Jump to content

How Does The 15x12'' Equinox Coil Compare To The 15'' Coiltek Coil?


Recommended Posts

I found my only silver dollar with the  15'' wot coil on my explorer.It was 10  '' down   but sounded like a 5'' zinc penny  except  it hit in the upper right hand corner of the screen in  ferrous.It was a solid hit at that depth with that coil.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I spent a few hours yesterday with some Mano a Mano testing on the ML15 and the CT15.  

Disclaimer:  This is what I observed in my testing, my ground, my occasional surmising, and feedback from the targets I marked.  Your results will most definitely vary.  I am not a scientist, nor an engineer... just a guy trying to find the best way to use the equipment I have.  I am also not trying to speak poorly of either coil - as both have merits.

I ran both coils with the exact setup - including noise cancel setting (it took me a few times to get the same setting though they were pretty close between the two) and pumping for the ground balance on the first coil - resulting in 0, then ensuring same on subsequent coils.  Park 1, 50 tones, Horseshoe, Recovery 6, F2=6, Sensitivity 20.  

I marked 10 targets with the ML, then followed the same path with the CT and marked any additional tones.  Then went through the process again starting with the CT and followed the same path with the ML marking any additional targets.  Targets ranged in depth, wanting to better understand the VID comparison at varying depths as well as the sheer depth from each coil. 

Unfortunately, nothing spectacular for the virtual finds table (I guess I need to tag along with Gerry to his silver fields :)), but I wasn't expecting anything but some results I could use on other locations.

Without diving into the details of each dig, what I found was:

  • Both coils have similar depth in my ground, which is also to say - neither coil is deeper than the other - at least in the targets I tested.  I found the audio feedback to be very similar on deep targets.  One specific target was a piece of smashed copper tubing that was 15" deep (I'm lucky this ground was conducive to digging), and gave me a similar faint-ish signal bouncing between 17 and 20 on both coils - (quarter for size reference):
  • 20210426_103221.thumb.jpg.0a3372ebb4fa0496bd9d66076103f050.jpg

 

  • I mentioned this in my earlier post - I am finding it more difficult to pinpoint the CT coil, as I don't think the hot spot is centered on the coil.. more testing needed.  But using the wiggle back method works, as long as there are no other targets under the coil (which is 3" wider than the ML obviously), especially on the deeper, more faint targets.  I have some initial ideas on how to approach pinpointing with the CT, having swept over the ML targets with it... but again, I need to do more testing to verify my thoughts.

 

  • ID's are somewhat equal on each coil with one exception noted - the CT coil seems to false on rusty iron more than the ML.  Again, this was one test run, however in my test method listed above, I found 4 additional targets with the CT following the same ML path... all were repeatable (one way... which is the fall back to keep from digging iron I understand) and ended up being bent nails when dug - and this was in F2=6... if I was running F2=0, this may have been a different story - more testing needed.  When I started with the CT on fresh targets, the ML didn't find any additional targets, and 3 of the CT targets ID'd as iron with the ML.  One wheat seemed to hit a little harder on the ML (9"), but I was going by memory, and the swing path was most likely slightly off... so difficult to tell.  Both coils gave me the "dig" tone and id.

 

  • It should not go without mentioning (again) the weight of the CT coil is noticeably heavier than the ML.  I will most likely feel the effects of that if I were to spend a long day detecting with the CT.  I am also interested to see what it feels like in the water - hopefully a trip to the beach soon to test it out.  

So, my first test I was able to target a range of coins and trash at depths between 4" and 9" (plus the one dig down to 15"), both coils accurately ID'd the non-ferrous targets (I recovered several clad coins and a host of copper pennies - including 4 wheats, no silver on this hunt, several ring pulls and square tabs, along with some aluminum trash and 3 or 4 .22 brass casings). 

Again, one hunt, one guy, non-scientific, my opinions.  For my own edification, I will want to continue testing at different locations before I determine if there are any advantages for one over the other.  As I led out with - there are most likely merits on both - just want to identify where each of them fit in my hunting. 

~Tim

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Tiftaaft said:

I spent a few hours yesterday with some Mano a Mano testing on the ML15 and the CT15.

Excellent writeup, Tim.  I like the disclaimer (which, IMO, applies to everyone who does detector and accessory comparisons of any kind.)

When you flagged targets with each coil before following up to see what the other coil showed, did you only flag targets which showed (exclusively) non-ferrous tones?  If so, did either coil find a non-ferrous target that the other 'thought' was clearly ferrous?

I was curious about how the extra weight of the Coiltek Nox 15 would feel.  Obviously the impact will vary from one detectorist to another, but sounds like you clearly noticed it.  FWIW, I took the ML 12"x15" out for a 3 hour hunt yesterday.  I haven't used that coil much and at least one time in the past I thought that the weight was oppressive, but yesterday (on flat ground with fairly uniform length grass -- especially important) it didn't really bother me.  When leaving I took it across a slope and then it was quite noticeable.  Obviously everyone has his/her discomfort threshold for coil and detector weight, and in my case it seems to vary with time, and not in just one direction.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's an excellent test of large coils ...... Tim..👍:wink:

Which explains a lot ... I think both coils are quite similar in detection .. according to me 15 "Coiltek can have an edge on many larger objects ... maybe in buckle size ...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

When you flagged targets with each coil before following up with to see what the other coil showed, did you only flag targets which showed (exclusively) non-ferrous tones?  If so, did either coil find a non-ferrous target that the other 'thought' was clearly ferrous?

Thanks GBA.  I only targeted non-ferrous on this test... but good comment, marking targets on the ferrous side of the scale is another telling test.  I think that would be a good test running F2=0 as well.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, EL NINO77 said:

it's an excellent test of large coils ...... Tim..👍:wink:

Which explains a lot ... I think both coils are quite similar in detection .. according to me 15 "Coiltek can have an edge on many larger objects ... maybe in buckle size ...

Thanks El Nino!  For future tests and hunts I will try to get more adept at running my GoPro.  Interesting thought on larger items... I'll pay attention to that when I have them out again.  ~Tim.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tiftaaft said:

I only targeted non-ferrous on this test... but good comment testing on the ferrous side of the scale is another telling test.

I actually wasn't suggesting you dig purely ferrous sounding targets (but it's your time :biggrin:).  If I understood your post, three targets that the Coiltek 15" round indicated having non-ferrous possibilities but that the Eqx 12"x15" showed ferrous only tones all turned out to be ferrous.  If so, could that be either due to coil control or pinpointing accuracy (related properties)?  And did the extra weight of the Coiltek contribute to those (in a negative way)?  Three targets is a very small sample so I'm not suggesting we put much stock in these data.  More testing (and not just by you) will hopefully either clarify and possibly even refute.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

I actually wasn't suggesting you dig purely ferrous sounding targets (but it's your time :biggrin:).  If I understood your post, three targets that the Coiltek 15" round indicated having non-ferrous possibilities but that the Eqx 12"x15" showed ferrous only tones all turned out to be ferrous.  If so, could that be either due to coil control or pinpointing accuracy (related properties)?  And did the extra weight of the Coiltek contribute to those (in a negative way)?  Three targets is a very small sample so I'm not suggesting we put much stock in these data.  More testing (and not just by you) will hopefully either clarify and possibly even refute.

Hey, sometimes a day of digging iron is what the ground gives you! (I have the rusty horseshoe and railroad spike from last week to prove it) 😄  

I agree, the sample size is too small to use as empirical data.  I hope I am wrong (most likely I am) as falsing on iron probably was well vetted by the CT team.

I was thinking that throwing in a few deep iron signals on each "pass" could identify how each coil treats a deep non-ferrous item is a good suggestion you made, especially if one ID'd as ferrous and the other as non-ferrous or vice-versa.  Of course there are always the variables of approach angle, swing angle, swing speed, and other man-made (at least this man) inconsistencies from one path to the next.  I will say that I have spent a lot of time (probably at least half of my total swing time) with the ML15 on the 800 since purchasing it... I know that machine and coil as well as any I have.  The CT "feels" different... just trying to figure out how to use that to my advantage.  👍

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tiftaaft said:

I spent a few hours yesterday with some Mano a Mano testing on the ML15 and the CT15

Thanks a million for the excellent feedback Tim.. I really appreciate it.. As I said I've been hesitating on buying the CT but from what you and others are reporting I get the feeling that it could provide a depth advantage, especially on the beach.. This is ultimately what I'm after on a patch I've called the 'Silver Mine' where the ML is getting as deep as it can possibly go and there could be more silver coins lurking below.. Again, thank you for your help in making up my mind..   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • By relicmeister
      I sold an essentially new 9” hf coil to a guy who tells me after first use that it won’t stay connected to the remote. Does anyone know what the problem could be? He also says it should have come with a charger but I’ve bought several XP coils and they don’t come with a charger. I’m going to suggest he re-enter the coil serial number and give the coil a full charge. Coil was perfect for me. 
    • By Kaolin washer
      I have been detecting an old home site. I started out with my ORX and the x35 9" coil it found alot of targets, and then kinda went quite, so i grabbed the Tarsacci, with its 12" coal and the ground let up again , and in the one spot the east yard it to went silent, but what gagged me was i was digging down 14 inchesand doing what i call a frontabout 3ft wide and just detecting the dirt i was throwing out of the hole and using a magnet to pull out the iron and going over the dirt again but now i was using the Mackro racer with the 5" coil to do this and it was pulling out lots of non iron targets this way but what caught me off gard was when i went out side of the hole and just for the heck of it started scanning the surface the other two detectors had gone over , i started getting hits, pulling up more shotgun shells and other non iron targets , so the 5" Racer coil was doing somthing the other two could not do . it was getting in between the metal and at a good 6 "  , this took me back because i figured  no way it would do so well but it did and is ,
    • By Al F
      I’m looking for an after market COIL SUPPORT for a COILTEK 10X5 EQUINOX coil…. I just finally bit the bullet and found one…. I’d like to put a coil support on this coil to hopefully not break the tabs too soon on it…. Does anyone know where a coil support for this coil can be obtained ? ? ?………thanks …..Al
    • By Luis
      as I already put in another post, I just bought a second-hand gpx 5000.  It comes with the comander 11 DD and 11Mono coils.  I would like if it is possible for a colleague to recommend a coil to complement the ones it brings.  Its use would be to search for coins.  I've been looking at the detech 15 inch DD ultra sensing.  If anyone has used it, what can you tell me about it?
    • By w.j.mccrary
      I am 80 and having problems trying to figure out the difference between COR'S coils and Nel coils.Looking at a 9.5" x 5" d.d. coil for my F-70,seems the Nel coils are harder to find ,but the Cor's are easy to find.Rumor says two brothers own both coils companies is this right?🙂
    • By The_Stalker
      After reading all items available I am confused.  It's probably just me so I apologize if this is a dumb question.  In soil that has low mineralization which coil will go deeper and is more suitable, a DD coil or a mono coil of equal size?  Or in low mineralization does it not matter if you use a DD or a mono coil?
       
      Bill
×
×
  • Create New...