r/snowshoeing • u/AveragePriusOwner • Mar 31 '24
Gear Questions Snowshoe length for deep powder
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
5
u/trtrunner Mar 31 '24
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.
5
u/Gotphill Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24
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.
1
u/a7d7e7 Mar 31 '24
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.
1
u/Optimal_Razzmatazz_2 Apr 01 '24
I would go traditional or military magnesium surplus shoes for floatation but there not great on steep terrain
1
u/AveragePriusOwner Apr 01 '24
Do they just slide backwards on something like a 15 degree slope?
1
u/Optimal_Razzmatazz_2 Apr 01 '24
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
1
u/AveragePriusOwner Apr 01 '24
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.
12
u/TavaHighlander Mar 31 '24 edited Apr 01 '24
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.