Originally Posted: February 2022
Updated: January 2024
MSR Lightning Ascent Snowshoes
Atlas 1225 Mountain Snowshoes
Introduction
Although I spend most of my winter outings on skis, I regard snowshoes to be a valuable tool in my backcountry arsenal. There are many mountain conditions that are simply better suited to snowshoes than skis. For example, forest slopes with tightly spaced trees; narrow and convoluted ridge crests; very steep alpine slopes; and pretty much anyplace with breakable crust. Furthermore, some of my mountain partners don’t ski, so snowshoeing is my only opportunity for a wintertime meet-up with them.
Affiliate Disclosure: The following gear discussion and reviews may contain affiliate links, which means that if you purchase something that I’ve linked to, I might get a small commission at no additional cost to you. Be assured, though, that my reviews are unbiased and involve only gear that I have used extensively or would recommend to a friend. For all items, I discuss the cons as well as the pros.
Trail Snowshoes vs. Mountain Snowshoes
In the context of this discussion and gear review, trail snowshoes are intended for traveling over gentle to moderate terrain, and through either tracked or untracked snow. A trail snowshoe is ideally suited for hiking along backcountry roads and trails. On the other hand, mountain snowshoes are intended for traveling over a wide variety of mountainous terrain, ranging from gentle to steep, and mostly through untracked snow. The ultimate application of a mountain snowshoe would be reaching a semi-alpine or alpine summit.
Although trail snowshoes and mountain snowshoes have many features in common, there are some key differences as discussed below.
Description of Trail Snowshoes
Trail snowshoes emphasize the use of lightweight materials and simple details, which make them more comfortable and efficient for hiking long distances. Typically, they are constructed of plastic or aluminum (or a combination of the two) and are equipped with a few underfoot cleats but no heel risers. These characteristics sacrifice some durability, traction, and climbing ease, but the snowshoes are fully adequate for gentle or moderately angled roads and trails. Here are report postings for several examples of trips that are suitable for trail snowshoes:
- Windy Joe Lookout Snowshoe Hike (North Skagit Mountains, BC)
- Talapus Lake Snowshoe Hike (Lower Snoqualmie Mountains, WA)
- Keechelus Lake Flats Snowshoe Hike (Iron Horse Mountains, WA)
- Surveyors Hill Snowshoe Hike (Iron Horse Mountains, WA)
- Nordic Pass Snowshoe Hike (Iron Horse Mountains, WA)
- Teanaway Butte Snowshoe Loop (Teanaway Mountains, WA)
Although I don’t currently own a pair of trail snowshoes, I am familiar with three particular brands (MSR, Atlas, and Tubbs), and I have seen numerous models being used in the field. The following models are worth considering, in my opinion.
>>> MSR Evo Trail Snowshoes: A very popular and economical model constructed with a rigid plastic deck; provides good traction and durability but is annoyingly noisy on crusty snow.
>>> MSR Lightning Trail Snowshoes: A high-end model with an aluminum “perimeter cleat” frame and quiet fabric deck; provides very good traction and good durability but is very expensive.
>>> Atlas Access Snowshoes: A solidly built and economical model with a tubular aluminum frame and quiet fabric deck; provides very good durability but less traction than MSR models.
>>> Tubbs Wilderness Snowshoes: A solidly built model with a tubular aluminum frame and quiet fabric deck; provides very good durability and good traction but is fairly expensive.
Description of Mountain Snowshoes
Mountain snowshoes emphasize the use of durable materials, traction devices, and climbing aids. Typically, they are constructed with sturdy aluminum frames, aggressive underfoot cleats, and flip-up heel risers. All of these details make them more effective on steep terrain and/or boilerplate snow, while accommodating a more demanding level of use, such as repeatedly kicking steps through a hard crust. The downside, of course, is their greater weight, which makes them less comfortable and efficient for longer hikes. Here are report postings for several examples of trips that are suitable for mountain snowshoes:
- Bedal Peak Snowshoe Climb (East Sauk Mountains, WA)
- Lichtenberg Mountain Snowshoe Climb (Upper Wenatchee Mountains, WA)
- Arrowhead Mountain Snowshoe Climb (Upper Icicle Mountains, WA)
- Dungeon Point Snowshoe Climb (Keechelus Mountains, WA)
- Mt Catherine Snowshoe Climb (Iron Horse Mountains, WA)
- Norse Peak Snowshoe Climb (Chinook Mountains, WA)
The vast majority of my snowshoeing trips have been in the Washington Cascades, where snow and terrain conditions often put snowshoes to a severe test. On any given trip, I might be faced with a low-angle valley followed by a moderately steep forest slope followed by a steep alpine slope, and the snow could range from patchy corn to tracked hardpan to deep powder to breakable crust to bottomless mush to wind-scoured ice. To handle this wide range of conditions, I have nearly always worn mountain snowshoes. The following reviews focus on the two snowshoe models that I’ve used for the past 20+ years.
…
<<< ————– >>>
Gear Review Summaries
MSR Lightning Ascent Snowshoe Pros & Cons
Pros:
- Flat-stock frame provides unsurpassed traction compared to other frame types, especially on traverses and descents.
- Top quality decking and binding materials and construction.
- Climbing wires reduce calf strain on steep ascents.
- Fairly lightweight compared to many other full-featured snowshoes.
- Three-strap binding provides good redundancy (older models only).
- Voile-type binding straps are easily replaced in field (older models only).
- Mesh wrap-around binding appears more comfortable than simple straps (newer models only).
- Mesh binding is easily replaced in field (newer models only).
- Flexible textile decking is nearly silent compared to hard plastic decking.
Cons:
- Flat-stock frame is probably not as strong and durable as a tube-stock frame.
- Pinned footplate connection puts slightly more stress on ankles during sidehill traverses compared to a flexible connection.
- Mesh binding does not provide good strap redundancy (newer models only).
Bottom Line: Excellent and innovative snowshoe for all mountain terrain, ranging from gentle trails to steep alpine slopes.
Product Link: MSR Lightning Ascent snowshoes
Similar Products & Links:
>>> MSR Lightning Explore snowshoes: A slightly lighter version of the Lightning Ascent, intended for slightly mellower terrain.
>>> MSR Revo Ascent snowshoes: A plastic/metal composite version of the Evo Ascent and Lightning Ascent that provides good traction but is noisy, heavier, and less durable.
…
Atlas 1225 Mountain Snowshoe Pros & Cons
Pros:
- Tube-stock frame is inherently very strong and durable.
- Top quality decking and binding materials and construction.
- Flexible footplate connection slightly reduces ankle strain on sidehill traverses compared to a pinned connection.
- Climbing wires reduce calf strain on steep ascents (newer models only).
- Fairly lightweight compared to many other full-featured snowshoes.
- Single-strap binding provides quick lacing (older models only).
- Binding straps are easily replaced in field (older models only).
- Padded wrap-around binding appears more comfortable than simple straps (newer models only).
- Flexible textile decking is nearly silent compared to hard plastic decking.
Cons:
- Tube-stock frame inherently provides less traction than a flat-stock frame.
- Single-strap binding does not provide any redundancy (older and newer models).
- Binding straps are not replaceable in field.
Bottom Line: Excellent and long-proven snowshoe for all mountain terrain, ranging from gentle trails to steep alpine slopes.
Product Link: Atlas Montaine snowshoes (a nearly identical replacement model for the old 1225)
Similar Products & Links:
>>> Atlas Range snowshoes: A new model with construction similar to the MSR Lightning Ascent.
>>> Tubbs Mountaineer snowshoes: Appears similar to the Montane in overall design but is significantly heavier.
…
<<< ————– >>>
…
<<< ————– >>>
Full Gear Reviews
MSR Lightning Ascent Snowshoe Review
MSR established a new standard for snowshoes when they introduced the Evo Ascent model several decades ago. The innovative design featured a molded plastic deck with steel traction rails underneath, a steel crampon under the footplate, climbing wires under the heels, and Voile-type rubber binding straps—all at a reasonable price. After selling a billion pairs of these bad boys, MSR raised the bar again when they introduced the Lightning Ascent about a 10 years ago, and many winter travelers now consider it to be the gold standard for snowshoes.
The primary innovation of the Lightning Ascent was its frame, which utilizes flat aluminum stock bent into an elongated oval shape with a serrated bottom. This novel design allows the entire frame to act as a large, circumferential traction device—much like a giant cookie cutter. Two transverse steel cleats under the deck provide extra traction and reinforce the frame. At first glance, the traction benefits of the frame were obvious to me, but the durability was a bit suspect. However, many years of hard use by thousands and thousands of users have shown my durability concerns to be mostly unfounded. I’ve been using Lightning Ascents for over five years and have observed no frame damage other than worn paint.
As with many snowshoes nowadays, the Lightning Ascent utilizes a laminated textile for the decking, and it is attached to the frame via 20 rivets. Textile decking has proven to be durable, but a non-obvious advantage is its audio esthetics: the snowshoes are very quiet when walking. This might seem like a trivial issue until you spend a day with a pair of hard plastic snowshoes. In fact, every time the subject of Evo Ascents comes up in a conversation with other snowshoers, I hear the same complaint: “I hate those things; they are SO noisy!”
Springboarding off the success of both the Lightning and Evo models, MSR developed a composite snowshoe that combines the Lightning’s metal “cookie cutter” edge frame with the Evo’s molded plastic deck. This hybrid snowshoe, called the Revo Ascent, provides users with a high-traction unit at a more competitive price, but it still has the noisy downside of the Evo. Furthermore, one of my mountain partners broke a pair of Revo Ascent frames after moderate use; the plastic deck cracked near the tip, where the metal edge necks down and creates a point of stress concentration in the plastic.
My first-generation Lightning Ascent snowshoes have a traditional MSR binding, which comprises three rubber straps over the forefoot and one rubber strap around the heel. All straps and buckles are styled after the legendary Voile ski strap (when Voile invented their simple strap years ago, did they have any idea how ubiquitous it would become?). I’ve heard other users complain about the need to tighten four separate straps on each snowshoe, but I do appreciate the redundancy afforded by three forefoot straps; if one breaks, the other two will adequately hold my foot in place. I also like the fact that all straps are easy to replace in the field, and for this reason, I always carry a couple spare straps in my winter repair kit.
The latest generation of Lightning Ascent snowshoes utilizes a new binding consisting of rubber mesh that is fastened over the forefoot with two clevis pins and two Voile-type straps. Although I have not tried this new design, it does appear a bit more supportive and comfortable than my older three-strap binding. However, it does not provide the same redundancy but is still field-replaceable. My experience with rubber (or flexible plastic) binding straps is that they become brittle over time and eventually break, so I would plan to replace all such components after about 10 years.
The footplate of a Lightning Ascent is attached to the frame with two clevis pins. This design creates a rigid side-to-side connection but allows a free-pivoting fore-and-aft connection. Each snowshoe has an aggressive steel crampon under the footplate and a flip-up climbing wire under the heel. These two features allow a user to directly ascend steep slopes with more security and comfort, respectively, and have become standard details on every serious mountain snowshoe.
The Lightning Ascent men’s model comes in three lengths (22, 25, and 30 inches), and the narrower women’s model comes in two lengths (22 and 25 inches). My 25-inch men’s snowshoes have a beam width of 8.0 inches and a weight of 4.0 pounds per pair. For a full-featured mountain snowshoe, these land on the lighter end of the weight spectrum.
Using MSR’s sizing charts, a 25-incher was appropriate for my fully laden weight of 200 pounds, and I have found them to provide a good compromise between flotation and maneuverability. Another interesting option for me would be to use a 22-incher in combination with 5-inch accessory tails. This would allow me to have a 27-inch snowshoe for traverses or ascents, and a 22-inch snowshoe for descents. However, I have never used the Lightning tails, nor have I seen anyone using them.
…
Atlas 1225 Mountain Snowshoe Review
When the Atlas Snow-Shoe Company started operations in 1990, they didn’t just sell snowshoes; they were selling the activity of snowshoeing. Through effective advertising, they changed snowshoeing from a functional but unglamorous wintertime transportation mode to an exciting and appealing sport. It’s not a stretch to say that Atlas put the fun in functional. But this marketing scheme succeeded only because they also delivered a really good product.
From the beginning, Atlas snowshoes comprised a tubular aluminum frame with a laminated textile deck and steel cleats underneath. The footplate was connected to the frame by means of a flexible band—a design that they heavily touted as “spring-loaded.” The binding consisted of a single nylon webbing strap. Over time, the traction crampon and cleats became larger and more aggressive, the decking textile was upgraded, and the binding went through numerous changes, but the overall design remained substantially intact.
I have used a pair of Atlas 1225 mountain snowshoes—the company’s top model at the time of purchase—as my primary units for about 10 years and as loaner units for the past 5 years. The tubular aluminum frames and laminated decks have held up very well through numerous trips, and the traction components have provided good performance over a variety of snow conditions. Even the flexible band that attaches the footplate to the frame has proven to be very durable, despite looking as though it could be a weak link in the system.
My 1225 snowshoes originally came with a robust snowboard-type bindings that utilized three ratcheting straps over the forefoot. I found this binding to be easy to put on and even easier to tighten. However, after 15 years of use, the flexible straps became brittle and snapped off, so I sent my snowshoes back to the Atlas repair facility in Portland for binding replacement. The new binding consists of a single Voile-type strap that crisscrosses over the forefoot. Based on limited testing, I would say that this binding is easy to put on and reasonably secure in use. It does not provide any redundancy (such as given by a three-strap binding), but the single strap is field-replaceable.
Although Atlas no longer sells a 1225 snowshoe model, their Montane model appears to be the current equivalent. The Montane utilizes a tubular aluminum frame, textile deck, and flexible connector band just like the 1225, but it has various enhancements, such as a climbing wire. The main difference is the binding: the Montane has a padded cuff that tightens around the forefoot with a single webbing strap. I have not used this binding, but it looks both comfortable and supportive, and the webbing strap will undoubtedly last longer than rubber or plastic straps.
The 1225/Montane men’s model comes in three lengths (25, 30, and 35 inches), and the narrower women’s model comes in two lengths (23 and 27 inches). My 25-inch men’s snowshoes have a beam width of 8.75 inches and a weight of 3.9 pounds. For a full-featured mountain snowshoe, these land on the lighter end of the weight spectrum.
Using Atlas’s sizing charts, my fully laden weight of 200 pounds puts me between a 25-inch and 30-inch snowshoe, but I have found that my 25-inchers provide a good compromise between flotation and maneuverability. Moreover, the extra length of a 30-incher would become a major detriment when descending steep slopes.
Comparison of MSR Lightning Ascent & Atlas 1225 Snowshoes
The foregoing reviews of MSR Lightning Ascent and Atlas 1225 snowshoes present a generally favorable summation. They are both excellent products and probably represent the two most highly regarded mountain snowshoes currently available (although some Tubbs Mountaineer owners might disagree). However, that still doesn’t answer the burning question, “Which one is better?”
In an effort to resolve the burning question, I recently took both pairs of snowshoes out for a comparison trek. My destination was Lichtenberg Mountain in the North-Central Washington Cascades. As it turned out, this destination provided a nearly perfect venue for comparing snowshoe performance; I traveled over terrain ranging from flat to moderately sloping to fairly steep to extremely steep, and I encountered snow conditions ranging from soft powder to mushy corn to breakable crust to icy crust. My findings were very interesting and a little surprising.
Before I discuss my performance testing, let’s look at the metrics and features of these two snowshoes. They both have the same length (25 inches) and essentially the same width (8.0 inches for the MSR and 8.75 inches for the Atlas). Although the Atlas looks sturdier and heavier, it is actually a tad lighter (3.9 pounds vs. 4.0 pounds per pair). Both units have nicely aggressive crampons under the footplate, and both have under-deck traction cleats (transverse for the MSR and longitudinal for the Atlas). My MSR units have a three-strap binding, and my Atlas units have a single-strap binding; however, be aware that newer versions of each snowshoe have a much different binding.
A subtle but notable difference between the two snowshoes is the connection between the footplate and frame. All MSR snowshoes use clevis pins to attach the footplate to the frame, which allows the footplate to pivot freely in a longitudinal direction but provides a rigid connection in a lateral direction. In contrast, all Atlas snowshoes use a flexible band to attach the footplate to the frame, which provides a restrained pivot in a longitudinal direction while allowing a bit of “float” in a lateral direction. Atlas promotes their system as “spring-loaded” because the torsional stress on the connector band tends to keep the footplate parallel to the frame.
…
For purposes of a side-by-side comparison, I started my trek with an MSR snowshoe on my left foot and an Atlas snowshoe on my right foot. This immediately revealed something interesting: the footplates are positioned with different setbacks. Specifically, the MSR footplate is positioned about 2 inches farther back than the Atlas footplate. I didn’t know what this would mean in terms of performance, but I was soon to find out.
I began my trek on a flat area, and there was no noticeable difference between the two snowshoes. As the slope gradient gradually increased, I started zigzagging back and forth on a breakable crust. On these traverses, I observed that the Atlas shoe slipped sideways just a bit more than the MSR shoe—something I expected, simply based on the “cookie-cutter” design of the MSR frame.
Farther upward, I entered a zone of hard, crusty snow. When traversing across this crust, the MSR shoe again gripped a little better, but when going straight up the fall line, there was no observable difference. I inferred from this latter observation that fall-line traction comes primarily from the footplate crampon rather than from the frame.
…
Above timberline, I encountered a steep slope with deep, sun-softened snow. I kicked steps directly up the slope and felt no difference between the two shoes. Apparently, progress in these conditions is really just a matter of kicking “bucket” steps into the soft snow, such that traction cleats and crampons serve little purpose.
At the top of the steep slope, my upward route was blocked by a cliff, so I was forced to downclimb an extremely steep (about 50 degrees) north-facing slope. The shady snow consisted of a hard crust over a layer of consolidated powder, such that every footstep required several stout kicks to break through the crust and create a stable pocket in the underlying snow. Here, I discovered a considerable difference between the two snowshoes: my Atlas shoe performed much better than my MSR shoe. Why? The forward foot position of the Atlas shoe allowed me to use the tip of the frame as an axe to cut steps; in contrast, the rearward foot position of the MSR shoe caused the tip of the frame to flop up and down, which hindered the cutting motion. I also had fewer concerns about damaging the Atlas tubular frame than I did about damaging the less-sturdy MSR frame.
…
Upon reaching the summit, I prepared for my descent by switching the MSR shoe to my right foot and the Atlas shoe to my left foot, thereby mitigating any biomechanical bias. When going straight downhill on crusty or firm snow, I noticed slightly more traction with my MSR shoe, no doubt owing to the “cookie-cutter” frame design. When going directly downhill on soft snow, I also appreciated the fact that the rearward foot position of my MSR shoe effectively created a shorter tail; long tails are always a detriment on fall-line descents.
By the time I reached my car, I had drawn several conclusions from this side-by-side snowshoe comparison:
- Both snowshoes are well-designed, well-constructed, and deliver very good overall performance. You really can’t go wrong with buying either model.
- The MSR Lightning Ascent excels at traversing or directly descending moderately steep slopes on firm or crusty snow.
- The Atlas 1225 (and presumably its current replacement, the Atlas Montane) excels at facing-in ascents or descents of very steep slopes on firm or crusty snow.
- The flexible band used to connect the footplate to the frame on Atlas snowshoes relieves some lateral ankle strain on traverses. My cranky ankles appreciated this attribute after a long trek.
<<< ————– >>>
Return to Gear Reviews homepage
Return to Gear Reviews, Packing Lists & Trailcat Tips homepage