If you must hike in boots, "combat" or hiking?

Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
106
We recently had a hiking shoe versus boots thread that covered that end of the spectrum pretty well, but it got me thinking about the other end...

Assume that you have no choice but to wear boots (heavy, cold or wet mountaineering or heavy load or whatever, just assume that's the case). Why does the military have their own idea of "combat" boots and not just use proper lightweight (or whatever) hiking boots? (By "combat" boots I don't mean WW II era leather high-tops, I mean modern, tactical stuff like Oakley Assaults and that sort of thing.) Or, to put it a little differently, do the high tops of typical military gear afford that much more protection for the weight? If so, why the heck don't hiking boots come in models with 8" or 10" tops?
 
If I am reading this right, my guess would be that the average consumer would be more concerned with comfort and looks over protection. Another thing to consider is that military equipment is produced by the lowest bidder most times.

I have worn the old school style combat boots for extended periods while in the military and believe me if you haven't done it, don't. I still have calluses on my feet and foot problems from those days:(. I am sure that the modern day equivalent is much closer to the consumer versions out there now and have moved closer in comfort and ergonomics if not above.
Being a civilian now I don't need that level of protection and I wear a simple pair of Salomon Elios2 Mid GTX for my hiking needs. If I feel I need some extra support for my ankles I have a pair of SixSixOne Race Braces, the older model with the adjustable wrap around supports, that I put on. With that combination I can almost eliminate side to side rotation yet still have plenty of up and down flex for walking.

One of these day as I get more and more involved with hiking I will buy a dedicated heavy duty hiking boot, but till then I wil make do with what I have and run from the good old combat boot, too many bad foot memories from them:o
 
Combat, only because I've found that anything else (minus 300 buck customs) don't hold up well enough for long enough for my personal use. I wear boots everyday, if I'm outside I'm in boots, summer-winter and spring time too. I also carry a pair of those weird Keen sandel type things in my bag for river crossings, just easier that way instead of soaking my boots and possibly feet if the waters high enough. Also feels neat to have random fish and twigs and stuff fly by your feet in those, I'm a bit odd that way.
 
I wear a 8in leather boot. It's a hiking boot, or more like portaging boot, so it's comfortable carrying heavy loads. I would never bring army issued boots hiking or camping if I could. It's like a pair of heavy duty soles with half-way decent arch support and semi-okay toes with canvas like material that goes up your calf. I'm talking the standard issue though. I've worn oakley boots and danners before, they would be great for hiking, maybe not for long periods but for portaging they'd be great.
 
Lots of our troops wear hiking boots in Afghanistan;) I normally prefer mid hight hiking boots, which are close to combat boots in looks.

The soles of the old style combats were pretty bad and most of us used high end insoles in ours to help our feet survive hours and hours of walking and running. They have eased up on the rules so many troops use hiking boots in the field now.
 
Either, so long as - they are goretex, waterproof, have a stiff/strong enough sole to prevent rocks from bruising your feet, lace high enough to provide good ankle protection, have removable insoles, and have a good, aggressive tread.

I wear ECCO boots all the time, they fit the above requirements.

Andy
 
Why does the military have their own idea of "combat" boots and not just use proper lightweight (or whatever) hiking boots?

Because the military wears uniforms and thus requires uniformity. :) Imagine what a formation would look like if everyone wore the footwear they wanted. :eek:

Remember that military gear is made to take a beating and last for a long time. Light weight high tech gear may be able to handle that but in most cases it won't last anywhere near as long. I was issued some gear that was older than I was and it was still serviceable.....imagine how many other people used it before me.
 
I wear boots most all the time. My everyday boots are White's Smoke Jumpers. I tried a move to lighter hiking boots but was VERY unimpressed with their life expectancy and I didn't buy cheapies either.

My Whites generaly last me 8 or more years. I buy for durability, plus the Whites fit exactly right I don't even need an insole.
 
I'm a fat sumbitch, but I do a lot of hiking. I've had great luck with Nike ACG hiking boots, they are very comfortable. Problem is, they are hit or miss to find, as they are not in high production. At least I haven't been able to find them. I have also had luck with Timberlands, actual hiking boots, not the popular workboots. I have done max about 5 miles, nothing more with these boots, and have not had blisters etc. This was just on flat trails though. I have not had any problems with snakes, all I have done when coming up on one in the middle of the trail, is hold my walking stick out so that it is focused on that, and pass right by. I prefer hiking boots when working outside, as opposed to work boots. I only wear workboots when a steel toe would be a good idea ;).
 
Remember that military gear is made to take a beating and last for a long time.

Let me add to that the fact that the Army has to supply millions of these a year and cost is a big factor. The triangle here is: Cost, durability, and performance. It looks like performance looses out in mass production where the end user doesn't get a choice...


My brother served a tour in Iraq in a few years ago and I was very surprised to see how comfortable modern day combat boots are based on his issued boots he brought back. They are made of suede and are quite soft and flexible with a decent sole. They are about equivilent to a low end Merrell with a taller upper (to prevent stuff from getting into them and for protection).
 
Back when I was young I would watch action movies like Rambo and others that would portray the protagonist wearing cool looking combat boots. I ended up getting a pair and started hiking with them just to feel cool and tactical. BIG mistake! I ended up with so many blisters and calluses. I was surprised because the boots that I bought were exactly my size and high quality. Today older and wiser I hike with a with a pair of Vasque hiking boots. They're light, waterproof, tough, and comfortable but not as cool looking as a pair of combat boots.
 
I have had and used and was mostly pleased with all the boots you will find at the average outdoor store (REI and EMS) spending sometimes around $400 for a pair of good boots but then one day I bought and tried a pair of boots by Original SWAT and loved them. I have a pair in black and also the tan and they have searved me well on many trips into the bush and in the mountains. summer, winter and everything in between. they don't say or advertise being water proof but I have been in water with them walking through a stream and then along a river and didn't have an issue.
 
I have a pair of the generic Canadian combats (not too sure if they are the same as you yanks use.) and i love them, i bought a half size bigger than my foot, and bought some thick gel pads for it and could not be more comfortable. i have a pair of hiking boots, but there cheapie wind rivers. they do the trick, but the combats feel better and are very durable. and at 35 bucks that's great bang for my buck.
do the high tops of typical military gear afford that much more protection for the weight? If so, why the heck don't hiking boots come in models with 8" or 10" tops?
to answer the OP's question, i think that its a case of style over practicality, if everyone wants the low tops, you push the low tops. i know that there are high top hikers, why they are less popular is beyond me.
 
I had my pair of USAF issued boots, they were great for just about everything, stitched sole, supple leather from taking good care of them, took wax well, waterproof. Excellent boots,

I worked on the flight line though, so new boots, safety toed. I lost a toenail because they didn't have extra wide boots in my size. Work boots suck for anything other than shielding your toes, I'd rather walk barefoot than hike in those things.
 
I wear boots everyday and have only found one pair that fit my feet well and have held up under constant wear both at work and in the mountains. I wear Danner 453 GTX's and love them.
 
OLD school Combats for me, 100% leather construction except for the soles. They are butter soft and feel like slippers on my feet. I can wear them for days on end and my feet dont stink ever. I get them wet and they dry quickly, unlike my Goretex plastic boots.

I've had the same pair of Canadian forces combats for about ten years now. resoled once. Other boots ive had (gortex etc) have all failed withing 3 - 6 months of BC bush bashing. The Canadian forces combats have stood up very well, as have my feet
 
Having bought and used both types, from good manufacturer's, I opted for hiking boots.

Better design, materials, build quality, fit and comfort.
 
I use military stuff for most of my outdoor needs, not only boots.

As mentionned, the Army want stuff that is the cheapest possible, that will last the longest time possible. I like that better than to pay only for a name.


Last summer I was hiking with my ex gf, then she noticed I was dressed from head to toes with military surplus stuff. I said "Maybe, but overall it was cheaper than your windbreaker."
 
I wear military boots mostly, including when hiking. I do however have an old pair of Scarpa Manta boots that I've used since 2002 for both military and civilian activities. The new military boots are similar now in height to many civilian hiking boots i've found. Look at the Lowa Patrol boot for example (my new boot of choice).

I have used Danner boots before and I think they were in the 8-10'' high range. Good for flat ground but on slopes it wrecked my lower calf. The height of the support is just too much and i'm not short legged.

As for their construction, yes I would agree the military do concentrate on toughness. Leather is king pretty much. Also goretex isn't really used as it takes longer for the boots to dry out after river crossings etc.
 
Back
Top