When it comes to choosing hiking footwear, ideally you want something that is comfortable, relatively lightweight and built to handle the conditions in which you will be doing most of your rambling. However, there is no panacea – no one model to rule them all. Factors such as foot type, injury history, pack and body weight, and the dictates of the environment in which you will be hiking, should all be considered when deciding on what footwear is right for you.
For more information, please visit eva winter boots.
In the article below I look at the strengths and weaknesses of the principal options (i.e. boots, hiking shoes, trail runners, and sandals), as well as provide a rundown of recommended brands and a timeline of my own choices over the past three decades. For those interested, in the companion piece to this article – Trail Runners Vs Hiking Boots: A 30 Year Perspective – I address why I prefer the former option for three-season backpacking trips, examine the commonly held belief that boots provide a greater degree of stability and support than low-cut trail shoes, and finally delve into why your choice of footwear should be considered as a part of an overall lightweight approach to backpacking.
Full-grain Leather Boots
High-cut full-grain leather boots are overkill for all types of backpacking trips, with the possible exception of excursions into snowy, sub-freezing environments. Even in those conditions, I prefer to go with a mid-cut synthetic/leather model (see below).
Ballpark Weight – 1.5 kg (3.3 lbs) and up.
Upper Material: Full-grain leather
Advantages:
below).
Disadvantages:
‘.
Leather Boots – My History:
I wore leather hiking boots on all of my backpacking journeys from the late 1980s through to the end of the last century. This included extended trips in a diverse collection of regions including Alaska, the Middle East, Patagonia, Scotland, Central America, New Zealand, the Alps, and the Pyrenees. One single pair of Scarpas lasted me thousands of miles and, thanks to a couple of resolings, virtually an entire decade.
Synthetic/Leather Boots
Synthetic/leather (aka. composite) boots have been one of the most popular choices in backpacking footwear for many years. The waterproof uppers consist of synthetic or a fusion of synthetic and leather materials such as suede or nubuck. The midsoles are generally made of shock-absorbing EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate) or polyurethane. And, finally, the hard-wearing rubber outsoles are characterized by aggressive directional lugs that are grippy in slippery and/or rugged terrain.
Ballpark Weight: Generally weigh between 0.9 kg (2 lb) and 1.4 kg (3 lb).
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Note
: Most composite hiking boots have a breathable waterproof membrane, which generally works well at first, but which gradually loses effectiveness after extended usage).Mid Cut or High Cut?:
I’ve always preferred mid-height models over high-cut versions due to the fact that they are lighter, allow for greater ankle flexibility, and in my experience, sacrifice nothing in the way of protection or stability. On the contrary, I find the mid-height models to be less cumbersome when negotiating uneven terrain.
“Don’t higher boots provide a greater level of waterproofness?”
Technically speaking, yes. Practically speaking, not so much. If I’m hiking through snow in sub-freezing conditions day after day, I’ll combine the mids with waterproof breathable gaiters and lightweight rain pants.
Synthetic/Leather Boots – My History:
Mid-cut composite boots are what I usually wear for extended trips in snowy, consistently below-freezing conditions when keeping my feet dry is a priority due to the risk of frostbite. Over the last two decades, I’ve owned various pairs of including the Montrail Sabino Trail Mid GTX (no longer made), and most recently the Merrell Moab2 Mid Boots.
Mid Synthetic/Leather Boots Recommendations:
Hiking Shoes
“Hiking shoes” are basically a hybrid of synthetic/leather boots and trail running shoes. They have a low-cut profile like the latter but boast similar – though usually slightly less robust – materials in the upper, midsole, and outsole to the former.
Ballpark Weight – 25 oz (0.71 kg) to 32 oz (1 kg)
Advantages:
I’ve generally gotten between 800 mi (1,287 km) to 1,000 mi (1,609 km) out of each pair of hiking shoes I’ve owned, compared to an average of around 500 miles (805 km) for trail runners.
Disadvantages:
Making the Transition:
If you’re keen on making the switch from boots to low-cut footwear but aren’t confident that trail runners will provide the support and protection you may require, give hiking shoes a try first. They cost about the same as trail runners and provide many of the same qualities as synthetic/leather boots but in a lighter, less bulky package.
“Should I Go For a Waterproof Model?”
No. Most hiking shoes sport a waterproof membrane similar to the synthetic/leather boots mentioned above. However, when it comes to low-cut hiking shoes (and trail runners) I always avoid models with a waterproof membrane. Why? Because in three-season conditions I want a shoe that is relatively breathable and quick-drying. A waterproof liner impedes both of these qualities.
Hiking Shoes – My History:
Even though I prefer trail running shoes (see below) in most three-season environments, I occasionally us Merrell Moab2 Ventilators for extended trips in rugged terrain such as the traverses of Southwest Tasmania Traverse and Bolivia’s Altiplano. Why? Because I know that irrespective of the conditions these shoes will last me at least 800 miles (1,287 km). That means one less thing to worry about in places where the chances of you finding quality replacement footwear are minimal to non-existent. In my mind, this fact alone makes them worth the roughly 25% weight penalty compared to trail runners in such scenarios.
Hiking Shoe Recommendations (non-waterproof):
Trail Running Shoes
Trail runners are my go-to footwear for three-season hiking. Unless I’m planning an extended trek in very rugged terrain with no chance of replacement footwear or undertaking a winter trip in well below freezing temps, chances are I’ll be wearing trail running shoes. Personally speaking, they strike the right balance between comfort, support, stability, grip, weight, and breathability.
Ball Park Weight – Trail runners come in a wide range of weights from just under a pound (0.45 kg) to 1.6 lb (0.73 kg).
Advantages: Lightweight, breathable, quick-drying, no break-in time.
Disadvantages: Generally speaking they are less stable, less grippy, and roughly 50% less durable than hiking shoes or lightweight synthetic/leather boots.
“How do Trail Runners Differ from Normal Running Shoes?”:
Trail runners have stiffer and more supportive midsoles, gripper outsoles, and the uppers usually offer superior protection in the form of synthetic overlays in key areas such as the toe box, lower sides, and heel. On the flip side, road running shoes are often more cushioned, breathable, and (almost) invariably lighter. If most of your hiking is done on relatively smooth, well-maintained trails (e.g. the Pacific Crest Trail), then road running shoes can be a viable footwear option for backpacking. In rugged and/or off-trail conditions, most hikers find that trail running shoes are worth the fairly minimal weight penalty.
“Should I go for a waterproof model?“:
No. See “Hiking Shoes” above for details.
Trail Running Shoes – My History:
I’ve been wearing low-cut hiking shoes and trail runners for the past twenty years. In regard to the latter, my all-time favourite model was the Montrail Hardrock which I wore almost exclusively between 2004 to 2009. They were a bit heavier than most of the current models (around 26 oz if memory serves), but by every other criterion, they were fantastic. On the durability front, I regularly got 800 miles out of each pair before they needed to be retired. Since the demise of the Hardrocks in the late 2000s, I’ve used various models including the Altra Lone Peaks and La Sportiva Wildcats, but my go-to for most of the 2010s has been the Brooks Cascadia (Click here for my long-term review).
Trail Running Shoe Recommendations
For more details on each of these recommended models, see section 5 of Boots Vs Trail Runners: A 30 Year Perspective:
If you are looking for more details, kindly visit PVC Safety Boots for Firefighters.
Sports Sandals
High-end sports sandals generally boast adequate cushioning, arch support, and lugged outsoles. If you have strong ankles, a light load, and are walking on a well-groomed trail, they can be a functional option. That said, personally I’ve found them to have too many limitations (see below) to be a via option for most of my backpacking trips.
Ball Park Weight: 1 lb (0.45 kg) to 2 lb (0.9 kg)
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
The big one is no protection for your feet (particularly the toes) when hiking in rocky and/or overgrown terrain. Thorns, poison oak/ivy, slippery roots, and loose rocks, all become more of a consideration when you are hiking in sandals. You also need to be more aware of sunburn in hot and exposed environments, and as you’d suspect, sandals aren’t that great for negotiating snowy terrain. “But what about those thru-hikers that swear by sandals?” Take a look at where and when they do the majority of their hiking. Nine times out of ten it is on well-maintained trails in three-season conditions. (Note: There are definitely exceptions to this last point, most notably, the Tarahumara of the Copper Canyon region in northern Mexico. In three decades of hiking around the world, I have never met stronger hikers, and they traditionally do most of their running/hiking in simple huarache sandals).
Sports Sandals – My History:
I’m a huge fan of sports sandals. In fact, when I’m not in the wilderness, they are what I have on my feet more than 90 percent of the time in my dual homelands of Australia and Mexico. That said, I virtually never use them on backpacking trips due to their above-mentioned limitations in rugged terrain. “What about when you are doing a trip with lots of river fords?” If a ford is that difficult that it requires footwear, chances are you should keep your trail running or hiking shoes on. They will provide you with superior traction and protection from moving rocks and/or underwater debris than will any hiking sandals.
Sports Sandals Recommendations
Teva Hurricane HLT2
– Men’s (20 oz / 0.57 kg) and Women’s (15.6 oz / 0.44 kg) – I’ve been using Tevas for decades, and I’ve always found them to offer a good balance of arch support, durability, light weight, price, and comfort. If you’re looking for a little more in the way of cushioning, try the Teva Terra Fi 5 (26 oz / 0.74 kg).Chacos Z/1 Classic
– Men’s (29.8 oz / 0.85 kg) and Women’s (21.2 oz / 0.6 kg) – By no means the lightest option, but the comfortable footbed, aggressive outsole, durability, and signature strapping system that passes through the sole have made the Classics a favourite among sandal-wearing long-distance hikers, including Renee “SheRa” Kirkpatrick and Brian “Beardoh” Ristola.Chacos Z/Cloud
– Men’s (30 oz / 0.85 kg) and Women’s (21 oz / 0.6 kg) – The Cloud model includes an extra 5mm of cushioning compared to the Chaco Classic.Keen Newport H2 Sandals
– Men’s (28 oz / 0.79 kg) and Women’s(28 oz / 0.79 kg) – Hybrid sandal/trail running shoe which sports a toe cap and multiple straps which cover most of the foot.Bedrock Cairn 3D Adventure
– Men’s (17 oz / 0.48 kg) and Women’s (17 oz / 0.48 kg) – Comfortable, uber-light, very grippy, zero-drop, little in the way of cushioning. For minimalists and/or folks that aren’t fussed about arch support. I’ll occasionally wear them on short day hikes, but more often than not prefer the extra arch support and cushioning provided by the Tevas.Related Posts
Disclosure: This article contains affiliate links, which means ‘The Hiking Life’ receives a small commission if you purchase an item after clicking on one of the links. This comes at no additional cost to the reader and helps to support the website in its continuing goal to create quality content for backpackers and hikers.
Heading out the door? Read this article on the new Outside+ app available now on iOS devices for members! Download the app.
Winter hiking is not our favorite term, to be totally honest. It puts too much emphasis on the winter part, making it feel like you should be building snow caves or crossing a glacier to qualify. For many, however, winter hiking is simply a cold, possibly wet day hike on your usual trail, or an afternoon tromp through some snowy woods. The best winter hiking boots of 2024 work for all of those scenarios, keeping you dry, warm, and planted wherever your cold weather adventures may take you.
Pros: Great for longer miles in mixed terrain
Cons: The aesthetic isn’t for everyone
Sizes: Men’s 7-15, Women’s 5-11
Buy Now
The Thermo Rogue 4 is the unicorn of winter hikers; these boots strike the often elusive balance between a great hiker and a solid winter boot. They won us over as hikers thanks to a tall lightweight ballistic mesh and Gore-Tex membrane that provided plenty of ankle support but also snugged to our feet like a sock, creating a comfy, blister-free fit right out of the box. Their hiking chops are boosted by meaty, Vibram Arctic Grip outsole soles with five millimeter, terraced lugs lined with tiny teeth that bite into packed snow on otherwise sloppy terrain. During snowy treks in zero-degree weather, the boots provided just the right amount of warmth thanks to 200 grams of Primaloft Gold Eco Series synthetic insulation and Solarcore Aerogel for the insole and over the toe. Category manager Jakob Schiller wore these boots on a late winter hike in New Mexico’s Sangre de Cristo Mountains, where he tramped through 12 miles of rocky trail and post-hole snow. “When you’re hiking mixed terrain that has dirt and snow, nothing beats these boots,” he said.
Bottom Line: Burly winter boot protection without the bulk
Pros: Versatile, springy, comfortable
Cons: Not enough support for long hikes
Sizes: Men’s 8-14
Buy Now
Our top pick for chill, short treks in winter, the Andesite II is an ultra-comfy daily hiker that will keep your feet happy in a variety of cold and wet conditions. Albuquerque, New Mexico-based tester Kip Malone loved the mid-high design and nubuck leather uppers, which created just enough support and protection for shorter hikes on dry, rocky terrain and enough structure to handle snowshoes and traction devices. A B-Dry waterproof/breathable membrane kept wet snow from seeping through, and 200 grams of recycled synthetic insulation was enough to keep the cold at bay without turning the boots into a hot box during strenuous uphill efforts. Malone praised the boot’s rebound, which comes primarily from a single-density EVA midsole that put “a noticeable spring in every step on packed or hard surfaces.” While there’s a TPU shank sandwiched in the sole for support, testers found that the boots were too flimsy to qualify as long-haul footwear or a solid backpacking choice. They fit well out of the box, however, and were roomy enough to allow for midweight winter socks without sizing up.
Bottom Line: A good all-arounder for weekend warriors.
Pros: Rock-friendly outsole, rock plate, crampon compatibility
Cons: Expensive
Sizes: Men’s 7-13, Women’s 7-11
Women’s Men’s
Vanlifer Max Halbach is a German native who grew up scrambling over exposed terrain in places like Austria’s Wilder Kaiser and Scotland’s Black Cuillin Ridge. That made him especially appreciative of the Ortles Light Mid PTX boot, which is designed as a fully-waterproof light hiker that can handle mixed technical terrain, including rock, snow, and ice. Its dexterity on steep rock is owed to a grippy Pomoca Alpine Light outsole that smeared and held fast on smooth rock, but also provided solid protection in chundery, loose rock. The uppers are made from a PFC-free, Cordura-like fabric that was tough as nails, helped keep the weight down (only 20 ounces for a men’s size 9) and, in combination with extra padding around the ankle, provided Halbach with a snug fit. Burley bonuses like a midsole rock plate to prevent bruising and crampon-compatible heel welt vault this lightweight boot into light mountaineering territory. “These boots are overkill for the average hiker, but if you want to get after it, look here,” says Halbach.
Bottom Line: Perfect for steep, technical hikes on mixed terrain
Pros: Ultra durable, supportive
Cons: Heavy
Sizes: Men’s 7-12
Buy Now
In some winter scenarios, it’s better to not have insulation in your boot. That’s because insulated hikers can overheat when you’re really huffing up a trail, leaving your feet clammy and cold. When category manager Jakob Schiller chased elk through the mountains of New Mexico and hiked in Jackson Hole, Wyoming this winter, he reached for the Bergell MFS’s. With thick leather uppers lined with a Gore-Tex membrane and a fleece layer under the footbed, the boots kept all moisture at bay better than a typical insulated boot, and, when matched with a medium-thick wool sock, created plenty of warmth for cold days down to 10 degrees. The boots are heftier than others we tested, weighing in at three and a half pounds per pair, and took a minute to break in, owing to that thick leather build, but were also the most durable and reliable boots in test thanks to a meaty, multidirectional Vibram outsole and full rubber rand. “No matter where I put my foot—into a bog, on a rock in a scree field, on a grassy slope—I knew I would be safe. I wasn’t going to lose traction or roll my ankle,” says Schiller. Bonus: because the boots aren’t lined, they can also pull double-duty as summer backpacking boots in mild conditions.
Bottom Line: A burly boot for heavy loads and tough terrain in milder climates
Pros: Fully waterproof, light for the level of insulation
Cons: Not built for long miles
Sizes: Men’s 7 – 15
Buy Now
If you smashed together a duck boot, a deep-winter boot, and a regular hiker, you’d get the Expeditionist Shield. Columbia’s arrow-shaped treads and outsole held tight to packed snow, felt solid on icy patches, and was just stiff enough to not leave tester Kip Malone’s feet fatigued on dirt trails. Thanks to an entirely rubber bottom section, Malone found these boots were ideal for stomping through sloppy wet snow without fear of seepage. (There’s a waterproof membrane lining the full boot as well.) The deep-winter chops come from 200 grams of synthetic insulation and a reflective liner, which, when matched with a wool sock, was warm enough for snowshoeing on bitter days when temps dipped well below freezing. Malone stood around in the snow without moving for 30 minutes and was pleasantly surprised to find that his feet were still plenty warm. The Expeditionist Shields aren’t quite insulated enough for ice fishing in Minnesota, but they’re far more nimble—perfect for hikes in the three to five mile range.
Bottom line: Armor for all but the coldest conditions and unavoidable slush
Winter hiking boots should be warm, grippy, and comfortable.
(Photo: James Dziezynski)The first question to ask about buying Winter Hikers: Where and how will I use them? Do you live in Colorado and love to snowshoe, or are you down in Georgia and just in need of something waterproof and warmer than a normal boot? Will you be running and fast-packing in the boots, or carrying a heavy pack over rough terrain and sitting around a campfire? Narrowing down your use-case is absolutely necessary because winter hikers are more specific in their design than normal hikers—you don’t want to get stuck with a boot that’s too warm, heavy, or stiff. To help you make the right choice, here are the factors you’ll want to consider.
In our testing, most synthetic insulations are similar in terms of warmth. Pay less attention to the type of insulation and more to the amount. Hikers that will keep you warm in the snow but not overheat your foot often come with about 200 grams of insulation. Boots with more insulation are often designed for inactive use (apres, ice fishing, etc.) and not for hiking.
Just like winter tires that are designed to perform on snow and ice, some winter hikers come with winter soles designed to do the same. Vibram’s Artic Grip outsole has a proprietary compound (they’re very tight-lipped) that makes a noticeable difference in terms of traction on wet ice. And the lugs on Merrell’s Thermo Rouge 4 have tiny teeth that bite into packed snow and kept us from falling on our faces.
If you’re serious about winter hiking, your boot should have a waterproof membrane. We’ve seen folks head out with leather boots treated with waterproofing spray or oil and they never perform as well as a tried-and-true Gore-Tex (or similar) membrane. We’re sticklers about moisture, because wet, cold feet will mean the end of your hike—or worse.
Like all boots, winter hikers will tear your feet to pieces if they don’t fit well. Even if you can’t try on your preferred boots at a local store, go ahead and order them, wear them around your house for a couple days, and make sure your foot isn’t screaming to get out. You’ll want to pay attention to things like heel slippage (which causes blisters), toe space, overall width (do you feel better in a narrow boot or wider boot?), ankle support, and how easy they are to pull on and off.
To qualify for our test, this year’s winter hikers needed to have the basics: strong hiking chops with added warmth for colder conditions. But that’s just the beginning. We field-tested and analyzed waterproofing, traction, comfort, and stability—four critical factors in winter climates—in conjunction with the level of warmth retention a boot offered.
Winter hiking is really “cold weather hiking.”
(Photo: James Dziezynski)To put these boots through their paces, we set out to the coldest, snowiest places we could find, including Jackson Hole, Wyoming and Alta, Utah, both of which set annual records for snowfall in 2023. Testers ran the gamut from carefree van dwellers who were criss-crossing the country to winter athletes to moms and dads with just a few hours to burn off steam. During the test we clomped through fresh snow, tried our best to slip in icy parking lots, post-holed on late-winter hikes, and stood around in snowbanks to see how long it took for our feet to go numb. But most importantly, we put in miles. If a boot wasn’t comfortable, supportive, and reliable, it didn’t make our list.
Kip Malone is a grumpy old man. At least when it comes to footwear. At 58 he’s moved past “giving things a shot” and straight to “it better work.” He doesn’t have time to deal with shoes that give him blisters, come with unnecessary features, or leave his feet cold when he’s out trying to get miles in on the trails around the Sandia Mountains outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico. In other words, he’s the perfect tester. Over the decade he’s been testing for Outside, Malone estimates he has worn 200-plus pairs of boots.
Jakob Schiller is a former gear editor at Outside and now a columnist. He also lives in Albuquerque, New Mexico, but traveled the country this winter in search of all manner of snowy, icy conditions. He tested various boots in places including Jackson Hole, Wyoming, the Rockies outside of Denver, Colorado, trails around Flagstaff, Arizona, and in the mountains near Taos, New Mexico. He’s not as grumpy as Malone, but does have four kids that help him to appreciate the little free time he does have.
From Winter 2024 Gear Guide
When you buy something using the retail links in our stories, we may earn a small commission. We do not accept money for editorial gear reviews. Read more about our policy.
Contact us to discuss your requirements of PVC Safety Boots for Outdoor Sports. Our experienced sales team can help you identify the options that best suit your needs.