AR 670-1 (We Really Mean it This Time)

So the Chairborne Rangers have done it again. With 13 years of constant operational experience to look back on, the best lesson learned they can come up with is “too many people are wearing non-regulation boots.”

Yes, that’s right; the Fun Police are on the warpath and they’ll be looking at your feet soon. Are those go-faster boots you’re wearing authorized under AR 670-1? They better be or you’ll be sent home to change them for something more regulation-friendly. Are your boots made of synthetic fabric instead of regulation cattle hide? Change them! Does the sole extend up over the toe and heel? Banned! Not between 8 and 10 inches tall? Brace yourself for trouble!

AR6701SlideSo what exactly is happening and what does it mean for you? Basically a PowerPoint presentation (see slide to the right…) is doing the rounds, showing nearly a dozen examples of boots that aren’t authorized for wear. There are some popular models on it from top suppliers, including Nike, Under Armour, Bates, and Danner. The presentation also notes that these are just examples… that any boot not meeting the AR 670-1 criteria is not authorized for wear.

Assorted dire warnings about the price of disobedience are thick in the air. If you wear non-approved boots, no matter how well they work for you, you’re in the firing line. (Wondering what boots you can wear? Here’s our up to date list:

Contrary to what folks are saying, these are not changes or additions to AR 670-1. These regulations have existed for years – it’s just that they are now choosing to enforce the standards. As a retailer, we’ll do what the Army says and offer what they allow soldiers to wear. However, the question I would pose is: “If it’s been all right to let soldiers wear these boots during a time of two wars, why isn’t it all right for them to wear now?”

It’s pretty staggering that this is happening, especially now. Boots are one of the most vital pieces of gear for any soldier, especially those operating dismounted. They’re also one of the hardest things to get right with a one size fits all approach, because one size – or model – really doesn’t fit all. Every soldier’s feet are different. Different sizes, different shapes, different distributions of muscle. If your boots don’t fit perfectly and give support where you need it, you’re going to have problems, and with the weight the infantry carries now you just can’t afford that. This is why so many soldiers choose to buy their own boots – they can try out various styles and models until they find something that suits their feet perfectly.

Which boots ARE in regulation? Click here to get our current list of boots that meet AR 670-1 regs.
Which boots ARE in regulation? Click here to get our current list of boots that meet AR 670-1 regs.

Most of the commercial boots are technologically more advanced and offer some significant benefits over the issued boot. Overall, are they better than the issued boot? That is a point that could be argued. What these new boots have offered are advancements in particular areas that soldiers want – however at the expense of certain tradeoffs like support and durability. We feel that it’s up to the soldier to make the decision on the tradeoffs. You want something really light and comfortable, you may not get 2 years out of a boot. You may not get the support you’ll need to hike up and down rocky terrain. What the new models have given service members are more mission and terrain specific choices. I for one don’t have anything against issued boots – I still have my pairs from Basic over 20 years ago. Worked for me then, works for me now, and has lasted half my life. But if I were going down range, I’d want a pair of ultra-lightweight boots so I can move real fast, or if I were going up and down mountains, I’d get a pair of Lowas or S2Vs so I’d have the support I’d need.

There are plenty of choices, too, and the options are expanding all the time as technology evolves. New materials and construction methods are driving boot design forward at an incredible rate. Not much changed between the 1940s and the 1990s, but that certainly isn’t true now. Better soles, synthetic materials that create lighter but tougher boots, insulation, waterproofing, wicking liners to combat sweat in hot climates – you can get it all. Of course issue boots are advancing as well, but the Army’s approval process is slow and inefficient, and it builds in an automatic delay of a year or more before anything goes on the list of approved boots. Technology can go a long way in a year.

After the long campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re heading back to being a garrison army for the immediate future. It doesn’t matter how pointless, counterproductive or even stupid those regulations are; that law has letters and you’re going to get stuck to them.

What do you think?

US Patriot Tactical

US Patriot is a veteran owned and operated US-based retailer supplying boots, uniforms, apparel and gear to military and law enforcement personnel. By soldiers for soldiers. Visit them online at
US Patriot Tactical

Latest posts by US Patriot Tactical (see all)


53 thoughts on “AR 670-1 (We Really Mean it This Time)

  1. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are other devices out there that can still wear those other boots. I realize that the Army may provide you with the largest percentage of your customer base but the Other services along with police departments across the nation are still allowed greater latitude in their footwear.

    1. I’m in agreement with Stitch. I’m tired of having to wade through the Army’s regulation wear when I am not Army. If I wanted to live under 670-1 I would have remained in the Army. Don’t forget the other services have to wear boots as well and don’t have the same regulation requirments.

  2. The new nikes are unauthorized and are made of the same synthetic leather that makes the first ones unauthorized

      1. So say someone just received the new NIKE SFB’s…TODAY…for example. Are you going to make that person pay to immediately ship them back to you?

        I have a suggestion. Since these boots are presumably purchased almost exclusively by soldiers…wouldn’t it make sense to add a little asterisk and disclaimer next to the boots that do not comply with AR670-1?

    1. Did no one think this is Stupid?

      Served me well in AFG…..
      It is backward thinking that is destroying our Army… or actually the Corporation.

      Because we are Downsizing.

      I learned in ILE that we should not draw down an Army after a conflict.

      I throw my old boots at the ILE lecture while we let this Happen.
      Put effort in retaining SOLDIERS, and not what boots we wear CSM!

  3. So the Rocky C5C is not authorized either? I read that they added leather, is it that the sole wraps on the toes and heels? So much confusion and I’ll prolly just wait a few months if I can get away with it.

    1. It says on their site that they are compliat (C5C). Made of genuine leather. Don’t see why they wouldn’t be as they have a full rubber sole unlike their c4t counterparts. Pretty much why I decided on them instead of the nike.

      1. I understand and that may be the case. However, if you look at the back on the sole it does wrap up on the heel, which the regulation says is unauthorized. That was my issue.

  4. Wow,

    Usually the Army does a better job of common sense in uniform issues than we do over on the USAF side but this one has me baffled. Hopefully sanity will come into play here and soldiers who have spent significant coin on boots won’t get screwed at the drive thru.

    Good luck,


  5. The new approved list has the Belleville Hybrid which also has heel and toe bumpers its even in the description although not entirely visable in the picture. Their heel/toe bumper may have a lower profile than the Rocky C5 but its still there so how is that considered a regulation boot?

    1. We are actually waiting for confirmation on the heel issue through our sources. However, you are correct, technically this is not approved according to the strict letter of AR670-1. We removed it from our list of approved boots for now.

      1. how can we find out when you find somthing out on this? i bought a pair, and just found out about this. would love to get an update on it.

  6. Typically in the units I’ve been with they have been typically more lax on shoe wear for garrison use, however for field use (either deployed or training) they’ve expected boots to be in compliance.

  7. Yes, the most important thing to worry about is the type of boots our warriors are wearing…not that they receive lack luster training and leadership, no no…its the boots….

  8. It seems that AFFES/MCCS stores are the winners here. Its no secret business has been down across the board for them, now they can unload all those boots nobody wanted to buy and continue to charge USP stores rent.

    1. If you mean the two tan Garmont boots we sell on our site – the answer is yes. In fact, the T8 BIFIDA has a NSN – National Stock Number. The T8 NFS is essentially the T8 Bifida without a Vibram sole – instead it has a lighter weight sole. However the boot upper is identical.

  9. Are the Magnum 8″ Spider 8.1 Tac Spec HPi Authorized? I’ve been told yes and no.
    Full-grain leather / 1650 denier ballistic nylon upper
    Tec-Tuff leather toeguard resists snags and abrasions
    Vent-Guard sandproof ventilator technology
    TPU exoframe reinforcement for support
    Spider Mesh lining for comfort and breathability
    Certified to EN 20347:2004 safety standard
    M-PACT comfortable contoured sockliner
    Fast-rope system with SuperFabric
    Spider outsole with reinforced stabilizers with flexible toe fins to silently grip walls

    1. The magnum is not – I can’t definitively say if it’s synthetic or genuine leather. However, it states that the upper is made of nylon mesh – which is a no go. Also, the heel extends above the sole – also a no go. The plastic/rubber use in the upper – although not specified as a no go – I can’t see unit commanders okaying this boot as authorized.

  10. What about the Belleville 320’s? I don’t see anything wrong with them but they don’t appear on your preapproved list.

  11. Could you check to see if the Oakley SI Hot Weather Assault Boot 8″ is authorized? I don’t see it on your approved list, but I also can’t see anything wrong with the boot itself as it pertains to the regulations. Thanks.

  12. Are the Belleville Mimi Mil transition authorized? I ask because I’m a little confused on the toe and I just bought some? The reg says: will not extend up the back of the heel or boot or over the top of the toe. Any guidance? Thanks!

      1. Reg says boots must be plain toe correct, I’m not sure what their definition is but the danner tfx and Oakley SI are not plain toe

  13. What’s the status on the Rocky C5C? I bought them this weekend at one of your stores and the store associate said that all boots that were in her store were with in regulation. Thank You!

  14. are the TACTICAL RESEARCH MINIMIL ULTRA LIGHT MINIMILIST TACTICAL MILITARY BOOT Tan authorized bc they are on the list of approved boots but look too comfortable to be within regulations. Thanks

  15. Are these two boot authorized by the new AR 670-1?

    Magnum Men’s Elite Spider 8.0 Boot,
    Magnum Men’s Stealth Force 8.0 Boot

  16. Buy new compliant boots now and buy a different color boot to wear with scorpion acu. It sure is an inconvenient time for the soldiers wallet to start enforcing the reg now.

  17. I will be attending Drill Sergeant School in a few weeks and just purchased a pair of Rocky C6 RLW boots. Are these in compliance with the new regulation? I know they’ll be really strict at Ft. Jackson and would like to make sure before I go.

  18. I just bought a pair of 5.11 8″ ATAC Coyote SZ boots as my first non-issue pair cause they hurt my feet. Are they Compliant?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *