wayoverthere

Trying to encourage us to stick with one brand? Midland insisting on doing it their way all the way? It appears the gmrs-v1 has the option for scan for ctcss/DC's codes (on pg 40 of the manual here:https://baofengtech.com/usermanual/gmrs-v1-manual.pdf )...maybe that will catch them once and for all? I may try to poke at the codes a bit at well, I have the gxt1000's and the wouxun up top.

Haven't had a chance to compare the book to this chart (to see if any of it differs) but I stumbled across this while looking for something else. https://www.buytwowayradios.com/blog/2008/05/how_midlands_extra_channels_work.html

i agree it's hard to make direct comparisons as there isn't many places you can find comparable equipment on both sides of the gmrs/ham "fence". probably the most direct comparison i can find between the two services is in Btech. The GMRS 50x1 is one of the very few actual gmrs certified mobile options outside Midland. hardware wise, it looks to be identical to their mid range ham offering, the 50x2, and both ring in at the same price. definitely there was some gamble on the part of Btech to make a gmrs radio, but perhaps less for them in some others, because the gamble appears to be limited to locking down the firmware (it receives quite a lot, but is locked down to only transmit on gmrs), and getting it certified, where other manufacturers may have to start a lot further back (and thus invest/gamble a lot more) in the development process. where the "money" line of thinking really comes in is in paying for the certification. the parallel to CARB is that everything is based on certification, not the in-practice operation.... the uncertified equipment could be doing exactly what the certified equipment is doing, but you're not in compliance because you don't have that stamp, and CARB (California Air Resources Board) is similar...even if i could modify the car to blow pure oxygen out the exhaust, i'd still fail smog if the manufacturer of the parts didn't pay the state to go through the certification process to get their stamp of approval.

100%agreed on this, with both you and Cleveland. I haven't found a better resource for gmrs (and general radio) info, hands down. There IS a sub on Reddit (r/gmrs), but it doesn't even come close to this site (though I think there are a few users on both, myself included).

I'm in agreement about doing our best to at least make people aware of the "proper" route. My jaded side says at least a little bit of the certification requirement for gmrs vs ham is money-based, both in the cost of certification and licenses (similar to my thoughts on CARB certification for auto parts...) That said, probably a big part of it is the amount of knowledge required for a ham license, vs gmrs being pay the fee and here's your license. This allows ham stuff to be a lot more open, as you're more expected to know where you can and can't operate, where gmrs stuff is locked down almost to the level of the lowest common denominator, so the bubble pack buyers can just grab something and go without much research or background, without the possibility of running over their local public safety frequencies (this way, their oversight can be complaint-driven, rather than having to devote staff to actively policing)

Yeah, I was eyeing the remote option, and I think I will have to go that route..., I got my hopes up on the semi local ones still having sessions listed.

You have my empathy Doc...I've had somewhat similar experiences in more than one interest area, not sure if elitism or apathy. Trying to get ham licensed currently. Local amateur radio club has cancelled all test sessions til late in the year, so I was looking at another group further out. There's still a session on calendar, and I've tried reaching out to see if it's still on before I make a 3 hour round trip drive, but I've gotten zero response either on their forum or by emailing the VE contact. Similarly, I was looking into joining a classic car club some years ago, but many of their activities, maybe 5% of the club showed. One run was only 3 cars including mine, and the club president just popped in to see who showed, then ducked out to go troll the junkyard instead. Kind of felt like what's the point. Kind of discouraging, I know.

Ouch...touche. between keeping an ear on the public safety channels, and helping the kiddo practice to feed her interest in a public safety career, that's the one that's familiar to me

I think that one might actually be easier to say in phonetics than not...william-queen-william-union...

Limited testing so far. having a little bit of faith in cheapish equipment at the moment (midland's claims of antenna tuning, and a surecom meter), but it all at least seems to agree. checked SWR today, 1.05-1.06 on simplex, and 1.2 on repeater 22. Power supply doesn't even break a sweat so far, according to the meter on the power supply, it's drawing ~13a on high power. One interesting tidbit i found is if i hold down the menu button when it starts up, i get a password prompt. tried a couple things, but it just reboots, so i don't think i got the right password (tried 000000, 123456, and 501501). internet searches haven't turned up anything so far. I reached out to baofengtech, we'll see what they have to share.

so..for a little anecdotal data.. my "base" setup at the moment (haven't really decided on a setup yet, so it changes...) is the midland mag mount on a piece of sheet steel in the attic, with midland's now-discontinued 3db whip (~12" long), fed by a BTech GMRS 50x1. i have one of the surecom sw33 meters, and decided to see what my numbers look like. results are 1.05 on ch 22, 1.06 on ch 1, and 1.2 on Repeater 22. given that 1 and simplex 22 are both in the 462.xxx range, and repeater 22 transmits in the 467.xxx, a bit of variation isn't a surprise, but it seems like whatever is off with your setup is amplifying the variation.

I've been researching DMR radios as well, and one thing I noticed is that a number of them are part 90 certified, which few of the consumer ham radios seem to be

Depending on the vehicle, there are nmo clamp mounts (for roof racks or mirrors), or lip mounts for the edge of the hood/trunk that could give you more no-drill options. I haven't used the 5/8 I linked above, but the reviews are good...all it needs is a nmo magnet mount, and you're in business (one mag option here https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B077HSPBBH/ref=psdcmw_764460_t3_B077HWTJTL) (Lip mount: https://www.amazon.com/Browning-1246-B-Antenna-PL-259-connector/dp/B00NP7D1BA/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=lip+mount&qid=1591469122&sr=8-4 ) dxengineering.com has a lot of stuff too, and likely generally better quality options than Amazon.

Is mag mount an option? 1/4 wave for gmrs are only around 6 inches tall, maybe another inch with mount. There are other options around 12 inches...found this 5/8 wave linked off the listing I bought mine from, just over 12"... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IDTJ2EA/ref=dp_cerb_1 Even the 5/8 over 5/8 browning I have is maybe just over 3 feet at most. On handhelds, the gmrs specific market is kind of sparse, I don't know of much above 5 watts that's gmrs specific. Part 90 stuff might (I'll leave that to those with experience in That area). Even in uncertified stuff (baofeng and the like) there isn't much above 5 watts, and those aren't actually legal for use in gmrs spectrum.

The list of repeater capable, gmrs certified new radios seems to be....short. Wouxun k805g, baofeng gmrsv1, and perhaps a couple tyt come to mind. There are some posts of experience with both in the "equipment reviews" section. There's also much discussion of the use of used "part 90" equipment...Kenwood and vertex standard are popular options. I grabbed the wouxun, but active repeater options (and activity) here are sparse.

IMO, i would really say it depends how you define "better". the MXT-400 has some definite limitations that the Btech doesn't have, such as being narrowband only, not being able to handle all CTCSS/DCS codes, and not being split tone capable. i can't disagree that the Midland is a bit more "polished", though. it's been floated that midland may be addressing some of those shortcomings in the next update, though.

i too learned the hard way; the GXT1000 are (generally) not repeater capable. channels 15-22 are simplex only, meaning you transmit and receive on the same frequency. on the DCS/CTCSS codes and receiving, you won't need to have a code set to HEAR someone else on the channel; if you have no code set, you'll receive EVERYTHING. setting a code makes it so you only hear signals with that code. on the transmit side, it's similar; the repeater will ignore transmissions without the correct code. as for that repeater location, it may be a mistake with the actual coordinates of the repeater. given the note that it's transmitting and receiving simplex on Ch 17, you MAY actually be able to use it...i would give it a try, though i wouldn't hold my breath.

as mentioned, what you want will depend on what you want it to cover; a quick search of "450-470mhz antenna found these... similar form factor, probably better tuning:: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Larsen-LPT450NMO-450-470MHz-Shadow-Covert-Phantom-Disguise-Antenna/223179704173?epid=9024582415&hash=item33f68c076d:g:fz4AAOSw5SpbukVQ https://www.ebay.com/itm/Laird-Technologies-TRAB4503-450-470-MHz-UHF-Two-Way-Radio-Phantom-Antenna/224007233881?hash=item3427df2159:g:p~YAAOSwkpxeuZiI for still having some gain these are fairly small (12"): https://www.ebay.com/itm/Laird-Technologies-B4503-UHF-450-470-MHz-3dB-5-8-Wave-Mobile-Antenna/223126659697?hash=item33f362a271:g:~N0AAOSw8FtbisVO https://www.ebay.com/itm/Larsen-LPT450NMO-450-470MHz-Shadow-Covert-Phantom-Disguise-Antenna/223179704173?epid=9024582415&hash=item33f68c076d:g:fz4AAOSw5SpbukVQ and this one is no gain, but about as unobtrusive as they get (6"): https://www.ebay.com/itm/Laird-Technologies-QWB450-UHF-450-470-MHz-Mobile-Antenna-NMO-6/222917653624?epid=668989645&hash=item33e6ed7478:g:Yn8AAOSw-SBay~9m

Bearing Boxcar's point in mind (taking the statements in the regulations broadly, rather than as strictly binding) that does make a definite difference in perspective. I've been looking at the broad amount of information available on repeaters, the sort of "community" in the linked repeaters and the nets, and people sharing their stories of communications, combined with the marketing of GMRS in offroad communications, and I've been thinking of GMRS as a sort of "Ham-lite". I guess the reality that "community" is a lot smaller piece of the big picture of GMRS than it seemed, and both in intent and largely in practice, GMRS is actually a lot closer to being "FRS-plus". I think I've also missed the context a lot of these stories are part of; that most people have a lot more "connections" than i do, that some of this "community" fits into, be it friends, family, or social groups/clubs.

Alternately, it's a bit more expensive than straight bubble packs, but definitely repeater capable, is the wouxun kg-805g. once it's set up, basic operation can be as simple as twist one knob for volume, the other knob for channels, and push to talk, and they're available from the on-site store. https://shop.mygmrs.com/collections/gmrs-radios/products/wouxun-kg-805g-repeater-capable-gmrs-radio

I will concede i'm (perhaps over)generalizing based on that statement. possibly some of it is a matter of perspective from where i sit on the inexperience end of things; i can definitely look back on other areas and notice how my perspectives have shifted some. to me, the "why" behind the statement/stance, is probably the biggest determining factor in how i view it, honestly. if it's a simple 'i don't want to deal with beginners', yeah, that's toward the stronger end of seeing it as an elitist attitude. kb2ztx, the examples you bring up (in a general sense, yours berkinet, as well) illustrate the opposite end; had ongoing problems with users, and while perhaps not ideal to go that route, it's probably the only viable solution left to deal with users that weren't willing to help themselves. i also still stand by the statement that regardless of my opinion of the motivation behind it, i still agree that it absolutely IS the right of the owner to configure however they see fit, include or exclude as they fit, and set whatever requirements they want; my opinion of their motivation has no bearing on that. finally, i appreciate the time you've both put into this topic (and into educating and discussion on the forum overall), and that whether or not we agree, it can still be a civil discussion.

while it may be an unpopular opinion, and I reach that conclusion for different reasons than wrfr886, i kind of agree with that sentiment....i'll explain below. first, i 100% agree that it's the repeater owner's choice to set it up however they want, allow whoever they want (or not), etc. the other side though: it's not a stretch to say that midland is probably one of the most visible off the shelf options, especially at a beginner's price point, so probably what most beginners are going to grab (at least those making an effort to be legal, rather than grabbing whatever radio from amazon that covers the frequencies). and midland certainly doesn't make their limitations clear in any of the materials, nor any of the listings that they're restricted that way (again, especially to beginners who likely won't know to watch out for such limitations). the central issue: i forget if i saw it here or on r/gmrs, but it was stated by a repeater owner that they had configured their repeater with split tones with the intent to keep midland users off their repeater. while that's absolutely their right as the owner, it's hard not to see that as a form of elitism, be it directed toward the equipment, or at beginners.

Reminds me of a "car" I saw at one of those bass competitions back in the day. It was an 80's yugo, with just a wooden bench for a "driver's seat". Literally everything behind that was either speakers, box, amplifiers, or batteries, and the windshield was just plexiglass braced with angle iron. I think it did move under its own power, but only barely.

I'll definitely be sharing as I get it going. Set it up for a few minutes last night, receiving side is plenty loud, but nobody on at that time for a transmit check. Will need to get an antenna up to do some better testing, but receiving the local public safety stuff was good and clear even with just a little unity gain wedged in the window. Haven't gotten into the programming beyond the menu itself yet though...I borked the computer I have chirp installed on trying to update....been fighting with that all day, and then have to reinstall everything.

Knowing what I know now, if I were considering the mxt400, I would hold off til Midland gets the split tone issues sorted (doesn't let you set send and receive codes separately). Initial impression is the "finish" of the btech isn't with Midland, but it seems to make up for it on the features side. (For reference, I'm still newish to all this, and I have a mix of radios; Midland handhelds, a kg805g wouxun, and a Midland mxt115 mobile, with the btech the most recent add)