BDU boots for Encampment

[MIKE]

I love my Bates Infantry Combat Boots that I got on the cheap from Sportsman's Guide a number of years ago.  Wearing them right now with my ODU.  Super comfy, and waterproof too!

[BTCS1*]

If you have the money to spend I'd say you may wanna give Bellevilles a try. I have a pair of 880's that are amazing!

[Mark_Wheeler]

Does Bates have side zip with safety toe?

Yes, Mine do. I recieved them as a gift so I'm can't quote what model they are, but I was told when they were handed to me that they were USCG boots, hopefully that will help.

[J.American]

In my opinion, the best boots are Corcoran Jump Boots.  I have them myself and they are amazing.  Side zipper is a plus as well.  Such as - http://www.workbootsusa.com/come10lesizi.html

[manfredvonrichthofen]

In my opinion, the best boots are Corcoran Jump Boots.  I have them myself and they are amazing.  Side zipper is a plus as well.  Such as - http://www.workbootsusa.com/come10lesizi.html

Do not wear those boots to the field or to Encampment, they have no tread. If you showed up for any kind of outdoor training, let alone an ES mission wearing them, I would send you home because they are a safety hazard. However Corcoran does make a decent boot of the same type with decent tread. However I still don't recommend them for wear as the toe cap is not as strong as standard boots because it is sewn on instead of one piece. I suggest going with something like a standard jungle boot, or all leather leg boot. They are made for the work.

In WWII the jump boot was semi practical for the Airborne because of their ability to support the whole foot while performing airborne operations. However the rest of the military weren't authorized the boot, because it wasn't practical at all.

EDIT: The Airborne still wears the boot for one purpose, for dress uniforms while blousing the pants for tradition. In the 101st Airborne, they are not even authorized with field uniforms.

Also, the zipper, I see it as a hazard as well, if nothing else, in the field it can rub your ankle raw, if not do worse.

[jimmydeanno]

Do not wear those boots to the field or to Encampment, they have no tread. If you showed up for any kind of outdoor training, let alone an ES mission wearing them, I would send you home because they are a safety hazard.

Come again?  I've worn mine to 8 encampments, 25+ missions, and hiked the highest 40 peaks in the North East in mine.  I've never had an issue with traction.  Meanwhile, there have been plenty of folks who have twisted their ankles, etc wearing those boots with the enormous tread on the bottom.

 

[Eclipse]

If you showed up for any kind of outdoor training, let alone an ES mission wearing them, I would send you home because they are a safety hazard.

You can't send someone home because you don't like their boots, as long as the boots meet the uniform spec, which these do.

I agree these are a poor choice, I own two pairs myself, and if not worn and sized properly (difficult for cadets), they will chew your
feet up like a cheese grater, but we need to be clear on the bounds of our "go home powers".

[manfredvonrichthofen]

If you showed up for any kind of outdoor training, let alone an ES mission wearing them, I would send you home because they are a safety hazard.

You can't send someone home because you don't like their boots, as long as the boots meet the uniform spec, which these do.

I agree these are a poor choice, I own two pairs myself, and if not worn and sized properly (difficult for cadets), they will chew your
feet up like a cheese grater, but we need to be clear on the bounds of our "go home powers".

Want to bet? I would send someone home, or make them change their boots. I don't hate the boot, it is the tread, there is none. Now Corcoran does make a version called the Matterhorn. They have decent tread and I have nothing against them. The problem is there IS NO TREAD. I would make that call, and I would stick by it. I have seen many problems with people wearing these boots in the field.

[Eclipse]

Want to bet? I would send someone home, or make them change their boots. I don't hate the boot, it is the tread, there is none. Now Corcoran does make a version called the Matterhorn. They have decent tread and I have nothing against them. The problem is there IS NO TREAD. I would make that call, and I would stick by it. I have seen many problems with people wearing these boots in the field.

Yes.  I will take that bet.  Assuming you have the authority as a commander or GTL, your ability to sustain their leaving would last about 3 phone calls.

Don't stamp your feet on this, no Group or wing CC is going to let you send a member home because their compliant uniform parts
are deemed arbitrarily "unsafe" by you.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Yes.  I will take that bet.  Assuming you have the authority as a commander or GTL, your ability to sustain their leaving would last about 3 phone calls.

Don't stamp your feet on this, no Group or wing CC is going to let you send a member home because their compliant uniform parts
are deemed arbitrarily "unsafe" by you.

If is see a safety hazard, I am going to call on it. And yes, I see a boot with no tread as a safety violation. If your squadron van has no tread on the tires, would you drive it? I would seriously hope not. If you would, I would call you on that safety violation, not that I think you would drive with no tread, but to someone who knows your boots are your body's tires, it is dangerous.

[Eclipse]

Not remotely the same thing.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Not remotely the same thing.

Really? You don't rely on your boot tread to keep traction in slippery or muddy situations just like u do your car's treads? If everyone only dove on dry asphalt there would be no need for treads, just the same with your boots. They are very close to the same thing.

[davidsinn]

Yes.  I will take that bet.  Assuming you have the authority as a commander or GTL, your ability to sustain their leaving would last about 3 phone calls.

Don't stamp your feet on this, no Group or wing CC is going to let you send a member home because their compliant uniform parts
are deemed arbitrarily "unsafe" by you.

If is see a safety hazard, I am going to call on it. And yes, I see a boot with no tread as a safety violation. If your squadron van has no tread on the tires, would you drive it? I would seriously hope not. If you would, I would call you on that safety violation, not that I think you would drive with no tread, but to someone who knows your boots are your body's tires, it is dangerous.

You can call on it all you want but I guarantee you will lose. Your group commander as well as group V's commander wear those boots. They are both GBDs. They have plenty of tread for anything you will find in this state. I have watched cadets climb up the worst of the hills in your AO in those boots.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Yes.  I will take that bet.  Assuming you have the authority as a commander or GTL, your ability to sustain their leaving would last about 3 phone calls.

Don't stamp your feet on this, no Group or wing CC is going to let you send a member home because their compliant uniform parts
are deemed arbitrarily "unsafe" by you.

If is see a safety hazard, I am going to call on it. And yes, I see a boot with no tread as a safety violation. If your squadron van has no tread on the tires, would you drive it? I would seriously hope not. If you would, I would call you on that safety violation, not that I think you would drive with no tread, but to someone who knows your boots are your body's tires, it is dangerous.

You can call on it all you want but I guarantee you will lose. Your group commander as well as group V's commander wear those boots. They are both GBDs. They have plenty of tread for anything you will find in this state. I have watched cadets climb up the worst of the hills in your AO in those boots.

Try it in the snow we have today and see how many cadets fall on their faces. I do not think they are safe for field use.

[davidsinn]

Yes.  I will take that bet.  Assuming you have the authority as a commander or GTL, your ability to sustain their leaving would last about 3 phone calls.

Don't stamp your feet on this, no Group or wing CC is going to let you send a member home because their compliant uniform parts
are deemed arbitrarily "unsafe" by you.

If is see a safety hazard, I am going to call on it. And yes, I see a boot with no tread as a safety violation. If your squadron van has no tread on the tires, would you drive it? I would seriously hope not. If you would, I would call you on that safety violation, not that I think you would drive with no tread, but to someone who knows your boots are your body's tires, it is dangerous.

You can call on it all you want but I guarantee you will lose. Your group commander as well as group V's commander wear those boots. They are both GBDs. They have plenty of tread for anything you will find in this state. I have watched cadets climb up the worst of the hills in your AO in those boots.

Try it in the snow we have today and see how many cadets fall on their faces. I do not think they are safe for field use.

My boots are wore down pretty good so they have about the same amount of tread; I'm out of a job right now and can't afford new ones but  I have no problem in the snow or on the ice. It's not about the tread in most cases. It's about how well you walk on them.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I just can't wait until we change to ABUs or Multicam so that these boots will go away. I see them as a hazard, and I have seen people hurt wearing them because they couldn't get the traction they needed. And it is not just some one in a million incident either.

[davidsinn]

I just can't wait until we change to ABUs or Multicam so that these boots will go away. I see them as a hazard, and I have seen people hurt wearing them because they couldn't get the traction they needed. And it is not just some one in a million incident either.

And I've seen people get hurt from too much traction. If you get hurt because you didn't have enough traction it's the fault of the wearer. All you have to do is slow down and you'll be fine.

[MICT1362]

I have been wearing the same pair of Corcoran II Jump boots for almost 9 years.  Encampments x9, NBB x4, close to 25 missions, plus training activities, and I have never had any issue with the traction on my boots.  I had to replace the hard plate on one boot early last year, but it was from dry rot.

Proving that any specific boot was a safety hazard would be fairly difficult.  You would need to be able to show that a particular make/model was involved with incidents involving ankle or foot injuries, or falls.  If you have that info, I think we would love to see it.

Switching to the ABU or Mutlicam wont solve your issue either.  Corcoran makes the boot in both the coyote tan and sage green.

-Paramedic

[manfredvonrichthofen]

If everyone loves the jump boots, I don't understand why, I used to wear them with my Army Greens and Blues all the time, why not just wear these, they are a lot more comfortable, and they are actually worth it being that they have tread.
http://www.corcoranandmatterhorn.com/ItemDisplay.asp?Style=XCS2525&CategoryID=34

[MICT1362]

That is the Corcoran II.  It has the soft neck at the top.  The Corcoran I does not.  The leather comes up the boot and stops.  The Corcoran I is a "parade" boot now and has very minimal tread, because you typically don't need the traction on the parade field.

I have only seen one person in 10 years wear the Corcoran I.  Everybody else I know wears the Corcoran II or AF Marauder (the jump/jungle mix).

I suggest the Corcoran II anytime somebody asks me to suggest a boot.

-Paramedic