Hey /out/, /k/ here.
Would combat-style boots such as pic be used in lieu of actual hiking boots? Or should I bite my lip, spread my wallet, and let go of my dreams of going full STALKER innawoods?
With good insoles maybe but I fear for your feet regardless depending how far you go. Might want to waterproof them too.
Also have fun slipping in mud when it rains.
>>675373
If you're going to get combat boots at least get something decent.
I'd take em on a longer day hike and see how your feet feel. If no blisters and you didnt die than I don't see why not.
Your boots a shit
Jungle boots are boss in any hiking situation
>>675373
Just get some Merrell Moab or Keen Targhees, you'll be much happier in the long run and you won't ruin your dress boots.
>>675393
Not OP but where's a good place to buy them?
>>675418
Any surplus store, really
>>675393
I tried Jungle boots and found them unbearable. I rocked some crappy work boots for a while and it was a dream compared to them.
>>675373
That leather doesn't look very supple, it would take quite a while to break them in. People always make fun of me for hiking and cycling in my supple 1460 Doc Martens but I wouldn't trade them for anything. Fitting (comfort), leather quality, and welting are the most important aspects of any boot. Your local army surplus store probably doesn't have what you're looking for.
>>675373
Combat boots are a meme, only good for looking nice on the parade square.
Top tier boots
>>675373
You should go for a tactical assault boot
Enjoy your tendinitis.
I used Alfa M77's on my one year service in the militairy, and also had a pair I got from my uncle that I used for fishing, hunting and as a daily winter-boot. They're nice when you've got them properly broken in, but their insulation is not all that good, they don't breathe and I always wanted a bit more ankle support. Now I use a pair of Viking Stryn as I completely wore out the M77's, and they are a lot better. More water resistant, better grip on ice, keeps my feet a lot warmer and don't need constant polishing.
They are completely fine for light use, but if you're going to be using them a lot I'd recommend investing in a "proper" pair of boots that is specially designed for the terrain you'll be walking in
>>675393
I had a pair like this for about 6 months. In that time frame I glued the right sole back on twice and wore the tread to nubs. I'll take any $50+ hiking boot over this any day.
>>675393
>boss in any hiking situation
they are clearly made for warm climate, those would get wet if you trotted through snow
I really don't understand what's so cool about these combat boots ? They really are shit, I use french army boots when I ride a motorcycle and I really wouldn't like to walk hours and hours with it, When I go hiking I use hiking boots.
>>675759
BTW these are the exact same boot I use. They used to be french army boots, but they understood what shit it is.
Anyone have experience with these type of boots?
>>676050
Mine look very similar, but not same brand.
I would go for these ones, I think any hiking boots are better than combat boots. If it's more than 50$, go for it. If it's under 50$, check online if it's worh it or not
>>676065
They're 350 but amazon has my size on sale for 170 that I'm tempted to buy
>>676081
I think 350$ is way too much for a pair of boots, because you have very good one for like 200$.
I paid mine (pic related) something like 130€.
They're pretty much perfect for everything but snow.
170$ is a pretty good price IMO, but you should still look on the internet for some review.
>>676050
I've got Scarpa hiking books and climbing shoes, so I'm a fan of the brand.
But what are you going to be using them for? Those are really heavy-duty boots. I have a friend who fights wildfires and he says that is one of the boots they use because it is so tough and is made of heat-resistant materials.
But it's also heavy as hell. 4.5 pounds for two shoes. You can get really great, sturdy hiking boots that weigh half of that.
I've recommended them before, but I think the Scarpa Kailash GTX is a great all-around hiking boot.
>>676128
Damn those are heavy. I might order both and try them on and send back the pair I dont like as much. Would the fuegos last longer than the kailesh or is it a null amount?
>>676150
probably null if you're not a firefighter burning the hell out of it, or an ice climber gashing it with crampons.
Good boots are typically so well made they last for years. Probably the first thing to go will be wearing down the treads, which would make either pair equally useless.
>>676040
whats bad about them? they look like decent boots imho. also look like awesome biker boots.
The 'classic' combat boots like >>675786 and >>675759 were made primarely to endure and comfort came second. When you're on the front you can't quickly get a new pair when your boots fall apart, having uncomfortable boots is still better than having no boots.
Now that large scale warfare in Europe has become very unlikely because the Soviet-Union no longer exists, some countries, like Germany, have updated their 'combat boot philosophy' and now have combat boots that look more like leather hiking boots than the classic combat boot (pic related). Note how the sole differs from the Alfa M77. The German boots also have a second layer of soft leather on the inside for increased comfort.
So, classic combat boots will last a very long time if you take care of them properly, but your feet will be much happier if you buy a pair of good hiking boots.
Here's what's bad about them. I really like them as biker boots, they look cool and stuff, but I don't want to walk for hours with them.
On the pic you can see the difference between regular hiking boots (the one that I use) and these French army boots.
>>676417
He is exactly right. The new french army boots (pic related) are just basically a good pair of hiking boots. There is really no reason to go for old school army boots, unless you're really really poor.
Here in France, old school army boots are something like 30$, while a good pair of hiking boots are 150$, but you can find decends ones for 70$ so...
>>676417
Those are heavy as fuark though (2.3 kg together), at least the model I got in conscription ten years ago, now they seem to have a slightly newer one but don't know about their weight. Not much of an issue for me, but for some it might be
>>676421
BMs have been my only shoes for four years now... I'm at my second pair because I didn't take care of my first enough (lasted me two years.) They're solid as shit, very good construction. They do have a few problems even as combat shoes. After two or three days of 20km hikes I'll get a blister or two because I never cared enough to put good insoles in them but it's really no biggie. Love them and they'll love you.
>>676417
I got these while doing 9 months of mandatory military service and still wear them all the time. These are the comfiest shoes I have ever owned, if you're into 'heavy' shoes.
>>677045
german /k/ommando spotted!
i have 2 different sizes, narrow and wide but both give me blisters on my toes making me lose my toenails, they are the right size though.
>>675373
those aren't combat boots senpai, they're canadian forces drill boots, no cushioning or tread at all
>>676417
I've got a pair of Haix (pic related ) goretex lined extremely comfortable but very hot feet will often sweat even in very thin socks
>>677378
He's right
>>676081
<former REI bootfitter
The Fuegos (and similar boots, Garmont Dakota, La Sportiva Karakorums) are HEAVY duty boots. They're designed for back country work crews, mountain guides, high country hinters, etc. Meant for crampons, heavy scrambling, side-hilling, etc. They are stiff, heavy and take a long time to break in.
If that's what you need, then go for it. But if you're more of a general hiker/backpacker/bushcrafter I'd suggest something lighter.
>>677392
They came and you're not kidding i feel like i could stomp someone's head in with these. The kailash are still on their way so can't compare yet. I do like them though they fit well and are ridiculously supportive. For a longer hike the weight of them might get tiring though.
This seems like a good place to ask; do I really need to wax a new pair of boots before using them, or is that just for old boots?
>>679384
If they're brand new boots you won't need to wax or oil them because they'll come from the factory already finished. You'll know when the factory finish is worn off when water stops beading on the leather (that depends on how often/hard you use them).
If you want to.speed up the break-in process, you can saddle soap them a few times to make the leather more pliable, but that will remove the factory finish so you will need to refinish them. After they've broken in, you'll want to condition and oil them 1-3 times a year (on average) and polish as needed.
Just remember the order.
1. Clean
2. Condition
3. Waterproof
4. Polish
If you polish first, the waterproofing won't reach the leather, it will sit on top of the polish wax and flake off when it dries.
>>675373
>Doc Martens
Nah
>>680870
that's not what those are
>>675373
Those are not combat boots. Those are parade boots. They are designed 100% for style, they're no good for anything. I have a pair and they're only good for walking around downtown, and even then, aren't very comfortable. They're only at all protective because the polish is waterproof.
>>676417
I have a pair of navy "combat boots" and they're fantastic for tromping around since they're just comfy work boots.They're thick goretex work boots designed for a machinery space, so they're super warm, waterproof, and nothing gets through them. They're a little hot, though, but they're pretty soft inside and if you double up your socks you'll never get a blister.
>>676417
As far as i heard from somebody i met at a bar and who was in the bundeswehr recently (in span of the last 7 years or so) the new boots ar not as sturdy as the old ones, which means that the new ones fail faster.
