I walked about 24 miles in the Mudclaws this weekend and about six in the Runamucks, and it makes for an interesting comparison.
The Mudclaws weigh 11 oz. per shoe in the 10.5 size. They were good on all treadway surfaces, but I could begin to see the wear on them after only 24 miles. They stuck reasonably well to wet rocks (certainly better than any other shoe I've tried), including rocks heavy with moss. The rocks covered with a light coating of slimy green (moss? algae?) were still slippery enough to avoid, although the soft, deep lug structure on the bottoms tended to grab any small imperfection in the rock with amazing tenacity.
A warning, though. The shoes are minimalist in every way. Above the tread, the bottom of the shoe is thin. When the tread wears away (and it will soon), there won't be much padding between you and the ground. They do, however, provide sufficient front-of-toe protection.
The toebox is quite narrow and too-precipitously tapered, small enough that even with a snug fit, my toes crammed together on the frequent, steep downhills, leaving my outer toes with slight blistering for the first time in years. I really missed that little bulge around the small toe that most shoes have. However, if I went to a larger size, the poor lateral fit would cause my toes to slip down farther, I reckon. Besides, I'm broke now from buying all these shoes.
The sidewalls of the shoes are thin cloth covered with tough mesh. They dry more quickly than any other shoe I've worn (except the Runamucks).
Conclusion: a good shoe for multiple terrains over short distances. Definitely not a long-haul shoe for a variety of reasons.
The Runamucks were clearly too small in the 10.5's, so I shot them back and got 11's, which fit me well. They have the same snug fit with a slightly larger, but still ungenerous, toebox. Still, the slightly wider toe area made all the difference as far as fit was concerned. At a half size larger, they were still lightweight at 13.5 oz., 2.5 oz. more than the Mudclaws.
They don't get their extra weight from the top of the shoe. The sidewalls are made of tough mesh reinforced vertically with strips of heavy cloth. They drained and dried like a dream. They also provide better front-of-foot protection than the Mudclaws.
The bottoms are a bit better padded than the Mudclaws, and the tread is made of (I think) slightly harder rubber. Ironically for a "water shoe," they did not stick quite as well to the wet rocks, but they did so more than adequately. They also worked well on other surfaces. The multi-layer tread design is something to see. The big question is, will they maintain their stickiness once that first layer of tread has worn down?
I'll try to wear the Runamucks on a longer, wetter hike soon, so the comparison at this point isn't a fair one.
That said, I have to say that I might wear the Mudclaws on shorter walks, but I would never wear them on a multi-week trip, although if I ever get a few bucks together, I might try them a half-size larger. Given the softness of the tread rubber and the too-narrow toe area, neither the shoe nor my feet would make it through the hike.
The Runamucks look and feel like they could go a few hundred miles and keep the feet comfortable. The 2.5 oz. weight penalty is a relatively small price to pay. Watch the fit, though.
Geesh. I just wrote 600 words about shoes. Help me.
Stargazer