Tony the 1266X is probably still one of the best metal detectors.A very impressive detector they sell for top dollar for a reason too bad these other hunters don't have a clue how good.
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Fisher 1236X2 Air Test with both 5 and 8 inch coils.
- Thread starter Ron from Michigan
- Start date
r.r.warren
New member
i just bought a 1236x2 and just beginning to use it man this unit is built like a tank. i set my controls at sens 8 , disc 41/2 , vol 6-7 it takes getting use to been using the ace and by instinct i keep looking down at the meter which ain't there and the audio is so different it will take some practice but that o.k I'll keep swinging later
It's been a while since I used the unit, but as in the case of all smaller VLF coils, they tend to be a bit more responsive to smaller items.
The separation factor is better just by the nature that the small coil see's less of an area. In a trashy site, it's the one to use.
There is a 4" round coil if you can locate one, and a 7" elliptical one also.
The separation factor is better just by the nature that the small coil see's less of an area. In a trashy site, it's the one to use.
There is a 4" round coil if you can locate one, and a 7" elliptical one also.
Warren try to max your sensitivity on the 1236X thats where this unit excels in depth.I ran the 1266X through the coin garden with the 1236X The 1236x hits very close in the ground to the 1266X where it counts.Bill I have not seen any results on the seven inch coil good separation and depth?.John,seems like every time I take a break from the Sovereign the little 1236X finds a nice silver dime.
r.r.warren
New member
i don't know if u read my earlier post about when i bought the 1236x2 the control box was off center and john a kellyco replaced the upper shaft with 1 from a gold bug i guess the only difference in the shaft is the fat grip compared 2 the thin 1 that came with the 1236 is that right?
I had a Gold Bug 2 didn't really notice any diference in grips.So you're ok with the 1236x at this point?
SO, these were UNAMPLIFIED headphones for this test?
From what little I can learn, the T-wolfs had (they're out of business now) "time proven circuitry" and "up to 29dB," whatever sort of advertising crap that is.
Now, I aint knocking the headphones... Im sure they're fine. But this could be misleading to the newbie or someone who doesn't know much about those headphones, like me.
11" on a dime, with unamplified phones? As Bill says, that's impressive by any standard - I'd call it stunning for a basic beep-and-dig model. I'm glad I will be getting my own 1236 in the near future!
Thank you.
From what little I can learn, the T-wolfs had (they're out of business now) "time proven circuitry" and "up to 29dB," whatever sort of advertising crap that is.
Now, I aint knocking the headphones... Im sure they're fine. But this could be misleading to the newbie or someone who doesn't know much about those headphones, like me.
11" on a dime, with unamplified phones? As Bill says, that's impressive by any standard - I'd call it stunning for a basic beep-and-dig model. I'm glad I will be getting my own 1236 in the near future!
Thank you.
Thomas Dankowski did an article for W&ET years ago (March 1999). At the time, I was so impressed with is methods that I made a copy of that article and still refer to it from time to time. In short, he used a 5", 8" and 10.5" coil over one particular piece of ground. The larger the coil, the deeper - and older coins - he turned up.
According to him, there is little subsititue for the ability to reach deep into the detectable volume of the soil. He claims an 8" coil can detect about 1 cubic gallon of soil at one time. Now, increase to an 11" coil - - and you will be able to detect a volume equivalent to about 7 gallons of soil!! A 3" increase in diameter offers a seven-fold increase in detectable depth. It matters little what bells and whistles your intrument is equipped with, if it cannot reach into the volume of soil that holds the items you wish to find.
In his test, he used a CZ-6a with a 5" coil in a known good area near Titusville, FL. He searched a space only 95 x 110' square, from 3 separate directions.
- With the 5" coil he found only two coins from the early 1960's, at 8.5" deep. Pretty good, for a 5" coil right?
- Then he switched to the 8" and duplicated the test exactly. The coil gave him 1.5"-2" more depth reach. He recovered two more coins, both from the early 1950's.
- Finally, he used the 10.5" coil, with identical settings and search methods. He claims it gave a further 1" in depth. The results?
He recovered 17 MORE coins from 11" and one quarter from 13 inches! Also, this 11 inches or so of depth exposed coins from 1920's - a full 30 years earlier than the previous ones.
He went on to say that he then damaged the detector by accident, and so sent it to Fisher for repair. Accordingly, they "tweaked" the unit to be even more sensitive before returning it to him. Now, with that 10.5", coil he uncovered 14 further coins, at an average of 12"... nearly all from the 1890's!!
Prior to unearthing 4 of those weak but solid targets, he went over them with the 8" coil as a control measure. Guess what happened - - NOTHING. Not a blip, chatter or whisper was heard to indicate that anything was there.
He summarised by saying that a coin will sink to the level where it equals the density of the soil around it. Depending on where you live, like here in the sandy soils of SC, that can be "critically deep," to borrow his term.
I am inclined to trust Mr Dankowski and so his lesson is clear: regardless of the detector you use, make sure you have the means to take it to the extremes of depth. For the 1236-X2, that means buying the large 10.5" coil.
According to him, there is little subsititue for the ability to reach deep into the detectable volume of the soil. He claims an 8" coil can detect about 1 cubic gallon of soil at one time. Now, increase to an 11" coil - - and you will be able to detect a volume equivalent to about 7 gallons of soil!! A 3" increase in diameter offers a seven-fold increase in detectable depth. It matters little what bells and whistles your intrument is equipped with, if it cannot reach into the volume of soil that holds the items you wish to find.
In his test, he used a CZ-6a with a 5" coil in a known good area near Titusville, FL. He searched a space only 95 x 110' square, from 3 separate directions.
- With the 5" coil he found only two coins from the early 1960's, at 8.5" deep. Pretty good, for a 5" coil right?
- Then he switched to the 8" and duplicated the test exactly. The coil gave him 1.5"-2" more depth reach. He recovered two more coins, both from the early 1950's.
- Finally, he used the 10.5" coil, with identical settings and search methods. He claims it gave a further 1" in depth. The results?
He recovered 17 MORE coins from 11" and one quarter from 13 inches! Also, this 11 inches or so of depth exposed coins from 1920's - a full 30 years earlier than the previous ones.
He went on to say that he then damaged the detector by accident, and so sent it to Fisher for repair. Accordingly, they "tweaked" the unit to be even more sensitive before returning it to him. Now, with that 10.5", coil he uncovered 14 further coins, at an average of 12"... nearly all from the 1890's!!
Prior to unearthing 4 of those weak but solid targets, he went over them with the 8" coil as a control measure. Guess what happened - - NOTHING. Not a blip, chatter or whisper was heard to indicate that anything was there.
He summarised by saying that a coin will sink to the level where it equals the density of the soil around it. Depending on where you live, like here in the sandy soils of SC, that can be "critically deep," to borrow his term.
I am inclined to trust Mr Dankowski and so his lesson is clear: regardless of the detector you use, make sure you have the means to take it to the extremes of depth. For the 1236-X2, that means buying the large 10.5" coil.
tony (Orlando FL)
New member
n/t
Dave,an air test means very little in the field.The Fisher 1236X is a remarkable metal detector the 1266X will out perform its little brother by 2-3 inches via air test depending on the coin.After using the 1236X and 1266X in the field side by side in ground target depth is about the same and I would actually pref err the 1236X between these two metal detectors.The scan speed isn't a factor with depth and both will find deep silver dimes.Last season was spent using a Sovereign GT and now my main unit is an Explorer.Do I like the 1236X? yes I do.The 1236X is light well made will break down better than any unit period.Bottom line my 1236X has produced nice silver for me in the middle of thrash.
Big Red,wheres my Radio Shack??? Great to hear from you! We have a lot of hot air here from politicians.