Looking for a softer boot

[Lionhound1975]

I have Lowa Zephyrs and they have a very flexible sole but still good for light hiking.

 

[mtwarden]

Bumping this up for anyone shopping
Picked up the lowa Camino gtx
-very comfy out of the box
- best ankle support for a mid I've ever had
- just enough flex in the foot for comfortable wearing around and general hiking, but stiff enough I dont feel like going to get punished side hilling or packing a load
Odometer just clicked over 40 miles, couldn't be happier.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

How is the toe box? I tried a pair of Lowa's on a couple of years ago (can't recall the model) and the toe box was too narrow for my feet. I prefer a lighter boot and my LaSportiva's (Omega) are now sadly discontinued so starting to look for a replacement.

Thanks

 

[amassi]

Very generous toe box

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[mtwarden]

Very generous toe box

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

danke- I will definitely look into that boot!

 

[Trevor73402]

I love the Camino GTX boots I have (have Renegades and Zephyrs too). Unfortunately they are a 1/2 size too small. I’ll be getting a new pair once I sell these.

 

[Jimss]

I have lowa tibets renegades caminos and vantage tibets are too stiff and heavy but are fantastic boots. My 2 favorites in that group are the caminos and vantage. I just bought crispi Dakotas and so far they are super comfortable and may be my all time favorite. You better have your wallet ready for crispis but they certainly are comfortable boots if I had the cash I'd likely get crispi Nevadas

 

[RCB]

Sounds like OP found a solution, but I thought I’d chime in. Personally I wore Merrell Moabs all season. They are more of a mid-height hiking shoe than a boot. The only issue I had was when I stepped on a prickly pear while looking for mule deer on BLM - went just through the sole. Not too bad but it gets your attention. Apart from that, I never felt underbooted. Ran those from pronghorn in early Oct to elk at 10k feet in mid Nov.

My point isn’t so much to suggest the Merrell, because there are lots of comparable options I haven’t tried. Rather it’s to suggest lighter footwear than you usually see on the forum. I’m not talking minimalist or anything. But Folks on this forum seem to buy mountaineering boots as if they’re hunting in scree and boulders all season long. I bet 95% of the time you wont be doing that. A light, flexible boot is a lot easier to lug around and cover miles with. I also find it gives you a lot better feel for the ground, so I’m less likely to slip.

I also have a pair of Lowa Caminos, which I consider to be relatively heavy. I only bring those out if there’s a lot of snow on the ground. Haven’t needed to use them yet this season. The Moabs are about 1.25 lbs lighter per pair, which is noticeable.

 

[Trevor73402]

Sounds like OP found a solution, but I thought I’d chime in. Personally I wore Merrell Moabs all season. They are more of a mid-height hiking shoe than a boot. The only issue I had was when I stepped on a prickly pear while looking for mule deer on BLM - went just through the sole. Not too bad but it gets your attention. Apart from that, I never felt underbooted. Ran those from pronghorn in early Oct to elk at 10k feet in mid Nov.

My point isn’t so much to suggest the Merrell, because there are lots of comparable options I haven’t tried. Rather it’s to suggest lighter footwear than you usually see on the forum. I’m not talking minimalist or anything. But Folks on this forum seem to buy mountaineering boots as if they’re hunting in scree and boulders all season long. I bet 95% of the time you wont be doing that. A light, flexible boot is a lot easier to lug around and cover miles with. I also find it gives you a lot better feel for the ground, so I’m less likely to slip.

I also have a pair of Lowa Caminos, which I consider to be relatively heavy. I only bring those out if there’s a lot of snow on the ground. Haven’t needed to use them yet this season. The Moabs are about 1.25 lbs lighter per pair, which is noticeable.

I understand what you are saying and I can agree to some level. I wear Lowa Zephyrs much of the year (at 800ft elevation). I’ve worn them in the back/high country as well. However once I get a pack on my back and start going up or down mountains, they just aren’t adequate for me. Will they work, sure..... but it’s just not the ideal boot for that type of activity.

 

[wilydawg]

Look at the Crispi Idaho's...

 

[RCB]

I understand what you are saying and I can agree to some level. I wear Lowa Zephyrs much of the year (at 800ft elevation). I’ve worn them in the back/high country as well. However once I get a pack on my back and start going up or down mountains, they just aren’t adequate for me. Will they work, sure..... but it’s just not the ideal boot for that type of activity.

Yeah, everyone's different. I've not noticed any problem going up or down steep terrain, with weight on my back, in relatively light shoes. But lots of people mention it.

I think another benefit of relatively light and flexible footwear is that it's a lot easier to get a decent fit. Or, rather, they're more forgiving: it's okay if the fit isn't absolutely perfect, because the materials are flexible enough to give a bit. In contrast, a stiff, heavy boot that doesn't fit *just right* will give you all sorts of troubles - and then you often have to walk 50 miles to break them in. You sometimes read about hunts being ruined (or nearly so) because extra super heavy duty boots hadn't been broken in, so give the person terrible blisters. Then there are the countless forum posts about users buying and returning 5+ pairs of boots from a bunch of different makers, and still can't find the right choice. More flexible shoes don't need to be tailored perfectly, and don't need much of a break in. Lower maintenance, in a way. Or maybe this is all wrong and I'm just lucky to have low maintenance feet?

 

[amassi]

Yeah, everyone's different. I've not noticed any problem going up or down steep terrain, with weight on my back, in relatively light shoes. But lots of people mention it.

I think another benefit of relatively light and flexible footwear is that it's a lot easier to get a decent fit. Or, rather, they're more forgiving: it's okay if the fit isn't absolutely perfect, because the materials are flexible enough to give a bit. In contrast, a stiff, heavy boot that doesn't fit *just right* will give you all sorts of troubles - and then you often have to walk 50 miles to break them in. You sometimes read about hunts being ruined (or nearly so) because extra super heavy duty boots hadn't been broken in, so give the person terrible blisters. Then there are the countless forum posts about users buying and returning 5+ pairs of boots from a bunch of different makers, and still can't find the right choice. More flexible shoes don't need to be tailored perfectly, and don't need much of a break in. Lower maintenance, in a way. Or maybe this is all wrong and I'm just lucky to have low maintenance feet?

Absolutely-
I run around in keen lightweight hikers around town and could probably comfortably hunt in them.
Heck I walked all over southwest Asia, 29 palms, mwtc and Pendleton with cheap bates and danners carrying loads I wouldnt dream about now for backpack hunting.
Part of the reason I choose a tougher more technical boot is I often hunt alone and feel the Gucci footwear protects better against mechanical injury and stays dry and warm better.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk