Mountain Hardwear Rook - Women's Review
Compare prices at 2 resellers Pros: Comfortable, warm, decent price
Cons: Low quality down fill, heavy
Manufacturer: Mountain Hardwear
Our Verdict
Compare to Similar Products
 This Product
Mountain Hardwear Rook - Women's | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awards |  | | |||
| Price | Check Price at REI Compare at 2 sellers | $319.95 at Amazon | $258.95 at Backcountry Compare at 2 sellers | Check Price at Backcountry Compare at 2 sellers | $158.00 at REI |
Overall Score  |
|||||
| Star Rating | |||||
| Pros | Comfortable, warm, decent price | Comfortable, lightweight, excellent materials, not constricting | Comfortable and warm | Light and compressible synthetic, keeps you warm when wet | Comfortable, inexpensive, recycled materials |
| Cons | Low quality down fill, heavy | Comforter sometimes does not stay tucked in | Not light, hood draw cords hard to use, large for a women's sleeping bag | Bulkier packed size, heavier, small fit | Heavy, bulky |
| Bottom Line | This middle of the line down bag will keep you comfy and warm out there for a decent price | A great, high-quality choice at a relatively low price for those looking for a lightweight bag that doesn't sacrifice comfort | A favorite of many trail ladies out there, the Angel Fire earns high marks across the board and would be an excellent addition to any backpacker's kit | An inexpensive and versatile synthetic bag, this is an excellent choice for breaking into backpacking | This well priced synthetic bag is a great choice for your car camping needs |
| Rating Categories | Rook | Cloud 800 | Marmot Angel Fire | Cat's Meow | Trestles Elite Eco 20 |
| Warmth (25%) | |||||
| Weight (25%) | |||||
| Comfort (20%) | |||||
| Packed Size (15%) | |||||
| Features (15%) | |||||
| Specs | Rook | Cloud 800 | Marmot Angel Fire | Cat's Meow | Trestles Elite Eco 20 |
| ISO/EN Comfort Rating (F) | 15 F | 26 F | 30.4 F | 22 F | 20 F |
| Fill Type | 650-fill down | PFC-Free DriDown | Duck down | Heatseeker™ Guide synthetic insulation | HL-ElixR synthetic fibers |
| Measured Weight (in lbs) | 2.6 lb | 1.7 lb | 2.5 lb | 2.5 lb | 2.8 lb |
| Total Weight (oz) | 41.5 oz | 27.4 oz | 39.8 oz | 40.2 oz | 44 oz |
| Fill Power | 650 | 800 | 650 | Synthetic | Synthetic |
| Women specific features | Additional insulation | More insulation per square inch than men's version | Women's Specific Fit - more Insulation in Key Areas | Women's specific cut | Women's specific fit |
| Fill Weight (oz) | 25 oz | 14.8 oz | 23.5 oz | Unspecified | Unspecified |
| Material | 30D Nylon Plain Weave | 15d nylon risptop | 30d 100% Nylon DWR 1.18 oz/yd | 30d 100% Nylon Ripstop DWR 1.5 oz/yd | 20D Nylon Ripstop/taffeta | 20-denier recycled ripstop polyester |
| Neck Baffle | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| No | No | Yes - Internal Stash Pocket and Heater Pocket in Footbox | No | Yes | |
| Sleeping Pad Sleeve | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| Zipper Length | 66 in | N/A | 63 in & 13 in | 59 in | 53/15" |
| Shoulder Girth | 58 in | 59 in | 57 in | 58 in | 58 in |
| Hip Girth | 52 in | 58 in | 58 in | 58 in | 58 in |
| Foot Girth | 40 in | 39 in | 46 in | 40 in | 45 in |
| Stuff Sack included? | Compression sack and storage bag included | Stuff sack and storage bag included | Stuff sack and storage bag included | Compression sack and storage bag included | Stuff sack and storage bag included |
Our Analysis and Test Results
The Rook rolls into our review with pretty average, middle of the pack scores. We think it's a decent choice for short to medium length three-season backpacking trips.
Performance Comparison
Warmth
This bag is EN comfort rated at 15 degrees Fahrenheit. From our testing, the Rook does feel warm and cozy on cool nights. It is a more roomy mummy shape than others we've tested, so there is the potential for it to not be quite as warm as other, snugger fitting bags since there's more room for cold air to live. We do like the lofty hood insulation and drawstring around the hood to cinch the opening closed for extra warmth.
Weight
Weighing in at 2.6 pounds, the Rook is not the heaviest bag in the bunch, but it is by far not the lightest either. We attribute this to its low quality, 650 fill power down which takes much more filling to accomplish the same amount of warmth as less of a higher 800+ fill would. This results in a heavier, less compressible bag overall. The Rook comes with an included compression sack, which itself weighs 4.4 ounces. If you want to save a few ounces, consider purchasing a lighter weight compression sack.
Comfort
Standard comfort for a middle of the road bag. The shell materials don't feel as soft as other higher-end bags, and its 650 fill down isn't as cozy and lofty as other, 800+ fill bags we've tested. The fit of the bag is a standard mummy, lots of room in the feet, snugger around the hips with a nice fitting hood. Folks who feel claustrophobic in a slimmer fitting mummy will find that the Rook has a little more wiggle room.
Packed Size
We were pleasantly surprised by how compressible the Rook is. This bag is way more compressible than the included compression sack gives it credit for and could be compressed much smaller than you're able to with the included one. You could purchase a smaller and lighter compression sack for this bag that would enable it to pack down much smaller.
Features
The Rook is a relatively simple sleeping bag. It does come with a nice anti-snag zipper pull, there is no included pocket and does not have many bells and whistles - which is ok. We prefer bags with simple designs that don't have over-complicated features to add weight.
Value
The Rook is a decent value product. It's right on par with other competitors of similar quality and weight. If you can find it on sale, even better! We like that it comes with its own mesh storage bag as well as an included compression sack.
Conclusion
The women's Mountain Hardwear Rook is a decent middle of the road product that could be a good choice for someone looking for a quality down bag, but can't drop the cash for a top of the line one. We think it is warm and comfortable, but wish it was slightly lighter. We like its simple design and how compressible it is. We'd recommend purchasing a lighter and smaller compression sack to make it an even smaller package in your pack.
— Jessica Haist