BH Pioneer 202 vs Tesoro Cibola - Unbelievable

[pjoenss]

Hi All,
Formerly, was a Tesoro Cibola (actually, mod. with manual GB added) user. Not any more. On a whim, I borrowed a "toy" Bounty Hunter Pioneer 202 just to compare the two. The results were unbelievable!
The Pioneer 202 is slightly deeper (air test) than the Cibola and is actually more sensitive at slower sweep speeds than the Tesoro! Also, the RECOVERY SPEED is FASTER! The BH will detect a penny placed three inches from a pull tab (the tab being discriminated out) with the standard coil. The Tesoro blanks out at this distance. Also, the BH gives a more pleasant and repeatable signal at its extreme range whereas the Tesoro gets "choppy". The only advantage the Cibola has, is it appears to be sturdier built.
Now, my question: I am very astounded and impressed by the 202. I am going to purchase either a 202, 505 or Land Star. Is the 505 deeper than the 202? Any suggestions are appreciated.
Perry

 

[BH_Landstar_]

Get a Discovery 3300, you will not regret it. Below are my finds with a Legacy 3300 which is the same unit, these finds are Feb / March of this year.

 

[ricstone]

My wife uses a 202 an she stays up or ahead of my Ace 250. I see nothing wrong with it an don't understand why they are so looked over. She really likes hers.
ric

 

[BH_Landstar_]

... and some more pics. All items found using a Legacy 3300.

 

[pjoenss]

Hello again,
I really appreciate your responses. Regarding my first post, in addion to the comparison between the two detectors, the 202, with its manual BG, also will go AS DEEP in the Ga. red clay as my modified Cibola. I mean, this is ridiculous. I am going to try to find a used one of each, and will investigate the 3300 as well.
Thanks again,
Perry

 

[BH_Landstar_]

Perry,

Take a look at this link

>Review 3300<

 

[pjoenss]

Thanks BH Landstar, I will. My last post was mean to read: "....the 202, with its AUTOMATIC ground balance, will go as deep in the Ga. red clay as the mod. Cibola....:
Perry

 

[GoGoGopher]

For red clay, I recommend a machine with a manual ground Balance such as the Land Star...Not sure if the Discovery has GB...

 

[BH_Landstar_]

For red clay, I recommend a machine with a manual ground Balance such as the Land Star...Not sure if the Discovery has GB...

The 3300 has manual ground balance just as the Land Star does. The 3300 unit looks better and with the VDI numbers like that of the F4 by Fisher.

 

[pjoenss]

Hi all,
I agree that I'd like manual GB capability, and the 3300 sure sounds like the better deal. Landstar, what is the depth on a penny, air test, slow seep, with disc. on bottle cap? The 202 is a solid 7 inches. also, how about recovery speed? Thanks,
Perry

 

[BH_Landstar_]

Hi Perry,

The recovery time on the 3300 is about the same as that of the Land Star. Air test on the penny is about 8 - 9" and the same with a dime. In the ground I have found pennies at 10" as well as dimes, nickles and quarters at 7 - 14", the silver ring in the picture above was at 8" in a ball field.

Most of my finds have been in the 1 - 10" range. When I compared the Land Star and the 3300 head to head, the 3300 won outright with it's features, and the pinpoint mode was spot on all the time.
It can detect a soda / beer can 12 - 18" deep, and works well on the beach in dry and wet sand. Also, when you scan over a coin, you know it with the tone that it gives off, it's a sharp ping tone, more so on the dimes and quarters. It took some time to learn how it works, you have to put the time in to know the unit and the tones (that can be said for any detector as well), the the best feature was the numbers on the VDU, it gives you an idea of the target and 99% of the time it's spot on whether its a dime or a quarter or a penny. The silver ring came in as a dime (92 on the VDU).

I also use rechargeable 9v batteries in the 3300 (it eats batteries) and get around 10 - 14 hours out of them depending on the settings which is plenty of time each day, I've saved money here with this route. The 3300 is very sensitive, I don't use it at full sensitivity only at 3 bars or 4 on the scale.

You also have the option to notch out or in 7 of the id ranges, so, you could notch out the 3 iron sections, and the PT (pull tabs), or 2 iron ranges and PT etc.

Due to all these facts and features, I sold the Land Star because of the way the 3300 performed.

Hope this helps.

Also check out the link below.

>Sale<

 

[pjoenss]

Landstar,
I really appreciate your comprehensive yet detailed response. I also appreciate very much the link you provided. I am glad I decided to join the forum.
I will definitely consider the 3300.
Thanks again,
Perry
ps I found, yesterday, in a "hunted out" schoolyard, a 1900 indian head penny with the "toy" 202. Not bad for a toy....

 

[Gene]

You keep doing that with your "toy" and the other guys wont
want to come out to play with you. Nice going !
Thanks for posting this comparison too. I find it very interesting
to say the least.

 

[pjoenss]

Hi Gene,
Yes, it's simply ridiculous. I used my experience with the 202 as an excuse to buy my girlfriend one (138.00 bucks new -- I had to return my borrowed 202 today and I just have to have one)!
I am still going to try and get a good deal on either a 505 or 3300, however. Boy, has this been a surprise for me.
In reality, its really kind of depressing, bc I've always bought detectors based on written reviews, and I never would have considered a 202 based on this. Go figure....

 

[Gene]

Yeah, I have heard a lot of good things about the 202 for a long time.
Also the Quickdraw II which I believe is the same detector.
Must be a very good machine for the money. Guess you would agree
with that. Glad you made this comparison test. I, for one, was glad to
see it. Maybe I should get one too. You sure have got me thinking.
Good hunting to you !

 

[pjoenss]

Thanks Gene.
I am thinking seriously about making a YouTube video of the 202 when mine arrives. Actually, I think it would be great if the major manufacturers (e.g. KellyCo) would do this with their products. Much better than a written review, in my opinion. Anyway, I was thinking along of the lines of showing various air tests and also demonstrating the recovery speed time (placing pull tabs, iron, etc., various inches from a coin to show how fast the dectector recovers, using various sweep speeds. This may familiarize someone else with the 202.
Good hunting to you guys, too.
Perry
ps I wonder if the 202, like my Cibola, can be modified to accept a manual GB pot? Am going to look into this....

 

[Gene]

The You Tube video sounds good to me Perry. I sure would watch it.
Thanks for telling us about the 202 vs. Cibola. I wouldn't have believed
it if you didn't come on here telling us about it. It is just like you said -
unbelievable. Good hunting to you Perry !

 

[GRAY GHOST]

hey perry. i happen to own both machines - the pioneer 202 AND the cibola. i been running both of them for years, so i believe i'm in an excellent position to comment. there are pros and cons for both machines. here's my take on the situation:

pioneer 202: pros: most people think it's a toy - looking muffler - looking thingy on a stick that couldn't detect a silver dollar laying on top of the ground. truth is, it's a very good machine that is sensitive to about 8" deep on small targets with the 10" magnum coil. i've recovered lots of relics and a few coins with it in virginia's highly mineralized ground. it quickly paid for itself, and sometimes i still dust the ol' girl off and run her through the woods. it's the perfect machine [if you know what your're doing] that makes the minelab boys scratch their heads, wondering, "how did he just find that? i was just there." 5 year warranty is good. first texas service is excellent.

pioneer 202 cons: don't get the coil wet - the standard 7" or 10". it will false like crazy. as an early morning hunter, especially in the summer, i could never get over or around that. it always had trouble in trashy areas, too. no good separation. the coil plug likes to pop out at inconvenient times, too. the batteries go in strangely too - opposite. i felt the 7" coil wasn't doing the job, so i got the 10" and got an extra 2" in depth - and more weight. tid jumps around on stable targets.

cibola pros: it's like waving a feather, it's so light. goes deeper than the pioneer 202 without having to buy another coil, and is a more stable machine. once you learn the cibola's subtle differences in the one tone, you'll do very well. separates trash easily and has a quick return. it's a good ol' beep and dig machine. one nine volt battery lasts forever. lifetime warranty is excellent.

cibola cons: does well in most areas, but with the built in ground balance being overwhelmed in very hot spots, there is a reduction in depth and stability. it takes a good while to learn the subtle changes in tone that can't be taught.

all in all, both machines are very good - it all comes down to a matter of preference. i still believe the 200 bucks i spent on my 202 was the best 200 bucks i ever spent for a machine. there's just no denying that. however, the cibola has the edge on the 202 in terms of stability, weight, depth, increased finds, and consequently, bragging rights.

it's seldom a good idea to mess with the factory settings on a good machine, voiding a lifetime warranty in the process. why not spend an extra 200 bucks and get the tejon, [a veritable ground beast] like i did?! as a thirty year man in this great hobby, i've never been swayed to jump on this uncertain bandwagon - the results often go awry by "modding" your machine.

 

[pjoenss]

I appreciate your thoughts on this. Even though I get "battery good" beeps on my Cibola when turned on, I am going to insert a new battery today and more comparison. Perhaps it is, as you suggest, that my Cibola performs sub-standard due to its modification (though this particular model and brand is prob. the most modded detector in the word -- they're even doing it with regards to this particular model over in Europe. I've never read of any problems). Even so I see the logic of your reasoning. I've owned Whites (6000Di), BH (Red Baron), Tesoro (Bandito and Cibola) and now the BH 202. For me, and in summary, the results I've obtained and the performance I've experienced (Cibola) just never correlated with the glowing reports I've always read about Tesoro Brands. Again, perhaps it is just me, and/or a damaged machine.
I got my new BH 202 a couple of days ago. Air tests a penny, very repeatable and solid, very slow motion at 6 inches. Every time. With a very fast, unrealistic swipe, I can get 8 inches ( I see folks (YouTube) demonstrating air depth by quickly "swiping" coins I think to myself that that is NOT accurate bc there is now way someone is going to swing a detector that fast and anyway, I doubt there is a detector out there with a recovery speed fast enough that would respond so quickly after discriminating junk to respond to a good item moving at that speed.
Last and important, I think my report of the recovery speed of the 202 was exaggerated. I estimated (3 inches) and shouldn't have done that. In any subsequent posts by me, I wont "estimate" again. I don't know if it is a difference of machines (the other 202 was borrowed), but my 202 does not seem as "sharp" as the one I was using, regarding the recovery speed. I am going to use a yardstick today and place a penny various inches between tabs and report an accurate value later on. I'll also do this with my Cibola. Then I'll shut up about it (except that I still plan to make a video comparing and contrasting the two).
I appreciate the input.
Perry
p.s. Maybe I'm just not a "Tesoro" person, as I never really enoyed the Bandito, either. Had much more fun and success with the Whites brand detectors.

 

[pjoenss]

Hi all,
I'll be brief. With new batteries in each detector, I did further tests on the two detectors - 202 and modded Cibola (no ground tests, dont have the time at present).
Again, the 202 gives a solid, repeatable sharp ping at 6 inches on a penny. The Cibola beats it by no more than 1 inch. This is using approximately the same "swipe" speed of my hand. The Cibola is sometimes "choppy" at this range. I've noticed the 202 is never choppy. You either hear a ping or you dont. Personally, I like not wondering if I "should have dug or not".
As mention in my last post, I certainly did misjudge the recovery speed of the 202. Here is the methodology of my testing the two detectors: Placed a yardstick on a wooden deck. Simply placed a copper penny on a spot, say the 12 inch mark, and placed a pull tab on one side, a bottle cap on the other, varying the distances of each junk item, in whole inch increments, from the penny. I then swept the coil - in a strait line, paralleling the yardstick - completely over all three items, and observed. I did this until I was confident that the results of any particular test were fairly accurate.
In a nutshell, at slow sweep speed, the Cibola beat the 202 by an inch on either side (e.g. the Cibola gave fairly constant, repeatable signals with the trash items 4 inches on either side. The 202 would do this at 5 inches. Now, my main concern was using the detectors objectively, the same coil height above target and same sweep speed, and I think the results are fairly accurate of my two detectors (can't say how someone elses' may respond!)
I agree with Gray Ghost that you definitely get more detector for you money with the 202. I also think that if one has a personal liking for one detector over the other, then he will find more with that particular detector, even though it may not be widely considered by most as the "better" detector.
My conclusions from this episode? I've used the Cibola for a year. I've used the 202 for 2 weeks. If I had my choice of one, price not and issue, I'd still pick a 202 (it just works for ME better, I believe). I can plant a penny in the Ga. red clay and get a solid signal every time at 5 inches. Thats about the same as the Cibola, with less chatter. I still conclude, from my tests, that the vaunted recovery speed of the Cibola, though slighly better than the "toy", does not correlate with the hype this receives. The 202 is definitely lighter than the Cibola (more plastic and less metal, I guess). Finally, I do not think the Cibola is defective in any way, due to the mod or otherwise (It MAY very well be, but I would guess that any malfunction would present more blantant than a slight decrease in depth or increase in recovery time).
Anyway, the 202 is for my GF. I am through with the Cibola and am considering a BH505, Discovery 3300, or a Fisher F2. I have appreciated all comments on this and any further comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Perry