[Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!

Wed Oct 22 21:12:46 EDT 2025

I remember reading that it was procedure to pull radio equipment after
a mission and replace it with a fresh checked unit to avoid comm
problems due to tube failure because of vibration. That and B29s high
losses make for a lot of radios 

Jon AB9AH
"I have always preferred diversions to duties; this strange taste has
clung to me all through my life." Clarence Darrow

	-----------------------------------------From: "Jim Whartenby via
Milsurplus" 
To: "milsurplus at mailman.qth.net"
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday October 21 2025 2:12:19PM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!

   According to: 
[1]https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/Short-Wave-UK/00s/SWM-2001-05.pdf#search=%22glenn%20miller%22
[2] page23, There were 129,000 BC-348 were made during WW2. That is a
lot more then I guessed! The article contains test data from May,
2001with performance that is perhaps not as good as more modern
receivers but still pretty respectable for AM reception. Jim 

    Logic: Method used to arrive at the wrong conclusion, with
confidence. Murphy     

     On Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 12:59:16 PM CDT, Ray Fantini via
Milsurplus  wrote:   

	Maybe it has to do with total production? Possibly more BC-342/312
were produced and were more available? And there is a big weight and
size difference in favor of the BC-348. But the BC-342 did come with a
AC power supply and was ready to use without modification. 

	Anecdotally would also speculate more of the BC-312/342 receivers
were dumped on the surplus market being by the end of WW2 they were
already obsolete with new receivers entering military service like the
51J and R-388 products that were needed to support teletype making all
that WW2 stuff go away. Oddly the BC-348/ART-13 (ARC-8)combination
survived longer in military service seeing use in B-29 and later B-36
along with a bunch of transport and cargo aircraft that maybe not as
many were dumped into the surplus market as the obsolete BC-342/312
and that can also account for cost difference.  

	 I don’t think technical specifications had anything to do with it.
By 48/49 Hallicrafters and National were selling receivers that way
exceed anything you would get with a BC-348 or 342 so serious Hams
were buying things like SX-71 or Nationals HRO -5A/C or 7 with the war
surplus going to the bottom end market for entry level Hams and SWL
users. The HRO-5TA1 was up for sale as soon as 1946 for $217, think
that would be like buying a Icom 7800 transceiver today. Lot of money
but everyone knows at least one or two Hams who have to have the best!

	The GRR-5 is more interesting. Think the thing there is the battel
that started early in WW2 between AM and FM for tactical
communications on the battlefield. I would think by the end of WW2 the
battel was over and FM was clearly the winner, no heterodynes, clean
good quality audio and excellent short range communications. But the
Army did proceed with developing contracts for things like the
AN/GRC-9 for HF/AM tactical communications and later sets like the
AN/GRC-19 both systems served well into the sixties. That along with
things like Broadcast nets where general orders or otherwise one way
communications can take place were perceived as having some value. The
British PCR receivers were a good example of that. I somehow see the
GRR-5 and PCR in some way related in there use? And like the PCR
cannot see the GRR-5 having any real value as a CW receiver or
otherwise but as a network monitoring receiver for things like time
information it had its place. GRR-5 receivers were mounted in
operations and teletype centers for years beyond any of the other
radios like the R-392 and T-195 were in service. Least that’s my
speculation, the GRR-5 was part of the great GRC-19 generation, where
as the GRC-19 configuration survived a little longer in military
service because it was capable of running teletype the GRR-5 had
little reason to be around as long. 

	Least that’s my speculation, let’s see where I am right or wrong.

	Ray F/KA3EKH 

	FROM: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net  ON BEHALF OF Hubert Miller
SENT: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:05 AM
TO: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
SUBJECT: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348   

	I see in old magazine ads the BC-348 sold consistently for around $10
over the BC-342 price. 

	What accounts for this difference, do you think ? 

	That the BC-348 was lighter ? More “attractive” looking ? 

	The selectivity on the BC-342 had to be better. 

	The “old style” crystal filter on the older models BC-224 and
-348 look to me smarter than either 

	the BC-342/ 344 or the later models BC-348, but of course at 915 kcs.
it’s about twice as wide as 

	at 470 kcs. 

	-Hue Miller    
______________________________________________________________
 Milsurplus mailing list
 Home:  [3]http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus [4]
 Help:  [5]http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm [6]
 Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

 This list hosted by:  [7]http://www.qsl.net [8]
 Please help support this email list: 
[9]http://www.qsl.net/donate.html [10]    

Links:
------
[1]
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/Short-Wave-UK/00s/SWM-2001-05.pdf#search=%22glenn%20miller%22
[2]
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/Short-Wave-UK/00s/SWM-2001-05.pdf#search=%22glenn%20miller%22
[3] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
[4] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
[5] http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
[6] http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
[7] http://www.qsl.net
[8] http://www.qsl.net
[9] http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
[10] http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251023/ead67e13/attachment.html>