What was your LEAST favorite radio for GMRS you wasted money buying?

[Lscott]

This should get some interesting responses. People talk about their first radio or their favorite one. In this case which one you disliked the most you wasted money buying? This could be more useful for newbies.

[SteveShannon]

I haven’t disliked any of them.  Each one taught me something and I still own them all.

[BoxCar]

For as limited as they are, my BF-888s are still in use.

[MichaelLAX]

Do what I did:

Send them to @lougasp61to use at his New Jersey Homeless organization.

Non-Profit Needs HT donations

[WRTY502]

Well I just got my license and purchased a Baofeng UV9G and haven't made any contacts yet so I guess I still like this radio.

[OffRoaderX]

35 minutes ago, WRTY502 said:

...haven't made any contacts yet...

yah... About that......

[marcspaz]

53 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

yah... About that......

 

Hahahaha

[PACNWComms]

Bought the DB-20G mobile with a GM-30 handheld combo.....that GM-30 is the one wish I had not spent money on. It is a decent radio, but already having considerably better radios, to include those also made in China (Anyton 878) as well as Motorola, Harris, and other radios made in the United States (some Motorola is still made in Chicago, as is Harris), that GM-30 is a little too basic for my likes. 

I gave it away to a neighbor that wanted to get into GMRS, and seems to like it a lot. So, all was not lost. My issue with it was that it was only UHF, just did not fit my larger hands well, and had very tinny audio. Neighbor uses it, but has also bought nicer and more expensive radios since. 

[WRAM370]

The Midland MXT-275 is my submission for the “wasted money” category.

First off, I will admit that it is entirely my fault. I had no idea anyone made a GMRS narrowband-only radio, so for failing to look at the FCC data prior to buying was my bad. 

I pre-ordered the MXT-275 in July of 2018, when Midland was taking pre-orders, thinking this was going to be the perfect radio for my wife’s car, making it as easy as possible for her to use a radio to access our repeater. When I finally got the radio, the audio was practically non-existent. Not only due to the narrowband audio, but also because the initial run of mics were F’ed. There were people reporting this at the time, but there was no public acknowledgement from Midland about the issue.

Midland did send me a new mic (they knew it was F’ed), which did provide “better” audio, but the narrowband audio of the radio made it basically unusable on our repeater. I even programmed a second channel on the repeater in narrowband, to see if we could run this way, but it was too much of a PITA, as the other users were wideband. I replaced the 275 with a used Motorola CM200 in her car. The /\/\ radio cost less than the Midland, and life without Midland radios has been just peachy.

I just sold the MXT-275 for $20 at a hamfest, just to get rid of it. If you feel sorry for me for taking such a loss, I will set up a GoFundMe account that you could contribute to, to help make me whole again.

 Midland. I personally despise the company, the MXT275, and what they have done to GMRS. But that’s just me.

[bobthetj03]

I'm not so much a Midland hater per say, but I'd say I was a little disappointed with my MXT-275 as well. I didn't have any real problems with it until I realized it was stuck in narrow band, and that it could not do split tones (I had the pre-c port version). One of our best repeaters in my area used DCS split tones, so that was a bummer. As I became more involved with GMRS, I quickly outgrew the radio and wanted more features, so I sold it to a fellow jeeper that just wanted a radio for simplex coms. 

[Lscott]

On 9/4/2022 at 5:41 PM, BoxCar said:

For as limited as they are, my BF-888s are still in use.

I don’t like the one I have. It was a freebie. Had nothing but problems trying to program it. Half the time or more the communications between the PC and radio fails so you can’t reprogram the radio. After a few tries I tossed it in a storage bin. Haven’t touched in a couple of years.

[wayoverthere]

1 hour ago, bobthetj03 said:

I'm not so much a Midland hater per say, but I'd say I was a little disappointed with my MXT-275 as well. I didn't have any real problems with it until I realized it was stuck in narrow band, and that it could not do split tones (I had the pre-c port version). One of our best repeaters in my area used DCS split tones, so that was a bummer. As I became more involved with GMRS, I quickly outgrew the radio and wanted more features, so I sold it to a fellow jeeper that just wanted a radio for simplex coms. 

I won't call it money wasted, like another poster did, more a cost of learning. I look at it similar to Bob...They all served a purpose, from the gxt handhelds, mxt115, onwards...i just wanted more than they offer, and didn't do enough research before diving in.

I will give the gxt's the nod for least favorite for how limited they are, though. No repeaters, all narrowband, no removable antenna, and the tone<>code scheme Midland uses.

[KAF6045]

13 hours ago, wayoverthere said:

I will give the gxt's the nod for least favorite for how limited they are, though. No repeaters, all narrowband, no removable antenna, and the tone<>code scheme Midland uses.

Other than the third power level on my ancient (way pre-2017 reorganization, at the time sold as FRS/GMRS) GXT-1050, the units would qualify as FRS-only these days. That third power level exceeds the 2W limit on the new FRS regulations (it is not stated in the manual, but one review from 2016 states 5W); that is the only thing that makes it qualify as GMRS these days. The Rev H PDF manual only states that it is GMRS based upon channels (old FRS only had access to interstitials, not the GMRS 8 main channels) -- but this manual calls the former 0.5W-only "8-14" interstitials as GMRS channels -- they only became available to GMRS with the 2017 reorganization. New versions are sold AS GMRS (but they still include the call alert tones -- pity the industry couldn't standardize on a short digital tone burst to identify a call alert, and have the actual alert tone generated by the RECEIVING unit, not sent as audio).

I have a pair of Motorola units (about as ancient, one has a fault that if the battery is not fully charged, unit is high power, pressing PTT triggers a power-cycle reset). While these have the <2W high power, they also have repeater mode -- and that forces them into the GMRS category. Other than that, they are also NFM.

As for fixed antennas, that was the requirement for equipment sold with an FRS tag, including the FRS/GMRS mixed class at the time they were designed.

If it means anything, the Retevis RA-85 (obtained as part of their summer RT97 [old model, maybe close-out] sale) also has a fixed antenna -- even though it looks very much like an SMA rubber duck (they even molded a 180 degree raised guard lip on the outside edge of the radio body). (I had trouble getting it to accept programming with the downloaded RA85 programmer, complained, and was sent a link for the RA685Plus programmer -- used for the VHF/UHF Amateur model. That worked on the RA85 AND opened it to 128 channel slots, not the 60 slots of the RA85 programmer). The RA-85 pair, and now my BTech GMRS-v1 and -v2, are on the shelf, waiting for an occasion where the spread out family may come together (and hence under my aegis for using my call-sign, and maybe the RT97 repeater) -- a KG935 is my current prime HT.

[wayoverthere]

3 hours ago, KAF6045 said:

I have a pair of Motorola units (about as ancient, one has a fault that if the battery is not fully charged, unit is high power, pressing PTT triggers a power-cycle reset). While these have the <2W high power, they also have repeater mode -- and that forces them into the GMRS category. Other than that, they are also NFM.

I was cleaning this weekend and stumbled on an older set of uniden ecotrek FRS radios. The fcc id isnt even showing in the OET database now

[Ian]

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=retevis+rt-76p&t=osx&ia=web

 

Retevis RT-76p.  Never worked right, and updating the firmware just gave me a new and different set of bugs.

[jnr0104]

So far anything made by B-tech.  When new they are fine, but none I have had lasted very long without problems 

[Lscott]

44 minutes ago, jnr0104 said:

So far anything made by B-tech.  When new they are fine, but none I have had lasted very long without problems 

I have one of the tri-band HT's. I dropped it on the cement floor once at a Twin Peaks while out with the guys. The audio got buggered up. I opened the radio to see if the speaker wires broke, nope. I did get it replaced under warranty but wasn't impressed with the durability. I use it now in a office setting as a cheap scanner. I won't buy another one, seems way too fragile.