Out of the box...Garmin or DeLorme? in GPS technology and devices Posted June 13, 2009 · Edited June 13, 2009 by Vashuers Well, I have both. I use the PN-40 and my wife uses the Oregon. The differences as I see them are these. The PN-40 is more accurate specially in the woods. Not more accurate by much, but 10-15 feet in heavy woods is a big deal when looking for a hidden cache. The PN-40 will zoom in further with is very helpfull. It will zoom into 10ft level as the Oregon will zoom to the 20ft level. This does make a diffence when you are close to GZ and don't know what direction to move to get closer. The PN-40 is more sturdy. I have dropped it several times 10ft on concreat and it took it like a champ. I can't even imagine what would of happened to the Oregan. Using cabs battery, the battery times in both are about the same. Being able to charge the battery while it is still in the unit (PN-40) is nice. Now the Oregon is much easier to use. Has the wow factor. You can hand it to a newby and they can pick up on it very quickly. The Oregon poorly lit screen is not a factor for me. It really is not that bad. It would not keep me from buying one. This to me is where the biggest difference is between the two. It is a LOT easier to put caches on the Oregon. A lot. The PN-40 will only hole 1000 caches and must have a plugin or program to add caches. That is a big deal when you live in an area that has a lot of caches. The Oregon will hold 2000 and you can put an unlimited of caches as POI,s. This is done by just dropping the file on the gps, not software needed. I can load a total of 6500 caches on it in less than 45 seconds. In other words you can load it up with 2000 caches and then load you whole database on top of that and they are all on them. Now you can;t log them if they are a poi, but you still get all descriptions and logs. The PN-40 can't come close to that. Now some will say that with the TOPO software that comes with the PN-40 you can do some map layering and such to make it work. It is complicated and time consuming. Like I said, I can load the Oregon in less than 45 sec. For me, if they ever get the Oregon as accurate as the PN-40 I am jumping ship. It will be a no brainier then. It is very frustrating when I am caching and we get out of the PN-40 foot print of caches and my wife is having to feed me coordinates so I can play also. If everything you says is accurate, and I will assume it is, I am buying the PN-40. Mostly because of the accuracy in heavy cover--where I usually find myself--and the ability to take a hit, which I find happens when hiking through said heavy cover. While I dig caching, I am not even in the same hemisphere with having to need more than 1000 caches in my GPS. I actually use caching more to find cool spots than actually log caches, though I usually find them and at least say hi or leave something silly if I remember to take something. Anyway, add the TOPO and satellite imaging and I am sold. I use my GPS for tracking where I hike as much if not more so than for caches. What you say about PN-40 embodies everything I have ever wanted in a GPS. I am stoked to try it!! As to the road map thing, yea I guess that is a bummer, but close is usually good enough. I still own maps, believe it or not.