Leaderboard

Thank you, Sir!

Hi Jerry, I own the Fort Pierce repeater which covers the Port St. Lucie area very well and with a good base station you should be able to get to West Palm Beach. For your house, you would need a UHF base station antenna outside as high as you can practically get it (ideally on your roof if that's possible). Elevation is the key to getting better range. For a base radio, you can use a mobile radio and a power supply hooked up to the antenna. Some form of lightning protection for the coax that comes from the antenna is advised, especially in Florida. There are Polyphaser surge suppressors that you can buy which will protect the radio from a surge in the coax caused by a nearby strike. For your mother's house, depending on where she's located she might be able to use a handheld radio which would be good for mobility, but you'd have to try it out and see. I'm not sure if you have a GMRS license yet, but a license would cover yourself plus your immediate family members which includes your mother, so there's only once license to purchase from the FCC. Once you have a license you can register for the main myGMRS.com website and you'll see the frequency and PL tone information needed to program your radios to the Fort Pierce repeater, and you can try it out. I actually put up this repeater for my elderly aunt and uncle who live on the island. Their cell service isn't great and they have become stubborn and don't like to evacuate when there's a hurricane. I wanted a way to reach them by radio, or a way for them to call others for help if they ever need to. I live in NJ so I have linked that repeater over the Internet which allows me to talk to them when I'm not in the area.

So a quick update for anyone who finds this in a search. I currently have 2 1/4 wave antennas, the Tram/ Browning 450 5/8 over 5/8 wave, and the above mentioned Tram 1181 dual band(I just got my Tech and General ham lic). Results: 1/4 wave antennas. Very good on tx, not so great on rx. I would score it 9/6 (tx/rx on a 10 point must system) Tram dual band. NOTE, I do need to trim this antenna, SWR is a little high on 467MHz so this score may change. Tx is fair, but disappointing (again, timing may help) rx is a bit better than the 1/4 wave antennas. Rating is a 7/7 Tram/Browning 5/8^5/8. So far, this one is the Mac daddy for GMRS use. Like the 1/4 wave antennas, it is very well tuned. Tx is a bit better than the 1/4 wave antennas. Not a HUGE improvement, but a touch better. Rx is amazing. The repeater we use is noticeably stronger and cleaner. 10/10 score. I have made an NMO mount for my Jeep, and even one for my house. The house has used 1 of the 1/4 wave antennas and the Tram 5/8^5/8. Same results. I believe the rx is strongly tied to the amount of metal there to pick up a signal. Hopefully the 1181 improves a bit with tuning, as the base has my 5/8 antenna. The 1/4 waves are frustrating in that I do get great tx with them, but I can’t rx as well as rx with them. The 1181 is more balanced, but needs tuning (I hope) to get all of its potential. I’m really hoping that does the trick as for a dual band antenna, has some very broad dips in the SWR trace. The 2m band is virtually flat on the floor over a 6MHz sweep! The 70cm sweep is a bit wavier, with a nice extra dip in the GMRS range... not awesome, but the whole 70cm band is 1.5:1 or better, and 2m is 1.1:1 or better... though the frequencies are a touch low. Will post any updates that are worthy of reporting. That said, if you are looking for a GMRS antenna I would suggest the Tram/Browning 5/8^5/8.

Practice what you will use. Use what you practiced. Even if people would be allowed to use the radio in an emergency, they will not have had any practice. GMRS is fine for the technology (in spite of what some hams will tell you). You just have to manage the licensing. And, now that it is $3.50 a year....

Only for licensees. The rules don’t change because of a major incident GMRS/FRS is already commonly used by CERT and other local response teams. My own community has GMRS in its plan.

I was doing some looking into the FCC ID ‘WVTWOUXUN08’ and it appears to be used in 2012 by an early attempt at a GMRS radio. Model KG-833. Here is a link to the FCC site where a variety of exhibits can be viewed: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=XoiQvROpmh5jYQobT9xwkw%3D%3D&fcc_id=WVTWOUXUN08 As can be seen in the photos they have a similar appearance but no front panel LCD or front panel buttons. Here is a link to the FCC ID ‘WVTWOUXUN16’ and its exhibits: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=BWRElos6j3AMthgYUFsLOA%3D%3D&fcc_id=WVTWOUXUN16 All documents for this one are dated 2020 and the primary product reference is the KG-805G. I do find it interesting in what appears to be an outright lie in the following document where they assert to the FCC that “all the models are electrically identical” that are listed after the KG-805G. What a load of crapolla. https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=4695702 I happen to own one of those that is asserted electronically identical. It has true dual receive, 10 watts of output power, Rx coverage in 7 bands (not 1) and transmits in 2 bands(not 1) and has features out the ying-yang, including full keypad that IMO make it far from electrically identical. The TDR capability alone I suspect would disqualify it from being ‘electronically identical’ to the KG-805G unless behind the scenes it too is a TDR (7) band transceiver. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Yeah it looks like the WXVTWOUXUN08 includes the KG805; I assume with KG-805G you mean WXVWOUXUN16 since they've pulled it out separately as you pointed out, but the KG-805 appears to have 95A (prior to the rule change) as well. Both the 08 and 16 application seems to take the same approach of including multiple models. It's my understanding that manufacturers are allowed to revise their radios so long as it's not a major deviation from the original design; at who's discretion is a major deviation made? I suspect it's probably the manufacturer's best judgement, which doesn't necessarily ensure good judgement. The question always remains is what label comes with it; that's the crux of all these import radios - it can be hard to determine before hand that what you end up with even has any FCC ID imprinted on it somewhere, let alone the one you need; the 16 application lists a lot more models, and they could take the approach that Retevis does on the RT97 repeater where depending on what 'option' you select it comes with a different FCC ID even though the basic radio is model number remains the same. Motorola does this too with some of their radios which often have shared 'marketing' model numbers (I can think of the Radius radios at the moment) the only way to identify what you're getting is to look at the part numbers, but often the FCC ID label is easier. Kenwood on the other hand has a different model number for every radio variant. I'll see if I can dig up the reddit thread on the WVTWOUXUN08 discussion. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/gmrs/comments/e9ytiy/new_wouxun_kg805g_professional_gmrs_radio/

In that price range, I'd recommend a used XPR6550 - hands down. You can buy them in good shape and working for less than $100 with charger on everyone's favorite auction sites. A decent new battery (prefer the Motorola OEM Impres batteries that would last 3-4 years) would run you less than $70. Audio quality is excellent, spec's are very good, and they'll do DMR digital - useful if you're a Ham, or just want to scan other stuff. If you don't like to deal with Motorola software - then go for a used EVX or VX portable by Vertex. Look for an EVX-539 for a Digital capable keypad radio - or the VX-459 if you want an analog radio with keypad. Other Vertex models don't have keypads - which aren't really necessary for GMRS and I've snatched up VX-231 or 261's at less than $20 each in good shape. Vertex parts, batteries, and software are cheap and available. Their radios have decent specs and quality, and they're good performers with a low entry price. If you're still not satisfied - look for a Kenwood portable. I'm not a Kenwood expert, and someone else could probably give you some better specific model advice, but in my experience - Kenwood has excellent audio & build quality and they're easy enough to work on. Parts and software are also cheap and available. ANY of those 3 are better choices than a new CCR.

Since I originally posted this question, I ended up getting a cross-needle Diamond SX40C, and am more than happy with it. Thanks to all who added their knowledge.

The 5.5 dB claim is, simply put, not true. (also, if you don't see dBd or dBi its probably fake as well) That TRAM1173 (or MXT26) antenna probably has less gain than a simple 1/4 wave NMO, given the cheap coils used, and being only 2 elements, with insufficient phasing element separation between them (gain in collinear antennas is achieved by increasing the distance between the phased elements) not a chance in he11 it has 5.5 dBd... well, unless decibels dBs overseas are measured differently than in the rest of the world... that is. For comparison, a real world 5.5dBd gain is what a 4-bay folded dipole has, which is a massive antenna, and coincidentally, it costs a lot of $$$$$... too. IMO, and in my experience, for a car install, a simple 6" inch NMO antenna cut to GMRS frequency will work absolutely great, as measured. G.

The benefit of using a narrow channel is the lower noise along better sensitivity and range. The advantage of wideband is the capability to transfer higher data rates. I would stay away from narrow band unless you want to forget about digital and hi-fidelity. As far as repeater pairs go, CTCSS and DCS were created for a reason. If you are using tone or digital code squelching, unless the repeaters are within miles of each other, you can have potentially hundreds of repeaters in place within a 500 mile radius and not interfere with another repeater. The only exception I could potentially see there is if traffic went up 100 fold and all repeater owners started using 200' towers; which I don't see happening. Additionally, there is a massive shortage of people willing to spend insane amounts of money for proper repeater equipment, site rentals and maintenance costs, just to allow other people to user their system for free. (Hard to imagine, I know.) Opening up more pairs isn't really a need.