I've been using 22" snowshoes but they sink so far into the snow that I've ditched them a few times. Would 30" (potentially with tails) be much easier to walk in, or am I going to be sinking in just about as far but with a bigger heavier shoe?
Depth when I wear snowshoes is usually 9-24", unpacked. Weight is 155-165lbs including gear
US made traditionals I'm aware of: - Northern Toboggan/Country Ways - Iverson - Coos Snowshoes
Oh, and they are ... shhhhhhhhh ... silent.
I’ll never abandon my trad Canadian snowshoe collection — entirely Faber and Chestnut. I’m splay-footed and the bindings on modern snowshoes force my feet into a painfully unnatural position. The float on a big set of Ojibwas is heavenly, though in the northern Ontario forests I inhabit I find elongated bearpaw to be preferable most of the time as they’re easier to bushwhack in. I didn’t realize that crampons are now available for them — thanks for the tip!
Next year, I plan to set up multiple crampons to add lateral grip as well. Then climbing the stuff 30˚ and above should be even easier, as well as the bits requiring lateral grip. I recommend snowshoe.com's (Country Way's stuff) steel crampons to others I've seen (aluminum).
I don't think I'd be able to strap something that large to my pack.
Is there any disadvantage to roundnose/roundtail snowshoes above treeline? Seems like those would be able to get similar surface area in a shorter package. I will look more into the large format woven style though
It is hard to match surface area when the front is shorter. They have to go wider, which quickly interfears with gate, causing waddle. This can be mitigated somewhat by nesting, but only so much.
Carrying on a pack: You weigh less than me, but are also shorter. A proportionate snowshoe for you is likely no problem to carry. I carry a Duluth Pack scout or #51 and strap my snowshoes on there. They stick up a little above my head (6'-1"), and being 5' long, end 18" or so above the trail. I start out first thing after the night freeze and carry them 5 miles to get up to the good snow and past the postholing tourists (who sunck in the warm afternoon snow) and trail with less snow (9000 feet and above is much more reliable longer), and then have a blast wandering the woods.
Hmm I might try building the 54" kit then
You’re only going to get a limited amount of float in powder, a larger shoe with tails will help. I weigh about the same and use 25” lightning ascents with tails in that depth and deeper. Shoeing in deep powder is slow and exhausting and breaking trail while doing so will sap everything out of you. It helps to have a partner or dogs. The next few days will get easier as the trail is established.
I like my 30s for breaking trail in deep snow around my house I still get really tired. I feel I do stand a lot more on the snow than falling into more with the 22s and they make more of a trail cause of the length than more footsteps of the 22s. The tails make it 28 and help a lot but its no substitute for a 30 with no tails. I would not go hiking with 30s I will bring tails because walking and maneuvering 22s is easier. 140-160lbs
Also depends on the snow in your area some really fluffy stuff doesn't matter if you have 22 or 30 you just sink.
Tested this with Msr Evo's and some Tubbs 30s and on snowdrifts I might fall in several inches, The Evo's always went serval inches down.
There are a number of traditional snowshoes made by first Nations people in Canada. I have two pair. One pair is about 70 years old. They will literally last forever. And when they stop being snowshoes you can just strip them all down and toss them back in the woods. The rawhide won't even last a week before something will crawl off with it.
I would go traditional or military magnesium surplus shoes for floatation but there not great on steep terrain
Do they just slide backwards on something like a 15 degree slope?
My magnesium pair have little bumped ridges on the edges but they dont do alot. If you step on ice or hard pack even on flat there like skates. I live in northern Ontario where they are great in the deep snow and forest and if theres a steep hill you just pop them off for that 20'. Also not having built in crampons makes long distance way more comfortable
Well that's too bad. I don't do much flat walking so I'll probably have to stick with the modern crampon-style shoes.
I'm 230 lbs all said, including pack and snowshoes, and with 12"x60" traditional Ojibwas with crampons I do fantastic in the Colorado Rockies powder, staying well on top. Go traditional. Modern snowshoes are glorified oversized crampons that work on packed trails and not off. Traditionals are silent, have more float, and Ojibwas allow for your normal stride by nesting. nae sayers claim Ojibwas are too long in front for mountains, and snub nosed shoes are needed. Yet, not backcountry skier uses snub nosed skies in the same conditions. With a proper crampon set up and solid modified H binding, as well as proper techniques like side stepping and herringbone, mountains are very doable, and all the more enjoyable because I don't sink up to my whatsit and face a 6' wall of snow for my next step. Grin.