jayvo86

Trying to decide on the 310xt or 405cx. Both look very appealing and very similar in price.

310xt would be nice for swimming, but I really don't need to swim for anything. It also has a nice battery life.

405cx would be nice since I could wear it all the time as a watch.

Both I seem good for running and cycling.

Most important is data and accuracy.

Any ideas?

ljholland

I used a 405 for a single season and moved over to the 310. I can say without a doubt that you'll like the 310 MUCH better. My finding as an owner:

- While they both accomplish the same task, the controls on the 310 are far easier to use. The bezel control on the 405 sounds good in theory but can become very annoying in use. It's prone to problems with moisture, the bezel is impossible to use with gloves on...and sometime it just fails to respond at all until you reset the watch. With the 310, it's just easy to control buttons. The layout is simple and logical.
- A huge improvement is the battery life of the 310. The 405 is good for a day or so....that's because it never really turns off. You can turn the 310 off after a workout and it'll hold a charge for well over a week and several workouts. I just charge mine weekly....although, I'm sure it might go two weeks.
- While the 405 looks like a watch, you won't feel comfortable wearing it as an everyday timepiece. It's rather bulky. The watch actually extends about 1" from the bezel.....so, what appears to be "band" is actually solid - it's part of the antennae. If you try one on, you'll see what I mean...the 405 is not a watch you'd ever want to wear while not running.
- The 310 is also FAR better at satellite tracking than the 405. My 310 starts quickly and locks on the satellite flawlessly every time. With the 405, you'll find yourself wandering around waving your wrist in the air wondering whether our enemies have shot our satellites out of the sky.
- If you do triathlons, the bike mount for the 310 is great. Just twist and it's off the bike mount and onto your wrist (which has a wrist mount). There's not really a good bike mount for the 405, you need to unclasp the watch from your bars and then put it on your wrist. It's annoying to say the least....but it's a time killer in a transition. So...with the 405, you'll end up wearing the watch on your wrist while on the bike which defeats the purpose as it's awkward to view the screen while riding (and maybe dangerous as you need to take your hands off the handlebars)
- Finally, you can't swim with the 405 period. The 310 is waterproof.

By the way, my wife, who only runs, also sold her 405 and bought the 310. She used to swear at the 405 when it would stop responding because the bezel was flaking out. She likes the 310 much more and has no problem controlling it.

Get the 310. It's just a better device and a great piece of engineering.

jayvo86

I think that pretty much makes up my mind for me.

I do have one question. While using the 310 with the easy bike mount twist on and off, is it more bulky than just the regular wrist band or is it just the same if not better?

ljholland

Good question! The stock 310 strap is wider and somewhat more comfortable than the wrist band the you get with the bike mount. The bike mount wrist band, is thinner and the watch attaches to the face of it...which is different than the stock strap which attaches just like the strap on a regular wrist watch. The ease of swapping the 310 back and forth far outweigh the comfort factor. Also, the 310 isn't as cool looking on the bike wrist band....but, it's a little computer on your wrist...it's not exactly a fashion statement anyway. I did put the stock band back on (a 2 minute operation) when the snow started falling last fall as it's a little more comfortable. It's easy enough to do but I doubt you'd want to do it every time you go for a run or ride.

GUGS

Try this for a very detailed discussion on the 310.

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2009/09/g...th-review.html