BigGameHoundsmen.com

I have read that the 320 has better range, a bigger screen, more scratch resistant, and you can get satelite imagry. I havnt been arround one so I was wondering if they have all that and are better than the 220, why do they cost the same as the 220? It seems to me if they were better and they are the same price, Garmin wouldnt be able to sell the 220. I have three 220's and was thinking of getting a 320 but would like to hear some in put from people that have both.

Frank give me a call one afternoon. I have been around both setups. The 320 is superior for sure. I just would stick to the basic functions and forget that satellite imaging. The range is about the same, the screen is about the same, but the big upgrade is the processing speed for moving maps and updating dogs positions.

Ferjr- A lot of what you have read is wrong, or misinterpreted.

The screen size is the same. Range is pretty much the same. The glass may be scratch resistant, but due to design is prone to scratching. The raised bevel on it causes this.

Yes, they cost the same roughly on the market. but If I recall correct the MSRP is about $50 higher. Does not matter much as they do not sell for that. Some folks though do not want change so will still purchase the 220 if they can.

The birdseye is the biggest thing guys will be able to notice. Which to me is a must have! Processing speed some may notice some may not. But this has made the unit far superior. It is also why some may think that the range is better from it. The 320 interprets the signal better. Both will recieve and show the same signal strength. But at the lower levels the 320 processes the info better. So at one bar both units will have a lock on the dogs. But the 220 might show a ? , instead of a dog icon. Still tracking but showing the results differently. I really like being able to see the dog distance on the map screen as well.

One big change that I do not like at all. One that many may not have noticed. Is that in the 320 they went to the company standard for saving tracks. Which is by leg. As compared to the 220 where you could pick a start and end right on the map. Now from the unit it is a real pain. Better off to do it on the computer.

Thanks for the info Steve.

I'm with Steve on that one...the birdseye may be a pain in the ass to download, but well worth it. Many trails, water, etc that you can find in unfamiliar territory that don't show up on the maps.