Jump to content

Can We Stir The Pot? Minelab GPZ 7000 Still King Of Detectors In The U.S.


Recommended Posts

I just like finding gold nuggets with a metal detector and can find them with just about any detector. Don't give a rip about all the bs and look forward to banging out a few with a new GPX 6000 if they ever get here.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hey Guys & Steve,

  I have to agree with you, I have found over the last 10-15 years with the PI's, that some places they would perform beyond what I expect, while in other spots I would hit very hot bedrock that would scream, tons of hotrocks or even a lot of EMI.  There will not be one detector that will perform the best on all types of ground conditions (iron, salt and benign soil), eliminate various ironstones and hot rocks, find all the small gold, large gold, or even different types of gold.  

I have to give a lot of credit to Minelab and their advancements in detector technology through.  I can still remember hunting with the early GT series VLF detector.  I look now at the Gold Monster 1000 and think back when I was swinging the early VLF's.  I then can think about when I got one of the first Minelab SD2000's to hit US soil.  It was awesome on hot ground, hot rocks and deep targets, but kind of sucks on small gold.   

Remember when the Minelab GP Extreme came out?  I was featured in their GP Extreme ad, calling the GP Extreme at that time the King of Detectors!   Minelab placed some numbers on it, claiming it would go 18% deeper & 55% better on small gold at depth over the prior SD series.  

Now we are into the GPX series, which are great on small gold, small gold at depth, good depth on large gold and much more immune to EMI.  Then you have the GPZ 7000, which speaks for itself with superior depth ability, good EMI immunity, hot on small gold, specimens and various gold types.  

There has always been a huge amount of hype and field testing prior to a release, sometimes it really pans out, other times it just a detector with a few more bells and whistles and didn't really make a huge jump.  

To date, what I have experienced is the greatest gains was from the VLF to early PI's (SD series).  Then the next major jump for me and my finds was the GP Extreme over the prior SD series.  

Lets all hope the hype, independent field testing, what we are ready is all a fact and proves out 100%.  There could be a lot of detectors for sale, or a re-evaluation months after the release.  

I have placed my trust in what I have read, Minelab's History of detectors, so I think the Minelab GPX 6000 will be a winner like most of all the previous Minelab metal detectors.  

Take your "Tool" and knowledge to the goldfields,

Rob

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

They, and I, and JP, are honestly trying to give people guidance, suggestions, hints, that you can use to help make your own decisions. One would hope it's better than reading an ad, and seeing a number like 40%.

I know that there are a lot of folks here that really appreciate this.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first saw the "40% depth advantage over the 5000" I knew this would just describe a general trend. I absolutely believe that this number was not made up but resulted from specific tests the ML engineers were doing at this time. However,  I never thought of this number as something that is written in stone and that could be litigated in court as being true under all circumstances. Everybody who does metal detecting knows that these isolated test results don't mean much, if anything. Just like the star designation that ML gave their detectors. The message behind is the general trend that the engineers saw, nothing else. To me, the real field experience is all that matters, so what Steve has generously provided to us is so much more worth than any number, and his vast experience is all that matters to me. That being said, if one would be really anal about it, I am sure the ML engineers could reproduce their 40% claim with conditions they were originally using. But why doing this? The general sentiment and the extensive and yearlong field reports pretty much confirm the claimed advantage anyhow, albeit as a general trend only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The facts involved are many, but can be reproduced with the selection and conditions. It like the wife asking you do you like a new dress. 
If the price is right and the style OK you say yes, but if you hate it ( too dear, sh!thouse style , etc ) what do you say. The colour clashes with your hair or something. However if she does not like it features but it's cheaper than another she likes it pays to say it no good get the other one. (That way we stay in the good books and not get blamed for the bad choice). The advertiser know this behaviour and presents the good points that you want to here.

Take the link Steve gave for ML GPZ 14 & 19 inch coils. quote"For comparing actual physical coil sizes, by overlaying the 19" onto the 14"  (using an ellipse of best fit at the outer edge of the Tx and Rx windings), the plan view area of the 14” is 80,371 sq mm, and for the 19” is 157,542 sq mm, so 96% larger

This means it nearly twice the size in area. The uniformed will think that they will do twice the amount of ground area cover. But by their own figures they only get 53% and they include 2½ inches on each end of a swing the % area will also depend on the length of the swing. (That is if you use the swing length as centre of the coil) The width of the forward motion of 14" is only 73% of the 19" or 27% more forward coverage (but you will get more overhang field at reduced strength)

Quote "Minelab Note (23/11/2016): Further to the information from Phil above, the 53% additional area/coverage of the GPZ 19 coil over the GPZ 14 has been calculated by SolidWorks CAD from the combined area of the respective receive coil windings. This is shown in the diagram below:"

So as you can see figures are figures it is the way it used that matter. But real life feed back, from people who have the experience and knowledge far exceed the information in any advertising articles.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Norvic said:

gave us 40% more

 

2 hours ago, Norvic said:

Those depths on scraps are 40% better than the Z/X combo

 

2 hours ago, Norvic said:

10%+ better then the Z with ML coils,

Thanks Norvic. I am now 17.2% more likely to consider a 6000.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
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
×
×
  • Create New...