# CDN Mukluks Vs U.S. Bunny Boots



## jjronnie (23 Dec 2007)

What do you think are the better cold weather boots, the Canadian issue mukluks or the U.S. white bunny boots?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Dec 2007)

You mean these 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 US "Bunny Boots" vs  these 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 CF Mukluks

Canadian Military extreme cold weather boots :Rated to -60 C.

US Bunny Boots : Rated for temperates below -20 degrees F( -28.8888889 degree Celsius). Some white bunny boots apparently are rated to protect an inactive wearer to -40 degrees F (-40 degree Celsius), and an active wearer to -60 degrees F ( -51.1111111 degree Celsius). (U.S. Army Pub. "Cold Weather Injury Prevention" 2-8165)

So draw your conclusion from that.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Dec 2007)

The Mukluk's are definitely lighter than the "bunny boots". I have tried the USAF mukluk and worn the bunny boot extensively I preferred the bunny boot in sub zero weather. The mukluk would be great for winter camping/ice fishing in other than an arctic situation. Just my druthers.


----------



## geo (23 Dec 2007)

Bunny Boots?

Years and years ago (1970/1971) the Canadian Army had these tremendous blocks of rubber that we fondly refered to as "Mickey Mouse" boots... They looked very much like the "Bunny" boots - but there were no inflation valves on the side.


----------



## patt (23 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Bunny Boots?
> 
> Years and years ago (1970/1971) the Canadian Army had these tremendous blocks of rubber that we fondly refered to as "Mickey Mouse" boots... They looked very much like the "Bunny" boots - but there were no inflation valves on the side.



are you talking about the overboots?


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Dec 2007)

The air valves had to be opened up while flying. Of course the wags in the unit would tell newbies that the valves were to be uased for blowing ait into the boots to "make the boots warmer". ;D


----------



## geo (24 Dec 2007)

Xfire said:
			
		

> are you talking about the overboots?



Oh no, not the galoshes.... still have 2 prs of those somewhere..... 
Nope, MICKEY MOUSE BOOTS.  carved out of solid rubber.  Really had no give in the foot & ankles so next near impossible to move in ops BUT, if you were stuck in a trench someplace wet & cold, all you had to do was wiggle your toes to generate warmth.

Then again, we wore those boots & sheepskin overcoats as recruits..... Ahhhh the good old days (NOT!)


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Dec 2007)

You mean these geo?


----------



## TN2IC (24 Dec 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The air valves had to be opened up while flying. Of course the wags in the unit would tell newbies that the valves were to be uased for blowing ait into the boots to "make the boots warmer". ;D




I'm a tad lost... why do they have an air valve in the first place?


----------



## geo (24 Dec 2007)

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> You mean these geo?



They certainly look familiar... haven't come close to any of em for +/- 30 yrs
My feet and ankles ache at the very thought of wearing em..... no flex


----------



## geo (24 Dec 2007)

Knecht Ruprecht said:
			
		

> I'm a tad lost... why do they have an air valve in the first place?



The Cdn Mickey Mouse boots had no valve... never had the pleasure.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> They certainly look familiar... haven't come close to any of em for +/- 30 yrs
> My feet and ankles ache at the very thought of wearing em..... no flex



Here you now you can order them from Maine Military Supply  ;D


----------



## geo (24 Dec 2007)

...no thank you!


----------



## TN2IC (24 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> The Cdn Mickey Mouse boots had no valve... never had the pleasure.



Sorry I was referring to tomahawk on that question.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Dec 2007)

I was issued Mickey Mouse boots in Petawawa; they were okay in a cold, wet climate but my feet sweated in them.

Mukluks were great in the Army of the West's cold, dry conditions.

What sucked was getting neither. We used to put on three pairs of wool socks under our old cloth overshoes and "clog" a lot to keep our feet just above numb circa 1958. Don't even ask about the rest of our winter gear, which we didn't have.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Dec 2007)

Knecht Ruprecht said:
			
		

> I'm a tad lost... why do they have an air valve in the first place?


One explanation was so the Yanks could inflate the boots with helium because they all wanted to be a little "light in the loafers".    

But seriously, the following is from U.S. Army Uniforms of the Cold War, 1948-1973 by Shelby L. Stanton


> By 1971 exploratory engineer development had commenced on a LINCLOE *micro-cellular urethane coated boot* with outsoles and unit-molded upper portions.  Each boot weighed only 23 ounces.  The pull-on “semi-jackboot” style boots were easy to put on and take off, and the “Vibram” design gave good traction.  The close-fitting ankle design provided adequate ankle support.
> 
> The white rubber cold-dry insulated boots with release valve were designed to protect the feet in temperatures as low as minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit.  The boots were made of white latex and calendered rubber compound with a *seamless inner and outer carcass and sealed insulation*.  They were worn over one pair of cushion-sole socks.  The outside air-release valve provided parachutists with a *means of equalizing external and internal air pressures when undergoing altitude changes.  The valve was closed at all other times to prevent moisture from reaching the boot’s insulation and rendering it unserviceable.*



The boots could be compared to being made from a thin self-inflating mattress, which provided reasonable insulation when used properly, but if the foam got wet, you were screwed.


----------



## TheHead (24 Dec 2007)

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> You mean these
> 
> 
> 
> ...




They may be rated to -60 but you're feet have the propensity too start freezing at -20 in those pieces of garbage.  I'm very pleased with the C Coy 1PPCLI OCs call too allow troops to wear non issued extreme weather boots when we went into the arctic.  I had no problems at all ONCE with my feet for the twoish weeks I was up there.  Back in 2002? Different story, I wore the crap they issued me and recieved frost bite on my feet multiple times.


----------



## jjronnie (25 Dec 2007)

TheHead said:
			
		

> They may be rated to -60 but you're feet have the propensity too start freezing at -20 in those pieces of garbage.  I'm very pleased with the C Coy 1PPCLI OCs call too allow troops to wear non issued extreme weather boots when we went into the arctic.  I had no problems at all ONCE with my feet for the twoish weeks I was up there.  Back in 2002? Different story, I wore the crap they issued me and recieved frost bite on my feet multiple times.



What non-issue boots would they wear?


----------



## QV (25 Dec 2007)

I would guess Sorels...


----------



## geo (25 Dec 2007)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I was issued Mickey Mouse boots in Petawawa; they were okay in a cold, wet climate but my feet sweated in them.
> 
> Mukluks were great in the Army of the West's cold, dry conditions.
> 
> What sucked was getting neither. We used to put on three pairs of wool socks under our old cloth overshoes and "clog" a lot to keep our feet just above numb circa 1958. Don't even ask about the rest of our winter gear, which we didn't have.



The MM boots made your feet sweat?  of course the non breathing rubber block they were carved out of contributed to that little problem.  Having to wear "ankle boots" or later Combat boots left a little to be desired - thankfuly, we progressed.

WRT the Muklucks - they worked fine for me in the "Army of the East".  I also wore them all over Baffin Island & in the Resolute Bay area with absolutely no ill effect.


----------



## geo (25 Dec 2007)

TheHead said:
			
		

> They may be rated to -60 but you're feet have the propensity too start freezing at -20 in those pieces of garbage.  I'm very pleased with the C Coy 1PPCLI OCs call too allow troops to wear non issued extreme weather boots when we went into the arctic.  I had no problems at all ONCE with my feet for the twoish weeks I was up there.  Back in 2002? Different story, I wore the crap they issued me and recieved frost bite on my feet multiple times.



Not sure about the circumstances whereby you had your problems with the issued footewear.  Have travelled extensively in Northern Quebec, all of Bafin & Cornwallis islands without a major complaint for my muklucks.


----------



## TheHead (25 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Not sure about the circumstances whereby you had your problems with the issued footewear.  Have travelled extensively in Northern Quebec, all of Bafin & Cornwallis islands without a major complaint for my muklucks.




How were you travelling and too what lengths?.  The first time I was up in the Arctic we were travelling on the back tabogans connected too skidoos for 8-12 hours a day.   I think that may have been a problem.   I've always had problems with the muklucks but that's maybe just me.  Every single ex even in wainwright I've gone on when the temp has dipped below -20 my feet freeze. Maybe I need new feet.


----------



## Roy Harding (25 Dec 2007)

TheHead said:
			
		

> How were you travelling and too what lengths?.  The first time I was up in the Arctic we were travelling on the back tabogans connected too skidoos for 8-12 hours a day.   I think that may have been a problem.   I've always had problems with the muklucks but that's maybe just me.  Every single ex even in wainwright I've gone on when the temp has dipped below -20 my feet freeze. Maybe I need new feet.



There's your problem - you were sitting on the tobaggons, being pulled by the ski-doos.

All my time up there was spent PULLING the damned tobaggons - for freakin' days.  Tends to warm you up a bit.  -40 in t-shirts when you were in the traces - bundled up as much as you could when you were resting.

I only ever once had a problem with the mukluks - the "socks frieze" got wet, I didn't dry 'em - instant frost bite.  I was too scared (or perhaps, stupid) to say anything at the time - I figured it was "self-inflicted" caused by my own stupidity.  To this day the circulation in my feet is shot - they're perpetually cold (ask my wife).

All that said - not every piece of kit suits the needs of every soldier and/or situation.  The subject of endless threads around here.


----------



## geo (25 Dec 2007)

Head,
As Roy stated, riding on a snowmobile is very much the problem.  No movement = no circulation.  No circulation = cold feet.  My trips up north had a lot more to do with snowshoes, tobbogans and a lot of humping.

Years later, when I did go back & dealt with tobbogans and snowmobiles, I travelled on the snowmobile & had my feet sheltered.  standing on the metal deck but, sheltered from the wind.


----------



## axeman (25 Dec 2007)

the issue Mukluks  are great as long as its cold and dry , or they get something that end up at 20 lbs per foot. then you have to try to dry them out , thats easy if you have  BV 206 running 24/7. but some times trying to dry  them out in a tent  just doesnt work.


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Dec 2007)

I have seen the US boots, but never used them. Those ole mukkies have kept my feet warm on many of cold Canadian nights.

With proper maintenance, felt soles and mesh inserts, an extra pair of liners, and socks changed accordingly, one was always warm.

Although i have not worn any since the winter of 1994, I brought them out to Australia with me, and they are most likely never to be worn again, but they still, to me are the best winter footwear the CF has had, and maybe thats why after decades of use, they are still in the system.

For winter footwear we use Zamberlan Italian hiking boots, which are crap, and thats what the Lads in Afghanistan are using.

My two bob.

Wes


----------



## mover1 (29 Dec 2007)

No problems with the issued mucklucks (other than them slightly melting), one of the only times I have ever seen anyone with a problem is if the never had the felt and mesh liners inserted in the soles.  
Just  came off my SERE and let me say the Airforce has the right kind of thinking by telling us to light big huge assed fires to keep us warm. No Problem drying wet kit.


----------



## TCBF (29 Dec 2007)

mover1 said:
			
		

> ... the right kind of thinking by telling us to light big huge assed fires to keep us warm. No Problem drying wet kit.



Indian build small fire.  Sit close. Keep warm.  White man build big fire - keep warm gathering wood.

 ;D


----------



## armyvern (29 Dec 2007)

And a wise man has now spoketh.


----------



## medaid (29 Dec 2007)

LOL TCBF... but that's what they teach  and well honestly, it works well to a certain point, like you said with the constant hunt for wood. However, if you're in a wet and damp environment, a large fire also aids your drying of new fire wood. Win, win.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (31 Dec 2007)

The fit of the mukluk also has a lot to do with how warm your feet are. I had a pair that were a half-size too small when I was in Labrador, and I got frostbite. That was my fault, as I should have wornheavier socks when I was sized for them. I had a properly fitting pair when I was at CFNA, and I was all over the place with no issues...except getting my mukluks soaked in -30 when we got a skidoo caught in a patch of overflow. Warming up was easy though...my inners were frozen up so much I needed a mallet to pound the damn things to soften them enough to pull them out so I could replace them.  

Many of the Ranger Instructors I worked with swore by the Sorels though, but they went a hell of a lot further past the treeline than I ever did.


----------



## mover1 (31 Dec 2007)

Actually TCBF the instructor did call it a "big F#@% off white mans fire"
It was nice until it went out at two in the morning. 
But by that time  I was uncomfortably sleeping in my 18 inches of spruce bows dreaming of a breakfast JUJUBE that I was allowed to pluck out of my emergency ration.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Dec 2007)

Slight tangent but interesting nonetheless. 

We wore leather ski march boots all the time in arctic Norway. Not the best kit, but we made it work. Temps rarely got below minus 40 though, and we were always skiing - being ski troops. When it got really cold, we tended to go into defensive positions in tents to warm up. I'm thinking that these US Marines wore boots similar to ours for this study because I remember the USMC copying our M&AW equipment (the fools) down to the sock, boot and tent sheet, despite our advice. I don't ever remember our casualty rates being that high though (12.7%), as we did constant foot inspections and tracked all that stuff pretty closely. 

Injuries and risk factors in an 18-day Marine winter mountain training exercise

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200012/ai_n8905089/pg_1

Injuries and risk factors in an 18-day Marine winter mountain training exercise

Military Medicine,  Dec 2000  by Reynolds, Katy

Objectives: This study determined the incidence of and risk factors for injuries among 356 Marines during a winter mountain training exercise. Methods: Marines received a podiatry screening and completed a questionnaire on race, education, tobacco use, height, weight, and fitness (4.8-km run, sit-ups, pull-ups). Results: Forty-five Marines (12.696%) reported at least one injury each, 68.996 of which were traumatic injuries. Total injuries resulted in 114 days of limited duty time. A final foot examination (N = 141) revealed 118 injuries (82.2% blisters and abrasions, 11.996 frostnip). White ethnicity was a risk factor for overall injuries, and forefoot varus alignment was a risk factor for traumatic injuries. Lower education and rank and smokeless tobacco use were associated with foot injuries. The Marine ski-march leather boot and smoking were related to foot cold injuries. Conclusions: Military winter training is associated with injuries and lost training time. Risk factors were identified, suggesting that these injuries may be preventable.


----------



## Rodahn (7 Jan 2008)

"The Marine ski-march leather boot and smoking  were related to foot cold injuries. "

And now smoking causes foot cold injuries..... When will it ever end??   :


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Jan 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> "The Marine ski-march leather boot and smoking  were related to foot cold injuries. "
> 
> And now smoking causes foot cold injuries..... When will it ever end??   :



It's a well-known fact that smoking affects circulation.


> Cigarette smoking causes reduced circulation by narrowing the blood vessels (arteries). Smokers are more than 10 times as likely as nonsmokers to develop peripheral vascular disease.



From the CDC Website

BBC Article

And yes, I'm a smoker


----------



## ProPatria031 (2 Feb 2008)

The Muck Lucks (god did I ever laugh when i heard that name for the first time) have never failed me, even on those cold -55c (that's with windchill of course) on planet Meaford in a snowtrench looking out for the boogie man, BUUUURRRRRRR! the only  problem is that they're not waterproof so you step in something wet or soggy and you'll hate yourself for not looking where you were going, but thankfully I haven't made that mistake yet.


----------



## geo (3 Feb 2008)

ProPatria031 said:
			
		

> The Muck Lucks (god did I ever laugh when i heard that name for the first time) have never failed me, even on those cold -55c (that's with windchill of course) on planet Meaford in a snowtrench looking out for the boogie man, BUUUURRRRRRR! the only  problem is that they're not waterproof so you step in something wet or soggy and you'll hate yourself for not looking where you were going, but thankfully I haven't made that mistake yet.



That's why you're supposed to be issued two stes of socks & innersoles...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (3 Feb 2008)

ProPatria031 said:
			
		

> The Muck Lucks (god did I ever laugh when i heard that name for the first time) have never failed me, even on those cold -55c (that's with windchill of course) on planet Meaford in a snowtrench looking out for the boogie man, BUUUURRRRRRR! the only  problem is that they're not waterproof so you step in something wet or soggy and you'll hate yourself for not looking where you were going, but thankfully I haven't made that mistake yet.



Was never a big problem for me when I had to wear them and thankfully I am no longer "required" to be outside in that type of weather, only do it now for (and at) my pleasure.  As a solution to the "wet or soggy" issue I wore (issued) Goretex socks in the mukluks in that type of condition, even though they were not part of that footwear system.


----------



## catalyst (3 Feb 2008)

What is the best way to get the mucklucks back to a nice, white colour. Mine were brand new but after a week of trudging around Edmonton they're not so white.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Feb 2008)

Try a washing machine on gentle cycle, always worked for mine, just don't machine dry.


----------



## Roy Harding (3 Feb 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Try a washing machine on gentle cycle, always worked for mine, just don't machine dry.



Add a little bleach, too.


----------



## Snakedriver (22 Dec 2008)

Spent four plus years in Alaska in the US Army. The white bunny boots are known as VB boots, VB standing for Vapor Barrier.  Moisture can't get in, or out.  They required you changing your socks at least every two hours as sweat would puddle in your shoes.  But, I was an Aviator, so we wore the green USAF Mukluks.  They are by far the best way to go when modified properly.  If done so, they'll easily handle -50 below, because I know from first hand experience with weeks in the field at a time at those temperatures. First thing they taught us was to toss all the internal guts away.  The small white bootie is worthless.  You want the green canvas shell to be about two sizes larger than your foot size.  You need to put anywhere from two to three felt cushion insoles per Mukluk inside each one and they need to run full length.  You have to buy the cushions that you have to cut down by hand.  You want them fitting right.  Maybe even a bit too long so they curl up ever so slightly on the ends.The trick is to get your feet up off the cold surface and protected by dead air space that can stay warm.  Then you purchase a high quality set of Sorel high-top boot inserts, the kind that go nearly as high as the top of the Mukluk, and put those in there.  Then wear some good wool socks and you're feet will stay toasty.  Spraying a bit of Scotchguard type spray on the outside will help wick away any water that you may come in contact with.  But if you're in the Arctic in winter there's not much chance of that.  The Canadian Mukluks look quite nice, but I hear are fairly heavy.  The USAF Muks are very light and extremely comfortable.  During the Winter months we never took them off, even when not on flying duties.  Like wearing a pair of comfy slippers around the house on a cold morning. Hope this helps anyone looking.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (23 Dec 2008)

Snakedriver said:
			
		

> . . .  The Canadian Mukluks look quite nice, but I hear are fairly heavy.  The USAF Muks are very light and extremely comfortable.  During the Winter months we never took them off, even when not on flying duties.  Like wearing a pair of comfy slippers around the house on a cold morning.  .  .  .



The Canadian mukluks may be a little heavier than the USAF ones but not much.  Much of the extra weight can be attributed to the sturdier construction - water resistant (?) nylon vice relatively light cotton canvas.  There are many similarities in the concepts of both items, however (IMO) the Canadian item outpaces the USAF one.  Notably, there is the mesh insole in addition to the felt insole and the doubled "socks, wool frieze" are much heavier and warmer (even per each layer) than the single layer of the "white booties" that are part of the USAF system. While some USAF types of my acquaintance are very pleased with the comfort afforded by their piece of kit, it is probably not meant for the same type of activity as our mukluks.  One is more at home on a flight line (that, even if austere, is usually a base in a very cold place) while the other has been well tested in very severe isolated conditions.  The zipper on the USAF mukluk would probably not stand up as well in some deep snow conditions.  The one feature of the USAF mukluk that I preferred over ours is the lacing system; it gave me a greater sense of ankle stability.


----------



## geo (23 Dec 2008)

Some good points Blackadder.
Individuals should be issued at least two sets of the doubled "Socks, Wool frieze" and they should be changed/rotated on a regular basis.
That mesh insoles... great idea to give you some distance between the moisture and your feet.
The Cdn Muckluck has remained pert much unchanged over some 40+ years.  Are there some improvements necessary ? sure - an improvement of the outer shell's waterproofing and the vuilcanization of the sole are prolly the two things that would be No 1 & 2 on my list.  The lacing part... interesting point - will have to try em out again to refresh my memory


----------



## CanadianGuy (23 Dec 2008)

When I was with the LSSR we would conduct the usual w/e winter ex's and often invited up 20ish US National Guard troops from St.Paul-Minneapolis who would come wearing their issue winter gear including the white rubber "Mickey Mouse" winter boots. We would offer to issue them our CF Mukluks for the w/e which sometimes they went for but the one time I remember they did not swearing they would be fine in their high tech boots. Well it was fairly cold out (mid -40's at best!) and with many moves pulling toboggans and pitching/striking tents they in one day used all their socks up as they would be soaked in a very short period of time from sweating in rubber! If not for our troops lending out wool socks and extra mukluk liner socks the National Guard troops would have been forced to stand down and dry out socks for a day or suffer cold injuries if they did not. Those Mickey Mouse boots are awful for extreme cold and could easily lead to cold injuries to your feet in a short period of time. They actually may be useful in wet cold where standing in slush and water would be occurring. I have not seen such problems with our CF Mukluks but even they require maintenance in the field (e.g.-drying liners) or problems could occur.


----------



## geo (23 Dec 2008)

CanadianGuy said:
			
		

> They actually may be useful in wet cold where standing in slush and water would be occurring. I have not seen such problems with our CF Mukluks but even they require maintenance in the field (e.g.-drying liners) or problems could occur.



Dunno about you but I certainly would NOT trust our mucklucks in slush and water......


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Dunno about you but I certainly would NOT trust our mucklucks in slush and water......



Not without your hi tech 'Glad Kitchen Catchers' on over the socks, duffel, course.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Dunno about you but I certainly would NOT trust our mucklucks in slush and water......



That is usually in the Lesson Plan.  ;D

Nor would I spray Scotch Guard or the old Silicone Spray on any Mukluk fabric, as that would cause the fabric not to breath and keep sweat in.


----------



## geo (23 Dec 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Not without your hi tech 'Glad Kitchen Catchers' on over the socks, duffel, course.



Ahhhh... spoken like a man who has been & gotten wet feet for the trouble


----------



## chrisf (23 Dec 2008)

Using my mukluks almost exclusively in a sloppy wet but still miserably cold eastern climate, breathing isn't the concern, keeping out the slush is the concern, I paint my mukluks with boot silicone on a regular basis... I've heard of people using a pair of goretex socks several sizes too big over the outside of the bootie.


----------



## NL_engineer (23 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Dunno about you but I certainly would NOT trust our mucklucks in slush and water......



Well you only get wet feet (the wool keeps your feet warm if you keep moving) and the boot weight only increases to 50 lbs  : don't ask how I know  :



_Edited to fix the word than NFLD Sapper pointed out_


----------



## chrisf (23 Dec 2008)

Of course the damned thing also freezes over night... hooray! Nothing quite as fun as smacking your almost naked under-wear clad tent-mate with a frozen mukluk...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Dec 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well you only get wet feet (the wool keeps your* feet worm * if you keep moving) and the boot weight only increases to 50 lbs  : don't ask how I know  :



Think you might want a doc to check those out  ;D

The term you should be writing is warm


----------



## George Wallace (23 Dec 2008)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Using my mukluks almost exclusively in a sloppy wet but still miserably cold eastern climate, breathing isn't the concern, keeping out the slush is the concern, I paint my mukluks with boot silicone on a regular basis... I've heard of people using a pair of goretex socks several sizes too big over the outside of the bootie.



Once again back to the Lesson Plan.....Any sign of warm temps and moisture, mukluks should not be worn..........Out come the Boots Rubber Clumsy over some Mk IIIs.



The Gortex Socks are also a good back up and recommended by many old hands, when the seasons are changing.


----------



## NL_engineer (23 Dec 2008)

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> Think you might want a doc to check those out  ;D
> 
> The term you should be writing is warm



Shut up you  ;D

Hey the spell check doesn't tell me I typed the wrong word  :


----------



## geo (23 Dec 2008)

Heh... Large GLAD super tough garbage bags for the sleeping bag carrier & the ruck's main pouch.... + GLAD kitchen catchers for the muklucks.... DND should buy shared in GLAD

Goretex socks - great if you have em ( & thank the lord, I do)


----------



## CanadianGuy (23 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Dunno about you but I certainly would NOT trust our mucklucks in slush and water......


Agreed, just to clarify I meant the US Mickey Mouse boots may be good in slush and water-*Not *our mukluks unless you want trench foot.


----------



## NL_engineer (23 Dec 2008)

CanadianGuy said:
			
		

> Agreed, just to clarify I meant the US Mickey Mouse boots may be good in slush and water-*Not *our mukluks unless you want trench foot and a bad back.



Had to fix it for you  ;D


----------



## TCBF (24 Dec 2008)

- Mukluks are good kit, however:

1. Do not pour naptha on them at - 40 C.  Instant casualty.

2. Use curtain hooks to hang the 'insoles felt and mesh' from the drying line.  Note that it is considered courteous to NOT release the pressure from the pressure cooker inside the tent when there are articles hanging on the drying lines...

3. If you cannot dry your 'insoles felt and mesh' in a timely fasion, remove them, beat the ice from them, then - using your fingernails - scrape the ice from the inside of your mukluks on the bottom.  Yes, that is correct: there will be ice on the INSIDE of your mukluks on the bottom.  Scrape it out of there as often as you can.

4. Air out the 'socks wool freize' (duffle socks), a.k.a. mukluk liners.  They are two-layered and separate (but do not come apart).


----------



## sm1lodon (10 Jan 2009)

To keep my shoepack liners dry of sweat, I have put my feet in plastic bags and then inserted them into my boots in very cold weather. The result was: sweaty feet, as usual, but bone-dry felt liners, which retained their insulating value all day long. I eventually quit noticing the strange feel of plastic bag socks under my wool socks.

If external moisture were a concern, then bagging the felt liners would be worth a try, I would think.

I have never had any problems with any foot annoyances of any sort related to moisture or sweat, though, so maybe it wouldn't work for everybody.


----------



## geo (10 Jan 2009)

I would NEVER stick a plastic bag inside the sock.... you get wet feet & the minute you stop moving around.... the moisture will start to cool & freeze!!!
layers in this order: Foot, Sock(s), Duffel sock, Felt & nylon innersoles, Glad bag and lastly the Muckluck.

External moisture IS the concern when wearing a canvas or Nylon outer boots.

Wet feet will lead to trench foot & / or frostbite.... whichever will get you 1st.


----------



## dangerboy (10 Jan 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> To keep my shoepack liners dry of sweat, I have put my feet in plastic bags and then inserted them into my boots in very cold weather. The result was: sweaty feet, as usual, but bone-dry felt liners, which retained their insulating value all day long. I eventually quit noticing the strange feel of plastic bag socks under my wool socks.
> 
> If external moisture were a concern, then bagging the felt liners would be worth a try, I would think.
> 
> I have never had any problems with any foot annoyances of any sort related to moisture or sweat, though, so maybe it wouldn't work for everybody.


Out of curiosity how long were you wearing mukluks for? Was it a weekend EX or for am EX lasting say 2-3 weeks.  Your feet can survive a weekend but like GEO said if you leave them exposed to that much moisture for a long time you will be a casualty either from trench foot or frostbite.  Having seen both those it is not a pretty sight.


----------



## sm1lodon (10 Jan 2009)

A normal working day, about 12 hours is how long I left them in.

Please re-read what I posted very carefully, and you will note that I specifically said that the moisture didn't get into the insulating liner, thus where would the miracle of frostbite occur? From the liners suddenly turning into fibrous liquid helium?

I am not debating the need to dry your feet out periodically, that I can see for having feet in the boots for over 12 hours or so. I dried mine out after I took my boots off after work. They weren't really all that wet, but doing the work I was doing, I didn't really work up much of a sweat in that weather, anyhow.

What I am emphasizing is that there would be no way for frostbite to occur, because the insulation value of the felt liner is not compromised because there is no moisture in it to compromise it. None coming from the inside of the boot, at any rate.

In fact, with a system with a wool sock, a bag, an insulating liner that was actually impervious to moisture absorption, and changing socks every so often, I think it could be more survivable than having your feet directly soaking your liners with sweat.

In my own case, I had all-day comfort instead of having to hop back and forth after a few hours due to sweaty, thus cold, liners.


----------



## geo (11 Jan 2009)

> feet in plastic bags



The way you wrote your 1st post, you give the impression that you place your bare feet inside the plastic bag & then go with socks & boots... in a condition such as described, feet will sweat with very little effort - even on the coldest of days.  Moisture that can't be wicked away by your socks will give you cold and clammy feet & will lead to frostbite or trench foot.



> a system with a wool sock, a bag, an insulating liner



However, from your last post, you are suddenly making sense.... but, the insulating liner should be kept dry from outside influence.... ice water & snow.... but, as you say, given your line of work, it might not matter in your case.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Jan 2009)

Anyone who places a non-permeable membrane inside their footwear in a cold environment is asking for a cold related injury.  You're issued gore-tex socks still, aren't you?  They are technological leaps and bounds above wonderbread bags.


----------



## geo (11 Jan 2009)

You are right Kat.... the goretex sox are leaps and bounds ahead.
Got mine BUT, not sure if Reserves have received an "at large" distribution...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (11 Jan 2009)

umm.. yeah we got them.


----------



## geo (11 Jan 2009)

heh... call-out bum ;D
Are the Class A guys getting em ?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (11 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> heh... call-out bum ;D
> Are the Class A guys getting em ?



Class A Cowboys are getting them, heck the fresh meat off the street new recruits are getting them.


----------



## geo (11 Jan 2009)

Ahhhh... "check"

Guess that means that the system is prolly getting ready to remove em from general distribution


----------



## Nfld Sapper (11 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Ahhhh... "check"
> 
> Guess that means that the system is prolly getting ready to remove em from general distribution



Not sure, at my unit they all get them when you pick up your kit (unless we don't have your size) before BMQ starts.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Jan 2009)

To add another dimension to this discussion of winter footwear, I came across this item while looking for something else.  Wonder if anyone has had any experience with this piece of kit?

EXTREME COLD WEATHER OVER-BOOT 


> British military issue DPM extreme cold weather over-boots. These incredible *boots come complete with thick fleece inner bootie and the whole lot is worn over your footwear.* Green rubber sole for grip in snow and ice. Goretex fabric is breathable and designed to protect from extreme cold and wet conditions. No expense spared for these issue boots. These boots would probably cost many times our price and you could not even buy the fleece inners today. Limited stocks.



My impression of the British army had been that overboots (with the exception of NBC type - which was used for inclement conditions during the Falklands) had never been a big thing when dealing with wet and cold.  I gathered from comments on another forum that the fleece liners have an open mesh sole plus zippers on the back to fit snugly and are worn over regular combat boots and the overboots are worn over both.

It would seem to be a similar idea to NEOS overboots, though the NEOS come in uninsulated and insulated types.  I have a pair that I occasionally use if I'm in the bush during the winter.  A lot lighter than a pair of "gumbies", pack easily, are waterproof and provide extra insulation/warmth.  They are a robust item, though I don't know how well they would stand up to being in some of the places I went wearing military kit.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Jan 2009)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> To add another dimension to this discussion of winter footwear, I came across this item while looking for something else.  Wonder if anyone has had any experience with this piece of kit?
> 
> EXTREME COLD WEATHER OVER-BOOT
> My impression of the British army had been that overboots (with the exception of NBC type - which was used for inclement conditions during the Falklands) had never been a big thing when dealing with wet and cold.  I gathered from comments on another forum that the fleece liners have an open mesh sole plus zippers on the back to fit snugly and are worn over regular combat boots and the overboots are worn over both.
> ...




I used the 'grand daddy' of these boots in Norway with the British Army and Royal Marines in the 80s. 

They were not meant to be used as the primary mode of footwear like the Canuk Mukluk. Being ski troops we wore leather ski march boots (yes, they sucked, but they encouraged you to keep moving fast at 20-30 below!). These overboots were supposed to be carried by each 'ski trooper' to be worn during static operations e.g., ambushes, sentry duty etc. In reality we hardly used them. We carried two per section for sentries sometimes, but eventually gave up on that because the things were too huge and bulky. You could carry an extra 2 days of food in the space these things sucked up in the bergan. In addition, if you put soggy boots in these, they freeze, and we did not heat our snow shelters and tent sheets (not tents, just a canvass cover for a snow pit) to conserve fuel and avoid frequent resupply, so they'd stay frozen for the rest of the time on ex.

Also, even in defensive positions our practise was to go over to the offensive as soon as possible, as well as to patrol offensively - alot. So we'd be in and out of skis at short notice all the time.

Back in the echelon we used to see guys in these all the time, which was fine by me. Whatever works...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (6 Feb 2009)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> To add another dimension to this discussion of winter footwear, I came across this item while looking for something else.  Wonder if anyone has had any experience with this piece of kit?
> 
> EXTREME COLD WEATHER OVER-BOOT
> My impression of the British army had been that overboots (with the exception of NBC type - which was used for inclement conditions during the Falklands) had never been a big thing when dealing with wet and cold.  I gathered from comments on another forum that the fleece liners have an open mesh sole plus zippers on the back to fit snugly and are worn over regular combat boots and the overboots are worn over both.
> ...



FYI,

CPGear has NEOS Voyagers in stock now http://www.cpgear.com/StoreBox/footwear/1087.htm
The insulated Explorer models are on the way.


----------



## armyvern (6 Feb 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Ahhhh... "check"
> 
> Guess that means that the system is prolly getting ready to remove em from general distribution



Yep. Everyone gets issued them regardless,

And, everyone is entitled to more pair of each once / year:

5 X black sock liners;
5 X green socks;
5 X grey socks;
5 X OD t-shirts;
5 X boxers;
2 X long underwear; and 
2 X undershirts ...

Once per year.


----------



## Gronk (6 Feb 2009)

For what it's worth, the old school dog mushers here in the Yukon wear bunny boots on the trail. I don't know if it is because they are easier to get here or, if they are easier to get because the mushers wear them.


----------



## NL_engineer (7 Feb 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yep. Everyone gets issued them regardless,
> 
> And, everyone is entitled to more pair of each once / year:
> 
> ...



Is there a link for that somewhere on the DWAN, so when I go to clothing I don't get told "your not entitled"?


----------



## armyvern (7 Feb 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Is there a link for that somewhere on the DWAN, so when I go to clothing I don't get told "your not entitled"?



D01-301 ...

tell them to check their scales when they tell you you're not.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Feb 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, everyone is entitled to more pair of each once / year:
> 
> 2 X long underwear; and
> 2 X undershirts ...
> ...



Oh God, I've been trying to make due with 2 pairs of original issue long underwear and undershirt for 6 years! Thanks Vern, I need to make a trip to Clothing.


----------



## NL_engineer (8 Feb 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> D01-301 ...
> 
> tell them to check their scales when they tell you you're not.



Thanks Vern


----------



## geo (8 Feb 2009)

Vern... given that the kit entitlement has become "once per year"
it would make sense that the forces use Logistik Unicorp for the stocking and distribution... add a bunch of points or distribute them @ zero points but with the per anum quantity limits.


----------



## qjdb (20 Mar 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yep. Everyone gets issued them regardless,
> 
> And, everyone is entitled to more pair of each once / year:
> 
> ...



Heh, not everyone.  ;D

Heck, I'd be happy to get one set.  Not like I need them a lot, but then I wouldn't have had to go out and buy my own goretex socks and liners for when we go on our weekend winter exercise.

We just got OD goretex coat a couple of months ago, before that, our outer jacket was the old 'denim cotton' jacket.

I know, the red-headed step-child doesn't 'need' it, etc.  But it would be nice if we got it.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2009)

qjdb said:
			
		

> Heh, not everyone.  ;D
> 
> Heck, I'd be happy to get one set.  Not like I need them a lot, but then I wouldn't have had to go out and buy my own goretex socks and liners for when we go on our weekend winter exercise.
> 
> ...



Oh stop it dude. I AM a red-headed step-child. Anyone who`s ever met me in the flesh can certify that.

Guess youy`re not phase qualified yet ehÉ Boy, thatb really sucks. Wait for it though; won`t be long now and you too will be entitled. 



Vern


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Mar 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Oh stop it dude. I AM a red-headed step-child. Anyone who`s ever met me in the flesh can certify that.
> 
> Guess youy`re not phase qualified yet ehÉ Boy, thatb really sucks. Wait for it though; won`t be long now and you too will be entitled.
> 
> ...



Oh Vern, think you missed these parts:

Rank: Lieutenant
Unit: 1725 (Canadian Military Engineers) RCACC 
*MOC: 00232 (Cadet Instructor Cadre - Land) * 

I think they are on a different scale of issue than us.


----------



## qjdb (20 Apr 2009)

yup  ;D

sorry, didn't put that in the post, thought it was (moderately) obvious from the avatar.

Sorry


----------

