I have tried numerous boots over the years, from cheap Karrimor/Hi-Tec to more expensive options. The best so far for me have been Scarpa, La Sportiva (albeit B3 mountaineering boots, so not quite relevant here) and my latest set of Mammut’s, the Ayako High GTX model, available from a lot of places including Go Outdoors - see here: Mammut Men's Ayako High GTX Walking Boot | GO Outdoors
The Mammut’s have been really comfortable for long multi-day hikes (18mile+ per day) and support my ankles well, but do not rub, which is important as my right ankle is part metal now after a slip in mud using cheaper hiking boots resulted in a well broken leg/ankle a few years ago…
The only downside I’ve found with these boots and the previous Scarpa’s, is that they split across the top where they move with the toes/foot, but this is after 2+ years and 1000+miles of use, so I suppose I can’t moan too much (but I expect so much more for the price!!!). Nic my wife tells me I shouldn’t expect boots to last forever, even at this price point.
Having compared other options recently in a few outdoor shops, I’m probably going to replace like for like later this year. If you can compare some online pricing and use the Go Outdoors members card combined with a weekend discount or YHA offer, you should be able to get them for a lot less than the advertised website price; maybe not £125, but close enough to consider them…
Hi Simon , thanks for that funny enough its on my shortlist . What does YHA stand for ?? Also if you can find the price cheaper elsewhere they will beat the price by 10%
YHA members get 10% off everything at Go Outdoors, on top of the Go Outdoors members pricing. The 10% is not normally allowed off sale prices, but if you compare the boots with an online retailer, you can get the price matched plus the 10% off…
Buying a joint YHA membership gives us discounts at other places and allows us to stay in hostels in Canada, France etc etc. It’s well worth the few £s each year. In fact we scrapped BMC membership and went for YHA because the offers for climbers were actually better.
I have been really happy with my Salomon Escape GTX mids. I am on my second pair, the first lasted about 1000 points or so plus non SOTA hikes. They are very comfortable, light and have not had wet feet so far. The first pair failed with split sides, although the soles and rubber were rather worn at that point. I also have two pairs of Salomon low cut boots as well. Have found that this brand fit my feet well compared to previous brands.
Hi Matt,
They may be a bit more than you want to pay but I seem to have standardised on Scarpa Ranger GTX (leather) for the last six pairs from 2006. They have just the right flexibility for me. The Goretex lining doesn’t last the life of the boot however but leaks are not serious. I keep a stock in the loft.
The tops wear out a little before the Vibram sole. They weigh in at 1.63kg for a size 9.5 pair but that might be with an added insole which I need. They are not crampon capable but despite that I have used the latter on them a couple of times. If my records are good and I’ve calculated it right, they are good for about 350 miles of SOTA activity and 35,000m of ascent, then I change them.
I also have a pair of Mendl Makalu Winter Boots (2.08kg & crampon capable) but they’re too stiff for me and only used once despite a lot of winter walking.
This is not what you’re after either but where air travel is involved I use a lightweight (1.02kg - size 9) boot from my local Mountain Warehouse called ‘Field.’ To save suitcase allowance for HF gear, I wear them on the aircraft - they almost pass as shoes at a glance. They are fabric with a lining and claim to be waterproof. The Vibram sole is more flexible than the Rangers but they are cheap at around £60. They last for two x 2-week holidays with maybe a dozen mountains then become too flexible and a bit tatty. Not ideal but needs must. I’m always over the 20kg baggage limit and packing leather boots is out of the question.
I tend to agree about Karrimor. I got a pair of leather ones from Sports Direct a few years ago for £30. They look much like the rangers, have a Vibram sole and a lining but as someone said, the good name has possibly been diluted and they must be cheap for a reason. However, I can’t say as I’ve never worn them. Maybe I should try them.
I had a pair of Berghaus Explorer IV back 2006. Under £100, needed no break in and very comfortable. They were waterproof for 18months with no issues. But, they are very flexible and being a chunky monkey with a big heavy bag, I needed a stiffer sole. Also they went from good condition to falling apart very quickly. So good whilst they were OK they were not long lasting and it would become expensive quickly sticking with them versus something that lasts.
Goodness me John, six pairs in say 12 years. Hmm, I definitely need to get out more!
Currently I have three pairs on the go. My 2008 vintage Kayland Contact 1000’s are still in use on local trails, but I no longer use them in wet weather. They cost around £125 and were good for 240 summits before I retired them from SOTA use in June 2015. They fitted like gloves from the outset and are a bit like carpet slippers now, though the Vibram soles are well worn. I replaced these with Kayland Apex GTX in July 2015 at a cost of around £125 (now around £180) and they were comfortable from the start. I have done just 16 SOTA summits wearing them - hmm, I must use them more often!
My winter / wet weather boots are Berghaus Kibos, still going strong and have remained waterproof. They too needed no breaking in, but they are B2 crampon grade boots and stiff as a board. When checking the purchase details, I was surprised to find that I purchased them in January 2011 and they have done 130 SOTA outings. The grip from the Vibram soles on these is absolutely amazing. It’s a bit like having 4 wheel drive. The downside is they are quite heavy at a little over 2kg the pair. I seem to recall the price was around £175, but they are worth every penny… and they were made in China! They are no longer available - goodness knows what the cost would be now.
Couple of points i like to point out . Yesterday i got dropped off and walked around 10 miles home . But i crossed farmland through muddy fields where the mud was more like clay . In running shoes would you loose grip on clay ground thsts slippy ? Also i found myself grossing through a ditch which was flooded , was a muddy bog cross stream and in trainers you would end up that much inside the shoe surley ?
Also those with wide feet like myself dont fit into walking shoes like salamon etc.
Just to be clear, I am talking about trail runners. They are very different than the average running or jogging shoe. They have a much more aggressive sole (maybe not quite as deep a tread as a heavy boot, but much more than a running shoe). Here in Georgia, USA, we invented clay. It is pretty much all we have here, and I have never had real problems. Also, a main difference in a good trail runner and a jogging shoe is the shank is good and stiff. In boots it is often steel. Runners may not be that, but they are good and stiff. This is what gives the shoe the support you need on-trail.
Much more then ankle deep or so, you are in trouble in a “muddy bog” regardless of what you have on your feet.
I also have wide feet and I found the La Sportiva wides fit me great. Like anything else, you need to find what fits you best.
Here are pictures of the ones I got to show (1) how utterly ridiculous they look LOL and (2) to show the tread. I would still buy them again in a heartbeat.
Not really come across those type of shoes i can say i have seen in the uk . Only thing simular is running shoes by new ballace or simular . Will have to do sone digging . Cheers
Matt said:
Couple of points i like to point out . Yesterday i got dropped off and walked around 10 miles home . But i crossed farmland through muddy fields where the mud was more like clay . In running shoes would you loose grip on clay ground thsts slippy ? Also i found myself grossing through a ditch which was flooded , was a muddy bog cross stream and in trainers you would end up that much inside the shoe surley ?
Also those with wide feet like myself dont fit into walking shoes like salamon etc.
===============================
ROTFL… you’ll learn a hard lesson if you wear shoes for SOTA. You need boots not shoes if you intend to walk British hills and moors en-route to summits. Often there are no paths, it can be unsanitised wet and boggy “access land” and you just pick your way the best you can a lot of the time. From bitter experience I can tell you that cold wet feet within 30 mins of starting out on say a 3 or 4 summit 8-9 hour fellwalk is not comfortable for the duration of your day…
I think that article has a point. Ankle support is indeed not as important once you have really strong calves and ankles, but even those can let you down after a very long or exhausting walk. Trail running shoes (or even approach shoes) are built for certain purposes and situations, as long as people understand what is traded for what, all is good.
For example, I think trail running shoes are best for short summer hikes, when you have a good fitness level, don’t carry much weight and the terrain is accessible. If that sounds like most of your hikes, then go for it. However, they don’t offer enough support for long hikes (say up to a week with 20-30kg on your back, as an extreme example), they’re not built to protect your feet in cold/mud/bushes and they’re dangerous for someone in modest physical shape. In these situations, a proper Mid boot is much better.
As for leather boots, they have their use. The downsides are they are heavier and can’t breathe, which makes them good for rough terrain for short hikes but not very suitable in the long term. After 12h in a pair of all-leather hiking boots, my feet get very itchy in all that dried sweat.
I have two pairs of Scarpa Ranger GTX leather boots which I use on alternate walks.
They are light and comfortable. The weather in GM does not get warm enough to have itchy feet on long days out!
