The statements by James are true. However, different GPS receivers handle things a tiny bit differently and I have never used a Fortrex 301.
When most GPS receivers have to store a user waypoint, they do it with their own internal machine numbers, and that may not have any similarity to the user's coordinate system or datum. By the same token, when that user waypoint is called up again, it gets converted into whatever coordinate system and datum is currently selected by the user. So, you can store in one datum and read in another datum without loss of all accuracy. Keep in mind that there is not a perfect correlator between one datum and another, but they are pretty close. The word "close" is hereby undefined.
One problem that I've seen with this over the last seventeen years or so has to do with the underlying map. The oldest GPS receivers did not have any internal map data, so they didn't have this problem. Once they started holding the internal map database, many had problems of error in that database. Maybe one area would be correct and the next area would have an error of two hundred meters. Especially with the sloppy map database in the era while Selective Availability was in effect, the user never got enough absolute accuracy to know whether it was GPS accuracy or map accuracy that made things confusing. Lots of map databases simply had no indicated or implied map datum at all (like WGS84 or NAD27). Just to make things additionally sloppy, the Earth's surface is sliding a bit. This is especially evident in places along the San Andreas Fault in California, so error is creeping in all the time.
Anytime that I start to wonder how accurately any of my own GPS receivers are working, I go to one benchmark that is within one mile of my home. There is an online listing of these reference points by USGS. I have three receivers, so I take turns placing them down on top of the benchmark, letting them "soak" for five minutes or so, and then I compare the numbers. If I repeat the same steps a year later, I get slightly different numbers, although not by much.
–B.G.–