Massif Rocks!

Don’t Feel Bad, They Didn’t Like Go Fast Boots In My Day Either

This slide has been making the rounds, generally briefed by the fun police aka an overly gleeful Sergeant Major or First Sergeant. It points out that some of the most popular boots worn by Soldiers are not authorized under AR 670-1. The worst part? It’s true.

20140530-190303.jpg

131 Responses to “Don’t Feel Bad, They Didn’t Like Go Fast Boots In My Day Either”

  1. Badjujuu says:

    And most popular in my unit (worn by XO and 1SG and most NCOs)………. NIKE Sfb.

  2. Doc_robalt says:

    What the shit when did this change??? I’ve been wearing Nikes forever

  3. Dan says:

    What about the other OTB boots?

    • PbLead says:

      Exactly?!!! WTF!? They are hailed as the new Jungle Boots. They are the best boots I’ve ever worn (with the exception of the factory insoles which I replaced)! They may hate fire but they are durable, breathable and comfortable as hell!

      • Dokt says:

        I’m on my third pair of Desertlites and love the hell out of them. Unfortunately I found out this week that they’re discontinued by New Balance anyway.

        I guess it’s time to buy a pair of Rocky S2Vs for field wear now. Being in a Guard MI unit, I’ll just save the OTBs for around the office wear where nobody will give a fuck about what boots you wear.

  4. J G says:

    So glad I got out.
    The garrison mentality has arrived in full!!!

    • Badjujuu says:

      Yes. It arrived from BAF where they perfected it.

      • Sean says:

        Double true. Back in 09 when 82nd arrived in BAF, they started blasting cadence on the loudspeakers across base around 0530, and their CSM complained to the JTF Paladin command staff about the logos on our shirts for CEXC. the 82nd CSM actually tried to ban us from wearing the shirts because it had a pinup bitch drawn on the back and he said it was sexist and demeaning to women.

  5. Marcos says:

    reading the regs, it seems like most of those are out because the sole extends up on the toe and heel areas

  6. Tom says:

    Did you also see that they are synthetic. Reg states rough cattle hide

    • Dan says:

      Reg also states the sand rigger belt is made of cotton or woven elastic. Last I checked, the belt is nylon and not the least bit elasticy.

  7. zach says:

    People on rough terrain or carrying heavy loads should wear boots with shanks and structure, not super flexible light options. There is a reason Lowa made a newer version of the Zephyr. And no it is not just for a better outsole.

    • Kris says:

      its probably more likely they changed the boots because the old ones fell apart and were crap had 2 pairs neither lasted 5 months

      • straps says:

        Lowa has two lines: The “affordable” line built of “standard” materials that fall apart after a year of hard use (wore through the soles of my Zephyrs in a year), and the “painfully expensive” line that lasts forever (my Seekers are going on 4 years old).

        • JHether says:

          Yes and yes. Only boots I’ve ever worn that haven’t come apart or had some catosrophic failure (besides broken laces.) had to replace my first pair eariler in the year, I’ve had them for over 3 years.

      • Daniel says:

        I have two.. civilian version and a desert. Both are great. The civ I wore in Afghanistan throughout 2012 and the desert since being home. No problems out of either.

    • LM says:

      I know!

      it amazes me how many people brag about their POS nikes and how comfortable they are. Boots are supposed to be supportive and wearing tennis shoe-like boots is worse than anything. You might as well hike barefoot.

      Any soldier that has done real light infantry work (not dismounted from MRAPs or HMMWVs) knows this too. You know what are good? Asolos.

      • straps says:

        No. Asolos are bad. Because they fail to comply with the new reg.

        • LM says:

          “good” in a sense of effective, not AR 670-1 “good”. I should have clarified. 😉

      • AssaultPlazma says:

        Not everyone is an infantryman rucking with 90 pounds of equipment. The vast majority of the people in the military have no need for expensive high quality to walk around the office and do other mundane task. That why there do popular they want to be comfortable in garrison. Should they get orders to deploy most will be smart enough to drop money for a good set of durable boots.

          • AssaultPlazma says:

            I dont understand.

            • J G says:

              I was agreeing with you. Boots are just another tool in the toolbox. I think that different boots serve different purposes. Everyone’s feet are different, this is drilled into everyone’s head with running shoes. Everyone has different requirements for boot design based on loads, environment, etc. I feel a lot of times we try and regulate what we don’t understand by using regulations for uniformity purposes, instead of focusing on mission effectiveness and truly understanding what these different tools are designed for.

              • Badjujuu says:

                I remember when our Unit was obsessed with making everyone’s kit layout the same…..”Your ammo pouch will be here, etc etc” that lasted for a very short time. Most guys were right handed, some left. Everyone had different preferences and the leadership realized that we weren’t a display Garrison unit but a field unit.
                Im personally not obsessed with uniformity as long as the job gets done. Especially in the field I don’t care if the Joe is wearing a fucking monkey suit, can he do his job? Can he perform?
                Garrison different beasts. As long as he shows up looking professional, as long as his boots are somewhat legit I’m g2g (no zippers please).

                So to question the authenticity of this slide…… I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this comes down hard on the leadership from higher up. They are starting to Crack down on Chest Rigs, different color pouches, or any other non issued OCIE so I can see boots/clothing being next.

                Remember, we’re cycling back to be a Garrison Army. There are plenty of bored CSMs who just returned from BAF where they would roll around in buses busting grown ass man with machine guns on their back for not using the authorized street crossing on Disney Drive or walking around spot checking for unbloused boots, rolled in sleeves, ID cards, dog tags, or PT belts.

        • Daniel says:

          Exactly. I am no longer an 11B. I wore SFBs from 2011 to 2012 at which point I bought some Lowa Zephyr GTX Mids. Some hate for the Lowas above but I have loved them. The SFB were great garrison boots though.

        • LM says:

          I realize that, but the “comfort” of walking around in a office is of NO concern to me whatsoever. Wear the fucking altamas you got in basic.

          Why should combat soldiers have to buy their own purpose-built boots?

          Fuck that. If you are in the office, buy your own lighter pair so that they’re more comfortable.

    • odie says:

      The Real question is, is the zephyr in regs?

  8. rowan11b says:

    I bet the only people who will care are the few young E-5 types who like being dicks. This won’t go anywhere in my unit, boots are important. I actually wear issue boots in garrison despite having a few pairs of s2v’s and a pair of rocky C4t’s for rucking, makes no sense wearing $200 boots to run around and make copies of stuff and issue boots keep my feet hard.

    • Matthew says:

      Someone else with a bit of common sense. I completely agree. On the odd occasion that I wear uniform, I will wear issued boots. What’s the point in wearing down a pair of decent £130+ boots just walking around camp? Save them for the situations that really demand them. Hell, I even wear the issued synthetic t-shirts: they do the job just fine. I don’t care if I look like I’ve just finished basic training by my choice to wear issued items. I think the people obsessed with strutting around in Gucci kit are the people who don’t really need the benefits of better quality non-issued items. They just want to look cool and spin dits about the time they nearly applied for Selection, which ironically if they passed, would be issued loads of high-end kit they can wear all the time.

      • rowan11b says:

        Exactly. There are a handful of senior NCOs I know that walk around in lowa’s or the like, but that’s usually because they wore a pair through rslc or something. The majority of the go getters, the senior e-4’s and e-5 that always finish at the front of the pack on ruck marches wear issue boots and make due. You see a lot of young dudes strut in boots like the Nike thinking it’ll turn them into some super stud, or they bought it just because it compliments the Jordans they wear off duty. Another issue I see is dudes wearing boots that are all padding, then the bottom of their feet falls off when we do a long movement cause they are baby soft, or their boots soak up a ton of water in the field and their feet rot. Like I said I wear C4t’s for rucking, they are fine for the 60lbs we usually do for pt rucks and I shuffle most of the way, okay for that. It’s great seeing guys wear their C4t’s on anything other than hardball in the field and watching them slide all the way down a muddy hill because of their treadless boots.

    • Badjujuu says:

      Field? I’m wearing my worn out comfy issue boots. Back in Garrison? You bet your ass I’m sporting my sfb or danners

  9. ken says:

    Well, guess what 670-1 – we don’t give a $hit.

    V/r,

    The ARNG

  10. Josh says:

    Hmmm….that’s odd. I’m pretty sure Nike designed the boot to be IAW 670-1.

    • straps says:

      …and then they designed AR 670-1 to be a moving target.

      But the Nike boots suck for anything other than Reviewing NC/OERs. (No good for Rating people unless Rating someone means driving to Clothing Sales and buying one of those books with the bullets in them).

  11. D says:

    Because fuck common sense, that’s why. If you look around and the majority of the boots that everyone’s wearing are unauthorized, they’re not wrong, the reg is. Amend the reg before it goes into effect.

    • orly? says:

      Sounds like spit shining and starched BDUs should have amended their reg too.

  12. Badjujuu says:

    Don’t forget to shave during off duty

  13. AZSergeant says:

    Literally 90% of my unit wears boots on this list. The other 10% are idiots who wear the issue boots. I watched some one cripple themselves on our last ruck march by wearing issue boots. Which is funny because most of the boots on this list would make it easier to do our JOBS as infantrymen. I might actually see if I can transfer services if this goes through, I’m tired of getting fucked with for no reason except “uniformity” aka “being in the Army might be an enjoyable and rewarding profession if we don’t shit on you constantly.”

  14. LM says:

    Im glad.

    I got sick of seeing these tennis shoe abortions on the feet of troops that offer no support whatsoever when it comes to load bearing.

    Issue bellevilles and altamas work just fine. Break them in, wear wool socks, and actually do ruck marches and they will take care of you. Temperate weather ones? no need to wear those at all.

    In reality, military issue boots (and most of all, these bullshit “HSLD” pieces) are way underbuilt for what the troops need. We’re not talking about sunday strolls here. we’re talking about needing boots that support a infantryman’s feet when he is wearing over 50 lbs of gear.

    Maybe one of these days the army can grow up and start issuing hikers as standard. Belleville’s new temperate and summer mountain boots come to mind.

    • SSD says:

      But those aren’t AR 670-1 compliant either. The reg is about looks, not performance.

      • PbLead says:

        +1! Both pairs of my hot weather issue boots came apart at the heal on the left boot. Not all issue boots are meant for everyone. Although they were the best boots I had for the 3 months they lasted (each pair). I moved on to New Balance OTB’s and haven’t looked back (except for during the winter then it’s Blackhawks!).

        • Vince says:

          Did your heels heal? :)

          But seriously folks….the issue boots you have now, and the authorized commercial boots are light years ahead of what we had in the Cold War years.

          As in fucking awesome. Biggest issue is ensuring you have boots that are sized correctly.

          You think it sucks these days, I can remember boot heels worn down to the point you could see the wooden block inside. Yeah- I am not making that up. That’s what the pre-speedlace issue boots had in the heel.

          I used to take them to the boot re-sole guy on post and have him put a good pair of Vibrams on mine, and I would neatsfoot oil the hell out of the leather. When contoured and cushioned insoles became available in the late 1980s it was a real treat.

      • Mike D says:

        SSD, you’re wrong here. The ALARACT message that came out around 2007-2008 stated that boots would be 8-10 inches, cattle hide leather, etc. The requirements were made for durability of the materials and for ankle support.

        • kjz says:

          Talk to your CSM, new 670-1 standards came out in March2014.

          • Mike D says:

            I don’t have to talk to my CSM, I know what the standards are. The standards concerning foot ware have not changed, this is nothing new.

      • LM says:

        I said belleville mountain boots (950?) are hypothetically good as “standard”, not that they’re compliant. They were fine for afghanistan, although so were asolos in my unit so i didn’t touch them.

        The 390s issued are GTG though. I have five pairs of those bastards and would put them above any tactical ninjaboots any day. and they were free.

    • Joshua says:

      You mean the issued boots that never fit my feet right? The ones that even though they are narrow are still a sloppy fit on my feet? The ones that make me run funny and actually slow me down? The ones that never lace quite tight enough for my liking? The ones that dig into my ankle unless I skip a couple of eyelits?

      Those issued boots?

      Yeah no thanks, I don’t care how stiff they are or how supportive they are if they completely suck and fit me like shit.

      • Vince says:

        You need to ensure that you get them sized right. Sizes differ from manufacturers, as crazy as that is.

        One of the Ranger Bn PAs put out a very interesting piece on the Multi Component Boot System, as he called it, in 1988. It’s floating around the internet somewhere.

        He went into the use of the wool ski sock, different thickness insoles, and the gore tex sock for wet conditions, and the proper treatment of the black silicone tanned leather. Very good info. Much info on sizing procedures and the crazy fact that some people have different sized feet from left to right.

        • Joshua says:

          Yeah I’ve been wearing Bellevilles 390DES the past year since they actually fit well when paired with a good insole and thick hiking socks.

          I still have the running issue though, heavy boots with stiff shanks and thick soles just slow me down. Usually I am a pretty fast guy in my Merrels, but once I don the 390’s I can tell a huge difference in my speed.

          My main issue with boots we got issued was not only do I have large narrow feet(12N) I am also flat footed. The flat footed thing never bothered me, but my feet are like pancakes, and having long thin narrow pancake feet make getting a issued boot that actually fits decently quite the chore.

          • LM says:

            Maybe if you would actually get your feet sized rather than going by the size so generously offered by the 30th AG contractors…

            390s ARE issued

            Like I said, issued boots are not perfect by any means, although buying lightweight tennis shoe ninja boots will not alleviate any problems that are created by the issue boots. Lack of support takes you straight to plantar fasciitis-ville.

            Thats not even getting into the socks and goretex boots…

  15. Norbis says:

    “Hey guys, I know we can’t figure out camo and a blind guy would have done better, but seriously, your boots are unprofessional and aren’t capable of performing reliably in combat…”

  16. straps says:

    My boys and I had an old drinking bet back in the day: Last guy to get SMOKED for wearing his green jungle boots with 550 cord laces in a POGue AO bought the first round of drinks.

    So yeah, not a new challenge.

    • SSD says:

      Thank you for using the proper spelling of Pogue.

    • Badjujuu says:

      Hahaha. You know the field craft went out the window when now they sell 550 cord (or type III nylon) shoe laces at your local px. Hahaa.

    • z0phi3l says:

      I wore my green Jungles till threatened, thankfully by then the black ones were not complete and utter garbage and were decent.

      I also had a pair of the original Hi-Tech boots people started to use in the early 90’s, got a few looks but nothing was said till the official word came out they weren’t allowed, got a good 6 months out of them

      • james says:

        That had to be what ’92-93, rebember everyone had them when the MSG passed the word.

      • Attack Company 1/75 says:

        We had a few guys wear Hi-Tech boots. Several even wore them for the long movement in the desert during Operation Iris Gold (Dec 1991) and had a very bad time wearing those boots. Needless to say, Rangers didn’t wear Hi-Tech’s very long.

    • LM says:

      I still have mine.

      I think i had them rebuilt like 3 times??? maybe 4?

      I thought the desert storm-era boots would be the same…they werent, much to my chagrin.

  17. Aaron says:

    Whoops…guess I’m wrong. Horrible leader I be. Funniest thing about it…I only wear my Tachyons in garrison, I had them in the field, but a day of hard use and the sole wasn’t helping me. The Rivots, although heavy took care of me for the other 20 some odd days…

  18. 1 kitty says:

    Thank god I’m out, fuck everyone e7 and above

  19. pbr549 says:

    I sent this to my BDE CSM, he is TDY for our our divisions NCO of the Year competition with my divisions CSM and several other CSMs in in my division. He said that the look and verbiage on the slide aren’t correct and that it’s probably just a fake somebody put together to piss people off.

    Now, on a personal note, I wore OTB Desertlites during the warm months in Afghanistan conducting numerous dismounted patrols and those boots were awesome. During the colder months I wore the OTB Bootistans, another pair of great boots. Belleville 390s were the best boots the Army has, IMO, ever issued.

    • SSD says:

      This is popping up everywhere. Just because it isn’t 100% right doesn’t mean some office didn’t send it out. It’s actually been used by CSM at service schools when informing their troops that they may longer wear these footwear.

      • pbr549 says:

        Roger, I’m tracking. I’m just curious about the “CSM” channels this as been going through. I’m the Ops SGM for a unit pretty fat from the tip of the Speer LOL, but we still seem to get allot

        • pbr549 says:

          A lot of the read aheads on 670-1 updates. I’m not saying this isn’t going to happen, but I’ll believe it when I see it in an ALARACT OR MILPER message

      • fryer duck says:

        I’m pretty sure that I saw a similar poster when I was at Fort Lee a couple of years ago. I’ve know the Nikes have been out of reg for a while but I have never seen anyone get called out for wearing them.

  20. LTC Ski says:

    …After my tattoo check they can tell me if my boots are authorized or not. If my memory serves me correctly, the reason I switched to COTS boots in 2003 was because the POS-built-by-the-lowest-bidder issue desert boots would fall apart inside of 30 days in-country.

    I noticed that there are none of the gay-assed tanker boots on this list.

    Another indicator that the SMA and his position have lost touch with the force and are no longer relevant.

    • straps says:

      The tanker boots are authorized by local commanders. As are packs in tactically viable color schemes.

  21. Paul R says:

    Flip-Flops! I didn’t see them on the list so we’re good right? They come in a combat version don’t they? I think there was a posting on this site for combat FF’s.

  22. Marcos says:

    found this in the updated regs (21 March 2014):

    (3)
    Optional boots.
    (a)
    As an option, Soldiers may wear commercial boots of a design similar to that of the Army combat boot (tan), as
    authorized by the commander. The boots must be between 8 to 10 inches in height and made of tan flesh-side out
    cattlehide leather, with a plain toe and a soling system matching the color of the tan upper materials. Rubber and
    polyether polyurethane are the only outsole materials that are authorized. The soling materials will not exceed 2 inches
    in height, when measured from the bottom of the outsole, and will not extend up the back of the heel or boot or over
    the top of the toe. The exterior of the boot upper will not contain mesh but will be constructed of either all leather or a
    combination of leather and nonmesh fabric. Soldiers may wear optional boots in lieu of the Army combat boot (tan), as
    authorized by the commander; however, they do not replace issue boots as a mandatory possession item

  23. Stefan S. says:

    The perks of being “behind the fence”. Big Army and their rules (eyes rolling)

  24. Faz357 says:

    I’ve read all of theses comments and I agree with most but not all. If its a hoax no big deal but if this is for real then its going to be a goat fuck.
    Most of the Army is going to have to change what foot ware there wearing, and hell I don’t see that happening since most of the higher COC’s are all wearing those dam boots(Nike’s/Rocky’s). So its a really mute point, the bigger issue is whats about to happen Army wide. AR 670-1 was just the start as I see it of an Army that is going to a conservative level that I don’t think anyone is ready for or was expecting, a law suit over the tattoo policy and a complete DOD review on female grooming standards tells me they put the cart before the horse and thought it was going to fly. Well obviously that shit is broke and all of this is on top of a huge force down sizing and the Afghan draw down. Every time we lower a standard to meet a standard it fucking blows up in our faces. All this talk online about the Garrison Army and not wanting to go back to it, hate to tell ya but that’s how shit goes its happened after every war. Except this time there isn’t going to be all this Clinton era extra money floating for training like there was back in the 90’s. So if your wearing stripes just do you dam job and and take care of your folks there the ones that are going to suffer more from this anyway. Stop bitching about it or retire or get out ETSing is free of charge.

    • bobX says:

      It’s not going to be free for the Army when they chase away all their knowledge and experience base. Or would you like to foot the bill for sending my replacement through flight school?

      • Glen says:

        He is. As a taxpayer. Now go fill the fridge.

        • Faz357 says:

          My issue is exactly what you said all knowledge is going to be driven out but how do you think there going to get to the number they want? QMP/QSP/ locking up the points so NCO’s in MOS’s can’t move up , moving the over strenght MOS’s into other jobs to flood those MOS’s…I’ve seen it happen already and it’s about to start all over again maybe you guys werent there, I’ve been wearing the uniform since 1993, on Active Duty so I think I already footed your bill for flight school, you’re welcome.

          • bobX says:

            Thank you much then. It was a good time! My point wasn’t about me, but the cost of chasing people out and having to replace them I’ve been in since 98, so you have me beat there, but I do remember some of the 90s era Army. I’m concerned that we are going to lose focus on combat skills. I think the attitude that people should just suck up whatever and enjoy the ride is counterproductive. And I haven’t stocked the fridge in about four years so…. I’m guessing the soldier that replaces me can do it after the Army tells me it is time to take my ball and go home cause he’ll be rl3 with no experience.

            • LM says:

              Shit, i agree with you 100%.

              My replacement was already rostered a long time ago for precisely the reason you mentioned.

              Their loss not mine. They can take their 3 IQ garrison bullshit somewhere else and apply it to those looking at the army for a job.

    • Crayon eating booger eater says:

      Yes. It’s a moot point. Moot.

  25. Commo says:

    For wearing issue boots vs commercially available options was way more about comfort. During the 2 1/2 months of BCT, the issue boots caused me to lose feeling in the 3 small toes on both feet and it took about 8 months of not wearing them to get that back. So I’m not a fan personally

  26. Nike and Danner models wow. Others I can understand :(

  27. Mike D says:

    Nothing has changed concerning foot ware, someone just made this slide to point out what is already unauthorized. If you attended any NCOES schools past WLC recently, you most likely would have been informed that those beloved Nike boots are not authorized for wear. I contested it, and had to do some “homework” because of it.

    If you have been in long enough, back around 2007 or so, SMA Preston put out a slide show and posters concerning boots then. Most notably, the Oakley boots were on the unauthorized list. I remember it infuriating several people where I worked, but they got new boots and moved on.

    There was an ALARACT message that came out around the same timeframe stated that boots would be 8-10 inches, cattle hide leather, etc. In the message, they gave reasons why boots needed cattle hide leather, and it was because of the durability of the upper. The synthetic materials do not last as long as the natural cattle hide leather does, the restriction is not based on looks at all.

    The funny thing about it is that the AAFES website even states that, as far as the boots they stock, they are not authorized for wear with the Army Combat Uniform. I hear it all the time, “Well, everyone wears them so they must be authorized” and “But they sell them at the PX/MCS” but that’s not the case.

    So, what is the solution? Go find a pair of COTS boots that has a durable sole, a comfortable fit and a cattle hide upper and stop complaining. You’ll have a better boot than the issue boot, and you will be in the clear per the regs.

    • D says:

      So if the reason behind the cattlehide leather requirement is durability of the upper, why would it matter for a personally purchased boot? If Joe wants to buy a less-durable boot, who cares? I don’t see a reg stating that you can’t use Condor gear because it’s not as durable. This whole thing is stupid.

      • Dan says:

        Why cow and not pig (wolverine)?

      • majrod says:

        Because it becomes the Army’s responsibility to replace that unauthorized boot when it fails in the field.

        • Retired Guy (Thankfully) says:

          So ban them *for deployment* and leave them street legal in garrison . . .

    • Derek says:

      Only the Oakley 6″[ version was unauthorized.

    • LM says:

      …Or you can break your issued boots in and spend your hard earned money on merino or smartwool green socks…

  28. Joe says:

    Next revision: sanding the rough leather and applying Kiwi in Tan 499.

  29. Joe says:

    The Marine Corps has to have it the worst no boots without EGA’s unless your command doesn’t give a shit. I was in one unit that didn’t care, and in ITB I wore Army issue Belleville boots and got away with it. The Military brass needs to get their collective heads out of their asses and stop micro managing shit that doesn’t matter.

    • Jian says:

      I wore Panama sole desert jungles in Iraq and even in 43 Area Las Pulgas and no one said shit. I actually like my issued Bellevilles because they are actually comfortable and durable. I have one pair that survived three deployments; it wasn’t until I waded through the shit water canals in Marjah that finally rendered them unserviceable. I still wear my Bellevilles and Danner RATs for hiking, shooting and other outdoor activities now that I’ve EAS’ed.

      I wonder how no one said shit to you about non-issue boots at ITB at all places? And I agree, the leadership is full of morons that need to focus on more important issues…

      • Vince says:

        Some of us were issued that kind of gear before we deployed to OIF– and the SMU (I was the supply pogue) stocked a mix of tan and emblem-sporting coyote boots. So if you were with us, and you were an Army guy, you might wind up with USMC boots if that was your size– if you were a tattooed, high and tight wearing career Marine, if your size was a tan GI boot, that’s what you got.

  30. Joe says:

    The Marine Corps has to have it the worst no boots without EGA’s unless your command doesn’t give a shit. I was in one unit that didn’t care, and in ITB I wore Army issue Belleville boots and got away with it. The Military brass needs to get their collective heads out of their asses and stop micro managing shit that doesn’t matter.

  31. Thomas says:

    This is just another example of the pussification of the American military, the Army in particular. Worried about damn boots when we have so many returning soldiers with more pressing issues that could stand some attention. That and going back to the Sept. 10 garrison attitude. What a bunch of damn idiots running this circus.

    I wear the boots that serve me beat in the environment I’m working in. Not in the field, sporting the Nikes. In the field, I might use the issue boots that don’t fit right or…I just might not!

  32. zach says:

    Many are missing the point that crap trendy ultra light/flexible/milimalistic footwear of any kind will mess your feet up. The same people that wear Nike frees and Five fingers, etc. are the ones that think these type of boots are cool. Tell me how cool they are when your feet are trashed at 30. Vibram just got sued for Five fingers recently for the record. It is due to injuries. The army is likely doing this at least in part due to foot problems.

    • Badjujuu says:

      people who get injured wearing the five finger are the same people who put them on right out of the box and run 5k. I’ve been wearing my five finger for almost four years and yet to have any issues with my lower body. I also wear Danner/sfb while in uniform. I wear my issue boots during field problems simply do to a fact that they are really broken in and I don’t want to trash my own bought boots.

    • LM says:

      The lawsuit was because the five fingers didn’t have the proported health benefits as claimed, which is really bullshit when one properly trained with them. Running 5 miles on asphalt would obviously be exceeding the limits of the design and cripple you.

      I do agree with the ninja boots though. Issue boots already have a problem with being too light.

  33. Zach says:

    Two things to note that I have not seen any one else mention (my apologies of they did) is that 1) Another reason that all of these boots are not in compliance with AR 670-1 and NEVER have been is because they have a logo on the side of them. Even before the changes that was always in the regulation. 2) If the Army is the one that produced this then they better get their shit straight because almost everyone of these boots are readily available to the Soldier at any AAFEES store, plus brand new privates at basic are allowed to go purchase them for use during training!

    • The Stig says:

      Please cite the applicable reg language concerning logos.

      I’ll give you a hint, someone above posted the actual text of the new 670-1 reg, there’s nothing about logos.

    • pbr549 says:

      What post are you at where new privates are allowed to buy boots during basic training?

  34. joeinfantry says:

    Funny…Because I’m pretty positive my new guys were just ISSUED Rocky “S2V” boots at the local CIF. Army likes to play with itself.

  35. majrod says:

    SSD – I’m disappointed. I didn’t expect you to fan the flames with the populist narrative that everyone who tells you you’re out of uniform is part of the fun police or etc. I expect that from the civilian “journalist” looking to find a controversy under every rock and failing that, creates one.

    Sure we all hate the garrison “leader” that has nothing to do but worry about appearance because frankly that’s all they can do. They deserve our animosity but footwear has a serious side and there are leaders trying to do the right thing.

    Some of these boots are crap. They hurt the soldiers feet because they don’t provide the required support in the field, fall apart or make the foot soft and the soldier incapable of accomplishing the mission. Now the officer or NCO who tries to enforce the standard for the RIGHT reasons gets lumped into the dilettantes’ category.

    Thanks for making it harder on the guys trying to do the right thing for the right reason. Keep that in mind next time you ever want to go off on why standards and discipline have gone to hell.

    It would have been much more helpful to me as a consumer of SSD info if you had laid out your opinion of which of these boots are eye candy and which are functional boots for the field. Granted that might have taken more work than one wanted to invest for a quick piece. In that case a line about how some of these boots need to be eliminated from duty wear and a poke at the leader who will make this an issue but couldn’t lead a wet noodle to soup would have been helpful.

    BTW, for the whiners who want to harp on how SOF wears what they want. How about taking a page from the Ranger Reg’t that has a list of nonstandard footwear authorized for the field and yet wears issue/authorized boots in garrison?

    For those that work in an office and want their high top tennis shoes so they are “comfortable”. You are living up to the low expectations most have of you.

    • LM says:

      God you are so right on so many levels major, thank you.

      I thought my incessant rambling about the issue was just delusional paranoid, well, ramblings from a former E7 well-caked with a layer of cynicism.

      I fail to see the problem people have with the issued boots. Soldiers that are properly trained, hardened, and PT’d dont have issues with the boots unless they are previously injured. And i wont even argue such boots are perfect to begin with and i have my criticisms of them too.

      NCO’s need to tighten this shit up and kill the ninja-boot beast before it grows to epic proportions…

      With risk of getting off subject, with all of the bitching and whining ive seen on here, not a single person has channeled that rage towards fighting for boots that will actually improve your capability as a soldier when you have to actually carry your shit on your back. Its just focused on tennis shoes for the office. >:(

  36. Rick says:

    Okay gentleman, I see lots of experience here. Any recommendations for an old guy that rucks 3 miles weekly, 6 miles once a month, 12 miles once every three months and a 20-30 miler every 6 months, all with a 50lb ruck? Most of my rucks are on pavement. I finally destroyed my Lowes and am looking for something to replace them. I’m 53 and do these for charity.

  37. majrod says:

    SSD – I’m disappointed. I didn’t expect you to fan the flames with the populist narrative that everyone who tells you you’re out of uniform is part of the “fun police” or etc. I expect that from the civilian “journalist” looking to find a controversy under every rock and failing that, creates one.

    Sure we all hate the garrison “leader” that has nothing to do but worry about appearance because frankly that’s all they can do. They deserve our animosity but footwear has a serious side and there are leaders trying to do the right thing.

    Some of these boots are crap. They hurt the soldiers feet because they don’t provide the required support in the field, fall apart or make the foot soft and the soldier incapable of accomplishing the mission when called upon. Now the officer or NCO who tries to enforce the standard for the RIGHT reasons gets lumped into the dilettantes’ category.

    Thanks for making it harder on the guys trying to do the right thing for the right reason. Keep that in mind next time you ever want to go off on why standards and discipline have gone to hell.

    It would have been much more helpful to me as a consumer of SSD info if you had laid out your opinion of which of these boots are eye candy and which are functional boots for the field. Granted that might have taken more work than one wanted to invest for a quick piece. In that case a line about how some of these boots need to be eliminated from duty wear and a poke at the leader who will make this an issue but couldn’t lead a wet noodle to soup would have been helpful.

    BTW, for the whiners who want to harp on how SOF wears what they want. How about taking a page from the Ranger Reg’t that has a list of nonstandard footwear authorized for the field and yet wears issue/authorized boots in garrison?

    For those that work in an office and want their high top tennis shoes so they are “comfortable”. You are living up to the low expectations most have of you.

    • majrod says:

      Apologies for the double post. It’s a good point but doesn’t need to be made twice. (My Mistake)

  38. RJ says:

    The frustration stems from knowing the issue boot is something the Army got wrong, just like UCP, and now we are being told to shove it by PEO Soldier and “those guys up there”. I agree the majority of the boots in that photo are probably junk. I have only personally worn the Nike’s, and didn’t care for them. No one likes someone removed from their job telling them how to do it, seemingly with no frame of reference. ESPECIALLY when PEO Soldier could certainly build a better boot. I much prefer the “leg” boots of old to the current garbage, and in my current job have seen scores of injuries directly related to the issue boot.

    Personally, I like Danner Acadias. And I won’t have to get rid of them, as they were the model for the issue boot previous to this current one. “Don’t bitch unless you have a solution” you say? Danner RATs for everyone, scrub that EGA off for those of us who don’t need it and call it a day.

  39. pbr549 says:

    Belleville 390s were great. The Army took a few steps back when they stopped issueing them and started issuing the Altama and McRae boots.

    • LM says:

      They still do issue 390s. I was issued them with my DCUs and received more pairs after ACUs were phased in.

      Ive seen new privates straight from AIT with them issued too. Im certain 30th ag just has a shit ton of different manufacturers and just hands them out, or they have certain sizes from different contractors.

      They are fantastic boots though. I still wear mine when Im not wearing my Asolos or AKUs.

      • pbr549 says:

        I think they have a lot of odd sizes in the 390s, but I’ll bet trainees that wear a 9.5R are getting Altimas. I was issued my first 390s with DCUs and my first ACU issue, but it was Altimas during every RFI after that.

        Also, still haven’t seen anything come through the CSM/SGM channels.

        • LM says:

          I got a pair of Rocky’s from RFI. I didn’t realize they were a contractor for combat boots. 😀

          • LM says:

            Not the 2SVs or whatever that came 5 years later…i mean basic combat boots.

  40. hernando mauro says:

    a bit off topic but after a decade of fighting vastly numerically superior forces with stupendously superior firepower & training – someone should advise the Talibs to stop running up and down those hills in unsupportive fake chinese high tops lest they damage their feet. Spread the word to the nepalese sherpas too.

  41. Ben says:

    I hear a lot of grumblings from people about non issued boots falling apart, if Joe takes the time to maintain his kit it will be just fine, I’ve climbed all over RC-East in a pair of Nike’s and was just fine, the majority of my platoon were Nike wearers too, the light infantry was just fine. If I want to wear my lighter boots and exceed all standards set while doing so what is the issue?

    Typical high ups who have lost touch, remember, these are the same type of people that rammed the black beret down our throats, can’t figure out a new camo and are grounding the Kiowas.

  42. ghost930 says:

    Just like we lost our HK 416 AND mags. Someone not actually involved in combat didn’t LIKE them because apparently HK didn’t pay for someone’s election like Colt did. Gotta love this stuff, or you would probably cry.