Snowshoes: Atlas 925 v. RedFeather

YEP, just realize on fluffy snow you may sink a bit easier. On some snow it doesn't matter what you wear you still sink to your knees. It's all relative huh.

Having living in Erie PA for many decades before moving to Las Vegas I can say that 30" snowshoes are a better length than a shorter snowshoe.

But then I'm a former Nordic ski patroller and used to 210 cm back country skis, so 30" snowshoes are almost like weaing boots to me. It's all relative.

I like the superior flotation of backcountry skis and therefore with snowshoes going shorter than 30" seems counterproductive to fast overland travel, even in thick woods.
My snowshoes are Atlas. I prefer their pivot band because, as their website video shows, they are easier to use on a hillside traverse as the pivot band bends, allowing the foot a more natural position relative to the slope. This is less tiring on a long traverse.

Eric

Ok, I confess, I have too many pair of snowshoes, and I've tried them all! I almost never use packed trails and our snow depth varies from year to year. I too am over the weight limit for my Tubbs Mtn series 25" and my 25" MSR Lightning Ascents in deep powder (18"-30"), but I find them just fine when breaking trail in these conditions. No question, the 30s do have better flotation but with the price of more weight. My weight with a pack is approximately 210-215 pounds not counting the snowshoes. I think you should look at your snow conditions in most years and go with that. If you are consistently breaking trail in deep snow and/or wearing a backpack for winter camping, I'd go with the 30s. Otherwise, I personally almost always prefer the shorter snowshoe due to the weight savings though there may be a slight tradeoff in speed. On packed trails, I find the shorter snowshoes to be much better.