I think most of us would agree that the FRG-7 when introduced in 1976
was a respectable receiver that was capable of very good performance
with controlled drift and reasonably accurate frequency display. It
could and did allow many SWL's to catch a lot of stations and it was
good enough that a whole cottage industry popped up to offer the
inevitable improvements to a very good basic platform.

However, receiver design has improved a lot over three decades and the
FRG-7's age shows when compared to more updated designs from Yaesu,
Kenwood, etc. Still, in the hands of a competent SWL who knows the
bands and and his equipment it can be counted on to deliver a lot of
stations if the swl is willing to live without many modern features.

Like many of us, I enjoy using a receiver from years past. It's fun to
spin the knobs and dial up stations on some classic like a Kendood
R300, Yaesu FRG7, Realistic DX150B or even a National HRO500 or
Hammarlund 180. It's always fun, but after a while it becomes clear
that such receivers are also fine benchmarks from which to measure how
far receiver technology has advanced.

It proves very little in 2006 to run some kind of a plus/minus scoring
system using reams of dated statistics on an even older receiver
design. Most of us have dog-eared copies of Lichte's books, have read
the Sherwood tables and generally know all the conclusions about this
and other classic receivers by heart. It's worth repeating that a good
SWL who knows the bands and conditions and has optimized his equipment
could undoubtedly pull in a lot more stations with a FRG-7 than the
average knob-twister with his latest high-tech multi-screen digital
wunder-receiver.

By now, we know you have a lot of receivers on your collection and have
access to lots of statistical information. Instead of continually
beating up on old designs like the FRG-7 why not back off and enjoy the
old stuff for what it is and enjoy the newer stuff at the same time.