<p>after the 2nd road march with these boots, I've decided to go buy a pair of bellvilles. The shape of the altama heel cup and ridge line across the top of the foot are just poorly designed. I dunno maybe not, but I've talked to several people that've had the same problem. When I got my RFI issue I really wish the guy had grabbed the bellville box sitting next to the altama box...</p>
<p>I swear by Wellco. I have a pair of belleville deserts that work just fine, but I take my Wellcos on those really longggg rucks.</p>
<p>How are the McRaes? I think thats how it's spelled.</p>
<p>Haven't heard anything about the McRaes, but I think theyre basically the same design as the bellevilles/wellco/corcorans... Any boot will work eventually if you condition your foot for them but some take less time to break in/get used to.</p>
<p>Most of the manufacturers that make the issue boots are ok. I find that corcorans are narrower than the others though.</p>
<p>what style of the belleville's should be bought? and should it be with or without the steel toe?</p>
<p>without the steel toe. model 390 des</p>
<p>mrgreenapple: Are you sure that the Belleville 390s are authorized for candidate cadets? Son was told that they are "commercial" boots and that only "issue" boots are authorized. The sole on the issue boot is different. The AAFES store will tell you that all of the issue boots are made to the exact same specifications, so there should be no difference beween the different makes - not sure how true that is as I haven't seen the different makes together. I do know that the Belleville 390s are different from the McRaes that were catalogue ordered.</p>
<p>I've seen two different brands at the MCS at WPAFB. Both are exactly the same except for the brand name imprinted on the boot. Soles are the same, everything is the same.</p>
<p>Note that this is AF, but when they say they're the same, as far as I can tell they mean it.</p>
<p>I'm not going to tell you either way since I dont know what goes through the minds of people at USMA. I will tell you that you could wear the commercial ones here and noone would notice or care. However it might be different during beast. I just wish theyd let us get the oakley boots. Best bet would be to call WP.</p>
<p>check out this link for the 390 des
<a href="http://www.bellevilleshoe.com/bootseries/390DESFED.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.bellevilleshoe.com/bootseries/390DESFED.htm</a></p>
<p>which i found from this link
<a href="http://www.bellevilleshoe.com/federal/federal_5.htm#7%5B/url%5D">http://www.bellevilleshoe.com/federal/federal_5.htm#7</a>
which is for federal agencies buying.</p>
<p>Best I can tell, Belleville 390s are not authorized for candidate cadets.
Sgt McCoy, the contact on the boot letter will tell you that WP does not subscribe to regular army policy (authorized for combat does not = authorized for candidate cadets). He is the one that has said that only the issue boots are authorized.</p>
<p>so they have to be the 390 des with the different sole?</p>
<p>Apparantly they have to be the issue ACU hot weather boot made to DoD specifications. A couple of manufacturers have contracts to manufacture these boots, including Belleville, McRae, Altama and Wellco. AAFES stores may stock them, or they can be ordered from the AAFES catalogue.</p>
<p>Are the 390s RFI gear? IF they are not authorized, that might explain why.</p>
<p>Makes zero sense, but oh well... I guess I'll be buying new boots in the near future (I have 2 pairs of 390 des)</p>
<p>They are DoD approved for the ACUs. They sell them at clothing and sales. They issue them to people here. Theyre a hot weather copy of the black bellevilles they've been giving to basic training soldiers for the last couple years. i cant imagine them not being authorized.</p>
<p>mrgreenapple: I sent you an IM yesterday with Staff Sgt McCoy's contact details. If you (or anyone else) gets a different story from him please let us know. My son has a pair of 390s that he would also love to wear.</p>