JeepCrawler98

RG8x is better than RG58 but is still terrible for UHF - spring for the LMR400; it'll give you a noticeable boost in performance. It's worth the cost: https://abrind.com/product-category/abr400-solid-ultraflex-assemblies/
I can't comment first hand on the antenna; but the Browing BR-6353 works well at GMRS for what it is, it's only slightly more than the TWAYRADIO brand: https://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=3580&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkbuKBhDRARIsAALysV7PYMkBxYiCxyoQ5dSVENW9I2CnZc0eMgrFmNlvt_oP7ufbQQW9qdYaAiPhEALw_wcB. It's fully welded and pre-tuned, it's surprisingly tough for how cheap it is. I recommend getting away from Amazon when shopping for radio stuff.
Bonus points for the type N connectors too - while PL259's are also called "UHF" connectors it's because when they were designed UHF was anything above 30mhz; Type N is mechanically a better and lower loss connector, and are better for weatherproofing too.
edit:
Back on the coax; you're putting up a 7.1dBi yagi antenna, with 50' RG-8x you will lose 4.246db of that gain for a net system gain of 2.9db.
In contrast; with the LMR400 - you're 'only losing' 1.371dB for a net system gain of 5.7dB
For the hell of it - using RG-58 results in a net system gain of 0.2dB; it'd almost completely negate the benefit of your antenna to an isotropic radiator (which is below the performance of a basic dipole as it is already).
For reference; a basic dipole 'unity gain' antenna is 2.15dBi (aka 0.0dBd)
see: https://www.qsl.net/co8tw/Coax_Calculator.htm

What's this? Anyways - we had a repeater start hearing itself (Pecos 550) after we adjusted a few other things including shooting microwave internet over to the site to get rid of a link radio that had started acting up with the 4 hours of burn time we get almost daily now. It's been unlinked until we fix it - it's not a ping pong between different repeaters or a link radio/repeater, but an antenna noise issues with lack of adequate isolation on the filters after an antenna change. There's a return trip involved with that one unfortunately; nothing we can fix remotely.

What's this? Anyways - we had a repeater start hearing itself (Pecos 550) after we adjusted a few other things including shooting microwave internet over to the site to get rid of a link radio that had started acting up with the 4 hours of burn time we get almost daily now. It's been unlinked until we fix it - it's not a ping pong between different repeaters or a link radio/repeater, but an antenna noise issues with lack of adequate isolation on the filters after an antenna change. There's a return trip involved with that one unfortunately; nothing we can fix remotely.

I'll cross post this here from Reddit since it's reference information and will be a hot topic I'm sure.
IMO don't start hooking up your TNC's just yet, this doesn't do much for the users, just a bit for the manufacturers.
------------------------
For reference; here is the full rules on data on GMRS with the change implemented as outlined in the Appendix "Final Rules"; the change is in bold:     This fortunately/unfortunately depending on your side of the fence means that we cannot hook up APRS modems to our handhelds with removable antennas or mobile radios due to the "removable" antenna limitation. Also - does anyone know if MDC1200 or FleetSync are not permitted on removable-antenna radios or on the repeater inputs since they're data transmissions? This is common practice, but I'm not so sure it's legal practice.   I had approached the FCC on the APRS topic as I feel the above as written applies to handhelds and only new radios seeking certification (what about attaching a modem to a historically certified radio?) below is the response I received at the time:     The above is a written response, not a ruling and it could be argued I feel, but that's their stance anyways.   Onto the CB topic! The determination on CB radio FM is interesting; but a maximum 8khz bandwidth is going to make it super narrow band (most narrow-band FM is 11.25Khz)

What's the make, model and type of duplexer? Duplexers always lose some power, I've measured losses like that first hand on the Jesai, Fumei and other Chinese flatpacks around the 6-7dB range which is exactly the power drop you're measuring. They're really only acceptable down to about a 7mhz split or bigger, not the 5mhz split we're used to.
If it's something with a reputable brand name, it's not normal. a Celwave/Phelps Dodge or Telewave duplexer will have insertion losses around 1.5dB or so, if you take your time tuning those you can get that down to 0.8dB or so; if you get something like that the 42W you measured would be up around 35W after passing through...

You’re right: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fccid.io/2AJGM-P52UV/amp
That’s pretty ridiculous and should be a total deal breaker.
The tested (and therefore actual approved configuration) also shows an integral antenna and not the removable one they’re selling now; wonderful. Sounds like these things are not technically legal as sold and if they’re set to wideband.

Which as I pointed out in an earlier post is another flaw in the certification - they measured ERP alone because it was tested with an integral antenna so that's the right unit of measure and is appropriate in that configuration. But that's not what they're selling.
This radio is shipped to the consumer with a removable antenna, meaning we can hook up the gains to it. The radio should be tested also based on transmitter output, not just ERP, if they want to sell it with removable antennas.
See product as tested: https://fccid.io/2AJGM-P52UV/Internal-Photos/Internal-photos-5110431
edit:
For example; here's a report on a Kenwood TK3180 where it's done right. https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/RF-Exposure-Info/SAR-test-report-424905.pdf (SAR - exposure safety) and https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/Test-Report/test-report-424900.pdf (for emissions masks, based on conducted power, appropriate because of the removable antenna)
Multiple antennas tested, multiple batteries tested, and a max conducted power rating is given based on actual measurement. In contrast, the UV9G also gives a maximum rated transmitter power (not tested, based on manufacturer's claims) of 3.5W. 3.5W is not 5.0W and Baofeng knows this because they stated that - see https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/2AJGM-P52UV/5110426 
Yeah the consumers buying these don't and shouldn't care about stuff this far down the paper trail, nor should they be expected to, in fact it would appear the FCC doesn't really scrutinize this enough since they're obviously letting this through the cracks until it hits the "rugged radios" kind of scale, but this is exactly why it's important for manufacturers to get it right and actually sell what they claim and what is legal.

One of the things that seems to be fairly prevalent in the repeater listings are paper repeaters - those who are listed, but not longer online or usable. It would be nice if there was some sort of process for removing these - either by vote, requesting a review, flagged as "reported offline," or something like that.
 
We have a few of these in the Tucson area; their owners at times haven't logged in in almost a decade and/or their licenses expired.

So for reference; I just got done tuning up our portable repeater's duplexer for a campout next week with the local GMRS crew - this is a Celwave 633-6A-2N mobile duplexer, measurement device is an Anritsu MT8212B. This is measured through a couple extra fittings that are part of the normal install; so this adds a few tenths of a dB for insertion loss.
For 462.700 Mhz (TX side) - insertion loss is -1.52dB, with a high notch (nothing RX) at -81.72dB
For 467.700 Mhz (RX side) - insertion loss is -1.25dB, with a low notch (notching TX) at -87.97dB




Below are comparative measurements I took a while ago of a similar Celwave unit (left) vs. the chinesium Jesai/Fumei unit (right); you can see the difference - the cheap stuff is unfortunately garbage at the 5mhz split:

So for reference; I just got done tuning up our portable repeater's duplexer for a campout next week with the local GMRS crew - this is a Celwave 633-6A-2N mobile duplexer, measurement device is an Anritsu MT8212B. This is measured through a couple extra fittings that are part of the normal install; so this adds a few tenths of a dB for insertion loss.
For 462.700 Mhz (TX side) - insertion loss is -1.52dB, with a high notch (nothing RX) at -81.72dB
For 467.700 Mhz (RX side) - insertion loss is -1.25dB, with a low notch (notching TX) at -87.97dB




Below are comparative measurements I took a while ago of a similar Celwave unit (left) vs. the chinesium Jesai/Fumei unit (right); you can see the difference - the cheap stuff is unfortunately garbage at the 5mhz split:

@WRNA236 - yup here it is: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-126A1.pdf
At first glance Pages 12 and 23 or of interest; with the limits imposed by the table on Page 23 you're probably okay but it's not a blanket exemption to automatically put everyone in the clear unfortunately (except for handhelds). Awkward.

Which as I pointed out in an earlier post is another flaw in the certification - they measured ERP alone because it was tested with an integral antenna so that's the right unit of measure and is appropriate in that configuration. But that's not what they're selling.
This radio is shipped to the consumer with a removable antenna, meaning we can hook up the gains to it. The radio should be tested also based on transmitter output, not just ERP, if they want to sell it with removable antennas.
See product as tested: https://fccid.io/2AJGM-P52UV/Internal-Photos/Internal-photos-5110431
edit:
For example; here's a report on a Kenwood TK3180 where it's done right. https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/RF-Exposure-Info/SAR-test-report-424905.pdf (SAR - exposure safety) and https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/Test-Report/test-report-424900.pdf (for emissions masks, based on conducted power, appropriate because of the removable antenna)
Multiple antennas tested, multiple batteries tested, and a max conducted power rating is given based on actual measurement. In contrast, the UV9G also gives a maximum rated transmitter power (not tested, based on manufacturer's claims) of 3.5W. 3.5W is not 5.0W and Baofeng knows this because they stated that - see https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/2AJGM-P52UV/5110426 
Yeah the consumers buying these don't and shouldn't care about stuff this far down the paper trail, nor should they be expected to, in fact it would appear the FCC doesn't really scrutinize this enough since they're obviously letting this through the cracks until it hits the "rugged radios" kind of scale, but this is exactly why it's important for manufacturers to get it right and actually sell what they claim and what is legal.

What's the make, model and type of duplexer? Duplexers always lose some power, I've measured losses like that first hand on the Jesai, Fumei and other Chinese flatpacks around the 6-7dB range which is exactly the power drop you're measuring. They're really only acceptable down to about a 7mhz split or bigger, not the 5mhz split we're used to.
If it's something with a reputable brand name, it's not normal. a Celwave/Phelps Dodge or Telewave duplexer will have insertion losses around 1.5dB or so, if you take your time tuning those you can get that down to 0.8dB or so; if you get something like that the 42W you measured would be up around 35W after passing through...

What's the make, model and type of duplexer? Duplexers always lose some power, I've measured losses like that first hand on the Jesai, Fumei and other Chinese flatpacks around the 6-7dB range which is exactly the power drop you're measuring. They're really only acceptable down to about a 7mhz split or bigger, not the 5mhz split we're used to.
If it's something with a reputable brand name, it's not normal. a Celwave/Phelps Dodge or Telewave duplexer will have insertion losses around 1.5dB or so, if you take your time tuning those you can get that down to 0.8dB or so; if you get something like that the 42W you measured would be up around 35W after passing through...

What's the make, model and type of duplexer? Duplexers always lose some power, I've measured losses like that first hand on the Jesai, Fumei and other Chinese flatpacks around the 6-7dB range which is exactly the power drop you're measuring. They're really only acceptable down to about a 7mhz split or bigger, not the 5mhz split we're used to.
If it's something with a reputable brand name, it's not normal. a Celwave/Phelps Dodge or Telewave duplexer will have insertion losses around 1.5dB or so, if you take your time tuning those you can get that down to 0.8dB or so; if you get something like that the 42W you measured would be up around 35W after passing through...

Using another repeater falls under the cooperative use clause and restrictions by the owner fall under 'individual licensee duties' of 47 CFR §95.1705:
 
Repeaters are still classified as 'stations.' This section is why many repeater owners require permission, as they're technically required to keep a list of control stations.
Key takeaways:
"Shall determine specifically which individuals, including family members, are allowed to operate (i.e., exercise operational control over) its GMRS station(s)"
(2) May allow any person to use (i.e., benefit from the operation of) its GMRS repeater, or alternatively, may limit the use of its GMRS repeater to specific persons;
(3) May disallow the use of its GMRS repeater by specific persons as may be necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this section.
"Specifically" in that first paragraph implies that a repeater's licensee must specify who you allow to act as a control station (which is any station using a repeater) over your GMRS station (in this case a repeater). This pretty much means that you have a duty as a repeater owner to keep a list of users to be compliant with this rule.
This is aside from helping to tune out the noise caused by people who take others' hard work for granted and cause trouble.
I don't think anyone stumbling onto a GMRS repeater is breaking the rules as a control station since it's hard to post a repeater as locked down in a matter fitting public notice; but the repeater owner does have a legal burden to keep track of you as a permitted user which users need to be aware of and thus should notify repeater owners of their intent. Of course, per the above, they can tell you to get off their equipment too and it's entirely within their rights to do so.
In practice; is this ever enforced and does the FCC care? I doubt it - but it is in the rules.

Good find; the user manual has some interesting tidbits in it - namely mention of a mini XLR connector on the radio for remote headsets.
Looks like they have it channel locked to the standard 22 + 8 arrangement; I wish the consumer oriented manufacturers would get out of the habit of doing that as there's no limitation on the number of memory channels a GMRS radio can have access to, just the frequencies. If they want to keep it newbie proof keep the first 30 channels locked as is and allow the memory channels above 30 to be whatever. An alphanumeric display with an option for more than 30 total memory channels (like 128 or so, like many commercial Part 95 radios and the increasingly popular Wouxun KG805, KG905, and KG1000) would be really nice to have for those who use repeaters a lot. I get that the FCC recommends the 22+8 arrangement for approval in their technical bulletins, but it's not actually a requirement for approval, so if you happen to be a manufacturer reading this (looking at you Midland, Retevis, B-Tech): STOP IT! There's no actual need.
Also sad to report the USB connector on the body is supposedly for charging only; hopefully they have a way to get a programming cable hooked up like the MXT400. As seems to be standard for Midland they have a really attractive physical packaging and decent performing radio, but are being too conservative with the programmable bells and whistles for the price point; these would be so easy to incorporate it's a shame not to IMO.

Using another repeater falls under the cooperative use clause and restrictions by the owner fall under 'individual licensee duties' of 47 CFR §95.1705:
 
Repeaters are still classified as 'stations.' This section is why many repeater owners require permission, as they're technically required to keep a list of control stations.
Key takeaways:
"Shall determine specifically which individuals, including family members, are allowed to operate (i.e., exercise operational control over) its GMRS station(s)"
(2) May allow any person to use (i.e., benefit from the operation of) its GMRS repeater, or alternatively, may limit the use of its GMRS repeater to specific persons;
(3) May disallow the use of its GMRS repeater by specific persons as may be necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this section.
"Specifically" in that first paragraph implies that a repeater's licensee must specify who you allow to act as a control station (which is any station using a repeater) over your GMRS station (in this case a repeater). This pretty much means that you have a duty as a repeater owner to keep a list of users to be compliant with this rule.
This is aside from helping to tune out the noise caused by people who take others' hard work for granted and cause trouble.
I don't think anyone stumbling onto a GMRS repeater is breaking the rules as a control station since it's hard to post a repeater as locked down in a matter fitting public notice; but the repeater owner does have a legal burden to keep track of you as a permitted user which users need to be aware of and thus should notify repeater owners of their intent. Of course, per the above, they can tell you to get off their equipment too and it's entirely within their rights to do so.
In practice; is this ever enforced and does the FCC care? I doubt it - but it is in the rules.

That did it; thanks Rich!

Fair enough for simplex; but you have to remember that if you're using a repeater you don't own yourself you're actually actively using someone else's radio in addition to your own. This is why repeater owners may have their own rules and practices they want followed when using their hardware; sometimes these rules include not having roger beeps.
Since on repeaters you have people monitoring for traffic from others and are often dependent on them for communications, aside from the fact that they tend to be watering holes for radio traffic - you are forcing other operators to listen to you. Simplex, not so much a problem because you can tune out and not miss anything as you mentioned.

Fair enough for simplex; but you have to remember that if you're using a repeater you don't own yourself you're actually actively using someone else's radio in addition to your own. This is why repeater owners may have their own rules and practices they want followed when using their hardware; sometimes these rules include not having roger beeps.
Since on repeaters you have people monitoring for traffic from others and are often dependent on them for communications, aside from the fact that they tend to be watering holes for radio traffic - you are forcing other operators to listen to you. Simplex, not so much a problem because you can tune out and not miss anything as you mentioned.

I've looked into this in the past; I still believe it's technically legal on GMRS if you want to argue it. I took this up with the FCC and below is what I received back from them. I think there's grounds to argue against their response, but it settled the issue for me (for now) anyways. Justified or not, and while APRS as a protocol is allowed, their stance is that they don't want it unless limited to a certified low-power handheld radio with fixed antenna, which severely limits its application as it eliminates the ability to develop a solid digipeating/gateway infrastructure (which I had planned to start developing at the time on one of the 462 interstitial 'FRS' channels)
My original request to them:
 
Their response:
 

Unless it's a repeater itself making the beep where it's being used to pace a conversation, there's no need for it; just turn it off - the person listening knows when you have released the PTT just fine without it. The only use case I think that could be valid is if a recording is being kept for record purposes that could be referred to later, but again, that's not really something you're likely to encounter on GMRS, moreso the public safety side.
MDC1200 or FleetSync bursts have a purpose; but its real-life usefulness is pretty limited for GMRS and I see it as more of a novelty. If you consider these as data burst transmissions they're also technically not allowed on the 467 Main Channels (repeaters intputs) per the rules - but that's splitting hairs.
I believe most consumer radios that come with the roger beep turned on just have it so that they "sound like the cool radios with the data bursts" but that's just my guess.

Ok; so ran into another interesting development on this today:

I ordered a Retevis RT29 last week; seemed like a durable radio, although I expect the internals to be less than great. The IP67 rating, 2-year warranty, and 3200mah battery appealed to me - for $50, again, a cheap beater radio to throw around the woods that supposedly lasts almost a week on a single charge per some of the reviews (curious to verify that) and is supposedly submersible (also curious to verify that)

This model is listed on FCC ID 2ASNRT76, which uses the RT76 as the primary radio, declaring the RT1, RT26, and RT29 as identical models.

Retevis didn't answer my email I sent them before I ordered to see what the FCC ID's were on this radio (they stated they forwarded it onto engineering but never heard back).

This showed up in the mail today; this radio is indeed badged compliant with the 2ASNRT76 FCC ID... so a legal Part 95E radio???

First impressions on the RT29: Again I don't expect great things from this radio performance wise and I literally got this in my hands with the sole intent of finding out what the manufacturer would send me, so take it with a pound of salt; the build quality feels excellent from a mechanical standpoint - very solid, not a creak to be heard, and feels similar to my TK380s and TK390s in terms of dead weight and general physical solidness. Feels a lot more sturdy than the KG805G which I'll say comes across as lightweight, although the bonus on that one is more so the memory channels and the receiver. I'm pretty sure you could knock someone out with it and still carry on a QSO. Perhaps a good radio for family use while you keep the high end gear for yourself...

Firmware wise the RT29 is not locked to GMRS, and will do 400-480Mhz and will also do wideband and high power on the 467Mhz interstitial channels (I should note that dual part 90/95A surplus can do this too so that's probably not an actual deal-breaker and its up to the programmer to get it right). The radio I received is only listed for Part 95E, you could use it on the ham radio service but of course that's also not allowed per the FCC rules if you use it on GMRS as well.... so really just a legal GMRS or ham radio (not both), and even then you probably can only use it on medium power (5 watts) since that's what the 95E cert is limited to.

First Impressions on the KG805G: now that i've had it for a few days with real-world use; it's indeed not a very selective receiver and does pick up and suffer from adjacent noise and interference fairly readily, it does do better than my UV82 (consider that a GMRS-V1 analogue) overall which is its competing market, but I will say that in low noise environments the receiver is very sensitive even with the stock antenna. In a clean environment, it seems to have a slightly easier time picking out signals than my Kenwood TK380, 390 and 3180 so its not without merit for a starter radio I'd say, and not a bad deal at all for a new radio with part 95 cert. Audio is generally very clear although lacking lows, but I'm also spoiled by Kenwood on this, transmit audio sounds excellent. The UV82 provided a richer sound due to the larger speaker, but it's also not as clear and easy to understand. Programming the channels beyond channel 30 works as advertised and is a big advantage over other panel-programmable GMRS radios in the current consumer market. I wish the radio felt more solid and had some more 'oomph' to it but honestly it's probably fine for most users.

Havent thrown either of these on the spectrum analyser and power meter to see what they put out; but will get to that in time. If causing interference is indicative of transmitter cleanliness and used as an unscientific benchmark, the KG805G does readily knock my computer monitors offline, causes Lucifer himself to type random incantations on my keyboard, and also puts my computer in sleep mode as does the UV82. The RT29 also does, but less easily and only at 10W high power. The Kenwood commercial radios do not do this at all even though they put out the same amount of power as the 805 and 82.... things that make you go hmmmmmmm....

I had someone here in town look into renewing their expired license but the waiver fee was hundreds of dollars; I'd call it a loss and just apply for a new one.