Hunting Washington Forum

Big Game Hunting => Backcountry Hunting => Topic started by: Whitetail freak on February 05, 2013, 04:45:42 AM

Title: Sitka ascent vs mountain pant.
Post by: Whitetail freak on February 05, 2013, 04:45:42 AM: Going to get a pair but I cannot decide wich is better? I had a pair of ascents and wore them throughout the summer and alittle of bear season. Really liked them but they seemed as if they would wear a bit. I heard good things about the mountain pant also. Any pro/cons? Or something that sets them apart from each other?
Title: Re: Sitka ascent vs mountain pant.
Post by: Dr. Death on February 05, 2013, 11:56:14 AM: I have had both pair & the 90% and Kuiu attack pants.. Here's my take on them all.
Sitka ascent- nice early season pant, very light and comfortable.
Mt Pants- I REALLY like these, build in web belt, knee pads and covered areas on inside of ankles so boots dont rub through. Between the 2 I'd pick the Mt pants hands down over the Ascent.
I really like my Kuiu Attack pants too, very comfortable and well made. Less bells and whistles as the Mt pants have but the price also reflects this.

Im pretty hard on my equipment, all have wear marks but all have done well in the right conditions.
I wear my Kuiu Attack pants and Sitka Mt pants about the same and almost all the time. Gave my ascent pants to one of my sons. Only use my 90% pants once in awhile in late season if its super cold.

Now one of my sons bought the Timberline pants and they are pretty sweet. Just like the Mt Pants but have waterproof knees and butt. might be a option?
Title: Re: Sitka ascent vs mountain pant.
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 05, 2013, 12:14:47 PM: The mountain and ascent pant are virtually identical in their thermal protection as they are both in Sitka's lightweight pant category. The mountains are definitely more durable then the ascents.
Also, the mountain pant belt loops are slightly smaller than the ascent and may be difficult to use a standard sized belt, if that matters.
Look at the 90% pant. I bought these to go along with the ascent that I already had. The 90% gives you quite a bit more cold weather protection and are actually 4 oz lighter in over all weight then the mountains and 4 oz heavier than the ascents.
Also, in the midweight line like the 90%, the timberlines give you the reinforcement durability like the mountains in the lightweight line. But the timberlines have the similar belt loop issue.
Title: Re: Sitka ascent vs mountain pant.
Post by: bowhunterty on February 10, 2013, 05:03:18 PM: Prefer the ascent pants. Light weight durable. I wore them on a climb up St. Helens did great through the lave rock where others pants tore.
Title: Sitka ascent vs mountain pant.
Post by: jackelope on February 10, 2013, 05:21:07 PM: I now have had all 3. Just got the mountain pants and the ascents are gone. The mountain pants seem a little more durable and are essentially upgraded ascent pants. More pockets, built in belt and the crampon guards to protect against scuffing and stuff. Aside from that the feel of them seems to be about the same. Mountain pants rock. I do love the 90% pants for everything but real hot weather but I think they might end up spending more time in the closet this year.
Title: Re: Sitka ascent vs mountain pant.
Post by: RadSav on February 10, 2013, 05:58:34 PM: All great pants! Nice thing about the Ascent and the Kuiu Attack is you can get Forest and Verde camo of which I find a more versitile camo pattern. But, the Mountain and Timberline pants are much more durable. Flip a coin...going to be a good decision regardless.
Title: Re: Sitka ascent vs mountain pant.
Post by: Whitetail freak on February 10, 2013, 08:54:18 PM: Went with the mountain pants. Hiked about 10 miles, pretty happy with my decision :)