# swim with a 5ATM watch?



## tpdroc (Jan 31, 2014)

Hi All,

I'm considering my first Hamilton purchase, and am interested in the H70505133. However, I see it has 50m water resistance. I like to swim, and not worry about taking my watch off beforehand. I feel the watch needs to live on my wrist, and survive casual encounters with water. I do dive, but I'd not consider wearing it diving.

I'm also keen on the H70595133, which has 100m resistance, so that might make a decent fall-back if 50m is no good.

I know there are lots of posts, with conflicting opinions, about how there's extra pressure when you move your arm around in the water, etc.. If this was just a $150 Seiko 5 I might not be so concerned, but this is a $1,000 watch.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Toby.


----------



## Barfett (Feb 3, 2013)

I think it should be fine for recreational swimming. They often underrate their water resistance as well. Just double check to make sure the crown is pushed in every time before you go in the water. Screw down crowns give you more peace of mind but the seals non screw downs are pretty damn good too. Unless it's pulled out, in that case you're done. I'd go for it, 50 meters is pretty deep man.


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

I've done it with no ill effects with another brand. If you are really concerned have it pressure tested for a minimal fee, see what happens.


----------



## Barfett (Feb 3, 2013)

And if you're swimming in sea water you should rinse your watch off with fresh water when you're done.


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

There's no way I'd use it for swimming; it's borderline, so why take the risk when you have an almost infinite number of options available to you that would make an ideal swim partner?


----------



## BrentYYC (Feb 2, 2012)

If it's a new watch, then the only reason it would leak is if it's defective, in which case it would be covered under warranty. If you maintain it properly over time and have it pressure tested periodically, then you should never have a problem. Having said that, there are lots of better options out there if you want to swim regularly with a watch on your wrist.


----------



## ChiefWahoo (Jul 4, 2011)

Barfett said:


> I'd go for it, 50 meters is pretty deep man.


I can't tell if you're serious, so I'm going to state what may be the obvious.

Meter ratings do not mean you are 100% safe to swim above that depth. That is a pressure rating. 5 ATMs. Smacking the watch against the water results in far more than 0 ATM pressure, even though it's at the surface of the water. Swimming on the surface creates pressure beyond the 1m depth you are at.

The OP may be fine with a 5ATM watch, but I personally would not take the risk. I use 5 ATM as assurances I can wash my hands with it safely, but I'm paranoid. I have tons of cheap 200m five watches designed to play in the water to risk a nice Hamilton.

Just my $.02.


----------



## NickJacobLee (May 20, 2013)

I wouldn't take it for a dip. Not without a screw-down crown.


----------



## CCCP (Jul 1, 2006)

Omega states that 3 ATM is enough for swimming, and I usually swim in my 3 ATM Swatch Automatic. 
ISO 2281 states that any Water Resistant watch, should have no leak even if submerged in water for an hour. When you swim the watch won't go more than 0,5m underwater, and even if you have an olympic record overpressure due to your speed in water will be negligible.
If anything go wrong there is warranty. Go for it :-!


----------



## watchmego3000 (Jul 12, 2012)

Don't do it. If you want to swim with the watch, go for at least 100m WR.


----------



## BrentYYC (Feb 2, 2012)

CCCP said:


> Omega states that 3 ATM is enough for swimming, and I usually swim in my 3 ATM Swatch Automatic.
> ISO 2281 states that any Water Resistant watch, should have no leak even if submerged in water for an hour. When you swim the watch won't go more than 0,5m underwater, and even if you have an olympic record overpressure due to your speed in water will be negligible.
> If anything go wrong there is warranty. Go for it :-!


Yup


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

Yet people don't believe it. I don't understand why, but people post about whether they should swim or shower in 100m, or even 200m watches. I swim in anything marked WR (any number or no number). I've dived with 100m WR, no screw down crown. I get in hot tubs and showers etc etc.

If your fine timepiece fails in a puddle or a shower it was never a fine timepiece.

And again: if in doubt, have a quick test done. Ease the mind I suppose.


----------



## Neognosis (Sep 10, 2014)

Sounds like what you really want is a diver... I suggest the Seiko Shogun.


----------



## tpdroc (Jan 31, 2014)

Sorry all, I stepped away from WUS for a bit and didn't realise that this thread kept going. I'm more of the mindset that if the watch isn't good enough for swimming then it shouldn't be market was WR (to whatever rating). So if it is marked WRxxx then I'm going to at least swim with it. CCCP's post seems to back this up for the 5ATM thing, which is handy.



Neognosis said:


> Sounds like what you really want is a diver... I suggest the Seiko Shogun.


Hahahahahahahaha, yeah...... Is that telepathy or something?!


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

WR stands for water _resistance_, NOT waterproof, which is why different grades exist. You may think that a watch shouldn't be marketed with any WR if you can't use it to swim with, but that really doesn't make any sense. Most of us want to know just how much water a watch can tolerate before we risk damaging it. You can believe what you want with respect to the advice given in this thread, but remember that it's easy for someone to tell you its okay to jump into a pool with a watch rated at 3 or 5 ATM on your wrist when it isn't their own watch and they won't have to suffer the consequences of water sloshing around inside its movement.

Water resistance ratings and the definition for each can vary a lot from manufacturer to manufacturer, so unless you have something in writing from Hamilton that specifically states 5ATM is suitable for swimming, I wouldn't assume that the watch is covered by warranty against that.


----------



## tpdroc (Jan 31, 2014)

I appreciate your points. All I'm getting at is what's the point of a watch being labeled any kind of water resistant if it can't stand being dunked a few feet into water? Doesn't really sound resistant to anything in that case.


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

tpdroc said:


> Doesn't really sound resistant to anything in that case.


There are plenty of real world examples of the importance of water resistance ratings that fall short of taking your watch for a swim. Plenty of watch buyers are more concerned about getting caught in a downpour, or even the potential of damaging their watch while washing their hands or showering than they are about the effects of swimming with one.


----------



## black watch (Aug 3, 2013)

The fact is there's no independent lab like UL labs that's verifying ISO compliance by the manufactures, it's just their say so, and their certs. Yes' I'm sure the better brands are up to snuff.
But still, it's like GM putting a state inspection sticker on your new car. If it were me, I'd want a higher rating than 5ATM if I'm going frolicking in the water with my watch on.


----------



## CCCP (Jul 1, 2006)

I found this on Omega website. I think they know what is suitable for swimming ;-)


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

CCCP said:


> I found this on Omega website. I think they know what is suitable for swimming ;-)


Great advice if you're wearing an Omega; however, we're talking about Hamilton. Sure, the two companies are under the same corporate umbrella, but the last time I looked at my Hamilton watches they didn't appear to be using Omega cases, or any of their other components. Something else to consider is the price of the watches. Why would I assume that my far less expensive Hamilton watch would have the same water resistance characteristics as a far more expensive Omega?

Back to your argument, are you suggesting that if someone took their 5 ATM (5.07 bar - Omega doesn't even use ATM in that chart) Hamilton for a swim, and it leaked water, that they should refer to an Omega chart as part of their warranty claim?

It could very well be that a 5 ATM Hamilton is suitable for swimming, I just haven't seen anything from Hamilton stating that. Obviously the OP is free to do whatever he wants with his watch, but he asked for our "thoughts", and mine is that I don't take any watch rated at less than 10 bar into water. I buy diving watches for such uses and have never had an issue with water ingress. Search the web for cases of water leaks with watches rated at 5 bar or less and you'll see a different story.


----------



## NotABot.com (Oct 10, 2014)

Hamilton says 30m is even good for swimming.








Water Resistance | Hamilton University


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Good news. The OP should be happy. There's quite a list of clauses under that chart that should be observed.


----------



## TimeSeeker (Oct 30, 2008)

don't risk it.


----------



## Barfett (Feb 3, 2013)

ChiefWahoo said:


> I can't tell if you're serious, so I'm going to state what may be the obvious.
> 
> Meter ratings do not mean you are 100% safe to swim above that depth. That is a pressure rating. 5 ATMs. Smacking the watch against the water results in far more than 0 ATM pressure, even though it's at the surface of the water. Swimming on the surface creates pressure beyond the 1m depth you are at.
> 
> ...


When I said 50m is pretty deep I was being serious when it comes to recreational swimming. When it comes to diving it's obviously not. I was assuming the OP was talking about going to the beach for a dip, without scuba gear. In which case 50m (164ft) would be considered deep. I've never gone any deeper than 10 ft at the beach. So if that was what I was doing, I would be more than comfortable with a 5ATM watch.


----------



## Barfett (Feb 3, 2013)

To be completely honest, I never wear any of my watches to the beach. Not because I don't trust the ATM ratings but because I just don't see the point. I don't understand the need to wear a watch for a swim. A Dive is a different story. 

That being said, if I was a person that felt it was necessary to wear a watch while swimming, I would check the recommendations of the manufacturer. In this case it looks like Hamilton says it's all good. They would/should know best. If you still have your doubt's about it, take it off and swim with a naked wrist.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

I have a lot of holes on my body and I can swim, your watch should be fine


----------



## watchmego3000 (Jul 12, 2012)

Barfett said:


> ... I just don't see the point. I don't understand the need to wear a watch for a swim.


You can just turn in your WIS card now, thank you.

Kidding of course.


----------



## watchmego3000 (Jul 12, 2012)

lvt said:


> I have a lot of holes on my body and I can swim, your watch should be fine


Wait. Do you mean...


----------



## Barfett (Feb 3, 2013)

daschlag said:


> You can just turn in your WIS card now, thank you.
> 
> Kidding of course.


Haha, It felt weird typing that for sure. I have a watch on my wrist 99% of the time that I'm awake. Problem with the beach is that I keep my watches on leather most of the time. I'm not going swimming with a leather strap. This isn't a huge issue for me though because I don't really spend much time at the beach.

I did tell my wife, a couple weeks ago, when she questioned why I was putting a watch on to sit around the house that I wear a watch in every situation. Guess I wasn't thinking about the beach.


----------

