[Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 65 BC 348 H Fixed

Thu Oct 23 05:40:55 EDT 2025

 Found the problem with the distorted audio when the CW oscillator is turned on. apparently the previous owner had done some work and removed one leg of the gimmick that comes off of the CW oscillator and never put it back. As soon as I restored that wrap around the line, coming from the CW oscillator, the audio cleared right up.MikeW1ZFB
    On Wednesday, October 22, 2025 at 03:52:50 PM EDT, milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:   

 Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
    milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
    milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258,    Issue 63 Ray Fantini BC 348
      (Mike Christie)
  2. Re: BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348 and the GRR-5 too! (Ray Fantini)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 19:00:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mike Christie <mzfb at aol.com>
To: "milsurplus at mailman.qth.net" <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258,    Issue 63 Ray
    Fantini BC 348
Message-ID: <1043706677.5805111.1761159639872 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 RayI have several BC 348 that I've work on and currently work on BC 348 H model with everything original to include the Dynamotor. I'm in the process of recapping it but I have issue with the BFO, it is working but has alot audio distortion out to the speaker. Audio and IF are good and its sounds great on AM just on sideband its rough. My 348 Q sounds great on sideband and I have a BC 312 which also sounds good on sideband using the BFO I've changed the cap in the oscillator can but no change. Got any Ideas?Mike W1ZFB    On Wednesday, October 22, 2025 at 02:02:02 PM EDT, milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:  

 Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
??? milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
??? http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
??? milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
??? milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."

Today's Topics:

? 1. NCB Attack Net. (Charlie L.)
? 2. BC-342 / 344? vs? BC-348 and the GRR-5 too! (Ray Fantini)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 13:00:51 -0400
From: "Charlie L." <mjcal79 at gmail.com>
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] NCB Attack Net.
Message-ID:
??? <CA+d3itbbnSWiwCMr6dMvW6Bn3LmxaGJkBASBU+mPhLW4t2ZiMA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Did ABC officially get changed to NCB?

Charlie in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/462cf07e/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 17:59:54 +0000
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
To: Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com>, "Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net"
??? <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344? vs? BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
Message-ID:
??? <DM8P220MB047279FF7C82178AA046FE05B8F3A at DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
??? 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Cannot make intelligent speculation on production numbers but being the BC-342/312 and its evil twin sister the 314 had to be produced in equal or higher numbers being it was the stock receiver with a number of vehicular mounted sets and field use sets for ground communications for a long time.
I can say for a fact that in the past several years I have had many people express interest and want to buy BC-348 receivers and no one want BC-342/312 receivers.? I can get $100 to $200 for a clean front panel working BC-348 receiver and would have to work to get $100 for the 342 if at all.

Attached is a picture of a bunch of BC-348 receivers going acrost the bench.

Ray F/KA3EKH

From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Hubert Miller
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 5:05 PM
To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Cc: ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!

I had no idea the 348 was produced in such numbers. That explains why you ALWAYS see them on Ebay. ( I remember around 1981 in Seattle, at 'Amateur Radio Supply', a NIB unused BC-348 for $125. That was too rich for me then, but - - somebody bought it. )

If supply vs demand simply applies, the 342/ 344 should have been priced higher. It was not. So there are other factors. The front panel on the 348 is alu, so it's a lot easier to add controls, meter and so on. Some opinions are, it looks better too.

I seem to recall speaking with someone at G&G NYC long ago. The person said they were reimporting them from France and restoring HFO wiring from dual diversity to independent use. I think France used them into the 1960s. I spoke with G&G must have been, 1973. I ordered one 348 and one 342, but nothing, zero transpired and many months later i got a letter asking if i still wanted to place the order, which i did not. Perhaps this was the, or a, period when the owner was out ill.

About this time i got an ARR-15, which was an overlaul and came in a large cardboard barrel. It had been a MARS giveaway. Unfortunately, i semi hacked it. I was pretty ignorant. Still am, i guess, but about different areas now, like eschatology.

I had one of the France BC-342. Was noteworthy because a front panel marking altho English, was misspelled "DIAL LINGHT".? I recall seeing surplus 342 but not 348 offered in French radio magazines from early 1970s.

The latest 348 manual i have is TM 11-6920, 1955, and it's just the J, N, P manual reprinted.

The 342 was certainly used in Korea War and i'm sure i have a photo or 2.

I did not set out at all to gather 348s but i have the BC-224-A and also an R-849 which is K.W. and has the squelch box on top for K.W. radio jeep use with ART-13.

I prefer the early no - LF band models. The LF band is useless to me and i like the slightly better bandspread.

Steve Bartkowski many years ago told me he saw a 348 where the LF band had been rewound to tune our AM broadcast band. I don't understand how that could be, without some screeching mess happening.
-Hue Miller

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/73ecdcea/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bc348.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2178945 bytes
Desc: bc348.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/73ecdcea/attachment.jpg>

------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 63
*******************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/508b2bd2/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 19:52:18 +0000
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
To: Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com>, "Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net"
    <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
Message-ID:
    <DM8P220MB04728DFC13EDDADDD500E540B8F3A at DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I buy at Ham fest, would never try to get a reasonable price from Hams at a Ham fest.  Online sales, collectors and people who want clean working examples are where its at. Between Hamvention and other sales I pick up BC-348 carcasses for $5 to $20 and have bought clean radios anywhere from $40 to $100
If you are trying to sell your clean, or restored military radios at Ham fest  your in for a disappointment in today?s world of Bofang using appliance operating Hams. Better off selling here, or at some of the events where military vehicle or radio people gather.
As far as the Bay goes I just did a search on completed sales for BC-348 receivers and they range in price from $300 down to $125 for clean examples and hacked or poor examples  going from $250 down to $76 and that?s not including shipping.

I am not in this to buy and sell, just like rebuilding using and dealing with this stuff. Lost and spent way more money then I will ever get back but so what. Have been having fun along the way. Think if someone were to look at this stuff as a investment that may be an issue.
But what do I know!

Ray F/KA3EKH

From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Hubert Miller
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 2:59 PM
To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!

The 312 and 344 seem to have been  produced in less numbers than the 224 and 348, if you just judge by remaining numbers. Unless a whole lot of the ground receivers went "somewhere".

I have never ever seen a 224 - 348 rec sell for $200. I would say way south of $100 for sure, at a hamfair swap out here on the Left Coast. Maybe on Ebay.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/73cd8d8d/attachment.html>

------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 65
*******************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251023/73f5514e/attachment-0001.html>