# Cwc Vs Pulsar Gs2000 British Army Watches



## Andy the Squirrel

Hi, I took some photos comparing CWC vs Pulsar GS2000 watches, enjoy!

[IMG alt="3826211925_d8426b619c.jpg...ickr.com/2659/3826211925_d8426b619c.jpg[/IMG]

click here for full gallery on flickr


----------



## mrteatime

ive got to say....i prefer the pulsar.....great pics and welcome to the forum mr squirral


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

Cheers. The pulsar definitely looks more "modern", it also has glowing numbers, however the CWC has its charm - I can't decide which I like best! I've only just got the CWC - i'm expecting both to be just as accurate.


----------



## zed4130

welcome, and thanks for that as i was wondering the same as both look very similar ,

paul


----------



## William_Wilson

Welcome.  I prefer the CWC case style, with the fixed bars it's not like tou can put a bracelet on it. The flat area between the lugs looks good with the NATO. 

Later,

William


----------



## zed4130

yeah with them side by side its the CWC for me plus i agree the bars are much tougher on the cwc,

paul


----------



## keygold

I prefer CWC case


----------



## PhilM

Has to be the G10 IMO just so much more history around the watch & manufacturer :thumbsup:


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

PhilM said:


> Has to be the G10 IMO just so much more history around the watch & manufacturer :thumbsup:


Well I don't like the original G10 so much because the tritium paint goes a patchy brown after 10 years or so and the battery hatch gives it another way for water to get in...


----------



## PhilM

Tough one as some people like the aged lume on the G10, however I do agree with you about the battery hatch... but then again it's not designed to withstand anything more than a bit of light rain 

But hey, you have both watches so that can't be bad :thumbsup:


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

PhilM said:


> Tough one as some people like the aged lume on the G10, however I do agree with you about the battery hatch... but then again it's not designed to withstand anything more than a bit of light rain
> 
> But hey, you have both watches so that can't be bad :thumbsup:


Yea, I think i'm gonna find it hard to part with either of them! I'm currently wearing the CWC. They are both built to the 2000 MOD spec for general service watch NSN 6645 (date, luminova, no battery hatch) which is why its interesting to compare them directly.


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

Just to clarify, the NSN for both these watches is 6645-99-6052627.

6052627 is the number these two watches have in common, 6645 is the number for a general service watch and 99 is the country. 6B preceding this number on the CWC means RAF, the lack of a preceding number on the Pulsar presumably means it could be issued to any part of the MOD.


----------



## Barrow Boy

William_Wilson said:


> Welcome.  I prefer the CWC case style, with the fixed bars it's not like tou can put a bracelet on it. The flat area between the lugs looks good with the NATO.
> 
> Later,
> 
> William


Must say I was thinking the opposite. I prefer the rounded case and since you can't put a bracelet on it the flat area is no big advantage. That said I like rounded watches in general and the Pulsar has bit more of a trench watch feel to it to me.

Cheers,

BB


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

Took a couple of shots inside the Pulsar:

[IMG alt="3831086662_3982315fff.jpg...ickr.com/2562/3831086662_3982315fff.jpg[/IMG]

7N32C Seiko quartz movement

[IMG alt="3830291071_553a3177d8.jpg...ickr.com/2459/3830291071_553a3177d8.jpg[/IMG]

Case made in china, curious extra piece of metal glued inside the case back


----------



## Christian.

I've been issued with both and can definitely say the CWC is far superior to the Pulsar. A few years ago, Pulsar was awarded the supply contract based on money saving. It lasted two years before the forces went back to CWC based on quality. We had numerous flight safety problems with the crowns dropping out of both the Pulsar "G10" and the Navigators chrono. Initially, I thought the Pulsar was great because it looked more modern. In reality it was awful compared to the CWC. Nine out of ten Pulsars had the second hand ticking right between the indices.


----------



## Stan

Christian. said:


> I've been issued with both and can definitely say the CWC is far superior to the Pulsar. A few years ago, Pulsar was awarded the supply contract based on money saving. It lasted two years before the forces went back to CWC based on quality. We had numerous flight safety problems with the crowns dropping out of both the Pulsar "G10" and the Navigators chrono. Initially, I thought the Pulsar was great because it looked more modern. In reality it was awful compared to the CWC. Nine out of ten Pulsars had the second hand ticking right between the indices.


I've read similar reports, and the Pulsar doesn't seem to be current issue. Though I'm unsure if the MoD does still have a WWEGS on the books other than the CWC G10. I'd love to find out if it does.


----------



## Barrow Boy

Is Pulsar actually considered a cheap Seiko in a similar way to Credor and Grand Seiko are their premium lines? Either way I am somewhat surprised at the quality issues - Seiko has been working hard to build up a reputation for quality although I guess maybe with a cheap brand they would care a lot less. Have people seen the same sort of problems in retail Pulsars o is it just the bulk order government contract ones that are sloppily made?

BB


----------



## Nalu

I've read elsewhere that the chrono issued to aviators is going to once again be a Seiko - the Pulsar is on its way out. In a related matter, I met with an RAF Chinook pilot mate two weeks ago who has been in DC for a bit and he was wearing his issued Pulsar. He told me that he heard the QM throws the Pulsars away when the battery goes, rather than replace the battery. Anyone else heard this? Seems an enormous waste to me - and a potential great source of mil-issue watches! :lol:


----------



## Christian.

I've heard that rumour too, but never had it verified. I think its urban myth because I've seen batches of used G10s and Pulsar up for sale on the disposables website. When your battery runs out on your issed watch, you take it to stores and they do a straight swap, so I can see why a rumour like that would start.

I was issued a watch a few weeks ago and it was a CWC G10, non-date version. The Pulsar is definitely not current issue and the storeman said they lost the contract. I suspect there may be a few floating round the system though, so it wouldn't surprise me if someone was issued with them still.

As for the Pulsar chrono, I think it's still current issue but it wouldn't surprise me if they lost that contract too. I'm a flight safety officer and certain batches of them did present serious FOD hazards.

Pulsar may be under the Seiko umbrella, but I wouldn't have thought Seiko would worry about it because it is their budget brand and it doesn't carry the Seiko name.


----------



## Barrow Boy

Christian. said:


> Pulsar may be under the Seiko umbrella, but I wouldn't have thought Seiko would worry about it because it is their budget brand and it doesn't carry the Seiko name.


That's what I thought and why I was surprised to see the movement marked Seiko. If quality is letting them down I would expect everything to be marked up as Pulsar. To me the use of Seiko on the movement implies that it might be used elsewhere in Seiko badged watch - a bad thing if the quality is as poor is it sounds. :no:

BB


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

I suspect that the Seiko 7N32C is a fairly common movement, I also have it inside an 90's Lorus as well as a 2008 Seiko which retails for Â£125.


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

Christian. said:


> I've heard that rumour too, but never had it verified. I think its urban myth because I've seen batches of used G10s and Pulsar up for sale on the disposables website. When your battery runs out on your issed watch, you take it to stores and they do a straight swap, so I can see why a rumour like that would start.
> 
> I was issued a watch a few weeks ago and it was a CWC G10, non-date version. The Pulsar is definitely not current issue and the storeman said they lost the contract. I suspect there may be a few floating round the system though, so it wouldn't surprise me if someone was issued with them still.
> 
> As for the Pulsar chrono, I think it's still current issue but it wouldn't surprise me if they lost that contract too. I'm a flight safety officer and certain batches of them did present serious FOD hazards.
> 
> Pulsar may be under the Seiko umbrella, but I wouldn't have thought Seiko would worry about it because it is their budget brand and it doesn't carry the Seiko name.


Interesting that they have gone back to issuing 1981 spec CWC G10s, presumably only the RAF get the 2000 spec CWC.


----------



## Christian.

I'm RAF and they gave me the non-date version. I do believe the GS2000 is in circulation too. I've never understood the case for Navigators getting the chrono while pilots only get the G10. But I remember a while ago, I remember a rumour that navigators were banned from digital watches because the studes in training tended to mess up the clock code!

The fashion for watches is quite interesting among aircrew. You'll see a lot of the Chinook guys wearing CWC issue watches - I presume because they need more of a beater. The heavies tend to wear purchased watches - from Citizen Skyhawk, Breitlings, Omegas...anything. The jet guys seem to favour Breitlings....but then again, most of them are posers!


----------



## Barrow Boy

Andy the Squirrel said:


> I suspect that the Seiko 7N32C is a fairly common movement, I also have it inside an 90's Lorus as well as a 2008 Seiko which retails for Â£125.


That makes the reliability issues much more worrying to me - although it does seem as if a number of the criticisms are more about the finishing than the movement itself.

BB


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

The case on the CWC is definitely thicker and more solid than the Pulsar, i'd really like to see the movement inside the CWC as I suspect it looks like this but i'm only just getting to know it and I don't want to break it in just yet!


----------



## Griff

Neither.

I prefer the PRS10 because it has a 10 year battery, date, and Ronda 5 jewel movement h34r: B)

The CWC has dubious water resistance IMO


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

Griff said:


> Neither.
> 
> I prefer the PRS10 because it has a 10 year battery, date, and Ronda 5 jewel movement h34r: B)
> 
> The CWC has dubious water resistance IMO


The PRS10 looks like a nice watch, but it isnt MOD issue.


----------



## Griff

I know, but its what I bought and any serviceman couldn't buy better of the type

Get a G10 wet and it is likely to be regretted


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

Barrow Boy said:


> Andy the Squirrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that the Seiko 7N32C is a fairly common movement, I also have it inside an 90's Lorus as well as a 2008 Seiko which retails for Â£125.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes the reliability issues much more worrying to me - although it does seem as if a number of the criticisms are more about the finishing than the movement itself.
> 
> BB
Click to expand...

Id expect the army stresses their watches more than the average seiko dress watch!


----------



## Barrow Boy

Andy the Squirrel said:


> Barrow Boy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andy the Squirrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that the Seiko 7N32C is a fairly common movement, I also have it inside an 90's Lorus as well as a 2008 Seiko which retails for Â£125.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes the reliability issues much more worrying to me - although it does seem as if a number of the criticisms are more about the finishing than the movement itself.
> 
> BB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Id expect the army stresses their watches more than the average seiko dress watch!
Click to expand...

Very true although I had a quick look and have been unable to find the 7N32C used in anything else. I also did not see any complaints about the movement itself (standard 1J quartz from what I could see) with everything relating to either the finishing (hands etc) or case (lose crystal).

Either way it does seem clear that the CWC is of a much better quality than the Pulsar.

BB


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

My Pulsar GS2000 seems perfectly fine for a Seiko, the build quality looks very similar to my 2008 Seiko dress watch as well as the movement. The fact is that Seiko does make some very cheaply made watches under different brands as well as its own, as well as nicer watches with more expensive parts. I doubt there were faulty Pulsars being made, I reckon that they probably just can't take as much abuse as the CWC. The cost price of the Pulsar was almost certainly less than the CWC. You gets what you pays for.


----------



## AlexC1981

I'm surprised the military doesnt issue G-Shock type digital watches. Surely they would be easier to read, tougher, longer lasting battery and have more functions.......?


----------



## Andy the Squirrel

AlexC1981 said:


> I'm surprised the military doesnt issue G-Shock type digital watches. Surely they would be easier to read, tougher, longer lasting battery and have more functions.......?


It could be tradition, the simple analog display being just as easy to read as a digital watch, it being much easier to set the time without all the extra buttons and functions that there are on a digital watch.

I emailed Silvermans yesterday and they told me that the CWC GS2000 has a Ronda movement inside and that it needs the right tool to clamp the back on so I won't be taking the back off myself...


----------

