The real Seal Deal WK-25 and Rolex

Very very nice!

Man, I wish I was able to be a SEAL to have one of those.

I would hate to go through what they go through to become Seals...or what they go through after they become Seals. I hate cold showers; those guys train in frigid waters until they lose control of their bodies. If we made terrorists go through even part of it, the world would call it torture! And it would be right!

I only have half the equation.

A very pretty pistol and watch pairing. The SIG is a first rate choice for a SEAL . The Rolex is now a second rate choice as there are watch designs that preform much better. Here is one of many designs that is lessor known but available in the United States that is greatly superior to the Rolex.

http://www.sinn.de/en/Modell/UX.htm

Amongst watch enthusiasts Rolex is considered a great watch but vastly overrated and their reputation is mostly based on past laurels. I am curious how this pairing of SIG and Rolex came about. How was this pretty pair created? Is this something from a SIG/Rolex marketing campaign?

The Rolex is in the event a trade is needed. Name recognition.

At first I thought is was a simple typo when you put WK-25, but you keep typing it. Is it a different model I may not be aware of or do you mean to type MK25?

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/p226-mk25.aspx

russianbear said:

Just read Kris Kyle's book American Sniper,there is a section where he says the Rolex was something many seals wanted to own ,someone did give one but he wore another brand most of the time in Iraq.

As for Rolex's not being a quality watch today and many other watch's are much better. I say so I guess you don't own a Rolex right?
It's like saying my watch can beat you'r watch. Yeah!! Yeah!! and Yeah!!

How did Sig and the MK-25 navy get matched with Rolex? Did you notice the "Anchor" in my picture?

Click to expand...

O.K. now I know you own the SIG and Rolex and were not just posting a “cool” photo. Perhaps if you had mentioned that in you first post I would have avoided stepping on your toes. I cannot unstep on you toes but I can fill your brain with some information that may change you attitude.

I never said Rolexes were not a quality watch. I bought my first of three Rolexes in 1977 so I have decades of first hand experience using them. Just because SEALs want them does not mean they are the best watch from a technical capability standpoint for them to use. This cannot be factually disputed and if you do not believe me send me a PM and I will explain. This is not a watch forum so I will not fill you thread with technical detail. I no longer wear a Rolex because I found something technically superior that is also much easier to maintain. Most SOCOM operators do not wear Rolexes on the job. I wore a Rolex when going through SOTIC in the 1980s and even then the Casio G-Shock had started to become popular and may now be the most popular watch. The link I posted is to a Sinn that is much more technically capable for the SEAL mission than the Rolex Submariner in your photo. In the 21st century Rolexes are more a status symbol than state of the art watch technology.

Yes, I noticed your anchor. Would you like to elaborate about it to eliminate any doubt that you may be at best a fan of the SEALs and at worst a poser? I also noticed you had the crown pulled out which is not a good idea except when it is absolutely necessary to change the time or date. Keeping the crown screwed down keeps dust out, reduces lubricant evaporation, reduces seal wear, and most importantly eliminates braking the stem if dropped and water from entering if immersed. Keep your crown down “Frogman” or you will have a watch that is only accurate twice a day and very expensive to repair. FYI routine maintenance of a Rolex costs several hundred dollars every 5 to 7 years.

friscolatchi -

The Rolex is in the event a trade is needed. Name recognition.

Click to expand...

Today that is something more likely to happen in a war movie than in a war.

Just because SEALs want them does not mean they are the best watch from a technical capability standpoint for them to use.

Click to expand...

Much like the MK 25.

FYI routine maintenance of a Rolex costs several hundred dollars every 5 to 7 years.

Click to expand...

I own that same #14060 (No SEL) Rolex No-Date Submariner, and I've worn it just about every day for the past 17 years, keep it wound & keep wearing it and (hopefully) you won't need to spend the $860.00 it costs to have it completely overhauled. Mine has never been serviced in all the time I've owned it. My Browning Hi-Power and this watch are the 2 Best investments I've ever made!

My Sig P226 is a .40 S&W.

Nom de Forum said:

A very pretty pistol and watch pairing. The SIG is a first rate choice for a SEAL . The Rolex is now a second rate choice as there are watch designs that preform much better. Here is one of many designs that is lessor known but available in the United States that is greatly superior to the Rolex.

http://www.sinn.de/en/Modell/UX.htm

Amongst watch enthusiasts Rolex is considered a great watch but vastly overrated and their reputation is mostly based on past laurels. I am curious how this pairing of SIG and Rolex came about. How was this pretty pair created? Is this something from a SIG/Rolex marketing campaign?

Click to expand...

Well, the Swiss military/police have used Sig pistols and rifles for a long time..

russianbear;

I like wearing a nice watch, there is nothing else you can buy & wear everyday for the rest of your life. But truth be told, I've kept this watch to have something of value to hand down to my Son someday. I have a perfectly good Seiko to wear if I didn't have the Rolex, and my cellphone tells time more accurately than either.

As far as the Sigs go, I much prefer my P228 to any P226, although my P226 is my favorite .40 S&W, but I'm not a big .40 fan in general. I traded my P220 away, after I got my Gen4 Glock 21, for me there was no comparison.

russianbear - The stem is pulled out my Rolex because I just keep it in the safe most of the time not running.

Click to expand...

What a shame because it is a beautiful watch and a vintage collectible. It would be better to store it with the crown down (the watch will stop in about 48-72 hours).

russianbear - Maybe the newer Rolex's have better seals then my older Rolex bought in 1961.

Click to expand...

Better every thing from lubricant to parts and that is why the service intervals are now longer and JDR’s watch has not stopped yet.

russianbear - because it's heavy does not keep good time even getting it renewed at Rolex Dallas.

Click to expand...

Your watch does keep good time for a non-quartz movement, but more importantly it keeps consistent time. All watches gain or lose time but certified chronometers like your Rolex do it consistently so it can be compensated for if used to navigate.

JDR - I own that same #14060 (No SEL) Rolex No-Date Submariner, and I've worn it just about every day for the past 17 years, keep it wound & keep wearing it and (hopefully) you won't need to spend the $860.00 it costs to have it completely overhauled. Mine has never been serviced in all the time I've owned it. My Browning Hi-Power and this watch are the 2 Best investments I've ever made!

Click to expand...

Reading the bolded comments made me wince. You are slowly destroying your watch. Because you have not had servicing you are doing the equivalent of operating an automobile without changing the oil. The lubricant in your watch deteriorates to the point that the moving parts are grinding themselves down. In addition to this wear the accuracy of the watch (less than 2 minutes gain or loss a month when new) is degrading. Eventually your watch will stop and could be very expensive to repair. I’ll bet you frequently re-lubricate your BHP and replace the oil in your automobiles. Why would you not do the same for the mini mechanical masterpiece that is the self-winding a.k.a. automatic movement in your Rolex? Properly maintained your Rolex will be running at close to new accuracy long after you are not and your grandchildren are grandparents.

I'm beginning to realize why I have no desire for a Rolex...High Maintenance.

Cocked & Locked said:

I'm beginning to realize why I have no desire for a Rolex...High Maintenance.

Click to expand...

You wear a Rolex today for reasons other than having a watch with the most accurate time keeping under extreme conditions. A Rolex should be considered to be a beautiful piece of jewelry with an admirable heritage that just happens to keep reasonably accurate time when exposed to extreme conditions.

Back on point, beautiful Sig and a very nice watch...I'm an Omega guy myself, but regardless, still a good solid timepiece. And yes, as has been stated previously, keep that crown screwed down.

Reading the bolded comments made me wince. You are slowly destroying your watch. Because you have not had servicing you are doing the equivalent of operating an automobile without changing the oil. The lubricant in your watch deteriorates to the point that the moving parts are grinding themselves down. In addition to this wear the accuracy of the watch (less than 2 minutes gain or loss a month when new) is degrading. Eventually your watch will stop and could be very expensive to repair. I’ll bet you frequently re-lubricate your BHP and replace the oil in your automobiles. Why would you not do the same for the mini mechanical masterpiece that is the self-winding a.k.a. automatic movement in your Rolex? Properly maintained your Rolex will be running at close to new accuracy long after you are not and your grandchildren are grandparents.

Click to expand...

This watch still runs acceptably well; and I question your accuracy standard of less than two minutes gain / loss a month when new, this watch was never that accurate even when new!

I guess I'm just old school.

Rolex, Randall, and BHP

JDR said:

This watch still runs acceptably well; and I question your accuracy standard of less than two minutes gain / loss a month when new, this watch was never that accurate even when new!

Click to expand...

I have 2 Submariners. The 1st one I bought 7 years ago and it will gain ~5 minutes per month and has so since it was brand new. The 2nd I bought a year ago and it keeps close to perfect time.

To the OP, I don't recall getting an anchor with either purchase, but I'll check my boxes when I get home and I haven't read the book so the connection is lost on me. That being said, I buy my watches, just like my guns, to use them, not to keep in a safe. But that's just me. I've also had Corvettes, another country-boy stereotype, and they've always had tons of miles on them when I sold them.

JDR said:

This watch still runs acceptably well; and I question your accuracy standard of less than two minutes gain / loss a month when new, this watch was never that accurate even when new!

Click to expand...

That is certainly possible. COSC certification of a chronometer only requires -4 to +6 seconds a day but a well adjusted (tuned just like your car’s engine) and properly maintained Rolex can be expected to meet that 2 minute gain or loss for normal use. If exposed to far from normal vibration and temperature extremes, larger gains and losses are likely. Do you regularly expose your watch to these conditions. Did you carefully check the accuracy of your watch when you first bought it? If it was as inaccurate as you claim you should have had it adjusted. Now after 17 years without service it may require far more than tuning to improve its accuracy. Sorry to give you the bad news.