Wondering what the general consensus is on the wear of combat boots/ dress boots are with the blues.
I have heard that this only has to do with "inclement weather"
Being from Alaska I see a lot of this!!!
I recently saw a senior member wearing boots at a SAREX but never got to ask him about it.
Comments???
Table 2-1 in CAPM 39-1 says you can wear them.
Be warned.....if you have your pants tailored for low quarters...they will not look right with boots. Also generally speaking boots are a lot harder to shine and do not look just right with blues.....but it is allowed by regulations.
If you are low on funds and can only buy boots or low quarters...go with the boots.
I can't think of any good reason to wear boots with blues. Just wouldn't look right in my book.
Quote from: AlaskanCadet on December 21, 2007, 12:55:37 AM
Wondering what the general consensus is on the wear of combat boots/ dress boots are with the blues.
I have heard that this only has to do with "inclement weather"
Being from Alaska I see a lot of this!!!
Has nothing to do with inclement weather. It is permitted per 39-1, most likely because the Air Force permits the same practice.
I wear dress boots with blues all the time. A
lot more comfortable, and most of the time noone even notices. The only catch it when they notice that I don't have any laces.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 21, 2007, 02:04:35 AM
Quote from: AlaskanCadet on December 21, 2007, 12:55:37 AM
Wondering what the general consensus is on the wear of combat boots/ dress boots are with the blues.
I have heard that this only has to do with "inclement weather"
Being from Alaska I see a lot of this!!!
Has nothing to do with inclement weather. It is permitted per 39-1, most likely because the Air Force permits the same practice.
I wear dress boots with blues all the time. A lot more comfortable, and most of the time noone even notices. The only catch it when they notice that I don't have any laces.
What do you define as 'Dress Boots' ?
Quote from: JThemann on December 21, 2007, 02:30:45 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 21, 2007, 02:04:35 AM
Quote from: AlaskanCadet on December 21, 2007, 12:55:37 AM
Wondering what the general consensus is on the wear of combat boots/ dress boots are with the blues.
I have heard that this only has to do with "inclement weather"
Being from Alaska I see a lot of this!!!
Has nothing to do with inclement weather. It is permitted per 39-1, most likely because the Air Force permits the same practice.
I wear dress boots with blues all the time. A lot more comfortable, and most of the time noone even notices. The only catch it when they notice that I don't have any laces.
What do you define as 'Dress Boots' ?
I don't define anything as dress boots. The manual does.
IMHO it looks like crap, :P but 39-1 does allow combat boots.
Quote from: Dad2-4 on December 21, 2007, 02:53:56 AM
IMHO it looks like crap, :P but 39-1 does allow combat boots.
Some look worse than others. Well polished jump boots look good. So do the old combat boots that don't have speed lacing.
I've worn my jump boots with my blues a time or two. Its not a preferred wear for me, but when its snowing like the dickens and the chances are high that I'm going to have to wade thru snow to clean off my car after the activity, I'd rather do it in my nicely spitshined Cororans than get snow inside my low quarters.
But you are right, it just looks... odd....
Quote from: NIN on December 21, 2007, 03:13:16 AM
I've worn my jump boots with my blues a time or two. Its not a preferred wear for me, but when its snowing like the dickens and the chances are high that I'm going to have to wade thru snow to clean off my car after the activity, I'd rather do it in my nicely spitshined Cororans than get snow inside my low quarters.
But you are right, it just looks... odd....
Odd to say the least, but I do it on a regular basis if the weather is bad - ditto on the Corcorans, though they take a bit more work than the vinyl Corfams to get back to spec, especially with all the salt used these days.
Even when in the Army, specifically The Old Guard, we wore highly polilshed boots with our dress blues during funerals in Arlington. Granted, it just doesn't look right, but I'll take boots over leather soled low quarters any day in the snow.
I agree with those above, if you can go without boots, go without. Although allowed, it doesn't look right. Save the "well the reg says I can so I will" for when you really need it, aka inclimate weather. To each his own, of course.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 21, 2007, 01:13:38 AM
...Also generally speaking boots are a lot harder to shine and do not look just right with blues.....
If you have a set of boots for garrison wear, I've seen many boots done up with Leather Luster. It looks like an actual shine, rather than Corafram. Done properly, it looks really good.
Thank you for the comments, much appreciated. :)
As I cannot locate this either, are the pants left undone or bloused? ???
Blousing is not authorized. See Table 2-1. and 2-2.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 21, 2007, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 21, 2007, 01:13:38 AM
...Also generally speaking boots are a lot harder to shine and do not look just right with blues.....
If you have a set of boots for garrison wear, I've seen many boots done up with Leather Luster. It looks like an actual shine, rather than Corafram. Done properly, it looks really good.
If you can afford two sets of boots......buy some Corafans instead.
Also, for anyone interested in knowing, they do make corfram boots. I wear them for work everytime I have to wear a uniform. (now that I'm a desk jockey, not so much lol)
Likely this practice is allowed in CAP to try to save cadets from having to buy both. That makes the most sense.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 21, 2007, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 21, 2007, 01:13:38 AM
...Also generally speaking boots are a lot harder to shine and do not look just right with blues.....
If you have a set of boots for garrison wear, I've seen many boots done up with Leather Luster. It looks like an actual shine, rather than Corafram. Done properly, it looks really good.
(http://www.leatherluster.com/beforebootgifwithdropshadow.gif) (http://www.leatherluster.com/afterbootgifwithdropshadow.gif)
Linky: http://www.leatherluster.com/
heh...I would advise caution with the leather luster stuff. It works well enough, but it puts a pretty thick coating on the boot, and looks more like a 70's crumpled pleather than a shined boot unless you do it just right.
As indicated in their faq's, it takes 5-10 minutes (at least) for this stuff to dry. I know this from experience.
At my first encampment as a CC, a very enthusiastic cadet made a point to show me his shiny Lustered boots, he handed them to me, they looked well enough, and when I gave it back to him I was left with a black outline of his boot on my hand.
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 22, 2007, 05:10:12 AM
Likely this practice is allowed in CAP to try to save cadets from having to buy both. That makes the most sense.
A practical reason, but not the primary one.
The Air Force specifically authorizes the wear of boots with blues for all personnel. CAP mirrors the practice.
Where you get into special authorizations is blousing the pant legs.
Not an all inclusive list, but Combat Control, Pararescue, Tactical Air Control Party, Air Weather Parachutists, and SERE instructors are authorized to blouse their trousers while wearing boots with blues.
If you don't fit into one of the authorized fields, you don't do it.
CAP personnel also have no need to do so.
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 22, 2007, 05:10:12 AM
Likely this practice is allowed in CAP to try to save cadets from having to buy both. That makes the most sense.
It's allowed on Active duty....so it makes sense that CAP would follow suit.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 22, 2007, 07:06:08 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 22, 2007, 05:10:12 AM
Likely this practice is allowed in CAP to try to save cadets from having to buy both. That makes the most sense.
It's allowed on Active duty....so it makes sense that CAP would follow suit.
I wouldn't echo that. Namely because that which makes sense for the USAF doesn't necessarily make sense for CAP. I'm sure you will agree that there are volumes of things done on active duty that likely will never have a place in CAP.
I think the practicality of conserving cadets money has more place than "we need to do it because "BIG BROTHER BLUE" does. I offer all honors the the USAF (and always will) but that is a vastly different culture than CAP.
I should like to know the "spirit" behind the "letter" of that reg.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 22, 2007, 05:52:53 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 21, 2007, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 21, 2007, 01:13:38 AM
...Also generally speaking boots are a lot harder to shine and do not look just right with blues.....
If you have a set of boots for garrison wear, I've seen many boots done up with Leather Luster. It looks like an actual shine, rather than Corafram. Done properly, it looks really good.
(http://www.leatherluster.com/beforebootgifwithdropshadow.gif) (http://www.leatherluster.com/afterbootgifwithdropshadow.gif)
Linky: http://www.leatherluster.com/
heh...I would advise caution with the leather luster stuff. It works well enough, but it puts a pretty thick coating on the boot, and looks more like a 70's crumpled pleather than a shined boot unless you do it just right.
As indicated in their faq's, it takes 5-10 minutes (at least) for this stuff to dry. I know this from experience.
At my first encampment as a CC, a very enthusiastic cadet made a point to show me his shiny Lustered boots, he handed them to me, they looked well enough, and when I gave it back to him I was left with a black outline of his boot on my hand.
I use the stuff on my boots, works very well if you do it correctly, including stripping ALL of the factory polish off before you start to apply it. If you don't, you get the caked-on look. This takes many hours (and many bags of cotton balls and a big bottle of laquer thinner) to do.
Their instructions recommend at least 8 hours drying time. Definitely not something to do at encampment, unless you're touching them up at night, and can let them sit and dry.
FYI - it's Corfam. Big "C", one "r". Trademark of duPont, apparently abandoned when they quit making it.
As for that type of shoe, they are very shiny, but have downsides. They make your feet hot and sweaty because they don't breathe, and they damage easily, with little capacity for restoration.
Leather shoes are more comfortable, and endure damage much better. They don't get as shiny, even with a lot of work, and they are now more expensive, but a better, longer lasting shoe, IMHO.
Blousing dress pants in boots has to be almost the stupidist looking thing I can imagine doing with a uniform. Whoever thought that up as a way to distinguish the "cool" units from everybody else must have been high.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:22:25 PM
Blousing dress pants in boots has to be almost the stupidist looking thing I can imagine doing with a uniform. Whoever thought that up as a way to distinguish the "cool" units from everybody else must have been high.
The Army thought that up, probably about 50 years ago(at a guess). Started out with Airborne units, then was picked up by Rangers, and Special Forces once they formed. It's a long tradition.
Keep in mind that miltary "fashion" is different than civilian. What you consider stupid is a pretty simple distinguishment for the elite units. No fancy uniforms, bells or whistles. Everyone owns a set of boots, and the elite units have their berets. Simple, yet shows their programs aren't.
Quote from: JThemann on December 21, 2007, 02:30:45 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 21, 2007, 02:04:35 AM
Quote from: AlaskanCadet on December 21, 2007, 12:55:37 AM
Wondering what the general consensus is on the wear of combat boots/ dress boots are with the blues.
I have heard that this only has to do with "inclement weather"
Being from Alaska I see a lot of this!!!
Has nothing to do with inclement weather. It is permitted per 39-1, most likely because the Air Force permits the same practice.
I wear dress boots with blues all the time. A lot more comfortable, and most of the time noone even notices. The only catch it when they notice that I don't have any laces.
What do you define as 'Dress Boots' ?
Dress Boots are actualy Jump Boots. Its a tradition in the military for all Airborne forces to wear Jump Boots with their respective service uniforms . Rangers do it, SF units do it, Any Airborne unit really to include USAF Pararescue and Combat Controllers. I dont think Seals do it though.
Anyway, Its been a tradition and I suppose CAP picked it up as well, but youreally arent supposed to wear boots with the service uniform unles you also wear a beret.
Anyway, you can actually spit shine jump boots and they get a really glossy shine to them. They are steel toed and have a hard surface
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 22, 2007, 09:21:37 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:22:25 PM
Blousing dress pants in boots has to be almost the stupidist looking thing I can imagine doing with a uniform. Whoever thought that up as a way to distinguish the "cool" units from everybody else must have been high.
The Army thought that up, probably about 50 years ago(at a guess). Started out with Airborne units, then was picked up by Rangers, and Special Forces once they formed. It's a long tradition.
And God forbid then - and now - those unfortunate 'legs' who wore jump boots and bloused trousers who did not earn them by being a 'five-jump chump'. At the very least they'd make the leg go barefoot. >:D
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 22, 2007, 09:35:00 PM
Dress Boots are actualy Jump Boots.
No, they're not. The dress boot as defined by 39-1:
"Black with rounded plain or rounded capped toe; zipper or elastic inserts optional; no
design; sole will not exceed 1/2 inch in thickness and shoe heels will not exceed 1 inch in height (measured from the inside front of the heel). "
An easy rule of thumb is whether or not the heel and sole are more like a low quarter. If they are, they probably qualify.
Jump boots are a unique design, but they're still combat boots. The term "dress boot" isn't used in AR 670-1, and it is the same definition (more or less) as above in AFI 36-2903.
Personally, what I wear as a dress boot is a plain black Roper. Shines well, comfortable, and meets the spec. Like I've said before, a lot of people don't even realize I'm wearing boots until they notice that I don't have laces.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 22, 2007, 09:52:04 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 22, 2007, 09:35:00 PM
Dress Boots are actualy Jump Boots.
No, they're not. The dress boot as defined by 39-1:
"Black with rounded plain or rounded capped toe; zipper or elastic inserts optional; no
design; sole will not exceed 1/2 inch in thickness and shoe heels will not exceed 1 inch in height (measured from the inside front of the heel). "
An easy rule of thumb is whether or not the heel and sole are more like a low quarter. If they are, they probably qualify.
Jump boots are a unique design, but they're still combat boots. The term "dress boot" isn't used in AR 670-1, and it is the same definition (more or less) as above in AFI 36-2903.
Personally, what I wear as a dress boot is a plain black Roper. Shines well, comfortable, and meets the spec. Like I've said before, a lot of people don't even realize I'm wearing boots until they notice that I don't have laces.
Ok,
We're talking about two totallty differant things here. a jump and a conbat boot are two differant kinds of boot
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 22, 2007, 09:45:34 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 22, 2007, 09:21:37 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:22:25 PM
Blousing dress pants in boots has to be almost the stupidist looking thing I can imagine doing with a uniform. Whoever thought that up as a way to distinguish the "cool" units from everybody else must have been high.
The Army thought that up, probably about 50 years ago(at a guess). Started out with Airborne units, then was picked up by Rangers, and Special Forces once they formed. It's a long tradition.
And God forbid then - and now - those unfortunate 'legs' who wore jump boots and bloused trousers who did not earn them by being a 'five-jump chump'. At the very least they'd make the leg go barefoot. >:D
In case ya'll didn't know, a leg is NAP(non airborne personnel)
If the Army came up with it 50 years ago, they probably weren't high, but they were at least drunk.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 10:08:34 PM
If the Army came up with it 50 years ago, they probably weren't high, but they were at least drunk.
;D
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 22, 2007, 10:05:32 PM
Ok,
We're talking about two totallty differant things here. a jump and a conbat boot are two differant kinds of boot
They are two different
styles of boot. But they are both
combat boots.
Here's what CAPM 39-1 says about combat boots:
"Black, with or without safety toe; must have a plain rounded toe or
rounded capped toe with or without perforated seam; zipper or elastic inserts are optional; no designs. Highly polished, high gloss, or patent leather."
Emphasis added.
Except for the part on the "Highly polished, high gloss, or patent leather" or the " zipper or elastic inserts" the Army, Air Force, and Civil Air Patrol all define a "combat boot" as the same thing.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 10:08:34 PM
If the Army came up with it 50 years ago, they probably weren't high, but they were at least drunk.
That may be a distinct possibility....
all these comments are great :)
the problem with boots and blue is that cadets wear the same boots with blues that they do on a SAREX or ES Exersice. and don't shine them.
Quote from: AlaskanCadet on December 23, 2007, 02:31:33 AMthe problem with boots and blue is that cadets wear the same boots with blues that they do on a SAREX or ES Exersice. and don't shine them.
Now that's a problem. Pretty much anywhere actually. I remember wearing combat boots with blues on a few occasions for wing conferences up there. It was pretty much the standard footwear. Even with some work, you can still polish Danners.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 22, 2007, 06:41:09 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 22, 2007, 05:10:12 AM
Likely this practice is allowed in CAP to try to save cadets from having to buy both. That makes the most sense.
A practical reason, but not the primary one.
The Air Force specifically authorizes the wear of boots with blues for all personnel. CAP mirrors the practice.
Where you get into special authorizations is blousing the pant legs. Not an all inclusive list, but Combat Control, Pararescue, Tactical Air Control Party, Air Weather Parachutists, and SERE instructors are authorized to blouse their trousers while wearing boots with blues.
Pretty close - the main one you missed were SkyCops, though there are a couple of others.
Generally, if you're wearing a beret in the AF you can blouse your blues.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 21, 2007, 01:51:11 AM
I can't think of any good reason to wear boots with blues. Just wouldn't look right in my book.
Have you never lived in a climate where the winter weather often includes several inches of snow and or slush through out most of the season? If you have then you know how uncomfortable getting cold, wet snow inside the tops of your shoes is and how uncomfortable it is to sit through a meeting with wet socks. Im not sure if "low quarters" refers to what are commonly called "quarter boots," but yes, I definitely think that a full "tactical" or ICB would look better as pant legs not bloused tend to get caught up on the tops of quarter boots and affect the overall squared appearance of the uniform. An 8" or 10" boot is definitely more appropriate here, though Ive never been a fan of quarter (6") boots in the first place. I also think that if boots are worn with blues, that ICBs rather than the more high speed tacticals (at the risk of contradicting what I said above) look more appropriate.
Also, as for the poster who said boots are hard to shine...the only boots that are hard to shine are the new "mossys" or other similar suede boots. I wear Bates Enforcer 8" boots which are nylon and leather and have no trouble whatsoever keeping a shine on the leather.
It also helps the appearance of a boot if it is laced and worn properly, keeping in mind that side zips, even with the tab at the top to cover the zipper pull, will eventually shred the inside of your pants legs as well as the cuffs. In my other "unpaid professional" job, I wear khaki 5.11 tacticals unbloused with boots and a polo or t-shirt for meetings and have found that even the hard wearing 5.11s or Proppers tend to exhibit more wear from the zipper rubbing on the inside of the leg.
As for shining, there is always the USCG/AUX regulation that says that a boot worn for indoor purposes will be maintained at a high shine while boots worn out doors will simply be polished. This is truly a pet peeve of mine: "Oh it takes so long to maintain my boots." You dont have twenty minutes once a week to shine your footwear, be it shoes or boots?
Also, I have a friend who was in the USAF way back when who mentioned something about using an ice cube to harden and thus produce a high shine on the polish. Anyone else ever heard of this. I tried it the way he described it with my boots and it really made no difference. Also, if you use edge dressing, watch out for getting that stuff on your hands. I got it in a cut once and the pain was unbelievable. I now wear nitrile gloves when polishing. That brings to mind a hazing ritual I read about that involved placing edge dressing on certain parts of the anatomy not mentioned in polite company.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 23, 2007, 03:52:28 AM
Pretty close - the main one you missed were SkyCops, though there are a couple of others.
Generally, if you're wearing a beret in the AF you can blouse your blues.
I did mention it wasn't inclusive. The only cops that are actually allowed to do that, according to the AFI, are "base entry controllers and MAJCOM elite guards".
Officially, all cops aren't permitted to do it.
Although, in order to blouse, the career field must have a beret. Not necessarily vice versa, but good rule of thumb.
When I was in, we often wore boots with blues if we were going to be on our feet all day and in blues...like working an airshow. it just made sense as the boots were much more comfortable for long periods than low-quarters. being a cop, we didn't have to be told to make sure they were well-shined. I preferred my old Army-isue combat boots for this (with the zig-zag sole pattern) as they looked like shoes unless you looked really closely.
Yep, I've lived in poor climates before, but that doesn't negate the fact that people that wear suits and ties for work in those climates generally are not wearing boots with their suits. Therefore, it looks out of place to me to wear boots with CAP's suit and tie uniform. To me the service dress uniform is not a "practical" uniform -- it is for indoor wear primarily and if comfort or practicality were a concern we wouldn't be wearing it anyway.
As an addition to this topic I would like to what is though of wearing, what I guess I would call
...."Chorophram" boots, they are really shiny factory made, with BDU's?
Is this possible, so that I do not have to shine them.
My dad was able to wear them in the AF with his BDU's
they are made by Bates.
the type I am talking about is the
Bates Lites Mens High Gloss Side Zipper Paratrooper Boots # 44SA
go here for a pic
http://www.copshoes.com/p-B44SA.html
thanks
could not locate CAPM 39-1
Quote from: AlaskanCadet on December 27, 2007, 12:42:14 AM
thanks
could not locate CAPM 39-1
Yeah, that 39-1 is a toughie (http://www.google.com/search?q=CAPM+39-1&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.google:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
Yikes... those boots aren't authorized in the military anymore and any commander or 1st Sgt would hang you by your ba behind for wearing that. Besides, they'll wreak havoc on your feet in just about any weather since they don't breathe at all.
Regular boots are authorized. Back in the days (probably before you were born, C/SSgt) all low quarters were leather. There was none of this high gloss plastic stuff. All shoes and boots had to be shined to a high gloss, so it didn't matter which boots you chose to wear. Today, those all-leather oxfords are still worn in services and CAP, although most in the armed forces prefer to wear the synthetic.
Quote from: NIN on December 27, 2007, 05:25:51 AM
Quote from: AlaskanCadet on December 27, 2007, 12:42:14 AM
thanks
could not locate CAPM 39-1
Yeah, that 39-1 is a toughie (http://www.google.com/search?q=CAPM+39-1&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.google:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
what I meant to say was that I could not locate anything about the high gloss boots in CAPM 39-1, I am actually quite smart and have no issue finding any manuals or forms, I was just requesting the consensus of this forum on the issue :)
Personally, I think that the plastic shoes and boots look fake and cheesy, like you are too lazy to shine your shoes. On the other hand, a well-shined pair of leather shoes or boots will stand out and show the efforts of your work and motivation.
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 27, 2007, 07:31:24 AM
Yikes... those boots aren't authorized in the military anymore and any commander or 1st Sgt would hang you by your ba behind for wearing that. Besides, they'll wreak havoc on your feet in just about any weather since they don't breathe at all.
Regular boots are authorized. Back in the days (probably before you were born, C/SSgt) all low quarters were leather. There was none of this high gloss plastic stuff. All shoes and boots had to be shined to a high gloss, so it didn't matter which boots you chose to wear. Today, those all-leather oxfords are still worn in services and CAP, although most in the armed forces prefer to wear the synthetic.
I actually wear those boots at work anytime I don't have to trump through mud and I have to wear a uniform. Our company requires our Officers in uniform to wear coraframs. I prefer wearing boots when I am in uniform so I bought some of those. I've heard all the stories about not beaing able to breath and burning my feet up etc and etc. But in truth I have had no more issue wearing those then wearing anyother type of boot (except for that one pair of super duper tac boots my ex bought me and the dog got ahold of :( ). I personally don't see anything wrong with them for "garrison" work. Out of curiousity is there a reg cite on the fact that they aren't authorized? Just wondering.
Quote from: stillamarine on December 27, 2007, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 27, 2007, 07:31:24 AM
Yikes... those boots aren't authorized in the military anymore and any commander or 1st Sgt would hang you by your ba behind for wearing that. Besides, they'll wreak havoc on your feet in just about any weather since they don't breathe at all.
Regular boots are authorized. Back in the days (probably before you were born, C/SSgt) all low quarters were leather. There was none of this high gloss plastic stuff. All shoes and boots had to be shined to a high gloss, so it didn't matter which boots you chose to wear. Today, those all-leather oxfords are still worn in services and CAP, although most in the armed forces prefer to wear the synthetic.
I actually wear those boots at work anytime I don't have to trump through mud and I have to wear a uniform. Our company requires our Officers in uniform to wear coraframs. I prefer wearing boots when I am in uniform so I bought some of those. I've heard all the stories about not beaing able to breath and burning my feet up etc and etc. But in truth I have had no more issue wearing those then wearing anyother type of boot (except for that one pair of super duper tac boots my ex bought me and the dog got ahold of :( ). I personally don't see anything wrong with them for "garrison" work. Out of curiousity is there a reg cite on the fact that they aren't authorized? Just wondering.
In the military? Yup. It's an issue of Milspecs. The regs authorize wear of milspec items
only and non-leather/hide boots aren't milspec. They may look like military spec boots, but they aren't. That's why they aren't issued or sold in MCSS. That's why you won't find military personnel wearing them, even for Honor Guard or parade duties. They simply aren't authorized.
Also, you will be strongly advised not to wear zip up boots since zippers fail in muddy environments and you will lose your boots.
Also... my feet burn in standing in the sun in coraframs low quarters, so I don't know how yours do not.
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 27, 2007, 06:49:01 PM
Quote from: stillamarine on December 27, 2007, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 27, 2007, 07:31:24 AM
Yikes... those boots aren't authorized in the military anymore and any commander or 1st Sgt would hang you by your ba behind for wearing that. Besides, they'll wreak havoc on your feet in just about any weather since they don't breathe at all.
Regular boots are authorized. Back in the days (probably before you were born, C/SSgt) all low quarters were leather. There was none of this high gloss plastic stuff. All shoes and boots had to be shined to a high gloss, so it didn't matter which boots you chose to wear. Today, those all-leather oxfords are still worn in services and CAP, although most in the armed forces prefer to wear the synthetic.
I actually wear those boots at work anytime I don't have to trump through mud and I have to wear a uniform. Our company requires our Officers in uniform to wear coraframs. I prefer wearing boots when I am in uniform so I bought some of those. I've heard all the stories about not beaing able to breath and burning my feet up etc and etc. But in truth I have had no more issue wearing those then wearing anyother type of boot (except for that one pair of super duper tac boots my ex bought me and the dog got ahold of :( ). I personally don't see anything wrong with them for "garrison" work. Out of curiousity is there a reg cite on the fact that they aren't authorized? Just wondering.
In the military? Yup. It's an issue of Milspecs. The regs authorize wear of milspec items only and non-leather/hide boots aren't milspec. They may look like military spec boots, but they aren't. That's why they aren't issued or sold in MCSS. That's why you won't find military personnel wearing them, even for Honor Guard or parade duties. They simply aren't authorized.
Also, you will be strongly advised not to wear zip up boots since zippers fail in muddy environments and you will lose your boots.
Also... my feet burn in standing in the sun in coraframs low quarters, so I don't know how yours do not.
I don't wear zippers either. I personally don't like them period.
Also, never said my feet didn't burn up in them, just no more or less than any other pair of black boot that I have worn or owned.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 10:19:05 PM
Yep, I've lived in poor climates before, but that doesn't negate the fact that people that wear suits and ties for work in those climates generally are not wearing boots with their suits.
Saw it in Alaska on occasion. Most people wear the boots til they get to the office, change to shoes once inside.
When traveling in the winter, boots seemed to be the standard. A lot of people had a few different pairs of dressier shoes stashed at the office, in the car, and any other places they had to be.
Galoshes and other overshoes are what I have seen used. However, they are rare in South Texas.
I should think the wear of boots with Blues is more a military tradition based on a one time practical need. It is these exceptions to the general rules that some segments in a military structure take for individuality. Thus, the regulation says it can be done (in the "spirit" of some exception) but it is done rather by the "letter" of the reg for a fashion or esprit d'corps purpose.
Let' be honest, this applies to several items ranging from boots with blues to my beloved service cap.
Not sure where in the regs it says you cannot wear patent leather combat boots. I think they look silly, but gate guards wore them for years and AFI2903 speficies patent leather as an allowable material for both shoes and combat boots.
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 27, 2007, 06:49:01 PM
In the military? Yup. It's an issue of Milspecs. The regs authorize wear of milspec items only and non-leather/hide boots aren't milspec. They may look like military spec boots, but they aren't. That's why they aren't issued or sold in MCSS. That's why you won't find military personnel wearing them, even for Honor Guard or parade duties. They simply aren't authorized.
Sorry but they are sold at MCSS and they are authorized for wear and you WILL find that some honor guard teams do wear them. Cochran makes a very nice Corfram jump boot. Not that I suggest anyone buy them...but let's not start any new myths.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 28, 2007, 01:14:32 AM
.... they are authorized for wear and you WILL find that some honor guard teams do wear them. Cochran makes a very nice Corfram jump boot.
I remember one of my TI's in Basic wearing a set on our graduation day. They looked uncomfortable, and I always wondered how he could wear them. But he only wore them on that grad day, never saw them any other time.