[Milsurplus] Re: BC-342...

[Kenneth G. Gordon]

Hue Miller wrote:

> My take on the 348 vs. 342:
> 
> 1. The 342 series is more selective than the 348, by virtue of the IF which is
> approx. 1/2 of the 348's.

Yup. Can connect the MUCH more common BC-453 or R-23/ARC-5 as a "Q-
5er" also, and can use common "Q-Multipliers" with it if need be too.

> 
> 2. The tuning knob action on the 342 is a bit less pleasing than on the
> 348,
> due to the vernier knob gearing creating drag on the main tuning.

My vernier knob has been replaced with an ancient knob about 3 X the 
diameter of the original one. Also, original main tuning knob is incorrect, and 
the dial lock is missing.

> 
> 3. The 342 is a little harder to work on.
> 

Yup. Also, a LOT heavier.

> 4. Most  every 342 you find has the power connector removed from the front.
> 

Ah! Mine still has that, along with the bakelite screw-on cover. Nice!

> 5. More 342's seem greasy + dusty inside ( may not be a valid point, just my
> bias )

Mine is immaculate inside. Nice!

> 
> 6. 342 has a couple accessory items which are kinda neat - dust cover and
> spare tube storage box.

Don't have those, durn it.

> 
> Another bias, but i think the MWO stamps on the front are pretty cool,
> along with the  order to READ INSTRUCTION MANUAL BEFORE OPERATING,
> and also if there's a stack of MWO stamps on the front panel, and some are
> crooked to the panel lines. How often can you buy a radio that has an
> official
> command to the user, right on the front panel, and revision numbers stamped
> right on the front, with some crooked? Who cares about "consumer appeal", this
> is a serious machine! -Hue Miller

Mine is missing the nomenclature plate. Anyone have a spare one?

Ken W7EKB