View Single Post
Old 05-02-2021, 10:02 AM   #1
DSettahr's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,240
Is multi-band technology worth spending an extra $100 on for a recreational GPS?

I've been using older-generation GPS units for years without complaint. However, I'm also starting to feel extremely limited by the storage space (or lack thereof) on older GPS models- 1,000 points and 25 routes isn't cutting it anymore. So I'm in the market for a new GPS with modern-day storage abilities.

One model I've been looking at is the Garmin GPSMAP 66 series. This seems to be roughly equivalent to the InReach but without the satellite messaging ability (although there is an option to add that). There's 2 specific models I'm looking at- the 66SR, which has multi-band technology, and the 66S, which does not.

For waypoints, multi-band technology seems to be not worth the price- I can just set the GPS down and let it average points for a few minutes to get a waypoint that is accurate enough for my purposes.

But for tracks, averaging of points is a non-starter for obvious reasons. I do like to record tracks and I would like for those tracks to be fairly accurate. I have noticed in the past that tracks recorded on older GPS units aren't great in some spots where there can be interference. Can anyone here comment from experience on whether the multi-band technology really makes a different in producing more accurate tracks?

Another consideration- the 66SR comes with a built in rechargeable battery, while the 66S takes AA batteries. Obviously, the built in battery might not last for longer trips (I'm often out for 5 days at a time), but I usually carry a USB charger on longer trips anyways. It would be nice also to cut down on the number of disposable batteries I go through as well.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote