Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 23
Loc: Grand Blanc MI
So I have been using the same pair of Teva mids for a few years now. They were cheap and have gotten me through a couple trips every year. But they have lost their waterproofness (I applied Nik lotion too). And also my feet have grown a half size in the last couple years so I am looking for a new boot.
I dont want to spend over $200 if at all possible.
Right now I am leaning toward the Merrell Perimeter. But I haven't tried anything on yet. I am going to hit up REI tonight to see what fits. I definitely want something I can use year round and also for snow shoeing (paired with gator's of course).
Registered: 11/30/02
Posts: 123
Loc: San Francisco
I agree---whatever fits and the less expensive the better. I do not think folks can do more than express their own opinions on how a boot may feel to them---views on durability may be more useful--but a boot that fits me may not fit you.
Durability varies a lot sometimes even between two pairs of the same shoe. I have a trail runner that lasted 600 miles. I've seen trail runners come apart on the second hike.
If I were looking for ironclad durability, I'd google up one of the custom bootfitters and go all the way - pay more than $600 and get a boot that fit my funny shaped foot perfectly and would last for years and years. But I don't care for leather boots, the full sized boot bruises my ankles, and I'm able to find good fitting trail runners often enough.
_________________________
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few." Shunryu Suzuki
Snowshoeing and summertime scrambling put very different requirements on shoes--I confess I'd have a hard time finding one pair for both. Although the old-school full leather "waffle-stompers" could do both, it was nice to cast off four-pound boots for something lighter in summer.
A pair that might work for you are Merrell Outbound Mids. They're very good for snowshoeing and fall to spring backpacking (hiking in mixed conditions that include mud, snow and creek crossings). They seem indestructible but are not gruesomely heavy because of the fabric uppers and lightweight midsoles. (There is a leather version for those who prefer that.)
Hotter and heavier than I like for summer, however.
Registered: 02/23/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: California (southern)
Originally Posted By lori
If I were looking for ironclad durability, I'd google up one of the custom bootfitters and go all the way - pay more than $600 and get a boot that fit my funny shaped foot perfectly and would last for years and years.
I would agree with this statement. The best,and most versatile boots I eever had was a pair of custom Peter Limmers. They fit like a glove right out of the box and were totally blister free. They were mid weight and I did use them in the snow and on snowshoes, although I today I use Sorels for that activity.
The closest off the shelf equivalent in my experience is the Vasque Sundowner. Caution, since having success with the Sundowner, I bought a lifetime supply and I am not familiar with current offerings. But it is an example of a somewhat heavy mid range boot that will do OK in snow.
I really think "durability" is over-rated. You have to think of it like a break-even analysis. If you spend $200 on a "durable" boot that lasts 8 years or $50 on a a trail shoe that only lasts 2 years, it is a break even. The MOST important thing is that the shoe is comfortable. Comfort beats ANYTHING for me. If you are lucky to have average feet, you have a lot of choices. If, like me, you have those horribly difficult feet to fit, it usually boils down to only a handfull that I can even consider. For several years I kept buying shoes that were poorly rated because the stitching wore out in one season, but because of this flaw, they always were on sale, so I simply bought new ones ($50) each year until they quite making them. I also do not try to get a boot that "does it all". I have three shoes for different types of hikes. Because I use each shoe less by only using it for certain conditions, each shoe lasts longer.
In the past I have had durable leather boots that I re-soled several times. They never wore out, but broke down in the ankle region as the leather aged so I had to throw them out anyway.
Those Danner Mountain Lights that Steadman mentioned are hardcore durable. I have my original pair from the 1980s. I've been hiking in trailrunners for a while now, so the Danners feel like big rocks tied to my feet by comparison, but I still use them once in a while for dayhiking just for fun.
They're 100% scuffed all over the outside, and the soles are partially worn, but otherwise they're perfectly usable. They still fit great. Haven't given me a blister since I broke them in back in the Reagan administration.
TomD Moderator
Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 4963
Loc: Marina del Rey,CA
Originally Posted By wandering_daisy
I really think "durability" is over-rated. You have to think of it like a break-even analysis. If you spend $200 on a "durable" boot that lasts 8 years or $50 on a a trail shoe that only lasts 2 years, it is a break even. The MOST important thing is that the shoe is comfortable. Comfort beats ANYTHING for me. If you are lucky to have average feet, you have a lot of choices. If, like me, you have those horribly difficult feet to fit, it usually boils down to only a handfull that I can even consider. For several years I kept buying shoes that were poorly rated because the stitching wore out in one season, but because of this flaw, they always were on sale, so I simply bought new ones ($50) each year until they quite making them. I also do not try to get a boot that "does it all". I have three shoes for different types of hikes. Because I use each shoe less by only using it for certain conditions, each shoe lasts longer.
In the past I have had durable leather boots that I re-soled several times. They never wore out, but broke down in the ankle region as the leather aged so I had to throw them out anyway.
I agree with WD. I used to buy cheap Hi-Tec boots for work. They would last about 6 months or so, but were very comfortable, light and as already mentioned, cheap. They were really a beefy trail shoe before such a thing was popular. I didn't mind replacing them. An expensive pair would likely have eventually met the same fate-dirt, water and lots of hours in them would have been hard on anything. They never came apart, just got so worn, I didn't want to wear them anymore. They were under $50 a pair, but this was years ago, so today, probably they would sell for around $60-$75 or so.
I also have an old pair of Asolo full leather boots. They took some hard use and are still serviceable, but they don't fit my feet as well as they used to for some reason and are not as comfortable as a modern shoe with newer technology. Still glad I bought them, but there are now far better boots on the market.
The bottom line for me is buy something comfortable with a reasonable expectation of usable life at a reasonable price. Kind of like buying a computer-if you expect to keep it forever, you are expecting too much.
_________________________
Don't get me started, you know how I get.
#164090 - 03/17/1208:04 PMRe: Best Boot under $200
[Re: Steadman]
immortal.ben
member
Registered: 09/10/11
Posts: 91
Loc: Arizona
In my experience, Merrells are not all that durable, but YMMV.
I have a pair of Oboz Beartooth and I find them to be a pretty amazing boot so far. I have had them since around Christmas of last year and have probably close to 100 trail miles on them. I also wear them for my everyday footwear.
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!
Previous Topic
Index
