Nagoya NA-701g vs NA-771g

[dosw]

I have a Nagoya NA-701G, and a Nagoya NA-771G. I just wanted to point out some observations about the two.

 

The setup:

    Antenna -> SMA Female to PL259 Male adapter -> Surecom SW102 -> PL259 Male to SMA Male adapter -> Baofeng UV5G

The adapters don't use any cable, they're solid connectors.

 

Methodology:

Cradle hand behind the radio as I would when transmitting, select a channel, PTT and observe the SWR.

 

I tested the NA-701G and NA-771G antennas with a Baofeng UV-5G connected directly to a Surecom SW-102, connected directly to the antenna. I also tested with a stock antenna.

First test was a real world test: I drove around to a few locations within five miles of my home and tested sound quality (I was recording at home using SDR++ with an RTL-SDRv4 connected to a Comet CA2X4SR).

In each of my tests, the sound quality recorded was best with the NA-771G, with the stock Baofeng antenna in 2nd place, and the NA-701G in last place of the three. I would expect the NA-771G to outperform the stock antenna, but I would not expect the stock antenna to outperform a GMRS dedicated antenna like the NA-701G.

Next I tested the SWR with the Surecom meter and direct connections. I carefully held the radio as I would hold it when speaking; nearly vertical, hand cupped around the back of the radio, a few inches from my face.

The SWR on the NA-701G ranged between 3.0:1 and 6.0:1. These are really awful numbers for an antenna that is advertised as <1.5:1 SWR.. Then I tested with the NA-771G, and it got a nearly perfect score of between 1.0:1 and 1.03:1. Excellent. Finally I tested with the stock Baofeng antenna. It got between 1.01:1 and 1.06:1 across all GMRS frequencies.

My NA-701G and NA-771G both came in the same type of Nagoya antenna packaging. They appear to both be genuine, not knockoffs. Yet the 771G performed so well, for a handheld antenna (yes, it's quite long), and the 701G performed worse than a stock antenna.

I'm not sure if perhaps I got a defective 701. It's rather hard to make a defective rubber-duck style antenna, I think, though. So this one is probably not going to get used now that I've tested its characteristics.

On the positive side, it's about a quarter inch shorter than the stock antenna, and a lot more flexible. So the form factor is nice.

 

The real silver lining is the NA-771G. Great antenna. I also tested the NA-771G on MURS, and it maintained an SWR of 1.4:1 or 1.5:1 across the MURS frequencies.=

[Guest]

I’ve never done swr readings on either but I’ve always found the 701 to be A total waste of money.  I run 771antennas on everything I own.  They never get in the way Summer clothes, winter clothes,  dirt bikes, quads, horses, trucks, tractors on foot.  I won’t run anything else.  For the price I don’t think they can be beat.  30 plus miles simplex happens every single day and at times up to 60miles into a repeater. 

[WRUU653]

On a Baofeng I find both 701 and 771 to be an improvement over the stock antennas. I use the 701's unless I need more and the 771 is an improvement over that. I like the smaller size and I'm not usally struggling to get more.  That said I don't use my Baofeng's much now and I find the stock antennas on my other radios are pretty good. I did recently pick up a NA-320A tri band for my KG-Q10H and so far so good. 

[WRUU653]

I might add it has been said testing SWR of an HT antenna with a surecom is at best problematic. I have not bothered. I’ll let others chime in about how good the testing is. I’m one of those guys that’s happy if it works. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, WRUU653 said:

I might add it has been said testing SWR of an HT antenna with a surecom is at best problematic. I have not bothered. I’ll let others chime in about how good the testing is. I’m one of those guys that’s happy if it works. 

Totally agree swr testing is near impossible on an ht.  The best that can be gleaned is a comparison of 2 radios or antennas.  
 

I can say also that my uv9 radios with a 771g antena work better than a Motorola xts5000 with a stock antenna.   Plus they are 1/2 the weight.  We need our radios to get as many miles as possible to every little bit helps. 

[dosw]

On 8/2/2024 at 5:21 PM, WRUU653 said:

On a Baofeng I find both 701 and 771 to be an improvement over the stock antennas. I use the 701's unless I need more and the 771 is an improvement over that. I like the smaller size and I'm not usally struggling to get more.  That said I don't use my Baofeng's much now and I find the stock antennas on my other radios are pretty good. I did recently pick up a NA-320A tri band for my KG-Q10H and so far so good. 

It's possible I have a defective 701. If I touch it exactly where the whip meets the base, the SWR drops to 1.01:1. Move my finger away, and it goes back up to 6:1

[SteveShannon]

9 minutes ago, dosw said:

It's possible I have a defective 701. If I touch it exactly where the whip meets the base, the SWR drops to 1.01:1. Move my finger away, and it goes back up to 6:1

You might be able to pull the plastic shroud off to see if the capacitor has broken free from the coil internally. If so, just resolder it.

[WRYZ926]

I've tested my HT antennas using a Comet antenna analyzer. The SWR was all over the place on all of the antennas. The best results was when I held the analyzer up like I was using a HT.

I have not used any of the 701 antennas but have a few of the 771 antennas, Half are for GMRS and the others are dual band. I did notice a slight improvement when using the 771 antennas on my Baofeng and Explorer QRZ-1 (TYT UV88). The stock antennas did as good or better than the 771 on my Icom IC-T10 and Wouxun HT's.

I am sticking with the stock rubber duck antennas on all of my HT's except for my Baofeng GT-5R since I did open it up for the 1.25m/220 MHz band. I am using a tri band antenna for that.

[piggin]

On 8/2/2024 at 6:14 PM, dosw said:

I have a Nagoya NA-701G, and a Nagoya NA-771G. I just wanted to point out some observations about the two.

 

The setup:

    Antenna -> SMA Female to PL259 Male adapter -> Surecom SW102 -> PL259 Male to SMA Male adapter -> Baofeng UV5G

The adapters don't use any cable, they're solid connectors.

 

Methodology:

Cradle hand behind the radio as I would when transmitting, select a channel, PTT and observe the SWR.

 

I tested the NA-701G and NA-771G antennas with a Baofeng UV-5G connected directly to a Surecom SW-102, connected directly to the antenna. I also tested with a stock antenna.

First test was a real world test: I drove around to a few locations within five miles of my home and tested sound quality (I was recording at home using SDR++ with an RTL-SDRv4 connected to a Comet CA2X4SR).

In each of my tests, the sound quality recorded was best with the NA-771G, with the stock Baofeng antenna in 2nd place, and the NA-701G in last place of the three. I would expect the NA-771G to outperform the stock antenna, but I would not expect the stock antenna to outperform a GMRS dedicated antenna like the NA-701G.

Next I tested the SWR with the Surecom meter and direct connections. I carefully held the radio as I would hold it when speaking; nearly vertical, hand cupped around the back of the radio, a few inches from my face.

The SWR on the NA-701G ranged between 3.0:1 and 6.0:1. These are really awful numbers for an antenna that is advertised as <1.5:1 SWR.. Then I tested with the NA-771G, and it got a nearly perfect score of between 1.0:1 and 1.03:1. Excellent. Finally I tested with the stock Baofeng antenna. It got between 1.01:1 and 1.06:1 across all GMRS frequencies.

My NA-701G and NA-771G both came in the same type of Nagoya antenna packaging. They appear to both be genuine, not knockoffs. Yet the 771G performed so well, for a handheld antenna (yes, it's quite long), and the 701G performed worse than a stock antenna.

I'm not sure if perhaps I got a defective 701. It's rather hard to make a defective rubber-duck style antenna, I think, though. So this one is probably not going to get used now that I've tested its characteristics.

On the positive side, it's about a quarter inch shorter than the stock antenna, and a lot more flexible. So the form factor is nice.

 

The real silver lining is the NA-771G. Great antenna. I also tested the NA-771G on MURS, and it maintained an SWR of 1.4:1 or 1.5:1 across the MURS frequencies.=

I used a rigexpert AA-600 and mounted the antennas directly on it. I got the same results you did. The 771G is the best rubber antenna I have ever tested.

The 701 is the worst! If you get it the exact right distance to your body it works fine. For me 701 is not recommended.

771g is highly recommended. My KG-905G likes them!

[WSGF362]

Just did a quick comparison 701G to 771G, 3 different Wouxun & 1 Baofeng (all GMRS set to CH7 @ 5watt setting). QTY=4 -  771G's all came in below 1.3:1 swr, QTY=1 - 701g came in above 3.0:1 swr on all. No surprise, the 771G's listened better on all. NA-701G is going back to Amazon.

[dosw]

The 701 was nothing special when I had one. 771s are great.

[amaff]

23 minutes ago, dosw said:

The 701 was nothing special when I had one. 771s are great.

The reason I have a pile of them is that they're short and flexible and work well enough.

If we're out backpacking, I always have a Signal Stick wrapped up in my pack in case I need to get out a bit further. Depending on terrain it won't make a TON of difference, but depending on terrain it might and it weighs nothing, so it comes with. And in testing it's made a decent bit of difference in clarity when working at the edge of a handheld's performance.

[WRTC928]

I've the 701G, 771G, 701 dual-band, and 771 dual band. My unscientific observation is that the 701s were a little disappointing because for the most part, they didn't perform any better than the rubber duck. Perhaps a little better clarity in some circumstances, but that's about it. The 771s are another matter. I don't necessarily get more distance because of the terrain, but I definitely put out a signal with more authority. In areas where I'd be static-y or breaking up with a short antenna, I get through loud and clear. I'm not really sure if the GMRS-specific versions outperform the dual-band ones. I get about the same distance in ordinary use, but I haven't actually done any tests of range. I still use the 701 a lot because most of the time it will work just fine for my purpose and it's more convenient than a longer antenna. I have a little bag with a couple of different antenna options in case I want them and I usually have it in my vehicle, so I pretty much have everything covered. 

I have some Nagoya tri-band antennas on order, and I'll be interested to see how they compare to the Comet and two no-name tri-band antennas I'm currently using. My current tri-band antennas perform more like 701s than 771s on 2m, 70cm, and GMRS (in spite of their length), which shouldn't be surprising because the more things you ask an antenna to do, the less well it does each of them. There's a 1.25m repeater in Oklahoma City, and I can access it from a reasonable distance, considering that the 5RM puts out about 4-5 watts on 220, but I've never gotten anyone to answer a signal check. It works, but I guess nobody monitors it. 

[WRYZ926]

I have found that there is no one magic antenna that will work well and/or be an improvement over the stock antenna for all handheld radios.

The Nagoya and Abbree 771G antennas did make a difference with my Baofeng GMRS radios but the stock antennas on my Wouxun GMRS radios did better than the 771Gs did.

All you can do is try a few different antennas and go with what works best with your radio.

[WRUU653]

On 3/22/2025 at 4:23 PM, WSGF362 said:

Just did a quick comparison 701G to 771G, 3 different Wouxun & 1 Baofeng (all GMRS set to CH7 @ 5watt setting). QTY=4 -  771G's all came in below 1.3:1 swr, QTY=1 - 701g came in above 3.0:1 swr on all. No surprise, the 771G's listened better on all. NA-701G is going back to Amazon.

I wouldn’t put too much stock into testing SWR on HT antennas. @SteveShannon explains it better than I could in this post.

Just go with what works best for you in real world applications.