Should boots like Nike and Rocky C4T be authorized?

2014-02-08T17:44:55-05:00

I have been looking at the regulations for boots and I have noticed that some the boots do not quite match with the info. My question is based on the regulation; should Nike and rocky C4T trainers should not allowed to be worn with the uniform. Do you you agree or disagree?

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2014 5:57 PM

2014-02-08T17:57:19-05:00

It's a little hard to pick up exactly what you meant, but I'll take a shot and say that no I also don't believe they should be able to be worn in uniform.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Feb 8 at 2014 6:02 PM

2014-02-08T18:02:38-05:00

Here is what the ALARACT says...

5E1. ARMY COMBAT BOOTS – (HOT WEATHER AND TEMPERATE WEATHER) MADE OF TAN ROUGH SIDE OUT CATTLEHIDE LEATHER WITH A PLAIN TOE AND TAN RUBBER OUTSOLES. THE BOOTS ARE LACED DIAGONALLY WITH TAN LACES, WITH THE EXCESS LACE TUCKED INTO THE TOP OF THE BOOT UNDER THE BLOUSED TROUSERS, OR WRAPPED AROUND THE TOP OF THE BOOT. METAL CLEATS AND SIDE TABS, AND SEWN-IN OR LACED-IN ZIPPER INSERTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED. A RUBBER OUTSOLE IS THE ONLY OUTSOLE MATERIAL THAT CURRENTLY MEETS THE NEED FOR DURABILITY AND TRACTION ON SURFACES. OTHER MATERIALS (THAT MAY BE OF A LIGHTER WEIGHT) MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS IN THESE AREAS.

5E2. OPTIONAL BOOTS - SOLDIERS MAY WEAR COMMERCIAL BOOTS OF A DESIGN SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE ARMY COMBAT BOOT (TAN), 8 TO 10 INCHES IN HEIGHT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMANDER. THE BOOTS MUST BE MADE OF TAN ROUGH SIDE OUT CATTLEHIDE LEATHER, WITH A PLAIN TOE, AND HAVE A TAN, RUBBER OUTSOLE. SOLDIERS MAY WEAR OPTIONAL BOOTS IN LIEU OF THE STANDARD ISSUE ARMY COMBAT BOOTS (TAN) - HOT WEATHER AND TEMPERATE WEATHER; HOWEVER, THEY DO NOT REPLACE ISSUE BOOTS AS A MANDATORY POSSESSION ITEM. OPTIONAL BOOTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED FOR WEAR WHEN THE COMMANDER ISSUES AND PRESCRIBES STANDARD ORGANIZATIONAL FOOTWEAR FOR SAFETY OR ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS (SUCH AS INSULATED BOOTS OR SAFETY SHOES).

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Feb 8 at 2014 6:37 PM

2014-02-08T18:37:09-05:00

I worked at BDE Headquarters with 90% seniors and thats where I saw them the most so I know it's not a new soldier issue.

An infantry NCO introduced me to the Nike boots a couple years ago and Ive been sold ever since. I figured with him having so much experience in the field and rucking, he would know best. I take it the reason Nike boots aren't allowed is the Nike check on the side?

What boots would you recommend? I love the Nike boots but they wear out so quickly and are hella expensive.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2014 8:17 PM

2014-02-08T20:17:36-05:00

They're not allowed by regulation, but they're the best boot by far for deployment or field.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2014 7:54 AM

2014-02-09T07:54:03-05:00

I like the converse boots, feel great and inexpensive. Also, probably need to brush up on what's authorized and not.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2014 8:43 PM

2014-02-10T20:43:51-05:00

If you call Nike or Rocky directly, they will tell you that the SVT and C4T boots are not IAW AR 670-1's current standard. They are made for training in a capacity outside the military uniform.

Response by MSG Phil Herndon made Feb 10 at 2014 11:24 PM

2014-02-10T23:24:03-05:00

There have always been exceptions that are published after the reg comes out. And civilian models that are better, lighter and cheaper. There is a full list of authorized boots at peo Soldier that shows all boots that do and don't meet spec. Oakley, under armor, rocky, nike, several others that meet full specs. The army wants us to be a better fighter, the gear starts there. Pound for pound, durability, traction, padding, cushion, support are almost always better in the aftermarket boots.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 12:56 AM

2014-02-11T00:56:17-05:00

Its up to your commander. I have been wearing Nike boots for 3 units now. Once you try them you will never go back to basic issue.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 2:39 AM

2014-02-11T02:39:45-05:00

While I've seen some leaders allow their soldiers to wear these boots and some that did not, the best thing in I've seen is a BN CMD team make a policy letter stating the specific styles that are or are not authorized for wear within that BN. It cut out any doubt completely as to what was authorized.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 3:54 PM

2014-03-09T15:54:13-04:00

They fit the regulation and I am wearing them but there's an under armour boots that a lot of people are wearing and it's not within regulation

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2014 10:40 AM

2014-03-13T10:40:09-04:00

Funny, the more things change the more they stay the same. when i was in we had the issue black leather boot, jump boots, jungle boots, Graf boots, Ft. Lewis go devils, Hermon survivors, Ect Ect ...... :)

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2014 8:46 PM

2014-03-19T20:46:51-04:00

Switch back and forth from my Garmonts to my Nikes, and I never knew the reg issue with the Nikes. Good thing to know!

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2014 9:27 PM

2014-03-19T21:27:17-04:00

No Eagle, Globe & Anchor on the outside of the heel, no wear. However, the rules bend in combat for some units like Recon or ANGLICO will have the whole unit issued different boots that are not Marine Corps standard.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2014 9:02 AM

2014-03-27T09:02:35-04:00

I know i'm a little late to this thread, but in the ALARACT, it states that boots must be made of genuine cattle hide leather. The Nikes, Rocky C4Ts, and several other popular boots do not fall within this guidance. Do I like it, no. I loved my Nikes, especially to run in, until I found out. I work at the NCO Academy and it's an issue we make corrections on all the time. My biggest issue is those who are corrected and make no change. Most of these offenders are officers. Once we show NCO's in writing where it says you can't do it, they adapt. Officers on the other hand tend to take an "I'm above the regulation" attitude which gets handed down to the lower enlisted, which obviously is not the right example to set. Think about it this way, if a 1LT wore Nike boots to formation and one of his subordinates wore flip-flops to the formation, does the 1LT have the right to correct the Soldier? Although it's an extreme example, it's the same. Unauthorized is unauthorized, is unauthorized regardless of the extremity to which it is taken.

Response by SGT James McCue made Mar 27 at 2014 12:10 PM

2014-03-27T12:10:15-04:00

It is annoying to me that troops wear all kind of different boots. I look down the ranks and I see at least five or more different types of boots.

Whatever happened to uniformity?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2014 12:23 PM

2014-03-27T12:23:46-04:00

There's going to be issues if someone tries to take away my Nike's. I just might fight somebody.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2014 2:30 PM

2014-03-27T14:30:59-04:00

This site has all authorized equipment http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/equipment/

PEO Soldier | Equipment

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2014 3:18 PM

2014-03-27T15:18:13-04:00

The
Army authorizes COTS boots as long as they are between 8 to 10 inches in height
and made of tan rough side out cattlehide leather, with a plain toe,

and
with a soling system similar in color to the tan upper materials. The

soling
materials cannot exceed two inches in height, when measured from the

bottom
of the outsole, and can not extend up the back of the heel of the

boot
or over the top of the toe (See attached pictures). The exterior of

the
upper boot can not contain mesh but must be constructed of all leather

or a
combination of leather and non-mesh fabric. Boots with metal or plastic

cleats
in the bottom of the soles and sewn-in or laced-in zippers or velcro

inserts
are not authorized (See attached pictures).
There are other

leathers,
such as pigskin, that do not meet the performance criteria of

cattlehide.
Cattlehide leather is more durable, and provides better

performance
in combat over pigskin. Soldiers should be aware that some

companies
sell "Warrior Leather" which is a common-use name for pigskin
leather. Rubber and polyether
polyurethane are the only outsole materials authorized. Rubber and
polyether polyurethane are the only outsole materials that currently
meet
the need for durability and traction on surfaces in multiple

environments
and temperature ranges. Other materials,
which may be of a

lighter
weight, do not meet Soldiers performance standards.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2014 3:43 PM

2014-03-27T15:43:45-04:00

I agree with 2LT Anisimov on this one. According to the reg, these are authorized. Another litmus test that I use is when I see CSMs wearing them, you know it is authorized because I haven't met a CSM yet that doesn't uphold and enforce the standards! I personally like the Nike boots and have been wearing them for the past ~4 years, and they are awesome. They are lightweight, durable, and they require almost no time to break them in. I haven't had a single blister from wearing them either, and they sure took a beating in Afghanistan! The other thing I really like about them is that they fit the same as the Nike shoe sized for the Nike free. It takes the guess work out of ordering online, where you can sometimes find them at decent discounts.

If you don't mind me asking, what about these boots would make you question whether they are authorized?

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2014 5:28 PM

2014-03-27T17:28:00-04:00

I have the UA boots, never had an issue.

Response by MSG Phil Herndon made Mar 27 at 2014 7:52 PM

2014-03-27T19:52:27-04:00

From SMA:

"
PEO
Soldier and NSRDEC maintain a close relationship with the footwear

buyers
at AAFES to ensure they are not buying anything for MCSS that does

not
meet the Army Uniform requirements. If AAFES has an interest in selling

a
specific COTS boot in MCSS, they forward PEO Soldier and NSRDEC a pair of the
specified boots. PEO Soldier and NSRDEC provide the AAFES footwear buyers feedback if the boots do or do not meet Army
requirements."

Not every boot meets spec, because some are authorized for other services, but for the most part, if MCSS sells it, it is a good chance it has been approved.

Response by 1SG Mike Case made Mar 27 at 2014 8:58 PM

2014-03-27T20:58:48-04:00

I won't post the whole letter but a SGM wrote a letter to SMA Chandler about the synthetic boots being worn even though they are not authorized and asking how to get the info out to the force. This is the reply sent to him:

You are correct on all accounts. Synthetic boots are not authorized.
I am currently working on a short training package to solely demonstrate examples of authorized and unauthorized boots. It will be available on the G-1 webpage within the next month; after we release the new AR 670-1 and accompanying DA Pam. The criteria for boots is not changing, but I agree that we must educate Soldiers on the current standards.

Please contact me directly if you have further questions or concerns.

Thanks!

V/R,
SGM LeeAnn M. Conner
HQDA, DCS Army G-1
Uniform Policy Sergeant Major
Pentagon, Room 2C453
COMM: [login to see]
DSN: [login to see]
[login to see]

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2014 5:32 PM

2014-04-21T17:32:03-04:00

SFC, Yes and no commercial boots are authorize for wear, as long as they meet the requirements you can where Nike brands etc of your choice, however they must meet the requirements for example the boots must exceed 8" in height I believe that is the biggest issue I see and it does have purpose behind it to support the ankles while on different types of terrain and to help keep bugs etc. There are a lot of requirements for the boots best explanation is found in the DA PAM 670-1 Chapter 20-3 appendix (a).(3) Optional boots.

(a) As an option, Soldiers may wear commercial boots of a design similar to that of the Army combat boot (tan), as

authorized by the commander. The boots must be between 8 to 10 inches in height and made of tan flesh-side out

cattlehide leather, with a plain toe and a soling system matching the color of the tan upper materials. Rubber and

polyether polyurethane are the only outsole materials that are authorized. The soling materials will not exceed 2 inches

in height, when measured from the bottom of the outsole, and will not extend up the back of the heel or boot or over

the top of the toe. The exterior of the boot upper will not contain mesh but will be constructed of either all leather or a

combination of leather and nonmesh fabric. Soldiers may wear optional boots in lieu of the Army combat boot (tan), as

authorized by the commander; however, they do not replace issue boots as a mandatory possession item.

(b) Optional boots are not authorized for wear when the commander issues and prescribes standard organizational

footwear for safety or environmental reasons (such as insulated boots or safety shoes). Personnel may wear specialty

boots authorized for wear by specific groups of Soldiers, such as the tanker boot, only if the commander authorizes

such wear. Soldiers may not wear optional boots in formation when uniformity in appearance is required.

(4) Organizational boots. When prescribed and issued by the commander according to CTA 50–900, personnel may

wear, instead of the combat boot, such organizational boots or safety boots with field and utility uniforms.

b. Boots, combat, black, leather. The black combat boots are an optional purchase item.

(1) Description. The black boot is made of black leather with a deep lug tread sole made of vulcanized rubber, a

removable cushioned insert, a closed-loop speed lace system, and a leather padded collar.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2014 8:46 PM

2014-04-29T20:46:07-04:00

I was researching for new boots and what are authorized and came across this discussion. I was close to buying the Rocky C4T until I stumbled across their new boot, the C5C. Rocky specifically states the C4T isn't authorized but the newer C5C is. It also looks like a better boot anyway. I didn't realize the C4T's or Nike's were unauthorized as I see so many people wearing them.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2014 5:35 PM

2014-04-30T17:35:08-04:00

i am not sure about the boots on the left solely on the fact that i dont know what they are, but i diffenently know taht the nike boots have and still are unauthorized by 670-1 because the are made of a synthict leather

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made May 11 at 2014 10:10 PM

2014-05-11T22:10:19-04:00

Put them on and walk in front of your CSM...

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 10:42 AM

2014-05-30T10:42:01-04:00

A lot of commercial boots are being tagged unauthorized because they are made from synthetic letter. Just got the slide show today.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2014 4:48 PM

2014-06-07T16:48:30-04:00

Reading through this forum I see a lot of folks defending the Nike boots. I know many Soldiers wear them, but they are still unauthorized. The current DA Pam 670-1 states:

(3) Optional boots.
(a) As an option, Soldiers may wear commercial boots of a design similar to that of the Army combat boot (tan), as
authorized by the commander. The boots must be between 8 to 10 inches in height and made of tan flesh-side out
cattlehide leather, with a plain toe and a soling system matching the color of the tan upper materials. Rubber and
polyether polyurethane are the only outsole materials that are authorized. The soling materials will not exceed 2 inches
in height, when measured from the bottom of the outsole, and will not extend up the back of the heel or boot or over
the top of the toe. The exterior of the boot upper will not contain mesh but will be constructed of either all leather or a
combination of leather and nonmesh fabric. Soldiers may wear optional boots in lieu of the Army combat boot (tan), as
authorized by the commander; however, they do not replace issue boots as a mandatory possession item.

Nikes are made of synthetic leather and feature EVA foam in portions of the outsole. Therefore they do not meet authorized standards. I know that folks love them, but just because a person likes a thing doesn't mean it is authorized. If that were the case, then we would see all kinds of craziness in our formations.

In my book a standard is a standard and should be upheld. Just because something is nice or someone else is doing it doesn't make it right. There are plenty of other good options out there other than Nike.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2014 8:23 AM

2014-06-25T08:23:39-04:00

The nike boot is too versatile and lightweight. It prevents injuries and makes serving more comfortable. Of course it must be against regulation. We need heavy crap that weighs us down and makes it near impossible to rush for cover or actually chase down an insurgent. We need to be wearing 80 lbs of bullshit so when they shoot at us they can ditch their gun, flip us off, jump a small fence and run down a narrow alley laughing their asses off at how stupid we are (sarcasm). This call pisses me off. If I were Sergeant major of the army I would be unauthorizing any equipment that slows my army down, causes injuries, or gives an advantage to the enemy.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2014 12:00 AM

2014-07-18T00:00:14-04:00

My honest opinion? They should be issued.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2014 4:11 AM

2014-07-24T04:11:48-04:00

the nike books look professional, make it easier on me having flat feet and lower back issues....let's ban it! why not leave it to commander's discretion? Wouldn't be so upset if I didn't buy 4 pairs when they were perfectly fine for wearing by the entire 101st....and now it's like wiping my ass with $450

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2014 1:19 PM

2014-08-14T13:19:29-04:00

NIKE just made a AR 670-1 compliant boot.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Aug 20 at 2014 2:08 AM

2014-08-20T02:08:12-04:00

Obviously they aren't allowed, but I think that the regulation is a bit archaic. Cattlehide leather is the only thing that meets the Army's needs? No company can make a better boot made out of anything different that fulfills the Army's needs better? Seems like the Army is limiting the market competition by not allowing for reasonable changes (sounds like a monopoly for some companies). I think the regulation should change, not necessary to incorporate the current non-regulated boots in the market. The Army needs to make changes based on what is best for the Soldiers. We all have different feet, there is no one size fits all for shoes. Ill-fitting boots cause injuries. We are doing a disservice to our soldiers by not allowing boots that fit them properly. For ex: two soldiers are doing a 20km ruck, 1 with ill-fitting boots and 1 with form-fitting boots, who will perform better? Is the Army increasing injuries in Soldiers who do not fit properly in authorized boots?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 12:55 PM

2014-09-17T12:55:54-04:00

Can anyone provide me a link or an approved list of all the approved boots.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2014 8:06 AM

2014-11-19T08:06:25-05:00

I think so long as it's brown and looks like a damned combat boot it should be fine. But regs are regs.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2015 1:04 AM

2015-02-15T01:04:02-05:00

If they meet the appearance standards then sure

Response by CPO Greg Frazho made Mar 25 at 2015 9:06 PM

2015-03-25T21:06:54-04:00

Why shouldn't they be? Everybody's wearing them, including DIs and first sergeants. I find it pretty ironic that one of the people responsible the founding of Nike, Bill Bowerman, was a member of the 10th Mountain and was awarded one Silver Star and four Bronze Stars during WWII.

Let me put it to you this way: would you rather wear a pair of comfortable boots that require very little to no break-in time on a long foot patrol or a forced march, or would you prefer a pair of shitty, bottom-bid boots that somebody way up the food chain has a personal interest in?

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 24 at 2021 3:21 PM

2021-03-24T15:21:48-04:00

Every uniform item should be issue. Far too many times I saw troop leaders with the finest money can buy giving troops crap because they had blisters, or their feet were wet, etc. etc. etc. Well private Snuffy is having difficulty feeding his wife and kids, let alone buying top of the line, high speed, low drag gear. This is probably going to crunch some toes, But if you aren't using the same gear as your troops, you don't understand troop welfare.