[UK-CONTEST] CQ WW 160M CW

[Stewart GM4AFF]

David,
I have made the decision to always use my full call (GM4AFF) in 160m
contests for a few years now, and I'm probably going to go with it in other
contests in the future more often. The reason? Well, three reasons. The
number of times I get through a pile-up because the DX station hears the FF,
which he then queries, which of course I'm still sending while you three and
four letter call guys have all gone back to receive. This really is a major
factor. The other reason is because I was caught out last year when I had to
'qualify' to get a personal short call. All my major activity had been under
a club short call, and wasn't credited to me. Whether I found this
ridiculous or not didn't matter, I still had a problem. And then I didn't
get my first choice of contest callsign because the one I want is lying
somewhere unused, but issued. Thirdly, I believe that my call is unusual
enough to be copied by the better ops because they don't need to hear all if
it to do a check-partial in their own heads and get it. I do this so others
must too (probably better).
Your choice of M7T is, as others have said, a bit too close to M6T. But I
would also say that M7T on CW goes against the natural rhythm. It's nice on
SSB with Mike Seven Tango though. Personally (and this is my own view) on CW
I believe that a character which ends in a dah should be followed by a
character which starts with a dit to provide maximum intelligibility.
However, any call which starts with an M is on an uphill struggle right away
because it 'could' be a G for more than one reason (on CW).
Just my 2p worth.
73
Stewart
GM4AFF

-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of David G3YYD
Sent: 31 January 2011 17:46
To: UK-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] CQ WW 160M CW


Thanks Fred and Dave for your comments. At the time I was not aware that
M6T was such an active call. I did work M6T yesterday evening. There is
also another contester who is very active in some contests TM7T, which
is even more likely to produce a match in peoples minds.

Overall probably made an error in choosing that particular call. Oh well
one lives and learns. I have also been reflecting on whether a GnX would
be even better choice as most serious contesters are G prefix although I
note M0 activity is on the up as the years progress.

More comments are solicited.

73 David

On 31/01/2011 17:18, Fred Handscombe wrote:
> 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