RoadApple

Thanks for that info!!! I will definitely take a closer look at the WP-9900 product. And for the modest $115 price tag it is probably worth getting one to test out in person! It really looks like the Btech 20V2. Maybe, it is made by same company with different branding. The Btech 20V2, which I like a lot, is also a "cheap chinese radio" so that really doesn't bother me. I think a lot of folks (read: "Radio Dorks") get totally wrapped around the axel on that stuff or see the brand name of their radio as some kind of freak'in status symbol, as if anyone in the real world gives a rat's ass. I will concede that the specs, when measured with test equipment can differ, and some radios may even be noticeably better than others, but the average dude, like me, using a radio just doesn't care. As long as I can communicate with others around me with reasonable clarity and reliability that's all that matters. When I hear someone else talking, I don't know, and I don't care, what kind of radio they are using. It's a moot point! It is interesting that you speak of the volume control being a PITA because that is for me the biggest negative in the basic operation of the Btech 20V2. The orange button on top of the mic that you use to turn the radio on/off is also used to open the squelch to put the radio in monitor mode. Long press vs short press and I always manage to hold the button for the wrong amount of time for what I'm wanting to do. Then while in monitor mode, you use the up and down arrow keys to adjust the volume. To me, this is a little clumsy, but it works, and I really don't have to adjust the volume that often, so it is a quirk I can easily live with. It is also funny that you mention how some hams might like the aesthetics of visible radios. HA!!! I think what you say is true. They like having all the knobs and meters etc. on display. Besides, if you can't see the physical radio box mounted proudly and prominently in front of you, how would you possibly be able to admire the expensive brand name? I recently went to a local ham radio club meeting for the first time. I was the new guy, and they knew nothing about me. Surprisingly, the very first question I was asked by one of the members; "What kind of equipment do you have?". My answer; "Oh, just cheap Chinese junk..." I understand the value of technical quality, but form factor and aesthetics is important for different reasons. I like being able to keep things clean, low profile, somewhat unnoticeable whenever I can. It is a matter of personal preference and for me these small form factor radios with controls on the mic seem to work pretty well in that regard. Anyway, thanks again for the lead on the WP-9900, I'll check it out....

I'm a little late to this thread and it appears that you have already received an answer to your question but thought I might chime in anyway. I have a BTech 20v2 and use it to receive many VHF/UHF frequencies outside of the GMRS frequency range. It works great. IMHO, the receiver selectivity is not the best, but it is a good little radio for the price. I really love the form factor and that all the controls are on the mic and that I can stash the radio in an out of the way location. I wish I could find a small unlocked dual band ham radio (like the Btech UV-25X2) with a small display and all the controls on the mic! That too would be handy! Anyway, YES, you can receive ham and various public safety traffic via the radio and use the scan feature to scan thru all of it. I do it all the time. That Btech 20V2 is a compact little unit and will give you the capability you are seeking.

You did nothing wrong. Someone was just trying to bamboozle you. Ignore them. Remember - GMRS shares frequencies with unlicensed FRS where, for all practical purposes, there are no rules, protocols or norms and people will say or claim just about anything. Not that all GMRS users are well behaved either...

I'm glad you were able to get your radio programmed! It would seem silly to not allow tones to be assigned to any and all channels on a GMRS radio as some folk use tones (so call "privacy" codes) to filter out noise on simplex in addition to activating repeaters. I've yet to encounter a "fully locked down" radio, but I guess they are out there.....

Hey Nokones, Thanks for the general heads up about dual band antennas. My dual band seems to be an okay compromise for 2m/70cm although the SWR is notably better on 2m than 70cm. I actually have 3 different antennas I can swap in/out as needed depending upon what I'm doing at the time. While SWR is certainly not the only measure of performance, on GMRS, the antenna that gives me the best SWR (1.0 @ 462Mhz & 1.12 @ 467Mhz) is this tiny little low profile 6" quarter wave Tram 1126-B. It works surprisingly well, and I love that most people don't even notice that it is up there....

It took a while, but after looking at a variety of other options, I finally decided to get that 3rd brake light antenna mount purchased and installed. It was a little expensive, but it is working very well and I'm pretty happy with it so far! The pics below show it with a dual band 2m/70cm antenna. I've also used it simplex on GMRS with a very small Tram antenna with good results. Thanks again to all who provided constructive feedback on the topic!

Oh... that explains why HT's work better for us fat people! Especially on lower frequencies. Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Really ?? I did not infer that "Code Talker" is mentioned anywhere in the FCC rules. I'm merely using that as an example to point out that "Plain Language" is an ambiguous term, not all foreign languages are commonly understood, and that perhaps the FCC's definition is not as clear or definitive as it should be!

___ @JHENRY, yours was a very good question. I'm fairly new to this forum, but I'm quickly learning to just ignore the regular trolls...

Just like the word "unreasonable" is arguably the most important word in the 4th amendment of the U.S. constitution, the definition of the term "Plain Language" is the key phrase in the FCC rules. Actually, the precise definition wording of section 95.303 as shown above poses a very interesting question as it is being presumed that all foreign languages, by definition, are not considered coded or secretive. It says: "Foreign languages and commonly known radio operating words...". It does not say; "Common Foreign languages and ..." The public at large cannot be expected to understand the wide variety of foreign languages that may be broadcast over the air. Clearly some recognized foreign languages are not at all well-known and in fact our own military has used this strategy expressly to create "secret communications"! "CODE TALKER" Wikipedia: "A code talker was a person employed by the military during wartime to use a little-known language as a means of secret communication. The term is most often used for United States service members during the World Wars who used their knowledge of Native American languages as a basis to transmit coded messages." As @UncleYoda pointed out, it is the FCC's responsibility to make the rules clear. At this point, I'm not sure they really are.

Great information... Glad to hear that it is working well for you. THANKS!

Good advice. Thanks for that!

Thanks for that input! For occasional 2m/70cm I use a very good local linked repeater network without any problems. For GMRS, I use mostly short distance simplex when travelling with a group or at the lake or other destination. The performance from my current mag mount which I usually place on the cab directly in front of the 3rd taillight, (basically where the antenna would be if I use one of these 3rd taillight mounts) works just fine! I like that location (up and centered) because it keeps the antenna up and out of the way of getting things in/out of the truck bed and I don't have to stare at it while driving. All the discussion about the effectiveness of the ground plane, while interesting, and not at all irrelevant, is just not too significant of a factor for my purposes. That's why my OP was a question more about the antenna mount itself (water leaks, strength etc.) and less about the RF propagation characteristics associated with its location which seems to be the direction the thread drifted. I'm not going to drill into my roof and I'm sort of tired of taking the mag mount on and off, so without any specific feedback that indicates that this type of mount is structurally problematic to my vehicle, l will probably give one of these mounts a try and hope for the best.

Exactly! I believe I only received 2 posts from people who have actually used that specific type of mounting device and provided some feedback about them. Nobody actually addressed my original questions, which were "Does it leak?" and "Are they strong?". The other posts that provided alternative mounting solutions, alternate recommendations or general antenna considerations regarding ground plane etc. were all valuable answers or comments to different questions that I did not specifically ask. I am still appreciative and thanked those people for their contributions to the topic. Looking at my OP I did not ask "what is the best way to mount an antenna?" Sorry if my communications sounded dismissive of others effort to help as that was not my intention.

@WSEZ864 Thanks for the suggestion about the back rack, and for the photo! Very helpful. That is certainly an interesting option worthy of consideration. @WRUU653 Thanks for the A-Pillar suggestion. I do understand compromises... Cost isn't a primary consideration for me, but even so the 3rd tail-light mount is in itself sort of a compromise, rather than following the recommendation of the "drill-baby-drill" enthusiasts who advocate for just installing that NMO mount. While an NMO mount installed dead center of the roof of my truck cab might be the best solution for RF purposes, that isn't necessarily the best solution for my purposes. I've been browsing YouTube videos about removing the headliner as was suggested by @WRUE951 and unless you are someone who does that sort of thing all the time, it appears like it could potentially be a PITA that is not without its own considerations and complications. In the process, I've also stumbled across a great many videos regarding replacing or fixing a 3rd taillight on these trucks. Some replace it for the purpose of a cargo/5th wheel bed camera, others for brighter or flashing LED lights etc. Many people with many different reasons. However, there are also folks that speak of damaged headliners as a result of leaks from a worn 3rd taillight lens gasket. Many suggest that it is not "IF" it will eventually leak, but rather "WHEN" it will leak, and they advocate replacing the gasket and resealing these 3rd taillight assemblies with silicone as a preventative measure. Something to think about... Interestingly enough that gets me back to my original post about this type of antenna mount where I asked those with direct experience using these devices: "Do they leak?" I'm thinking of an antenna being pushed by wind or by hitting trees, etc. and wonder how that might contribute to breaking or otherwise compromising that watertight seal around the mount? IOW, if these 3rd taillight assemblies are prone to leaking, maybe introducing an antenna mount there would be inclined to make matters worse. Absolutely nothing is without compromise!! Again, thanks for the comments and feedback on the topic.