Author Topic: Mickeys vs. the field  (Read 5016 times)

Offline Fish_Tko

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,532
Mickeys vs. the field
« on: Oct 27, 2014, 03:07 PM »
I have worn mickeys for the last 25 years ice fishing, gun and muzzleloader season, etc.

I wore out my last pair and bought a new pair before last season. They were definitely BATA's. No signs of dry rot, etc. and they were terrible. My right foot in particular froze last year, but left also got cold. The previous pair was pretty awesome.

So I am left contemplating, do I buy another pair of Mickey's, thinking that I just got a "bad pair"? I mean for crying out loud, these are 30 some year old boots that we are buying as "new".

Is this really the best technology we have? Is there not another boot maker on the market who sells a fully waterproof boot that weighs less but also is as durable? A boot that you can dump the water out of after you busted through next to shore, put it back on, and fish the rest of the day.

Anyone have any suggestions?

There is only one theory about angling in which I have perfect confidence, and this is that the two words, least appropriate to any statement, about it, are the words "always" and "never."

Offline Eye Fish

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #1 on: Oct 27, 2014, 05:33 PM »
A couple years ago i bought a set of new white mickys. Put them on to go ice fishing. Halfway out to the truck i turned around went back and put on my old pair of cabelas boots. Way to dang heavy for me. I ordered a new pair of cabelas brand boots with 2000 gram thinsulate. Love those boots and half the weight of micks.

Offline Stinkybaits

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,536
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #2 on: Oct 27, 2014, 06:10 PM »
I like the Muck Boots Artic Pro. Warm and they slip on like my slippers! I can barely tie a hook on. Laces are just too complicated for me. I get tired of the balls of ice hanging up and stiff froze laces. Just easier imo slip on slip off.

Offline princecraft

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,515
  • Hardwater Nut!
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #3 on: Oct 27, 2014, 07:51 PM »
The Mickeys are way to heavy for this little fella.  I have bought several pair of Sorels in the past and after a little wear, just can't keep them from leaking.  I also have the Cabela's boot and never have got wet or cold.  But I am looking closely at the Muck or Baffins. 
Fisherman's Prayer
   I pray that I may live to fish
          Until my dying day.
And when it comes to my last cast,
       I then most humbly pray:
When in the Lord's great landing net
           And peacefully asleep,
      That in His mercy I be Judged
              BIG ENOUGH TO KEEP.

Offline wax_worm

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 4,975
  • Right out of my ice hole!
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #4 on: Oct 27, 2014, 08:14 PM »
I have always worn mickeys and never been wet or cold in them.  The key is to get a pair that are big enough that they allow air circulation.  Mine are a full size bigger than any shoes I wear.  With mickeys I know I can walk in 4-6 inches of water on the ice all day and stay dry.   They are a bit heavier than most boots but I will trade the weight all year for one day of having to cut fishing short because my feet are wet.  If there is something as dry and durable that does not cost 200+ I would be interested in hearing about them.

Offline wallin

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,468
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #5 on: Oct 27, 2014, 08:40 PM »
My feet sweat so I like my Rockies, light weight and dry.
Bought some Baffins and they suck when its good n cold. ;)
Tom

Offline tomturkey

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 2,921
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #6 on: Oct 27, 2014, 08:57 PM »
I broke out my 20+ year old Lacrosse icemen a couple of years ago. My feet stayed just about as warm as my $5 white mickeys that are getting pretty rotten and to heavy for this old fart to lug around.

I just wish that the Icemen were a size larger as my feet seemed to have swollen in size since becoming a diabetic

Offline Fish_Tko

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #7 on: Oct 28, 2014, 09:12 AM »
I have always worn mickeys and never been wet or cold in them.  The key is to get a pair that are big enough that they allow air circulation.  Mine are a full size bigger than any shoes I wear.  With mickeys I know I can walk in 4-6 inches of water on the ice all day and stay dry.   They are a bit heavier than most boots but I will trade the weight all year for one day of having to cut fishing short because my feet are wet.  If there is something as dry and durable that does not cost 200+ I would be interested in hearing about them.

Waxy,

I love Mickeys, but am perplexed after getting a bad pair.
There is only one theory about angling in which I have perfect confidence, and this is that the two words, least appropriate to any statement, about it, are the words "always" and "never."

Offline brink

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #8 on: Oct 28, 2014, 11:09 AM »
As for the weight, I agree they are a bit heavy.  However, I find them to be comfortable and can walk to a from a tree stand or a long ways on the ice and not feel like I've got cement for boots.

My $.02 is spend the $65 and try a new pair of Bunny's.

I only wear (for the most part) ankle socks in my Mick's and Bunny's and don't get cold. 
That's some tasty iced tea.

Offline OldSailor

  • Iceshanty Militia
  • Team IceShantyholic
  • *
  • Posts: 7,138
  • Take a kid fishing! Pay it forward!!
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #9 on: Oct 28, 2014, 11:17 AM »
Sportsman's Guide has new surplus Mickeys (black) for $39.99 ($35.99 for members!)

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/mens-new-us-mickey-boots-with-valve-black?a=591923
My two favorite college football teams are Ohio State and whoever's playing Michigan!!!

Don't reel against the drag!!!

Ex Minnesnowta lad! You can take the lad out of Minnesnowta, but you can't take Minnesnowta out of the lad!!

Offline pmaloney86

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,849
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #10 on: Oct 28, 2014, 11:22 AM »
Although I have never tried this brand of boot, I have heard they are great for hunting, fishing, or any other outdoor activity.  I currently have the Muck Arctic Pro boots but last season I got a slight leak in one of the seams.  They are still wearable on 90% of the days ice fishing but I may be investing in a new pair shortly.

Has anyone tried this brand of boot?

http://www.dunlopboots.com/en-ca/select-a-boot
westernmas on the finder

Offline pmaloney86

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,849
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #11 on: Oct 28, 2014, 11:27 AM »
I've also read good reviews on Baffin Boots.

http://www.baffin.com/product-p/litem001.htm

There's too many options.  Mickeys are definitly the least expensive out there though.
westernmas on the finder

Offline TIBS

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 798
  • Tipup!!!!!
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #12 on: Oct 28, 2014, 12:32 PM »
I'll take the field.

I can't figure out why people still love mickey boots.  I wore them in Army service, horrible boot.  Way too heavy and nowhere near as warm as people claim.  Pretty much every modern pac boot out there will out perform them.

Offline brink

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #13 on: Oct 28, 2014, 01:10 PM »
Quote
Way too heavy and nowhere near as warm as people claim.

I would tend too disagree on both points.  They are heavier than other boots but certainly not "too heavy".  I find them quite comfortable actually.  Regarding the warmth, I can sit with my boots directly on ice for 5-6 hours wearing only ankle socks and my feet never get cold even with sub freezing temps.  In contrast, I can wear my Muck Wetlands (I know they aren't insulated like the Arctic Pros) for about an hour in a tree stand in the same temp and my feet start to get super cold. 

Not trying to start any beef TIBS.  Just my opinion.
That's some tasty iced tea.

Offline Fish_Tko

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #14 on: Oct 28, 2014, 01:45 PM »
I guess I wish someone would re-invent the mickey.

30% of the weight , more insulation value, durability and waterproofness of the rubber..etc. I would even modern boot price for them.

They have became the ice-fishermans ponzie scheme trying to find a good pair of 1983's. I digress
There is only one theory about angling in which I have perfect confidence, and this is that the two words, least appropriate to any statement, about it, are the words "always" and "never."

Offline Hoosier

  • IceShanty Mod Team
  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • *
  • Posts: 3,158
  • Bucket,some bait and,,what did she ask me to do??
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #15 on: Oct 28, 2014, 05:05 PM »
I have had 2 pairs of the White MM and truly never had a problem. Other than wearing the first ones out. After starting in a pac boot, the MM seemed to have a denser feel to them but defiantly not heavier. I've been through the ice and left with a boot full of ice water. Still warm and continued to fish. Not going to get that in any pac boot. After having tried on the Muck Artic Pro and knowing a couple of guys that used them all last season. They are impressed with the warm and the weight of the boot, not to mention no frozen laces. So Happy Birthday to me from the wife and kiddies. I have a set on the way.

Offline iceman10

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #16 on: Oct 28, 2014, 05:29 PM »
I have had 2 pairs of the White MM and truly never had a problem. Other than wearing the first ones out. After starting in a pac boot, the MM seemed to have a denser feel to them but defiantly not heavier. I've been through the ice and left with a boot full of ice water. Still warm and continued to fish. Not going to get that in any pac boot. After having tried on the Muck Artic Pro and knowing a couple of guys that used them all last season. They are impressed with the warm and the weight of the boot, not to mention no frozen laces. So Happy Birthday to me from the wife and kiddies. I have a set on the way.
. I got a pair of these last season and love them. I guess time will tell on how they hold up to the elements.

Offline high_flags

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 2,318
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #17 on: Oct 28, 2014, 05:55 PM »
Love my Mickeys  been wearing them for a very long time . On my 4th pair..  Love the water proofness... also I have had a ice break through on occasion they will keep you warm even wet inside..    They are a little heavy but it doesn't bother me.  I wear a lite sock first with a heavier wool blend over the other.   They run big in size.   ..  I use the black ones...   

if you get cold in any boot you wear drill more holes to warm up...LOL

Black boots are for Cold-Wet conditions above 14*F (-10*C)
White boots are for Cold-Dry conditions below 14*F (-10*C)

Black=Mickeys= -20 Degree sitting 44oz
White=Bunny= -40 Degrees sitting  53oz
Order 1 size smaller than street shoes
DO NOT adjust the valve
There are alot of Korean made junk pairs
Stick with the BATA brand for the real deal
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles.

Offline Eye Fish

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #18 on: Oct 28, 2014, 05:58 PM »
Looks like good reviews on the muck Arctic Pro boots. Amazon has them with a review of 4.9 out of 5 stars.

Offline Greg2ha

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 2,433
  • Pollock $1.49 a pound!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #19 on: Oct 28, 2014, 07:16 PM »
I have worn mickeys for the last 25 years ice fishing, gun and muzzleloader season, etc.

I wore out my last pair and bought a new pair before last season. They were definitely BATA's. No signs of dry rot, etc. and they were terrible. My right foot in particular froze last year, but left also got cold. The previous pair was pretty awesome.

So I am left contemplating, do I buy another pair of Mickey's, thinking that I just got a "bad pair"? I mean for crying out loud, these are 30 some year old boots that we are buying as "new".

Is this really the best technology we have? Is there not another boot maker on the market who sells a fully waterproof boot that weighs less but also is as durable? A boot that you can dump the water out of after you busted through next to shore, put it back on, and fish the rest of the day.


Anyone have any suggestions?
I have heard of knock offs but have had good luck with a place called colemans.com and even bought their used ones before.
Fish on!

Offline Chris338378

  • Team IceShantyholic
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,688
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #20 on: Oct 29, 2014, 07:32 PM »
I never used or even owned a pair of Mickeys but have been thinking about getting a pair but my problem is finding my size, 14 wide, in a pair that's new / unissued locally so I can try them on. 

Offline crappie66

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,518
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #21 on: Oct 29, 2014, 08:06 PM »
I never used or even owned a pair of Mickeys but have been thinking about getting a pair but my problem is finding my size, 14 wide, in a pair that's new / unissued locally so I can try them on.

Good luck on that one.

I also have the size 14 Wide, very hard to come by.  I was looking for another pair but wasn't about to spend $90 on 30 year old boots, so I opted for double priced Baffins.  Only time will tell if the purchase was worth it.

I had contacted Bata to see if they produced anything today with the same concept --- a couple weeks later still no reply.


Real fisherman don't yield to the weather.

Offline tater140

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,362
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #22 on: Oct 30, 2014, 07:00 AM »
I fished for years in my hunting boots, until last year when we had a couple of those big snows early on and the ice bowed down and we had those big water puddles to stand in while you fish.  After about the 3rd or 4th trip standing in 4" of water and my toes absolutely frozen after my boots were completely wet I bought a pair of the white Mickey's.  First time I looked inside them I thought there was no way they could be warm, and they felt huge on my feet.  I got used to them and love them now.  I don't worry about water or cold toes in them.  One downfall that I do have with them is that they are slick.  I don't have any ice creepers, and when your trying to lug a sled up an incline it's hard to get any traction.  Overall I think their a great boot.  I paid around 30.00 for my pair online - ebay. 
My two best purchases for comfort last year was the Stryker suite and the mickey boots.  Nothing like being comfortable on the ice.

Offline cohobob

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #23 on: Oct 30, 2014, 08:06 AM »
I purchased a pair of Lacrosse boots 20 years ago, Have replaced the inserts a couple of time, Spent as much as 12 hrs on the ice more times than I can remember. My feet have never been cold or wet, they were a bit pricey $100 back then I have seen them at Cabala's in Hammond.
I had to wear the MM boots in Iceland when I was stationed there in 69 & 70 they never really kept my feet warm.

Offline Jigmup

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 4,317
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #24 on: Oct 30, 2014, 11:35 AM »
Don't feel bad, I splurged on a Pair of Baffin Apex boots two years ago and my feet froze in them. Complained to the company and they sent 1 size larger for free and my feet still froze. They claimed to order the size you wear and then told me I should have ordered one size bigger...either way, they are not a good boot and way over priced.

I think you would fall in love with Cabela's Trans Alaskans!
Never tell a fish where its supposed to be

Offline ridingerboy

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #25 on: Oct 30, 2014, 06:18 PM »
I guess I will jump in this,I have a pair of black Mickeys,this is the second pair I have used in 30 plus years on the ice. I have some friends that always have the "latest/Greatest" and they cant hold a candle to my boots. I agree that size of Mickeys is the key,they MUST be a little loose for air flow. My feet are never cold,just wish I could say the same of my fingers.
crankin holes and droppin lines

Offline abishop

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 4,485
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #26 on: Oct 31, 2014, 09:39 AM »
I have never had cold feet with my mickeys. I only issue I have with them is they are heavy, but so am I.

Offline wallin

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,468
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #27 on: Nov 01, 2014, 06:56 AM »
Not you Al lol, how was them shrooms?
Tom

Offline fishinfiend

  • Team IceShanty Maniac
  • **
  • Posts: 1,732
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #28 on: Nov 01, 2014, 05:53 PM »
Sounds like a bad pair. My feet were always the one thing that would get cold on the ice until i put some Mickeys on.  The pair I have are 15+ years old used and abused before my uncle handed them to me.   Dont shy away from them...best boot for ice!!!  I have never worn the white ones but the black are warm enough.

Offline DannyBoy74

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
Re: Mickeys vs. the field
« Reply #29 on: Nov 01, 2014, 09:17 PM »
I use Kamik Cody Pac Boots. Got them on a discount website. They are a little pricey for full retail but definitely worth the money. Feet stay warm without fail. PLUS THEY ARE AMERICAN OR CANADIAN MADE! I go a size larger on all my pac boots, you can add wool socks or take away depending on the temp.
Remember to take a rubber mat as an insulator between your boot and ice/snow.   

 



Iceshanty | MyFishFinder | MyHuntingForum
Contact | Disclaimer | Privacypolicy | Sponsor
© 1996- Iceshanty.com
All Rights Reserved.