/products/disp.php?p_id=1123882. Closer to 45+ liters in volume, this is a simple, light, tough, alpine pack that has everything an alpinist/backpacker needs, and nothing he doesn't. It carries weight up to 35 pounds comfortably, which is my payload for three day technical mixed alpine climbs on 4'000 meter peaks.

WyomingSummits wrote:Montbell Balance Light 40 just came. Holy smokes....the thing has to be bigger than 40l......which I'm not complaining. Shoulder padding is generous which makes up for no hip padding. It's nice and light and the material is burlier than I expected for a 2lb pack. Love the extension for the pack lid to cover the overflow. For $76.....it's a ridiculous steal. Thanks EB.

The Montbell Blance Light 40 is really inexpensive (<$100) given its high quality and ideal balance of light weight (2 lbs., 4 oz.), durability, and useful features. If I was offered a free pack with the choices being either a $500 non woven Dyneema Cilo Gear or the Montbell, I'd take the Cilo Gear, sell it, buy the Monbell and use the $400 proceeds for plane tickets or gas to go somewhere cool.

Me and the Montbel Balance Light 40 kitted out for a leisurely 3 day climb of Mt Rainier's Liberty Ridge:

What does the OP actually want to do? Unspecified CA 14ers...

Id like to be able to not have to rule out any of the 14ers due to equipment. Ill look into the montbell, that's an awesome price. How are the other montbell packs? Similar in quality and value?

For some 14ers, you may be required to carry a bear barrel. Try fitting that in your pack with the rest of your gear.

AndrewC wrote:Id like to be able to not have to rule out any of the 14ers due to equipment. Ill look into the montbell, that's an awesome price. How are the other montbell packs? Similar in quality and value?

I love the Montbell products.....but you aren't fitting a bear canister in the Balance light 40 with the rest of your gear. As moapa said.

WyomingSummits wrote:

AndrewC wrote:Id like to be able to not have to rule out any of the 14ers due to equipment. Ill look into the montbell, that's an awesome price. How are the other montbell packs? Similar in quality and value?

I love the Montbell products.....but you aren't fitting a bear canister in the Balance light 40 with the rest of your gear. As moapa said.

True dat.