John 'n' W.Va
Active member
This site (www.staffsmetaldetectors.co.uk/) did a test on how deep detectors go. I don't know how true it is , but it was interesting reading. A little surprising too. 
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.
Site for how deep different detectors go.:twodetecting:
- Thread starter John 'n' W.Va
- Start date
Mick in Dubbo
New member
Thanks for the address John. It is an interesting read. Shame that he didn't test more Garrett's.
Mick Evans.
Mick Evans.
...Apparently. I was pleased to see the Tesoro Silver Umax near the top. I really cant say how valid any of this is, though. He tries to assure that is unbiased, etc. and I dont doubt his integrity.
But, I look at John and others who are doing surprisingly well with their Garretts. Perhaps if we detected in England more, this would matter more.
But, I look at John and others who are doing surprisingly well with their Garretts. Perhaps if we detected in England more, this would matter more.
One thing that I noticed is that the deepest detectors in the test(all minelabs) come stock with Double D coils. Garret makes DD coils for most of there machines. The DD is proven to go deeper in mineralized soil. If the Garretts in the test were using DD I bet the results would have been better for them. Just a thought.
The depth of any detector is relative to the soil it is being used in, the settings on the machine and the type and coil size being used.
Uncle Willy
New member
Yeah there are a world of variables. Nothing is chiseled in stone. There is no universal detector.
Bill
Bill
Uncle Willy
New member
Yeah no one ever mentions the difference in coils when comparing Minelab to something else, like it doesn't matter.
Bill
Bill
Uncle Willy
New member
Ran into an old friend at that site - the Newforce R-1. I field tested that for C-Scope some years ago. Quite a machine.
Bill
Bill
...I know you cant take one "test" and apply it across the board. I know of another test, somewhere, that says the Garrett 2500 is THE deepest detector.
These tests have relevance, to some degree. To what degree is the question. The hunt conditions in Middlessex, UK are vastly different that where I live.
Besides, what good would being able to find a "Schmuckatelius I" gold coin at 14" when such are hardly something to expect where I swing my detector, and never will be?
Im a boorish know-it-all much of the time, but I also know this - Im happy with what I got and Im looking forward to getting a 2500 next year.
These tests have relevance, to some degree. To what degree is the question. The hunt conditions in Middlessex, UK are vastly different that where I live.
Besides, what good would being able to find a "Schmuckatelius I" gold coin at 14" when such are hardly something to expect where I swing my detector, and never will be?
Im a boorish know-it-all much of the time, but I also know this - Im happy with what I got and Im looking forward to getting a 2500 next year.
John 'n' W.Va
Active member
It was probably skill of man against man and not the detectors. I have a friend who has a MXT and I wanted to check out his detector. I am looking to buy another detector for when I move to WV. The clay and coal lased soil gave me some problems with my ace. I also do some prospecting, with a pan and sleuth. It would be fun to use a detector. We were field testing in his yard. I was having hits he couldn't even pick up. One was an 8'+ penny. In clean soil I do hit pennies at 8". Sometimes it will hit every other time, but I will pick it up in pp.
Is it possible for the same model detector, that one could be better then the other. Like ace 250 vs. ace 250.
Is it possible for the same model detector, that one could be better then the other. Like ace 250 vs. ace 250.
The site seems a little bias toward Minelabs.I had three different Minelabs and wasn't that impressed with their performance and depth.Anyway compared to these other detectors I would challange the results,but the depth chart is irreleavant(To sell Minelabs?). Ron
I believe the tests as conducted were very relevant and honest. He's not claiming anything other than the TWO sets of depth readings he ran all in the same place at the same time, in above average mineralized soil with high and low conductive targets, at the highest allowable sensitivity w/out falsing, and reported his findings.
Some people just can't tolerate hearing anything that could be interpeted in any way as negative about something that relates to them.
How many posts do you hear" I just bought a Garrett 250 and can anybody tell me something good about it and make me feel wonderful for making such a smart choice,I'll just cuddle up here close to the computer while you stroke my balls"
I'm just sick of all the petty bickering about whose detector is getting the most depth, condeming new ones that aren't even out yet and posting other asinine crap.
The guy ran some tests, those are his results, you can make anything you want out of them but I don't think he lied.
Some people just can't tolerate hearing anything that could be interpeted in any way as negative about something that relates to them.
How many posts do you hear" I just bought a Garrett 250 and can anybody tell me something good about it and make me feel wonderful for making such a smart choice,I'll just cuddle up here close to the computer while you stroke my balls"
I'm just sick of all the petty bickering about whose detector is getting the most depth, condeming new ones that aren't even out yet and posting other asinine crap.
The guy ran some tests, those are his results, you can make anything you want out of them but I don't think he lied.
Uncle Willy
New member
Very true.
Bill
Bill
Uncle Willy
New member
Nobody said he lied so you're throwing a tantrum for nought. I've been swinging a detector for 43 years, writing about them, field testing them, so I didn't fall off a turnip wagon yesterday and I'm not easily impressed. Testing detectors in one spot means only one thing - they perform like that in that one spot. They may not do so in a different place.
Bill
Bill
I had a look at the tests and was quite amazed at some of the results posted.
The problem is that if any test is done to compare different detector capabilities, the coil size and type must be the same. If you look at some of the units, the coils being used on each machine (that are listed) vary so much, that the results posted are not an accurate representation of true depth comparisons.
The coils range from a 12" x 8" DD coil down to 8" rounds and possibly a bit smaller.
DD coils against Mono coils is an unfair test for depth tests on detectors, as this depth comparisons will vary greatly depending on the soil mineralisation conditions.
The MINELAB EXPLORER SE uses a 10.5 Inch coil as a standard, so it is unfair to compare this unit against a detector with a 8" coil. The Minelab Quattro, MINELAB SOVEREIGN GT plus some of the other Minelab units come with either a 10" or a 10.5" coil, so these depth comparisons don't stand up. Ir's like comparing a 4 cylinder car against an 8 cylinder car.
When comparing detector depths, all coils should be the same size and either all mono or DD configuration.
Just looking at two results that I know are incorrect should prove the point.
He has the Garrett Treasure Ace 250 getting more depth than the Garrett Scorpion which I know isn't correct. This is especially if you get into a bit of high mineralized ground. The Scorpion can also be ground balanced to take into account the different soil conditions which the Ace cannot. By be able to compensate for the soil, will help depth penetration.
One other major thing that has to be taken into account, is that one has to know the detector well. to get the maximum depth from it. Sometimes to much sensitivity will reduce depth and this comes with understanding each units capabilities over time.
The great number of units he has used to do depth test comparasons with, would tend to indicate that he hasn't used all these units long enough to get the best performance out of each unit.
So from this, I wouldn't read to much into the results given on this particular website, whether you think it is biased results or not.
That's just my thoughts on the matter.
Regards from Down Under.
Phil
The problem is that if any test is done to compare different detector capabilities, the coil size and type must be the same. If you look at some of the units, the coils being used on each machine (that are listed) vary so much, that the results posted are not an accurate representation of true depth comparisons.
The coils range from a 12" x 8" DD coil down to 8" rounds and possibly a bit smaller.
DD coils against Mono coils is an unfair test for depth tests on detectors, as this depth comparisons will vary greatly depending on the soil mineralisation conditions.
The MINELAB EXPLORER SE uses a 10.5 Inch coil as a standard, so it is unfair to compare this unit against a detector with a 8" coil. The Minelab Quattro, MINELAB SOVEREIGN GT plus some of the other Minelab units come with either a 10" or a 10.5" coil, so these depth comparisons don't stand up. Ir's like comparing a 4 cylinder car against an 8 cylinder car.
When comparing detector depths, all coils should be the same size and either all mono or DD configuration.
Just looking at two results that I know are incorrect should prove the point.
He has the Garrett Treasure Ace 250 getting more depth than the Garrett Scorpion which I know isn't correct. This is especially if you get into a bit of high mineralized ground. The Scorpion can also be ground balanced to take into account the different soil conditions which the Ace cannot. By be able to compensate for the soil, will help depth penetration.
One other major thing that has to be taken into account, is that one has to know the detector well. to get the maximum depth from it. Sometimes to much sensitivity will reduce depth and this comes with understanding each units capabilities over time.
The great number of units he has used to do depth test comparasons with, would tend to indicate that he hasn't used all these units long enough to get the best performance out of each unit.
So from this, I wouldn't read to much into the results given on this particular website, whether you think it is biased results or not.
That's just my thoughts on the matter.
Regards from Down Under.
Phil
Nobody said he lied so you're throwing a tantrum for nought. I've been swinging a detector for 43 years, writing about them, field testing them, so I didn't fall off a turnip wagon yesterday and I'm not easily impressed. Testing detectors in one spot means only one thing - they perform like that in that one spot. They may not do so in a different place.
Indeed.
I had my 1350 out today for a swingabout and I dug a quarter at 9" I had my Wilcox 102 that far in the hole - it has inch marks on it, in case you disnt know, so this one was measured. It sung out loud and clear, with a short belltone and it was repeatable. Some cry, "No way!" but Im here to say, "Yes, way." Would it do it in Middlesex, Middleton or Middleofnowhere? I dunno.
Read those reports all you want and infer all you want from them. But dont come here ranting and raving about bias, or lack thereof,or stroking someone balls, etc. Save that for a forum where respect and civility is not encouraged. In fact, if that is your nature, stay there.
Indeed.
I had my 1350 out today for a swingabout and I dug a quarter at 9" I had my Wilcox 102 that far in the hole - it has inch marks on it, in case you disnt know, so this one was measured. It sung out loud and clear, with a short belltone and it was repeatable. Some cry, "No way!" but Im here to say, "Yes, way." Would it do it in Middlesex, Middleton or Middleofnowhere? I dunno.
Read those reports all you want and infer all you want from them. But dont come here ranting and raving about bias, or lack thereof,or stroking someone balls, etc. Save that for a forum where respect and civility is not encouraged. In fact, if that is your nature, stay there.
Uncle Willy
New member
My how you talk to me David. You'll make me qwy. 
Did you misdirect this post or was it aimed at me.?
Bill
Did you misdirect this post or was it aimed at me.?Bill
Uncle Willy
New member
Now there is a plan. That old Deepseeker might show you a trick or two. Some of those old clubs will hold their own with the current crop. I've got a buddy who still hunts with an old Compass 77 IB ( circa 1971 ) and if one doesn't watch out he will thump you good.
One of the reasons Garrett and others have field testers all over the world is so they can get the different results from all those areas because they most definetly will be different.
Bill
One of the reasons Garrett and others have field testers all over the world is so they can get the different results from all those areas because they most definetly will be different.
Bill
Uncle Willy
New member
You hit it right on the head bud but folks tend to overlook those little discrepancies, like a 10.5 coil against an 8 inch coil. That's almost a three inch difference and 2-4 more inches in depth. The newbies and inexperienced don't see that. All they see is that difference in depth without taking in all the other deciding factors. A lot of detectors are sold with hype like that.
Bill
Bill