I went shoe shopping a few days ago and tried on about 5 different kinds of Merrell lightweight mid hikers. They ranged in price from $90-$130 and none of them were worth more than $40 at the most. Seems there's very little difference between them now and no-name cheapo shoes.

I am disappointed how the quality of these shoes has fallen in the past 4-5 years. I really can't recommend them anymore, and I'm a little peeved that yet another company that made a good product that I really liked has decided to cash in on the goodwill and patronage that devoted customers like myself have given them over the years.

The sales person mentioned that most shoe makers expect you'll buy aftermarket insoles. If I am going to do that I think I can get by with a lot cheaper shoe. Since I already bought some insoles I dug up an old pair of Merrells I hadn't tossed and I'll wear them until hiking season starts in Autumn and then go buy something.

The same thing happened when Montrail "improved" the pre-2008 Hardrock. They "labored mightily and brought forth a gnat". All of this to the tune of "improvement" and increased profits. The "improved" 2009 Hardrock trail shoe seemed to be constructed of owl sh!t, worn tires and Kleenex. I haven't bought anything from Montrail since 2009 and wrote them to tell them why. They don't seem to care that much though.

I wore out two pair of Merrells in the past 4 years before I gave up completely on them. I have moved on to Oboz and Salomon and could not be happier.

It's frustrating, alright. There are so many "trail runners" "trail shoes" "low-top hikers" "lightweight boots" yadda-yadda to choose among--hundreds--and so many failure points, presuming you can find ones that fit, are sufficiently tough, have sticky soles...whatever your personal list.

It's been years since I've owned a pair that truly lasted an entire season. My best recent luck has been Nike, of all companies. But of course, their model lifespan is best measured in weeks so there are no repeats to be had.

FWIW am using adidas this season.

Cheers,

I wonder if the move towards lighter footwear is resulting in less durable footwear.

I have a pair of New Balance 978 that I like but was looking for a Made In USA hiking boot/shoe. I ran into three roadblocks:

1. price. Although ebay and a few online retailers occasionally have some a reasonable ($100-$125) prices, normal prices are around $300.
2. weight. The weights I can find are typically twice that of the NB978 I have.
3. Availability. I am hesitant to buy shoes online as footwear fit is so important, as least for me. I have enough aches and pains. I am not aware of well stocked Danner dealers in my town, although I did see that Altama is carried by the local military surplus so I may see if they have a pair of US made jungle boots.

I would really like to try a pair of Danner Combat Hikers, except that that are expensive, heavy, and not available locally. I have seen that virtually the same boot is also made by Welco and Bates and one online retailer has them for around $100. It's tempting but I have to sort through the various other unexpected expenses that have been hitting me lately.

It would be a real kick in the head if after all this the US made boots were no better durability than the less expensive and lighter foreign made boots. (As a disclaimer, I am not anti-foreign products, just pro-US jobs.)

I'm counting myself lucky to get 700 miles out of a pair of Trekstas.

Montrail model I used to buy (Wildwood TR) is no longer in production, and every other shoe they made was junk. The Mountain Masochist was just that.

I sure wish I could wear Saloman or Asolo, but they are just toooooo narrow. My foot changed shape over the years.

I know what you mean Bill. Merrell no longer makes that style of boot that was comfortable out of the box (for me), relatively light weight, and I got 2500 miles out of. Oh! and cost me $120. I have some Merrell mids (I purchased 2 pair a while ago), but I am on the hunt for something better...AGAIN

From reading the replies thus far, I get the impression that virtually nobody is happy with the backpacking footwear currently available. It sounds to me as though what we are using is adequate (barely) but there are issues of fit, durability and model continuity. Fit is an individual issue; feet are not a uniform product. But, durability and model continuity are entirely in the hands of the manufacturer.

I, for one, am tired of having glued up soles disintegrating at fewer than 100 miles or having my toes wear holes in shoe tops at about the same distance (New Balance and Merrill). I am also tired of the constant churning of models under the guise of "new and improved" when in fact it is just a color change and cheapening of manufacture.

Wouldn't it be neat if one of the shoe makers were to read this thread and decide "Hey, maybe if we make good shoes and not change models every two weeks people will buy them!". Well, back to reality!

Added in editing: I was fortunate to have bought an extra pair of pre-2008 Montrail Hardrocks before they were discontinued; I have used them for about 60 miles this summer and will use them on my August/September JMT hike.

Nice summary Pika. It seems as if we are in another period of planned obsolescence for shoes. I'm convinced that is why Merrell got rid of the boot I liked so much.

More of you should look at Oboz footwear if you can find them locally.

I have been curious to try the hiking boots offered by Adidas, as I know they used to make some pretty awesome tactical footwear back when I needed stuff like that.

Merrell has gone downhill. I suggest L.L Bean boots mostly because of their EXCELLENT customer service. I beat a pair of Cresta hikers to death going up Katahdin and decided I needed a smaller size and they took them back no questions asked. Plus they are pretty quality boots if you like all leathers that is. However I am partial to L.L bean being a Mainer myself lol

Am giving these a go. Would prefer they not be GoreTex but they're tough, stiff and relatively light. We'll see.

adidas Terrex Fast X Low

An early observation is they have the grippiest soles I've ever used.

Beside Lori, what is everyone else opinion on Salomon? I been using Columbia the last 2.5 years and now going to give these Salomon a try.

I also can't wear Solomon shoes, way too narrow for my feet. Also I do feel they hold up any better than merrells.

I love my Salomons.

Damn, I bought a pair of Merrel mid-highs on sale and because they seemed like a good fit. I've only used them about 20 miles on rugged trail, but I love their fit and protectiveness. What part of the boot fails? If they're going to eject a sole in the backcountry in short order, I'd like to know. This is beyond infuriating.

Merrells are comfortable, just not durable in my experience. For me, it was the mid-sole which wore out too quickly.

I am using a pair of Merrill Moab Ventilators now. I have now used them for about 150 miles of largely Arizona hiking: some desert, a 60 miler in the Grand Canyon and several 4-day trips in the Sky Island mountains of SE Arizona. So far, nothing has fallen off or broken but they do show a lot more wear than one would expect at this mileage. Most wear is on the uppers, the soles are still good.

The worst shoe failure I have had was with a pair of New Balance 759's (IIRC) with inserts glued into the heel part of the sole. The glue joint failed on both shoes on a PCT section hike and developed into a dangerous, flapping, tripping hazard. I used duct tape to hold the pieces in place for about 60 miles. I wrote NB about the issue but never heard back. I now avoid ALL glued up compound soles and heels as though they were the plague. Also, I don't trust NB shoes as much as I once did although I recently bought a pair of NB 889's with one-piece Vibram soles. I alternate these with the Ventilators and so far like them just fine.

I have the same with over 500 miles on them. There is some wear on the uppers. Most significantly is a spot where the mesh got caught in a stick and it ripped slightly. This happened very early on and the tear hasn't grown.

I had a pair of waterproof mids (Merrel). I commented on a forum about the lack of waterproofness (they wetted out within a month) and Merrell contacted me and sent me a replacement pair.

For what it's worth, I have a pair of Salomon "XA 3D Ultra 2, Performance Product, Adventure Trail" (does any of that actually mean anything?) I have only a few hundred miles on them (haven't kept track but probably less than three) so I can't speak to durability, but I've certainly come to enjoy them. They are very light, sole is hard enough to protect my feet, they are well ventilated and dry quickly, and the sole has a good grip. Now that I've seen it here, I realize that, while these fit me well, the last is a bit narrower than I usually find at this size. best, jcp

Oh, I would't worry if I were you. As the saying goes "If the shoe fits, wear it".

I'm talking about overall quality, comfort, and construction. The Merrells I purchased 10 years ago were the most comfortable shoes right out of the box I could find. The fit, soles, and insoles, were great, but that's just not the case now.

At least that's not the case with the shoes I tried on. There were none of the more expensive Merrells in the stores I went to. But even the $140 pair I tried on were pretty poor in my opinion. I just can't justify paying more than that either. I'd have to get 3 good years out of a pair of hiking boots to justify that and I've never had a pair of Merrells last that long.

Now the insoles on most of those I tried on are thin, cheap, and ready to toss in the trash right after you take them out of the box. The fit is inconsistent, I could feel the lumps and bumps in the soles though the insoles in each of them and each shoe had those lumps and bumps in different spots, and the overall construction and materials used are not the same high quality as they've been in the past.

Now I admit I am very finicky about fit and comfort, even to the point of giving up some durability in exchange for fit and comfort, but I feel that I can be that finicky because I'm paying a premium for that luxury.

The lightweight Merrell's I've owned have never been what I'd call durable, they didn't fail, they just wore out pretty fast, but they have been amazingly comfortable and a perfect fit right out of the box. That's what has changed.



I had the same issue with a pair I bought about 3-4 years ago. I just kept wearing them, but Merrell is great about replacing shoes.

The thing is, that just doesn't impress me anymore. I don't care if a company replaces junk with different junk, and that's a new tactic I've found that's become popular with companies over the past ten years or so. The words "Free Replacement for X Year(s)" printed on the box is a huge red flag for me now. I've come to associate it with a surefire guarantee that I'll have to pack it up and send it back for replacement if I want to use it for that X number of years.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do. I'm leaning towards buying high quality insoles and finding a cheap pair of hiking boots for them. Unless they really hurt my feet I think I'll end up with about the same thing I used to get from Merrell.

I buy high quality semi-orthotic insoles for every shoe/boot I buy. I highly recommend Aetrix Lynco insoles.

I really wanted to buy some Merril barefoot shoes, but all were too narrow which is odd, because most people who go barefoot for long periods end up with wider feet. You would think you would want that demographic buying shoes that are marketed to them. Anyways, New Balance has wide shoes for when I go hiking, and five fingers are great for wide feet when I want a minimal shoe.

I am lucky that we have a Merrel outlet nearby so I can get shoes there (on sale) for about $60. Last time I bought two pair of the same shoes, wore out one last year on a 43 day trip and now am on the second pair. I really do not mind, because once they are worn out for hiking, they become gardening shoes. The second pair are about on their last legs right now too. Never had this happen before, but they somehow got stinky and I cannot kill the smell. The smell is so bad now that I cannot put them in the tent. Both pair are still "serviceable" but have missing stitching and a few holes so are not dependable for a long trip.

I prefer the "soft rubber sticky sole" type of shoe because I do a lot of off-trail walking on granite slabs and rock-hopping so the sticky sole is better. Just like your car tires, you cannot have both best grip and longest lasting. The sticky rubber soles wear out faster. If I were only to do trail walking I would buy shoes with stiffer vibrum soles.

I do agree the shoes have gone downhill over time. My big issue is toe width. I am stuck with women's shoes because my feet are small, and any brand, seem to go to narrower toe boxes because stupid women who buy most shoes (the casual recreationalist, not real hiker) rather pinch their toes than have "boxy" looking feet.