[UK-CONTEST] CQ WW 160M CW

[John G3LZQ]

I put in a few hours over the weekend and
initially I thought M7T as I tuned across
doing (S&P)  something said in my muddled
brain can't be!
BUT I had to listen twice..I have a good
memory for callsign partials as I do a lot of
S&P to sharpen my brainbox..and as Fred
comments wont be easy.
.
Slightly different story we (East Yorks
Group) have had M2D since short calls arrived
and it took a long time to get away from
..IMI and request repeats..
However once you get into the master database
it should become somewhat easier..
Hope it does not sound too negative..

73

John G3LZQ

-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On
Behalf Of Steve GW4BLE
Sent: 31 January 2011 17:42
To: 'Fred Handscombe'; 'David G3YYD';
UK-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] CQ WW 160M CW


Yes indeed, as a casual participant on 160 at
the weekend it confused me!
Not sure if it was M6T or M7T I worked ;-)

I'm sure that's why you had so many queries.

73

Steve
GW4BLE



-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Fred Handscombe
Sent: 31 January 2011 17:18
To: David G3YYD; UK-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] CQ WW 160M CW

Hello David

I was very surprised to see you chose M7T
when you announced the call here
some weeks back.

People are so used to working M 6 T that they
will find it hard to be sure
it is not really M6T, especially those who
rely on SCP databases

I think you will have problems for some time
to come, more so when M6T is
also active.  Maybe not on RTTY.

I think another less well known, near
combination would have been better but

it was your choice.

GL

73 Fred
A65BD - sometime 10m op at M6T


----- Original Message -----
From: "David G3YYD" <g3yyd at btinternet.com>
To: <UK-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:05 PM
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] CQ WW 160M CW


>
> Due to various other commitments I was only
able to do the last couple
> of hours.
>
> One thing I found was using a short contest
call, M7T, that about 15% of
> the people I called could not get their
head round a call that is only 3
> characters long. They felt that letters
were missing even after they had
> copied the M7T perfectly. Lots of M7T? even
after a double repeat. I
> found turning the keyer down to 18 WPM from
usual 27 to 30 WPM got the
> point across - I did this after I had
previously sent R 5NN14 in reply
> to there M7T? 5NNZZ.
>
> I note that England is one of very few
countries that has a prefix
> enabling use of a 3 character call. Most
countries minimum call length
> is 4 as per the other UK countries.
>
> I am seriously wondering if it is just as
"good" to use my normal call
> rather than an SCC. Or may be I should have
gone for a GnX call rather
> than a MnX call. I would like to know what
others have experienced in
> this regard.
>
> I suspect a better alternative for England
would be a GnXX call but you
> need to know the right people as well as
being very persuasive to get
> one of those.
>
> I would welcome comments from others
experience of using a 3 character
> or a 4 character call.
>
> 73 David G3YYD
>
_____________________________________________
__
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/
uk-contest
>

_____________________________________________
__
UK-Contest mailing list
UK-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/
uk-contest

_____________________________________________
__
UK-Contest mailing list
UK-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/
uk-contest