Minelab GPZ 7000 Depth Tests And Charts - Looking Back

[Jonathan Porter]

When I first started testing the prototype GPZ 7000s I and also Minelab had no idea of what it was going to actually do in the field. We all knew the technology was punching in deep but it really was an open book on how it would actually stack up on proven ground, especially ground that had seen the attention of a lot of different detectors with a plethora of different coil sizes and shapes for over 20 years now!

The first thing I discovered with the GPZ was even though we knew it was getting better depth than anything that had ever come before, the gold had to actually be there for the detector to be able to provide a depth advantage!!! No one actually knows how much gold is still laying in the ground and to honest I don't want to know, part of the thrill and romance of detecting is being surprised when a nugget pops out when you least expect it and then the potential that nugget implies to what else might be lurking under the ground.

For me the GPZ has been a constant string of pleasant surprises as nugget after nugget has come out of favourite proven areas, far too many to be just mere pimped up suggestions of anecdotal evidence. Don't get me wrong I truly want to believe the GPZ is BETTER than anything that has ever come before, that's why we have all bought into the GPZ isn't it? Because that's the ever hopeful prospector in us!

In my not too short amount of time spent with the GPZ, including detecting in Victoria which has some of the most swung over ground in the world, I still clearly see daily evidence that the GPZ is outclassing everything else I'd ever used before. Sometimes its on par with the 5K, but I love the wireless cordless freedom of the Zed, sometimes its slightly better than the 5K but not by much and in some cases it definitely makes more ground noise than the 5K especially if salt is present, but the thing is at present if I want to compare the 5 K to the Zed I have to be constantly swapping coils all the time. For starters I never use a coil less than 11" on the 5K, NEVER! So that means I NEVER get the tiny stuff the "Sady brigade" or 8" round guys get. Also on the 5K I almost always use coils around the 18" mark which means I suffer from an insane amount of EMI and Sferic noise, so quite often have to down tools and give it a miss in the summer months, not so with the GPZ!

With the GPZ 7000 I'm finding gold I would normally get with the 5K using an 11" coil, I am also finding gold I would not have got because I refuse to go smaller on the 5k, at the same time I'm finding gold that the 5K won't even go near in the sub 8 gram mark (or the SDC for that matter) because the High Yield/Difficult mode is simply amazing on those gold sizes. Then finally I'm matching and in a lot of cases surpassing the 5K with an 18" or 20" mono attached, this is all with the ONE COIL SIZE!

That's why I use the GPZ, I get incredible sensitivity to small gold which is my bread and butter or the indicator that leads to a patch, I also get brilliant depth on the money makers which is the multi gram stuff and finally if there is a 2+ ounce slug at 2+ feet I'm going to slam it just as well if not better than I ever did with my 5K with half the interference and sferic noise without ever once having to change coils.

I love the GPZ 7000, its simple to use, its adjustable, its cable free and it just purrs along when you know how best to drive it. My only hate is the weight, 1 kilo lighter would be so much better!

JP

[AUddicted]

My only hate is the weight, 1 kilo lighter would be so much better!

 

JP

 

But, would you be willing to add even more weight (ie: a larger coil) for increased performance?

 

 I know I would... I'm willing to suffer for the thrill of more, smaller and/ or deeper gold.

[cobill]

I agree with JP on how great the GPZ is compared to the numerous choices required to maximize GPX 5000 performance!

 

My only request is a smaller coil for the numerous tight search areas that are covered with boulders and heavy brush...the GPZ coil is too big for those areas.  So ML or CT or NF, if your reading this, give us a couple of coil choices for the amazing GPZ and we'll all be happy! 

  =

 

Happy New Year,

 

Bill

[Steve Herschbach]

But, would you be willing to add even more weight (ie: a larger coil) for increased performance?

 

 I know I would... I'm willing to suffer for the thrill of more, smaller and/ or deeper gold.

Early on in discussions with Minelab about the weight of the GPZ I complained mightily. I figure we have to keep beating that ergonomics drum no matter what. But when it got down to it I told them that they could put small spikes inside the armrest. I would be in constant pain and bleeding all over the place, but if it meant getting better performance I would do it. I think that pretty much sums up the situation for a lot of us, and the people who truly are wanting those big nuggets down deeper (if they exist) are really wanting that larger coil, no matter what it adds in weight.

I admit personally to more wanting the smaller coil for working in and around sagebrush and large rocks. Being able to get GPZ power into locations where only less powerful machines with smaller coils have gone before would likely get me more gold than a larger coil. I do still think the SDC has the tiniest of edges still for both small gold plus easier pinpointing, both together making it attractive still compared to a GPZ. Both are directly related to the smaller coil on the SDC. I believe a smaller coil on the GPZ would not only equal but exceed the SDC for sheer tiny gold sensitivity.

But I am willing to give the Aussies their due and acknowledge their need for a large coil probably exceeds my need for a small coil so it is ok with me if they get their wish first.

[Norvic]

This Ozie is all for a smaller coil, and I believe that if a vote was held in OZ it`d be for a smaller coil first. However I`d go for the smaller coil only if there was a substantial weight reduction, which from my understanding cannot be achieved as yet.  The 14" is a sweet general purpose size but a wee too large for searching in rocky creeks. I know the 14" will get a 2 ouncer at 3 foot clearly, how deep would a 20" coil get it?

 

Crikey, ML show some compassion for us loyal old codgers.

[Gold Hound]

This ozzy is hanging for a larger coil and once I get it will probably hardly ever use the 14!

I would swing an anvil if it would find me more GOLD!

The Zed has revolutionized our detecting we have completely changed our modus operandi to best use the strengths of the Zed and regularly clean up in our old area's

I don't think I would bother with a smaller coil as the 14 is already so sensitive and depth on larger gold is of more importance to me than cleaning up tiny Speck's.

[Peteren]

Can agree with Goldhound on this.

I have a patch that produced lumps up to 15gms at 18" with a 24" UFO on a 2200 in its day that have not produced anything with a 5000.

This ground is currently locked up but a large coil on the 7 should see some nice results

[auminesweeper]

The shape size and density of a Target gives the 40% thing applies to all metal detectors Where the 7000 comes in to its own it that it can do it all day every day and not by relying on perfect conditions, I have detected a place one day and found a few bits and then I have gridded the place again a day later and found stuff way beyond the depth normally possible, Where as the 7000 appears to do this most of the time which are the results we all want to have,

The 40% Depth in crease is only a small part of what the ZED can do when you consider the fact it can see many types of Gold including those that were only Visible to VLF machines and when you think about it That is the difference in finding Gold or NO Gold at All as many folks find when using just a PI or using a VLF that is loosing depth due to the mineralization, Any of it's traits are off set by it's productivity.

john