# Hamiltons and Swimming



## lmr23 (May 1, 2016)

Hey folks. After doing a little research on my first automatic watch I've decided on the Hamilton Men's H70455733 Khaki Field Watch. I like the classic look and relatively small size (38 mm). It's rated water resistant to 330 ft, but some of the reviews I've read have stated people having problems with some very casual swimming. Before I drop $370, I'd love to hear some feedback on this issue from anyone who owns a Hamilton. Thanks.


----------



## Drumguy (Jun 24, 2014)

I wouldn't swim with it, I'm sure some will say it's ok but I wouldn't with any of mine with that WR.If you want a watch to swim with get a diver, you can get an Orient or Seiko for under $200.


----------



## chadwright (Feb 28, 2015)

I would think 330ft would cover casual swimming. That said I usually only swim with dive watches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lmr23 (May 1, 2016)

Are you saying you wouldn't swim with any watch with a water rating of 330ft, or just Hamiltons? I've had the Victorinox Swiss Army Original for the last 5 years and I've had no problems with it in the water.


----------



## lmr23 (May 1, 2016)

It has a water rating of 330ft as well.


----------



## jupiter6 (Jan 8, 2015)

I used a Seiko with 100m water resistance when teaching swimming. I would spend 4 to 5 hours a day in the water, 6 days a week and never once had a problem. Granted it's not a Hamilton, but water resistance is water resistance, diver or not. A 200m diver is no more water resistant than a 200m sport watch. It's the rating that counts, not the type of watch or internet experts opinions.


----------



## cprrckwlf (Aug 18, 2012)

jupiter6 said:


> I used a Seiko with 100m water resistance when teaching swimming. I would spend 4 to 5 hours a day in the water, 6 days a week and never once had a problem. Granted it's not a Hamilton, but water resistance is water resistance, diver or not. A 200m diver is no more water resistant than a 200m sport watch. It's the rating that counts, not the type of watch or internet experts opinions.


Not really true. There are actually 2 different ISO standards: ISO 22810 for water resistant and ISO 6425 for diving standards. A watch that is rated 100m or 200m under ISO 2281 is not suitable for diving. There's a lot of differences in the testing (the wikipedia article isn't the worst thing I've ever read there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark) but just a few differences to note are:
- that the diver standard tests each individual watch whereas the non-diver only tests a sampling 
- the diver standard tests each watch for reliability after 50 hours immersed compared to 10 minutes for a non-diver sample
- the divers are tested to resist salt water, non divers are not

Take a look at the chart in the wiki, ignore the very long and bizzare psuedo-physics conversations you see on here re: static vs dynamic pressures and so on.

I generally take my watch off to swim out of habit (though I ALWAYS wear a watch when I'm diving), but I don't worry about a 100m non-diver if, say, I'm at a hotel pool and don't want to leave it. That said, the watch the OP specified comes on leather so that one would be coming off.


----------



## Cr15py (Apr 14, 2015)

You can swim with 50m WR mechanical watches but I wouldn't recommend it. If warranty terms don't instill confidence, don't.


----------



## il Pirati (Dec 7, 2014)

I've swam and surfed many times with my Timex Expedition (100m WR, no screw down crown) with no ill results. If you're concerned, have the watch pressure tested, make sure the crown is pushed in, and swim with a clear mind. The Hamilton is more than up to the challange!


----------



## jupiter6 (Jan 8, 2015)

cprrckwlf said:


> Not really true. There are actually 2 different ISO standards: ISO 22810 for water resistant and ISO 6425 for diving standards. A watch that is rated 100m or 200m under ISO 2281 is not suitable for diving. There's a lot of differences in the testing (the wikipedia article isn't the worst thing I've ever read there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark) but just a few differences to note are:
> - that the diver standard tests each individual watch whereas the non-diver only tests a sampling
> - the diver standard tests each watch for reliability after 50 hours immersed compared to 10 minutes for a non-diver sample
> - the divers are tested to resist salt water, non divers are not
> ...


Fair comment, however in this context the relevance is debateable.

I don't think the standard the water resistance adheres to is going to make a scrap of difference for casual swimming. For an actual diver using his watch while diving (which is basically no diver these days) it would be an issue.

I base my comment on personal experience and thought I would chime in after reading countless posts bordering on absurd about water resistance.


----------



## ConfusedOne (Sep 29, 2015)

Even if I changed the leather strap to a rubber strap I still wouldn't feel comfortable swimming with my Hamilton.
The only Hamilton watches that would be fine to swim with would be the Frogman Auto, Sub Auto, or the Belowzero.


----------



## il Pirati (Dec 7, 2014)

ConfusedOne said:


> Even if I changed the leather strap to a rubber strap I still wouldn't feel comfortable swimming with my Hamilton.
> The only Hamilton watches that would be fine to swim with would be the Frogman Auto, Sub Auto, or the Belowzero.


There's a big difference between "fine to swim with" and "ConfusedOne feels fine swimming with." 
Feelings are valid, but they aren't science.


----------



## BrentYYC (Feb 2, 2012)

There's no issue. I regularly dive (and hot tub) with 330 ft (100m) rated watches without screw down crowns and have never had a problem. FYI, a 330 ft (100m) rating is triple the depth limit for recreational diving and far far exceeds your needs for swimming.

Here's the general rule of thumb when it comes to gauging water resistance...

If the watch meets the ISO 6425 diving standard, then EVERY watch has been individually tested before it left the factory and you can be assured its water resistance will meet or exceed its depth rating (when new). It will usually say "Diver's" on the watch as well, to provide an easy reference to the fact it has passed this standard.

Only a very small percentage of watches are tested to the ISO 6425 standard, so in the real world you're usually dealing with the ISO 22810 standard for general water resistance and not the dive standard. Here's the catch... the ISO 22810 standard, which most watches abide by, only tests a small sample of watches as an estimate of whether the watches meet the advertised depth rating. There will ALWAYS be a small number that slip through and won't meet the depth rating.... there's no way for them to be screened out unless the manufacturer tests every watch. The relatively small number that fail are considered defective and should be replaced or repaired under warranty, and it's this very small number that you hear people whining about on forums (you don't hear about the millions that were just fine). It's the same situation with every manufacturer unless they test every watch that goes out the door (but you rarely see that happen except for specific models)

The bottom line is simply this, accept the depth rating as stated (because almost all will meet it) but understand that there's always a chance that you might get a rare, defective, watch. This is true for almost every manufacturer, and it's what warranties are for. Also remember that water resistance is not a lifetime thing and that gaskets and o-rings need periodic replacement for the watch to maintain its stated WR... annual pressure testing to verify WR is also a good idea if you expose it to a lot of water.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, I've owned at least 10 Hamiltons, including two Khaki Fields, and have never had a water resistance problem with any of them.


----------



## Looper30 (Sep 22, 2014)

I wouldn't swim with any watch that doesn't have a screw down crown and isn't a dive watch. That's not to say that you can't, but to me its not worth the risk of ruining your watch.


----------



## dawiz (Apr 5, 2015)

Looper30 said:


> I wouldn't swim with any watch that doesn't have a screw down crown and isn't a dive watch. That's not to say that you can't, but to me its not worth the risk of ruining your watch.


I've decided that I won't swim with any watch worth more than 100 bucks, period. I have a Daytona (never going to see water, that's for sure) and a 16610 which probably would do perfectly fine - it's designed for water - but what's the point? I'll be in the pool for half an hour and nobody would see the watch anyway. And if anything should go wrong, I'd be mad at myself for weeks.


----------



## jupiter6 (Jan 8, 2015)

dawiz said:


> I've decided that I won't swim with any watch worth more than 100 bucks, period. I have a Daytona (never going to see water, that's for sure) and a 16610 which probably would do perfectly fine - it's designed for water - but what's the point? I'll be in the pool for half an hour and nobody would see the watch anyway. And if anything should go wrong, I'd be mad at myself for weeks.


The only person I care about seeing my watch is myself. If you think people care about what you're wearing, or even notice in the first place then I have some news you won't like.


----------



## dawiz (Apr 5, 2015)

jupiter6 said:


> The only person I care about seeing my watch is myself. If you think people care about what you're wearing, or even notice in the first place then I have some news you won't like.


Sure, but what value does wearing a 2000$ watch add to your swimming performance?


----------



## jupiter6 (Jan 8, 2015)

Adding value!? This is swimming, not corporate buzz words. I don't think of swimming in terms of adding value.


----------



## dawiz (Apr 5, 2015)

jupiter6 said:


> Adding value!? This is swimming, not corporate buzz words. I don't think of swimming in terms of adding value.


I don't believe you understood what I meant - what is it to you to wear a mechanical watch in a pool? Personally, I see absolutely no point in it.


----------



## jupiter6 (Jan 8, 2015)

Um, so I can tell the time perhaps? What value does wearing a watch add when sitting in front of a computer or when your phone is in your pocket, both with clocks synced to time servers? Even less than wearing a watch in the pool.


----------



## smallappliance (Dec 26, 2011)

I would be careful even though it's rated for depth. I have a Fitbit that is rated at 30 ATM's or 100 feet and I have been told by the company that it's not rated for swimming due to the force when pulling ones arm thru the water. That said I do swim with my Hamilton Khaki Navy Sub Diver without issue.


----------



## BrentYYC (Feb 2, 2012)

Smallappliance said:


> I have a Fitbit that is rated at 30 ATM's or 100 feet and I have been told by the company that it's not rated for swimming due to the force when pulling ones arm thru the water.


It's amazing how that myth just won't die. Perhaps a Fitbit isn't engineered the same way as a watch, though, since hand motion through water has no effect on watch water resistance.


----------



## herooftheday (Apr 20, 2016)

BrentYYC said:


> It's amazing how that myth just won't die. Perhaps a Fitbit isn't engineered the same way as a watch, though, since hand motion through water has no effect on watch water resistance.


My Fitbit crapped out on me just wearing it in the shower. It still functions, but it's very inaccurate now when it comes to step counting and distance walked. Plus I see moisture in the screen. Definitely not a quality item.


----------



## Jackalo626 (Jun 23, 2015)

dawiz said:


> I don't believe you understood what I meant - what is it to you to wear a mechanical watch in a pool? Personally, I see absolutely no point in it.


You don't see the point in wearing a mechanical watch in a pool but you say you wear a watch in a pool so I don't see your point. Water rating is there to let you know it's rating. If anything, I would take the expensive watch with me swimming as I would have done my homework and know that I have a quality watch on that can take a simple swim and keep going. Diving and swimming are like comparing driving to the grocery or racing at monaco.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jackalo626 (Jun 23, 2015)

I have the Hamilton Khaki in question and though I would trust it to swim in, I don't think the strap is one I would want to. It is likely the last watch strap I would want in a pool being leather on the back and a cloth on the outside. Just seems it would show its age fast messing around in a chlorinated pool with that strap. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk


----------



## filthyj24 (Dec 28, 2013)

Spent about an hour in the pool with my khaki titanium today. The pool is 10 ft at the deepest and my daughter and I were diving to pick up toys from the bottom. It's completely fine. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## jupiter6 (Jan 8, 2015)

BrentYYC said:


> It's amazing how that myth just won't die. Perhaps a Fitbit isn't engineered the same way as a watch, though, since hand motion through water has no effect on watch water resistance.


Finally someone understands swimming. When you swim, your hand anchors the water and you pull you body over it. The only point that there may be increased pressure is when your hand enters the water, or the recovery phase in breaststroke. That's way more technical than is needed in this conversation so I'll stop there.


----------



## BrentYYC (Feb 2, 2012)

jupiter6 said:


> Finally someone understands swimming. When you swim, your hand anchors the water and you pull you body over it. The only point that there may be increased pressure is when your hand enters the water, or the recovery phase in breaststroke. That's way more technical than is needed in this conversation so I'll stop there.


That's an excellent point and makes complete sense.

I wish I could claim that I understood the dynamics of the swimming stroke prior to your post, but I was instead referring to the physics of a watch purely moving through water. lysanderxiii has explained how the later has no effect on watches in his myth busting post, here, but your comment adds an additional dimension when you realize that the hand is primarily pushing against water when swimming and not moving through it at speed. Pushing against water will create pressure against the hand, however, but even so the watch is pretty much protected in its location on the back of the hand , Even if it wasn't protected, as lysander explains, the motion and pressure would still have no impact on water resistance.

In the case of a Fitbit, though, it seems the water resistance is questionable to begin with, and whoever told the previous poster that dynamic pressure of swimming will affect it is trying to shift the blame of the device's shortcomings to something else.


----------



## marker2037 (Nov 19, 2015)

I have a Khaki Field Pioneer with the same 100m WR and the same non-screw down crown. You'll be absolutely fine swimming with it, taking it in the shower, getting it wet, etc. I do it all the time. It's a field watch, made to survive field duty/activities. It's definitely up to the challenge, so don't let a few scared-y cat WIS ruin your view on how capable your watch is. 

Trust the manufacturer and their ratings.


----------



## smallappliance (Dec 26, 2011)

I swim with mine daily, that said its Khaki Navy Sub Diver with no issue.


----------



## smallappliance (Dec 26, 2011)

Maybe they just don't want the liability of having to replace any of them.


----------



## jupiter6 (Jan 8, 2015)

Who are they, and how are they relevant to watches and water resistance?


----------



## KrisOK (Mar 31, 2014)

I have dozens of 100m watches, and I shower, wash the car, swim, hot tub, etc, etc... in all of them. I've only had a single seal failure in several years, and it was due to a pinched case back seal. And THAT one was MY fault, not the fault of the watch.


----------

