# The Great BOOT Debate



## George Wallace (28 Nov 2009)

OK

I know a lot of discussion has gone on about BOOTS.  Just to generalize a bit and trade opinions a bit on the various brands out there, perhaps we should have one "general" thread.

I just broke all my rules, in a moment of stupidity, when I was offered a deal on some Oakley boots.  I have over 19 pairs at home, all issued, so why was I stupid enough to get another non-issue pair?  Anyway, I did.  $90.  Then it was time to break them in for a BFT.  I wore them for one (1) week, during which I wore them for a 8k ruckmarch.  Next week, I wore them to the office, and then on Friday did the BFT.  They were comfortable, and not one blister.  I was impressed.

Now.  I had it good.   Another guy, who got his boots at the same time, noticed after the BFT that there was white seeping out of his boots that looked like glue.  (Not salt stain).   

I guess it all depends (as I have always said to myself) on your feet and what you wear -- One boot for me, may not be the boot for you.


----------



## NL_engineer (29 Nov 2009)

The Oakley boots are the most comfortable boots I own; but are in hard shape after 6 months in the desert.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Nov 2009)

Why did you start a new thread on this? You're point has been made, hundreds of times, to the uninitated. 

I'm glad you got new boots for the X time, but I  (and likely most) don't care enough to create a new thread on a 'beat to death' topic 

George,
Get a life :nod: ;D


----------



## multihobbist (30 Nov 2009)

I must say the new Mark 4 General Purpose boots aren't half as bad as some people say...

I had the same pair I was issued since initial issue, 
besides being completely not waterproof from ankles,
and the fact that it literally is falling apart already, I don't see a problem
espicially since I could get them replaced because of their conditions.

I'm probably making myself a fool again here for saying this but, I don't see why so many reservists,
espicially co-op students spending hundreds of dollars to buy magnums, swats, oakleys etc.

I have no opinion about the difference overseas though since I've never been there.

I went through about 12 BFTs in my career with the same pairs of boots but They aren't quite half 
as bad as some people on my courses complained. It just took me some foot powder and ignoring pain
I just liked the Mark 3's better because they are actually waterproof to a certain level.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Nov 2009)

multihobbist said:
			
		

> I must say the new Mark 4 General Purpose boots Boots, INTERM, General Purposearen't half as bad as some people say...



Fixed it for ya, the Mark IV boots do not exist as of yet......


----------



## multihobbist (1 Dec 2009)

Thank you, I hear many different references to the general purpose boots, varying from mark 3 to 4 then GP, gortex, and wet weather boots etc.


----------



## Loachman (1 Dec 2009)

multihobbist said:
			
		

> It just took me some foot powder and ignoring pain



Buy some decent twenty-first century boots and you won't have any pain to ignore.

I wore Mk Is, MkIIs, and Mk IIIs (not a lot of real difference between them) for thirty-four years and then bought Magnum Stealths after trying the worst boots ever made (a** f**ce Cold Wet Weather Boots). I will never wear another pair of standard-issue boots again.

Why suffer with ancient technology made by a company/companies that cannot compete on the open market when, for a reasonable price you can prance around in truly modern boots made by somebody with a vested interest in making their customers' feet happy?

They are worth every penny, as are the Sole Footbeds (CP Gear, Canex, Mark's Work Wearhouse) that I've been stuffing in boots for several years.


----------



## dregeneau (1 Dec 2009)

I personally cannot stand the standard issue boots. With flat feet I find the GP's still don't provide enough support when I wear prescribed orthopedic inserts. 

Not by far a close concern for me at the moment. But during our town hall meeting with LFCA Cmnd last week, in reference to issued kits and the briefly mentioned topic of boots, it was said that the concern with everybody wearing gucci boots was the danger of fire melting the nylon to our feet. Since our standard issue boots are leather, we are supposedly protected from this threat to the safety of our feet. 

I would be curious to know to what extent this would actually be true. Would the two sock system not help deter the nylon from direct skin contact if this were truly the case? Or would there be significant damage from the heat through the leather regardless?


----------



## danchapps (1 Dec 2009)

multihobbist said:
			
		

> Thank you, I hear many different references to the general purpose boots, varying from mark 3 to 4 then GP, gortex, and wet weather boots etc.



GP boots, MK III, Wet Weather Boots are all very different boots. While GP's and WWB's are similar, they are in fact quite different. As for which boot is more comfortable, I'm throwing my support behind my Magnums. Although I do love the sizing system that is used for the GP's and WWB's, very precise. It's about the only good thing with them.


----------



## multihobbist (1 Dec 2009)

I like the GP's cause they don't cost money  
besides, who doesn't like blisters and having two swimming pools for your feet when it rains?

To be honest, after the first few BFT that I went on, I don't get blister nor pain.
I'm just concerned about its durability since it's been only two years,
the soles are starting to come off, the front part is flexible.

What exactly is the advantage with non-standard issue boots?
Are they actualy waterproof? I'm sure from feedback they are way more comfortable


----------



## Fusaki (1 Dec 2009)

multihobbist said:
			
		

> I went through about 12 BFTs in my career with the same pairs of boots but They aren't quite half
> as bad as some people on my courses complained. It just took me some foot powder and ignoring pain



12 BFTs in 2 years? I'm calling bullshit on that.

Your opinion on this subject is based on your experience.  Your experience is put into question.  The relevance of your opinion, therefore, is suspect.


----------



## frostvelun (1 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> 12 BFTs in 2 years? I'm calling bullshit on that.
> 
> Your opinion on this subject is based on your experience.  Your experience is put into question.  The relevance of your opinion, therefore, is suspect.



Thank you, I had just come here to post something similar. It really isn't that likely that you've done that many BFTs, let alone had the opportunities to.

I have approximately the same amount of time in (2 years) as multihobbist. While I'm sure our experiences in the Forces have varied I haven't found the same results as him regarding the MK4's.

Background: PRes Infantry Officer
Courses/FTXs/IBTS: BMQ, BOTP2, CAP, 7x Unit FTX, 4x Unit IBTS/BFT

Having worn the MK4 boots for approximately 2 years wherein which I wore them approximately 2 days a week in garrison and 5 months total 'out of garrison' I have found the following:

- The boots seem to fit rather well due to very specific sizing
- Free
- Subject to replacement when needed
- Have not come apart at any of the 'seams', nor have the soles begun to disinegrate. The laces have become rather torn apart however

- Insanely heavy in comparison to other boot types
- Almost 0% protection against water
- Ankle support is shaky, at best
- Terribly uncomfortable despite the 'proper' fit


As stated, I haven't been around for as long as many of you have but I have had my own experiences with the MK4s so far. Although I have never had the chance to try the MK3s, my comparisons with both the SWATs and Magnums have had me close to pulling the trigger on either of those brands. The simple weight alone of the MK4s is enough for many to justify the purchase of 'Gucci' boots, while the increased comfort of these same boots makes the purchase even more enticing.

I'm looking forward to hearing about what others have to say about these, or any other types of boots out there.


----------



## medicineman (1 Dec 2009)

Before you slag the poor soul down too much, when I was doing workup training for my first deployment back before you started coffee break and probably before your first haircut even (going by your age), the unit I was with did 2 BFT distance marches in full marching order PER WEEK as part of our routine unit PT, and we did them within testing time parameters or else.  Don't even ask how many k's we did down in California, since our CO decided we would do alot of walking down there (as well as our tiny, stuttering brigade commander).  The Battalion also had to do a 32km BFT before we left Pendleton on top of that - that's like 2 and a half BFT's in one day (or night as was our case).  It's not that hard to do 12 BFT's in a year if you're constantly training for it, even if it seems like you're just training to get kicked in the nuts...

MM


----------



## multihobbist (1 Dec 2009)

I probably grew into the GP boots because I didn't take em off while in the trench during SQ.
I still can't feel the left side of the right foot, and days ago peeled off about 3squarecm of dead skin off my feet.
Besides my feet take a lot of abuse because 6km run is part of my each day.

The trick for me to keep going on with the GP for BFT were:
1. footpowder in the boots, dip my feet in, dip my socks in, both black and green.
2. put 'em on, make the captain's bar instead of tying the laces.
3. make sure my thumb goes down as far as it can through the lacings.
4. start walking.
5. when they start hurting, don't ever step on a pebble or ditch or stop.
6. stay on your toes when the heels hurt, when your toes hurt, you are *&%$ed, ignore the pain.

oh another downside of the GP boots is that when it gets wet, it keeps water in, not out.


----------



## Loachman (1 Dec 2009)

multihobbist said:
			
		

> What exactly is the advantage with non-standard issue boots?



Avoidance of pain. Avoidance of long-term injury. Light weight. Comfort.

The disadvantage? Addiction.

I'm sure that you have at least one thing that you blow a lot of money on - sports, hobbies, car, beer, women - blow a little on your feet as well. It is worth it.



			
				multihobbist said:
			
		

> Are they actualy waterproof?



Some are. I have Gore-Tex socks to wear when necessary.



			
				Frostvelun said:
			
		

> I haven't found the same results as him regarding the MK4's.



As per Reply Number 4. There is no such thing - yet - as a Mk IV/Mk 4 boot.

The rest I pretty much agree with.



			
				multihobbist said:
			
		

> I still can't feel the left side of the right foot, and days ago peeled off about 3squarecm of dead skin off my feet.



That should tell you something.

If not, see "fool" in your first post in this thread.



			
				multihobbist said:
			
		

> 2. put 'em on, make the captain's bar instead of tying the laces.



I have no idea what this means.



			
				multihobbist said:
			
		

> ... when they start hurting ... when the heels hurt, when your toes hurt, you are *&%$ed, ignore the pain.



Try avoiding pain in the first place. Pain is only necessary if you are a masochist. Pain is an indication that damage is being done, and should not be "ignored".  See "fool" again.

Decent boots are worth the money, for comfort and protection.

If you cannot wear them, buy Sole Footbeds and round off the heels of your boots.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (1 Dec 2009)

dredre said:
			
		

> But during our town hall meeting with LFCA Cmnd last week, in reference to issued kits and the briefly mentioned topic of boots, it was said that the concern with everybody wearing gucci boots was the danger of fire melting the nylon to our feet. Since our standard issue boots are leather, we are supposedly protected from this threat to the safety of our feet.
> 
> I would be curious to know to what extent this would actually be true. Would the two sock system not help deter the nylon from direct skin contact if this were truly the case? Or would there be significant damage from the heat through the leather regardless?



I find the LFCA Commander's comments interesting in that the issued Hot Weater/Desert Boots for wear in Afghanistan have a nylon upper section with a polyester/nylon lining, and the next generation of Army combat boots (The CTS Temperate Combat Boot) has a nylon upper with a polyester/nylon lining.  If he's that concerned with the subject of FR protection for his soldier's feet with nylon component boots, is he going to ban CF issued boots then as well as 'gucci' aftermarket boots?
What about the issued CTS briefs, long underwear top and bottom, which are made with polyester fabric?  What about the CTS thermal balaclava and neck gaiter?  What about the polyester fleece jacket and trousers?  What about the mortar glove?  And so on and so on...
Drawing a line in the sand based on an ill-informed opinion undermines the credibility of an otherwise capable commander.
Incidentally, the melting point of 1000 denier Cordura is 210 degrees celsius.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2009)

Thanks Matt. Saved me the trouble of finishing my post. ;D


----------



## George Wallace (1 Dec 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> ......
> Incidentally, the melting point of 1000 denier Cordura is 210 degrees celsius.



At that temperature, I doubt anyone would be worried about their boots melting to their skin ashes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Dec 2009)

My favorite boots go like this:

Matterhorn 10" leather field boots  *best boots I've worn to date.  Not too hot in the summer, but not ideal.  They were warm enough for things like range days in the winter.  Downside was once they were wet on the inside, they stayed wet for a long time as there was no removable bootie like some Danners have.  I paid $129 USD for mine in '95.

Magnum Sleath II  Not alot of support for field work IMO, but great for everything else in warmer weather.  Combined with gortex socks, they are awesome for wet weather.  Dry quick, light weight.  Feel like sneakers.

Bates M-9 Assault Boots  Really really comfortable boots.  I wouldn't get the side zip ones, I had them and the velcro flap was always flapping around and I couldn't just unzip them to take them off.  The way the heel is rounded to the outside I really liked.  Lighweight warm and comfy.  Loved these boots, very warm in the summer/warm temps.

Those are my 'combat' boots favorites.

Now that I have to wear safety boots, I am pretty keen on these:

Magnum Stealth Force 8.0 Leather WP CT/CP


----------



## NL_engineer (1 Dec 2009)

dredre said:
			
		

> it was said that the concern with everybody wearing gucci boots was the danger of fire melting the nylon to our feet. Since our standard issue boots are leather, we are supposedly protected from this threat to the safety of our feet.
> 
> I would be curious to know to what extent this would actually be true. Would the two sock system not help deter the nylon from direct skin contact if this were truly the case? Or would there be significant damage from the heat through the leather regardless?



With all the polish on them they are very fire retardant  :  

Well I lone how the commanders in Canada are worried about FR equipment : I am really going to need it when I get a smoke grenade go off under my vehicle (simulated IED strike).  They could do a better job of getting more tan FR gloves in theater, we ran out midway though our tour, and were rolling with ripped gloves (we had to were the issued ones :).

Edited for spelling and to remove dumb comment


----------



## dregeneau (1 Dec 2009)

Thank you Matt for you response! I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion on the matter. 

Eyey in the Sky - I swear by the Bates without the zipper as well. They can look a bit like a 'spaceboot' if you just pick them up in the store, but they provide great comfort and support for fieldwork. Although they can get to be quite warm in the summer due to the gore-tex lining, it's a small sacrifice.


----------



## multihobbist (2 Dec 2009)

What I mean by Captain's bars is
instead of tying the laces when you get to the top of the boots,
cross the laces to opposite eyelets and put two strands of laces on the last  two eyelets.
This way you get 2 bars over top of your entire lacing, and some people refer it as "captain's bars"


----------



## Matt_Fisher (2 Dec 2009)

multihobbist said:
			
		

> What I mean by Captain's bars is
> instead of tying the laces when you get to the top of the boots,
> cross the laces to opposite eyelets and put two strands of laces on the last  two eyelets.
> This way you get 2 bars over top of your entire lacing, and some people refer it as "captain's bars"



Captain's bars are usually done for inspection purposes so as to have a neat and tidy way to tuck away your excess boot laces.  In the 12 years I was in the military, I never saw anyone tying their boots using that method...I find it suspect that a 'Captain's bar' lacing arrangement would create enough tension to prevent the boot laces from not loosening up.  I always tied my boots with a simple reef knot and tucked the excess lacing up into the bloused portion of my trousers and found that worked well enough.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Dec 2009)

multihobbist said:
			
		

> What I mean by Captain's bars is
> instead of tying the laces when you get to the top of the boots,
> cross the laces to opposite eyelets and put two strands of laces on the last  two eyelets.
> This way you get 2 bars over top of your entire lacing, and some people refer it as "captain's bars"





			
				Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Captain's bars are usually done for inspection purposes so as to have a neat and tidy way to tuck away your excess boot laces.  In the 12 years I was in the military, I never saw anyone tying their boots using that method...I find it suspect that a 'Captain's bar' lacing arrangement would create enough tension to prevent the boot laces from not loosening up.  I always tied my boots with a simple reef knot and tucked the excess lacing up into the bloused portion of my trousers and found that worked well enough.



I use the same system as Matt, simple reef knot, and in 42 years have never seen someone do their boots up in Captain's bars, nor have I ever heard anyone use that term.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Dec 2009)

I've heard (and used, only with Recruits though) the term Capt's bars for how to do up the top of combat/ankle boots, but for inspection purposes only.  Can't imagine trying to get that to work at 0-dark-stupid when you need to get your cadillacs on quick under light discipline conditions with cold fingers and hard timings to make.


----------



## multihobbist (19 Jan 2010)

Just my personal opinion for Captain's bars for lacing is great with the GP boots.
I can simply loosen the laces to take the boots off and tighten the laces to put them back on.
Nothing going through anything and all you need to do is just pull two loose laces if I can't see anything.
The best part of it for me though is that during BFT the lacing loosens a little bit just enough to be comfortable.
The only thing I could complain about GP boots yet is that it's not durable, I had the same 2 pairs for 2 years
and they are both falling apart.


----------



## MikeL (19 Jan 2010)

On BFTs I just don't lace up the top 2 eyelets. I've never seen anyone use "captain bars" on their boots while they wear them.. just when the boots are in the locker an/or on your bed for inspection.

For black boots I wear Original SWATs and desert boots I like the Belleville 390 Des, and I recently just got the Original SWAT Desert boots. Sometimes in the summer I wear jungle boots, just need to get them resoled with vibrams. For insoles I use the SOLE custom footbeds.

Haven't had any problems with the above boots.


----------



## Old and Tired (19 Jan 2010)

Bezt boots that I've ever had on my feet are mt Matterhorns.  Next best after that are the SWAT s that I have.  I must be out on the fringe of boot tying because I do the bars on boots as well.  Doesn't work on the Matterhorns b ut works well with the swats.  No knots to freeze in the winter or difficult when they're wet.

Just my view though.


----------

