General coverage: VHF vs UHF

[chrismol1]

I see a lot of radios for cheap that could be useful for me but there UHF. I want VHF for outdoors as I hear that its better.
So is there a HUGE difference between the signals absorption into the woodlands?

 

[mciupa]

Are we speaking of transmitting or receiving ?

 

[chrismol1]

Are we speaking of transmitting or receiving ?

I know that UHF has its clarity on recieveing, so i guess this is mostly transmitting

 

[Paulsan]

I believe mciupa is asking what you want to do. Are you listening or do you want to transmit and receive?

 

[chrismol1]

I believe mciupa is asking what you want to do. Are you listening or do you want to transmit and receive?

both, mostly via HT in a suburban/rural area. I wanted to find an old VHF mobile but there hard to find unlike UHF mobiles. But that means that my portables would have to be UHF. but I want to know which would be better. I hear that UHF absorbes a lot more .

 

[kb2vxa]

Generally speaking VHF would better suit your purpose but first you need a license to transmit. All things including license considered your best bet would be MURS but that's UHF, there's always a compromise.

 

[loumaag]

Generally speaking VHF would better suit your purpose but first you need a license to transmit. All things including license considered your best bet would be MURS but that's UHF, there's always a compromise.

Uh, no.
MURS is VHF, see here:
http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Multi-Use_Radio_Service

License free FRS is UHF.

 

[Highlander_821]

MURS is also license free, or rather, license by rule.

 

[chrismol1]

MURS is also license free, or rather, license by rule.

true.
What i'm asking is. Is it really worth it to go with UHF OR should I keep on to VHF?
WILL UHF KILL my coverage verses VHF?
As UHF has 3 cycles and asbosrbes more foliage than VHF
sometimes I wish there was a 10 watt HT somewhere, problem solved

 

[kb2vxa]

Thanks Lou, I was thinking GMRS and typed MURS.