Hi, I'm new on the site here. I am looking to get a new pair of hiking/backpacking boots. I currently own a pair of Timberland Chocura Hikers, and they are great for short day hikes, I have found that they do not offer the support I need to longer hikes/backpacking trips. I want to get a new pair of boots that are supportive and comfortable.

I am looking at the Asolo Fugitives, I have heard a lot of good things about them from the guys I work with here in Afghanistan. They might work well in the desert, but how are they in the mountains of Utah? That is where i do most of my hiking. Are the Fugitives a good choice, or is there another boot that I should be looking into? I have checked out Vasque, but they seem to have too many quality control issues, I'd rather play it safe.

What kind of support do you need? The mountains of Utah don't require any "special" footwear. I wear trail-runners with no ankle support. I have weak ankles. No boot has ankle support.

[quote=eaglpaul I have checked out Vasque, but they seem to have too many quality control issues, I'd rather play it safe. [/quote]

Quality control issues with Vasque? I have been wearing various Vasque models for more than thirty years, and I have been pleased with all of them. Of course, my first pair of Sundowners only lasted me about fifteen years. I am still wearing Vasques I bought ten years ago, so I am not familiar with their recent products. Actually, a lot of the time I wear even lighter low cut trail sneakers. In my experience, they offer just as much support.

I just looked up Asolo Fugitives - over 3 pounds per pair! and that is size 8.5. Please, this is a lightweight backpacking forum. Those shoes are so 1970s.....

I'm another of the many on this forum who hike in trail runners. No blisters, far more comfort, actually more support for my ankles than the boots had. I will NEVER go back to boots! Do remember that an additional pound on your feet is equivalent to another 5 lbs. on your back (even the US Army says this).

If you are climbing rather than hiking, that may be a different story, but even climbers are using lightweight footwear these days.

In any case, everyone's feet are different, so anything any of us might recommend would most likely be uncomfortable for you. Go to several different stores and keep trying on footwear. Or you can order from one of the number of online shoe places that features free return shipping if the shoes don't fit.

Thank you for your answers and help, but I feel that I might not have been as clear as I wanted to be in my first post. I am going to try and clarify here. When I said I wanted more support I was referring to a boot for backpacking more than just hiking. I want something with a sturdy sole on it that doesn't let me feel all the rocks and twigs that I walk over. And something that won't tire out my feet after just a couple of days, when I still have several more to go. I have found with my Timberlands, they are very comfortable and flexible, but every time I hiked Mt Timpanogos I got really tired feet walking on all the rocks and shale because my sole flexed too much.

As for my remark about the Vasques having quality control issues, not looking to offend any one who is a fan of Vasque, I am only going off of what I have read. It seems that since Vasque has moved manufacture of their boots to China that there have been significant quality control issues. One big one being the sole of the Wasatch splits across the ball of the foot after about 100 miles. I have read that on many reviews, and was wondering if anyone has had the same experience.

I am trying to get back into hiking and backpacking, and am looking for a good supportive boot that will let me do that. If you still suggest trail runners, I will look into that.

I hear you; I use trail runners to backpack.

If you are carrying a 50 lb backpack, boots might be more appropriate. Lighten up the pack, and runners work great. A trail runner is not the same as a tennis shoe or street running shoe - the last and the sole are going to be more supportive and stiffer than what's in a shoe designed for pavement.

Dayhiked and backpacked 600 miles last year in trail runners without a single foot issue, other than foot fungus, which is not a boot/shoe issue.

There are trail runners that will be too flexible/flimsy; I found Merrell Moab Ventilators to be waayyyyyy too thin, felt every rock. But there are plenty of suitable runners, and I hike in granite and root strewn trails all over the Sierra Nevada.

Trail runners do have a shorter lifespan than a leather boot - however, the comfort is unparalleled, shedding weight and heat of a big boot lets me hike without bruised and sore ankles, blisters or weary, tired feet after 10-15 miles. So I have gladly replaced each pair of the five runners I've worn out....

Trail runners are a popular choice, but I don't wear them. I wear mid-tops. Low cut shoes get way more debris in them when you're hiking off trail or on trails that have a lot of brush and undergrowth and even in sand and gravel. I also like the protection from scrapes they provide for my ankles.

Shoes are an entirely personal thing. I've been wearing Merrell's for a long time now. I hear Keen makes good shoes. I know that Merrell makes a few models of heavy duty hiking boots.

And I know what you mean about flexibility and feeling the rocks under your feet. My experience with the lightweight Merrells I've worn is that as the sole wears out you start feeling those rocks a lot more. When it gets to the point where I feel them too much it's time for a new pair.

I like the fact that I can get a new pair of Merrels and not suffer through a break-in period, and like the softer, flexible, and better gripping sole on the lightweight Merrells.

A sole that is harder will wear longer, but keep in mind that there's a trade off with that.

In any case, you really need to go try on all of the models you think you might like before you buy, and then make a decision. I have tried every hiking shoe they have when I went to buy a new pair. And I always go to several stores too. I don't care who makes them, what they look like, or what they cost, when I'm trying them on. After doing that for years now I can pick up a pair, feel the sole and insert, and discount more than half of them without trying them on.

But even different pairs of shoes of the same model from the same maker will fit and feel differently. They're still in a large part hand made, and there are differences between them.

No offense at all. i was not aware that they had changed their manufacturing location and evidently their process and QC. One reason I have a lot of Vasque footgear is that, back when I retired from the NPS, they were one of the official suppliers in the NPS uniform pipeline. Thus I was able to get them essentially free. I guess I will hang onto my vintage Vasques

Mid height "boots" of the synthetic persuasion are tall trail runners. No ankle support, exact same soles/lasts, and I've gotten as much junk in them as I have with runners. So I have three different sets of gaiters.... shorties, breathable packcloth gaiters, and winter gaiters. Rarely wear the gaiters on trails unless I'm on those fading, brushy trails on the Pacific Coast.

I do have a pair of Asolo FSN 85s, that have a quite stiff sole and almost feel like boots. But they are rarely on my feet. I got them for SAR and have been wearing trail runners for SAR instead, along with about 75% of the rest of the team. There are some die hard old guys who insist on wearing leather boots, but they are becoming fewer.

Incidentally, I had a bad experience with the Asolos - after surfing scree one trip I missed a rock and it rode around in the boot until it worked its way under the insole where it ground into my foot repeatedly. I stopped several times and tried to figure out what was going on - finally ripped out the insole and out popped the rock. There was a donut shaped wear pattern on the insole.... Walking was bliss for the last four miles of the trip.

Maybe us diehard old guys like boots because they are more comfortable for us. I have a pair of desert combat boots I love. My feet stay more stable and are more comfortable by the end of the day. As far as a little extra weight, it's offset by the efficiency of the boots vs. the shoes. The study that was done on weight on the shoes vs. weight in the pack was extremely faulty.

The boots also don't get wet like shoes would if I walk through a shallow stream less than 8 inches deep.

I've read a lot of reviews on the Vasque Sundowners which are a nice looking boot. A lot of people aren't happy with the wear. Shoo Goo from the start could probably help with that.

(Keep in mind, I still use a SVEA 123R stove from 1977.)

And that's the key - do what's comfortable for you.

I haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate boots. I believe I understate the discomfort of them.

Looks like there is a lot out there for me to learn, and unfortunately I have to wait until I return home to figure it out. I appreciate all the help and suggestions. I guess that the best thing for me to do is just start trying on different styles of shoes/boots, and taking them out onto the trail until I figure out what works for me. A quick fix to my problem doesn't seem likely, just trial and error.

eaglpaul, I saw on another forum where you are located now. I'd suggest doing a lot of research on military combat boots and authorized substitutions. Amazon is a good place for reviews.

Belleville makes a couple good boots. Danner and Converse also do.

Just be careful to read the purpose of the different kinds of boot. A lot are designed for garrison duty or other specialized functions.

Oh, and oldrange, I would agree with you holding onto your vintage Vasques. I bought a pair of the Wasatchs about a month ago, and have been wearing them around Afghanistan, mostly walking sidewalks and roads, and the toe and ball of the foot have already worn down way more than they should have with the short time I have owned them, and the little abuse I've put them through. I will continue to monitor the condition of my boots, and keep posting on here their current status.

I know what you mean about field boots and garrison boots, I looked heavily into the Nike SF boots, thinking that they would be good for field use. Not the case, most people report that they fall apart within a few months of field use, but last in garrison. Disappointing when they have Special Forces in the name, you're expect more from a boot with that.

It's called marketing....not exactly truth in advertising.

Going to cheap end of shoes, I've been happy with my Bear Claw shoes I got for $24.99 at Super 5.

I have 332 miles on them with 150 on trails and the rest on roads and sidewalks. They are comfortable enough and still have a good bit of wear left in them. (And yes, I am anal about logging the miles on my shoes.)

The only downside is you don't want to get them wet as they take a long time to dry. I'll buy another pair so I don't wear out my good boots and shoes as fast.

If you are home every day, it pays to have 2 or 3 pairs of boots as the tops will last longer if allowed to dry out between uses. In the old days, we would cut a notch in the back of the heels of one pair of boots so they could see if we were alternating. With different types of boot/shoes, the overuse injuries may be less likely to occur if alternating.