Decent watch?

I'm going to be contrary, as usual, and suggest that you re-evaluate your criteria for a field watch.

Criterion #1 should not be "which is the toughest watch". It should be "Which watch will best tell me the time in the field?"

I realise that this is an unusual category for picking a watch, but really, what else is it for?

I will not consider a watch which does not have an analogue dial, with tritium (or similar glow-dimly-in-the-dark) indicators on the hands. No digital display has the same ability to allow you to see the time in low light conditions: You will almost always need to either use a flashlight, or hit the 'illuminate' button. You will be very surprised how far away you can see the 'indiglo' glow with the naked eye, let alone with an image intensifier. Even without the concerns of enemy observation, it's a lot easier just to twist your wrist for a quick glance instead of having to take your other hand off the rifle to push the 'illuminate' button. And, in most circumstance, a 'quick glance' to the level of 'to within a couple of minutes' is more than adequate than trying to actually read the digital numbers to determine if you're looking at an '5' or an '8'

However, digital displays certainly have their uses, particularly for timer functions. As a result, I will also not consider a watch which does not have a digital display. Fortunately, there are a number of watches which come with both, and that number increases regularly.

My previous watches have been Casios which have a main analogue face, with a small little digital display mounted underneath it. Currently, I'm using a Timex Ironman Triathalon, pretty much as follows:



Nice thing about it is that the digital numbers are nice and big as they use the full watch face, but they can also be completely switched off by a single button press, leaving the watch with just the hands and a plain black background. Which looks a little more elegant for daily wear, and also doesn't distract you when you have no need for the digital information. Simplicity! Display only what you need to know, the less clutter the better. No disrespect to Duffman, but that Mudman is pretty much one of the last things I want as a field watch.

Then again, it could be worse. Binary, anyone?


When you've finally decided on a group of watches which will meet your own 'tell me the time' requirements, then move on to your other criteria, such as cost or durability to further narrow it down.

In my experience, the biggest 'killer' of watches isn't damage to the primary unit itself, it's the straps. That's my one big gripe with my current Ironman is that the strap is not replaceable. (On the other hand, it also means that there's no need to worry about the strap/unit interface, which is what killed my previous watch). Once you've sorted out the strap issue, then look at the durability of the unit itself.

Certainly, for example, there are G-Shocks which have dual displays and are otherwise very nice. Then it comes down to cost/benefit. I have never paid the money for a G-Shock, and I don't believe I've ever needed to. My first, a $40 Casio dual-screen, pretty much one of the cheapest out there, survived five months of tank school a full year combat deployment in Iraq, on tanks, and -then- 9 months in Afghanistan, though admittedly mainly doing desk work, without hassle. Gear gets quite a beating on a tank, trust me, between the vibrations and the impacts. Yes, I went through three straps over the 7 years, so total cost, $60, but the watch never stopped telling me the time. Seriously, just how badly are you planning on abusing your watch, and more importantly, the arm it's attached to?

Then you also have to worry about the fact that there are some incidents that will kill any watch, not matter how shock-proof it is, and a replacement will need to be purchased. I've not personally encountered one yet, but I can certainly envision them.

Do not be swayed by cool features which are of little to no use to you. My tank has a maximum operating depth of about 1.5 meters. My watch's ability to work at 100m is, well, pretty irrelevant. Similarly an altimeter function is pretty useless for military purposes. Most (All?) will give you Pressure Altitude, which can vary from true altitude rather dramatically. And what are you going to do with the information anyway? If calling for fire, you want to be accurate, not 'to within a couple of hundred feet.' Your military issue map will give you a better indicator. And so on. My watch is for time-related functions only!

Finally, consider the possibility of 'buying disposable'. Paying $40 for a watch which tells you the time well, whilst knowing that you will likely have to replace it in 5 years, may still prove to be cheaper in the long run than a $200 watch which will last you ten years.

Hope I've given you some food for thought.

NTM

Found it after a lengthy search. It's under 'Science' for some bizarre reason.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1175

I may question their ability to correctly evaluate tactical suitability, however.

NTM