Need input; GPS 60csx or Oregon 400t

[+dnhyoung]

I need some input from the experienced people on here. I am looking at both the Garmin GPS60CSx and the Oregon 400t. I am really unsure of which of these 2 units to invest in for geocaching. I tried a friends magellan triton 400 and found it very clunky, and user unfriendly. I ave looked at both of the above mention GPS units, but without actual hands on experience it is difficult to make a positive decision. I don't have the money to just go and buy several uits to find the one I like, and would like to be able to make a quality purchase the first time.

 

Thanks for your input,

dnhyoung1987

Dan

[+GeoBlank]

Feedback and a deal...

 

I had a 76CSx and now have the 400t. The 76 and 60 are almost identical so my experiences are valid.

 

I loved my 76CSx and really had more features there than I used. I now have more features... However I really do like the 400t. The trail notes are nice and it is easier to do paperless caching with the 400t. I did however used to have all of Washington synced on my 76 and now on the 400t I think I can at max have 2000 caches. That just means I need to plan a bit better when I go on a trip.

 

I puchsed the turn by turn maps and car kits for both of them as I use those more than the topo maps.

 

My 76 felt a bit more trail stable and I had no worried about the screen when I was out and about. The 400t makes me a little nervous.

 

Feedback on the 400t that I have found to be true and a bit of a downer is how dark the screen is. I never used to use the backlight on my 76 and I use it often on the 400t.

 

I have a 76CSx for sale... with car kit (mount, 12vdc) and full North America detail maps. It also has a belt carrying case! I can make you a heck of a deal

[knowschad]

My opinion, based on once owning a Colorado 400t:

 

I would much rather have the solid accuracy and reliability of the 60CSx that I now own than the fancy bells and whistles but sloppy accuracy and reliability of the Colorado. The Oregon is, from what I've read, quite a bit better than the Colorado, but I will stand by my 60

[+Chewy_06]

Can't speak to the 400t (other than the fact that I looked at it briefly). Went with a 60Cx (my watch has an altimiter and a compass in it anyway and I pull down cache pages for the ones we can't make quick finds on from the web with my phone) & we love it. There's really very little that we're left wanting (ok, maybe a dozen or so more characters for the cache notes, but, it's a small gripe).

 

I tried out a Magellan Explorist 510 first, it was on sale for $129 CAD at Canadian Tire. After two completely fruitless cache searches I got fed up with it & took it back and sprang for the 60Cx. Sister-in-law has a eTrex HC & wishes she'd spent the extra money to get the same one we have.

 

I'm sure that there will be others who have hands on experience with both.

[jkettu]

I bought Oregon 300 and used it for a month. Then I traded it for a 60Csx, taking about $100 loss in the process. I'm happy now. 'Nuff said.

[+Jeep4two]

I'd have to recommend the Oregon 400t for several reasons.

 

Accuracy on the 400t with the current beta firmware is great. I won't say it's on par with a 60Csx but it's excellent in my experience for finding and hiding caches. Ok, Ok - if you just went to my profile (or thought about it) you know I have only one hide. While that's true, I've talked to every finder (albeit only 6 or so) and they all said the coords were right on - and all were experienced cachers (more so than myself).

 

The feature set of the Oregon are great: Touchscreen, easy to navigate menus (that are customizable), flexibility for maps loaded (no longer limited to 3 maps on the unit, and 2 on the sd card), waypoint averaging included (as on the 60csx), good readiblity on the screen (even though some are critical, I can't find any reason to complain), and good support for software/firmware from Garmin. There are more reasons that I think this is a good all around unit but the key word here is 'all around'.

 

I don't think anyone here will dispute that the 60Csx with the SIRF chipset is better when it comes to accuracy but I don't personally feel it's so much better to forgo the options (bells and whistles) of the Oregon.

 

My $0.02 - YMMV, but you'll have to pry my Oregon from my cold dead hands - and even then I think I can get by with my Nuvi and Legend in the after life.

 

Good luck and once you make a decision remember that it's the thrill of the hunt not so much the technology in your hand that makes the journey so great.

[+Eagle93]

I'll add my recommendation for the Oregon 400t. I've owned one for about 3 months now and have found 90 caches and hidden 4 so far. I've found the accuracy of the 400t to be very good, even in heavily wooded environments. Of the 90 caches I've founded on 2 or 3 were off by more than 20 feet of where the 400t said GZ should be. Granted that when I got mine I immediately updated to the latest beta (2.92 at the time) and am currently running 3.01 beta and love it.

 

The touchscreen interface is extremely easy to learn and use and you can completely customize the menu order for each profile. Speaking of profiles that is another awesome feature. I set mine to automotive and use City Navigator to get close to the cache, than switch to geocaching mode which automatically switches to the TOPO maps and leads me to the cache. If I'm familiar with an area I sometimes leave it in recreational profile the whole time which works well also.