WROZ250

I would also comment to those who seem to argue this would work, to provide current examples of where it is working (excluding the off road crowd who does seem to have made it work to some degree to support their activities. The off road groups are not, however, traversing the country on the interstates). Indeed, the more common response/experience to trying to use a 'travel channel' is more along the lines of, I believe the word was 'crickets'. FWIW I operate an open repeater on the 'travel channel of old' frequency, with the old 'travel tone' (141.3) and, it solidly covers approximately a 10 mile segment of I-40. Within the range of my system are at least 3 major truck stops. I've yet to hear anything or anyone using the system beyond myself and a couple of locals. Indeed, there is substantial, travel related traffic, on CB CH19.

The Channel 20 thing @H8SPVMT mentioned is the very old 'original' travel channel from the early days of GMRS. Pretty sure even then it really never caught on. My own opinion is that the idea really isn't applicable to GMRS, especially these days for reasons such as mentioned by @marcspaz and then some. So where travel is concerned, GMRS definitely works for a group of vehicles talking to each other. However, traveling on an interstate at posted speeds (outside of a major city and traffic congestion), one would be hard pressed to have anything more than a 10 minute chat with a fixed station, if that, before moving out of range. It's also unlikely that there would be stations routinely monitoring any channel really, that would be capable of offering, if desiring at all, conversation and/or assistance. In this age of cellphones and such, the idea of having a modern GMRS equivalent to the 1970s CB channel 19 (or 9 for emergencies) is kind of mute. Indeed, while most public safety agency don't routinely monitor CB channel 9 these days, odds are one would likely have a far better chance of getting assistance via CB than GMRS, same for travel chatting. The entire idea of trying to establish a 'dedicated' travel channel on GMRS is silly, in my opinion. There are simply better alternatives today that are providing that. To some degree I see this ongoing debate over a GMRS travel channel as an attempt/desire to create what CB, Ham, and cellular phones are already providing, in a radio service that just doesn't lend itself well to the application. Also, and as I've commented many times before, it's an adoption issue as well. You can say this channel is a "travel channel", but that is completely without meaning unless people universally adopt and use it as designated. I just don't see that happening beyond a local geographical area, if even then. Just an opinion.

For GMRS I used a Tram 1187 (450-470). Required no trimming at all for low VSWR I don't recall the specific one I'm using for the dual band ham rig, might be a Tram 1191 (or similar). It took some serious trimming just to get the VSWR down on 440-450 which is why I would not use it on GMRS. VHF was fine. Again, both antennas a doing a pretty good job so far.

Current version of Chip does not support the 935

I definitely feel your pain... FWIW, I had a similar situation with our SUV, as there just were not a lot of options (especially with a full "panoramic sunroof"). In our case we ended up using glass mount antennas. The downside to these are that you are unlikely to find one that works well with both Ham and GMRS, particularly at UHF. We ended up with a dual band for the ham rig and a UHF/commercial for GMRS. So far both are working out well in their respective services. If there is any issue with them, it is they are somewhat directional not being more centered on the vehicle. That however, only becomes an issue in poor coverage areas. I would normally have suggested a roof/through hole mount, but that doesn't meet your stated requirements. I too have issues with garage clearance, even with the glass mounts (~26-28" lengths) which just clip the door going in and out. Just ever so slightly and so I'm not worried about damage to the garage door or the antenna(s). Just one opinion/thoughts/experience...

Now this may not be news to some of you, but... One of the things I can't stand with some of the radios, is that they come hard coded with all of the GMRS 'channels' (including the annoyingly occupied 'bubble pack' channels). In the really cheap radios, you're kinda stuck with these as, other than the CTCSS settings, they cannot be deleted and/or altered. If you're lucky, there are a few memory locations for custom channels, but you're still stuck with all 30 of the hard coded channels. From the factory, the KG-935G also has all of these default channels. However, unlike many of the radios, these default channels can be deleted and the memory space used as one desires! A big plus in my book, because I have just a couple of systems I routinely use and, I hate having to scroll through a list of unwanted channels just to get to the ones I actually desire. Sure, I can put up to 999 channels in the thing, but does anybody really want or need that? So now, as I rotate the channel selector knob, it goes through the few systems I have and then returns to the first channel in the list! Much better than feeling like I'm winding up an alarm clock to find the system I want! Additionally, I've discovered that the scan lists, with the exception of #1, can be customized, another perk IMHO. This is where a better, more detailed manual, would be nice, instead of having to experiment with the software! FWIW!

Well, this is actually a rewrite of round #2 and is technically round #3 now. I am reserving further judgement pending the outcome of my current situation. The (NEW) repeater came back from Bridgecom with a new, now external duplexer, as I had originally intended when I ordered it and, it initially seems to be just fine. Unfortunately that did not last long. Somewhere over the weekend, just days after putting it back on the air, the repeater died completely, no TX or RX. I can still talk to it with the software and it, from that perspective, is fine. However, there is no longer any receive or transmit. I've opened yet another ticket with their system and I am awaiting a response from Bridgecom. I expect I'll have to again shell out another $50 just to send it back. So this post is just a placeholder/heads up for now, based on what Bridgecom does in response. Personally, I am really pissed off and, extremely disappointed. I chose Bridgecom because of their (apparent) reputation and because it is a USA company. Right now, I'm feeling pretty stupid for that choice. However, as I stated previously, I'll reserve judgement after they have a chance to respond. In my nearly 50 years of working and playing in radio communications, I have never experienced such ridiculous repeat failures of a brand new piece of equipment. Stay Tuned.

100% agree! Do your homework before buying and do some serious thinking about how you intend to use the radio, lest you spend money on features and/or restrictions you don't need or want. It is unfortunately easy, in a rush to get going, to spend money that you don't have to.

Correct! Those channels (8-14) are strictly low power (0.5W). Running high power there would definitely get you noticed (not a good thing). Not much down there anyway except 'bubble pack radios' and lots of kids playing with the walkie talkie mom and dad bought them for Christmas! This is a decent listing of Frequency/Channel verses power: https://www.rightchannelradios.com/blogs/newsletters/gmrs-radio-frequencies-and-channels ?

Well, technically speaking, just using GMRS channels in a non Part 95 radio is still 'breaking the rules'. Again, I wouldn't get too hung up on that (personally). FWIW, I did find the mod on Youtube and it is as simple as I thought. If you want to have a 'legal radio' and this particular radio is what you want, I would suggest the Part 95 radio and use the Mod for other stuff. Note however, the mod does decertify the radio, but in many cases, it can be reversed (but I'd check on that first) If you really need/want the other frequencies, just go with the TH-8600 if it meets your requirements. As I noted in another posting in the Forum, as long as you don't cause problems for other users, nobody would know or care if your radio is Part 95. I think you will find many people are not using Part 95 radios, so get the radio that meets your needs/desires. Again, regardless of what I've said here, being a newbie, I really think you should read through the forums to get a better idea of what is out there, radio wise, etc... before spending serious money. As @Sshannon stated, watching the notarubicon videos on you-tube can be very helpful. Educate yourself before spending your money. There are options out there when it comes to radios. ?

They are, essentially, the same radio. One is Part95 because that's how they certified it with the FCC. That said, you will find many of the Chinese radios with different labels that are electrically/functionally identical, but configured and certified for a particular market. The reality is that there is likely a 'secret procedure', usually something as simple as holding down one of the front panel buttons while powering the radio on, which will present a list of configuration options. Doing the 'mod' does violate the certification, whatever it was. So while the GMR25 is part 95, it can probably be made to operate on ham band, commercial, etc... The TH-8600 probably has a configuration option to function as a Part 95 GMRS radio, but was not submitted for certification as such. It's a modern game the Chinese seem to play with the FCC these days. Also, while it is desirable to have a Part 95 radio (to 'keep it legal'), don't get too hung up on that. As you will discover by reading through the various forums here and chatting with other users, there are so many Part 90 radios that are in many cases cheaper, and yet far better quality than what is currently available. Not in any way suggesting you don't use a 'legal' radio, just that you might want to read through the forums here before plunking down a few hundred dollars on 'standard offerings'. If you just want to get on the air quickly ( and legally ), the UV-5G is extremely cheap (~$30). So much so it could be considered disposable. That way you can get familiar with GMRS while hunting for the radio that is more what you are looking for. Just one opinion...

From the KG-935 (default) Interesting to note the name "conflict", well sort of. Channel 29 is referred to (named) RPT (repeater) 21. So it depends on what actual channel number you have selected. Channel 21 is Simplex, and Channel 29 is the same, but your transmit is offset for repeater access.

The above was the default channels (factory) in both a Baofeng UV-5G and a Wouxun KG-935

Channel 21 (in most radios) is 462.700 Simplex. Channel 29 is 462.700/467.700 repeater. The latter is what you should be using.

@marcspazNo argument. That said, I at least, find very little about the CFRs (where it pertains to communications) that is unclear, especially after years of dealing with them almost daily (prior to my retirement). However, on the practical side, the virtually complete lack of enforcement, even and especially at the manufacturing level, makes a lot of the 'rules' under part 95 pretty stupid. If one were take the 'rules' at face value, virtually every Chinese manufactured radio (yes, even the 'good ones') violate the rules because, while not 'published', the ability to easily modify/override the otherwise restrictive 'rules' completely violates their 'type acceptance'. Indeed, I cannot think of one Chinese radio that doesn't have some 'secret procedure' that will unlock it's other (non compliant) capabilities. Generally speaking, I do try to remain compliant with the 'rules', but at the same time, and as many others have pointed out, it is extremely unlikely (if any concern at all) that the FCC would, for example, come after someone for using a Part 90 radio. Additionally, as others have also pointed out, unless you are causing serious and/or malicious interference to others, there is no way anyone (including the FCC) would be able to know (listening off the air) if your radio is part 95 or part 90. Actually, there are ways to 'fingerprint and identify' a particular/specific transmitter off the air. However, if the FCC is resorting to such technical enforcement tactics, I'd say you've been accused and/or suspected of some serious $#@%. We all know that politics plays a role in a lot of the 'rules', and not just radio related. I personally suspect some of the more restrictive (yet oddly unenforced) rules, where radio is concerned, came from one manufacturer's lobbying, trying to gain an advantage over the competition and/or generate sales (for themselves). In a nut shell, if you don't bend the rules so far as to get noticed, odds are favorable that nothing will ever come from it. That said, a misunderstanding of the rules and operating in a manner that consistently draws attention (and pisses a lot of people off), you might get a knock on the door one day. ("might") Don't worry about the details, operate in a manner that doesn't piss people off, and at the end of the day, nobody cares. As Randy says in his videos, they are 'rules' and not 'Laws' and, (the extremely few) people who have ever had their proverbial wrists slapped, are the morons who do (consistently) piss people off. ?

Agreed, but being ambiguous about your meaning before 'people figure you out', can lead to some heated exchanges. Texting is an imperfect medium and without clear indicators in the message, and/or knowledge of the person writing can again, lead to misunderstanding. Just Saying...

I'm getting the impression (in this thread and others in the forum overall) that many have only read the 'highlights' of Part 95 and/or, people read only until they find what appears to bolster their 'position', yet failing to read the complete document where a given sub-section might correct/clarify a point of debate. In addition to the main Part 95 document, there are within the main document, various references/pointers to other sections found both in the main document and, other (external) sections of the CFRs (outside of Part 95, but relevant to Part 95). All of which paint a pretty clear picture of what is, and is not, possible and/or legal. None of it is 'rocket science'. However, it (admittedly) isn't necessarily easy to understand. The point is, a good understanding Part 95 as a whole, really makes some of these 'conversations' mute/unnecessary. Just my opinion...

No, not anybody at all! LOL!

Dunno, the KG-1000M, like the KG-1000G, is a nice radio but seriously overkill (IMHO) for MURS. Very expensive 2W radio.

I was sort of forced to into using a glass mount due to the design of my Ford Edge (with panoramic sunroof) which has almost no usable metal on it (where using a through hole or magnetic mount is concerned). Since I don't need a dual band antenna, I went with the Tram 1187 (450-470) mounted on a rear quarter window. So far it is working as well as any antenna I've used mounted to a vehicle body. However, due to it's non-center location on the vehicle, it is slightly directional, noticeable when operating in fringe coverage.

I'd also add that because there is not 'user authority' in GMRS (A good thing IMHO), and I've said this previously on this subject, one can designate any channel or frequency as a 'road channel'. However, that designation is meaningless without 'buy in', meaning that unless the majority of users 'adopt the idea' and, conform to it (as in actually using it), such a designation is again, meaningless. Seems to me that the closest thing to 'buying into the idea' of a standardized channel/frequency use in GMRS, has been the Off Road enthusiasts who, among their users, have agreements on what channel/frequency to use.

I don't think even ham radio is completely dictated by "elected leaders". Yes, there are regional band plans and 'gentlemen agreements', but short of causing interference, the only 'dictating authority' (and I use that term loosely) is the FCC. Additionally, and as @MichaelLAX commented, "GMRS communities are nothing like Ham ones: they serve two distinct purposes, with some overlap". Quite frankly, I doubt that the majority of GMRS users would even want to emulate Amateur radio operations. Some might even find the suggestion offensive. Just sayin...

OK, this is not intended as a 'stupid question', but are you sure you are connecting the duplexer correctly? By that I mean do you have the RX connected to the higher frequency and the TX to the lower?? I can get 600 yards on a dummy load! Even a mistuned duplexer (unless extremely mistuned), connected properly, will do better than a dummy load. Have you tested your cables?

A further check/search (by grid square) shows a few clubs in the area http://arrl.com/find-a-club