# Battery Change In A Cwc G10 2006



## Lionel Richtea (Aug 24, 2013)

*Ever changed the battery?*

If you haven't, the good news is, it's a piece of p*ss (and, indeed, it was designed to be).

You will know that your watch is running out of juice thanks to the End of Life battery indicator. Yes, this ETA 955 movement does have such a facility. A sign of a good quality quartz movement in my opinion.

The second hand jumps in 6 second intervals. The watch still keeps excellent time. The G10 CWC is easily the most accurate (non-waveceptor) watch that I have come across, The EOL started on Saturday night and was still going when I replaced the battery on Wednesday at 21.00. How long it would have carried on for, I have no idea.

*Removing the battery hatch.*

Don't use a screwdriver. Use the proper tool for the job: The edge of a penny. You will find that it fits pefectly.

You will note that the battery hatch has a rubber seal. Another sign of an excellent design.

Battery hatch removed.

There is a small contact/spacer. You can carefully remove that with your finger.

*The battery.*

The battery is a Varta V 395. Compatible batteries are the SR57 and the SR927SW. The unit price I paid was Â£1.05p.

The battery will not just drop out. You will need to prize it out with a small screwdriver. I imagine that an unbent drawing pin will do the job at a pinch.

You will notice that all the contacts are gold. Yet another excellent sign.

Place your new battery in. It should fit in very snuggly - a perfect fit.

Put the spacer over it and tighten the battery hatch.

Job done!

The CWC G10 2006 is a simple but very well made and sturdy piece of kit. True, it apparently cost the MOD about Â£7.50 a go under the procurement contract.

However, one should *never* confuse and conflate mass-production and cheap price for lack of quality. Just ask Michael Kalashnikov.


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

I might be wrong, but I think you should be using something non-metallic to remove the battery, like a pair of plastic tweezers rather than a screwdriver or pin...


----------



## Lionel Richtea (Aug 24, 2013)

Thanks Davey P.

Yes, the thought did cross my mind. I clearly did not want to short the watch.

However, I was aware that this watch was designed for squaddies. From my experience with HM Forces the following seems to be true: "If anybody can break it, a British solider can." All British kit, therefore, seems to have been designed with that in mind. For example, have you ever seen the British issue knives (both jack knife and survival knife)? The are completely bomb-proof.

Hence, I wanted to replicate what most squadies would do.

The good news is: It proved to be no problem at all. Once again, the 'bomb-proof' test was passed with flying colours.


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

No problem mate - I should probably add, I don't own a pair of plastic tweezers either, so when I do a battery change I normally flick the old one out with fine nosed metal tweezers anyway. I was just passing on a useful bit of information gained from hanging around here for too long a few years :lol:


----------



## artistmike (May 13, 2006)

Lionel Richtea said:


> Hence, I wanted to replicate what most squadies would do.


Normally squadies wouldn't be changing the batteries if it's an issue piece, that would be the job of the guy in stores or technicians in charge of repairing and servicing them.


----------



## jmm1 (Aug 18, 2009)

artistmike said:


> Lionel Richtea said:
> 
> 
> > Hence, I wanted to replicate what most squadies would do.
> ...


Unless your a member of the RAF, they would retrn them to stores and eventually get thrown away because civvies will not go through the hassel of repairing them.


----------



## artistmike (May 13, 2006)

jmm1 said:


> Unless your a member of the RAF, they would retrn them to stores and eventually get thrown away because civvies will not go through the hassel of repairing them.


Is that why we haven't got any aeroplanes left ?.. ..


----------



## Lionel Richtea (Aug 24, 2013)

Thanks Davey P, artistmike and jmm1 for your comments.

When the transition was made from the old tried and trusted manual wind to quartz there must have been concern over changing the battery.

Clearly the MOD wanted to allow that change to be a fool-proof as possible: hence the battery hatch.

The only point I am making was that in terms of design, they certainly succeeded in their ambition. The battery hatch feature is nor only very well designed, it is very well made. It's just a pity that you do not find it on more quartz watches.

Well done the MOD (and how often do you hear that said!!!)


----------



## artistmike (May 13, 2006)

Lionel Richtea said:


> The only point I am making was that in terms of design, they certainly succeeded in their ambition. The battery hatch feature is nor only very well designed, it is very well made. It's just a pity that you do not find it on more quartz watches.
> 
> Well done the MOD (and how often do you hear that said!!!)


The only problem of course though is that this system then meant that the watch has a very poor water-resistance rating indeed, so pretty useless for any squaddie in the field, which is why most sensible guys buy themselves a decent watch and these end up being sold off as army surplus .


----------



## Lionel Richtea (Aug 24, 2013)

Hi artist Mike,

Beg to differ with you on this one.

The battery change facility is rubber sealed and screwed on. It would be just as water resistant as a screw-in crown.

True it is that the actual crown on a G10 is not screw down. True it is that as a consequence the water resistance of the watch is 50 metres. Not the sort of watch, as a consequence, that you would go snorkling in.

However, it was never designed for that use. For the vast majority of us 50m (soldiers included) this depth rating is perfectly adequate. I regularly swim and shower in my G10 with no problem at all.

Squadies, including SF have been using the G10 for generations and, as far as I am aware, the water-resistance issue has never been a problem. Good enough for them; good enough for me.

Of course, if you do want to swim amongst the sharks there is always the CWC Diver. This has a screw-in crown and water resistance of 300m. However, in terms of spec. this is far in excess of the needs of almost all members of the armed forces. In addition, what you gain in water resistance, you also gain in weight and bulkiness.


----------



## artistmike (May 13, 2006)

The battery hatch may have a rubber seal but the two halves of the case are a press fit without any seal whatsoever and are notorious for leaking water into the movement. ... If you want corroboration of that ask someone who deals with them on a regular basis. I know Eddie of Timefactors has dealt with a great number and has had many of them that have been irreparably damaged by water and rates the water resistance as, and I quote "poor "..

As I say, my experience is that no-one in the units I was in used issue watches unless they were desperate and couldn't afford a decent watch...


----------



## artistmike (May 13, 2006)

Actually, I'll re-phrase that. The better quality watches that the services used when they wanted a water-resistant watch were fine, you can hardly knock a Milsub, but these G10s aren't up to that quality..


----------



## Lionel Richtea (Aug 24, 2013)

Hi artistmike

No argument on that score.

The key point is that a watch should be suitable for its particular purpose.

On that, I am sure, we are in complete agreement


----------

