Garrett Axiom Vs Minelab 6000

[Gold Catcher]

Running in manual will avoid the auto adjustments and you always remain in full control. I often run at full manual max and only go to auto if I run into issues, kind of as my first line of defense. Both NF and Coiltek coils run more stable at full gain than the mono stock coils.  The 17 inch is great for ground coverage albeit a bit unbalanced. But still practically no sensitivity loss compared to the 11, however only with marginal depth gain IMO. Overall, a great choice for most conditions. Re new gpz, this might take a while and I won't jump the gun with the first production series, given the track record of the 6000. So, at the earliest this would be late 2024 for me for the new gpz if it were to be released late this year. The axiom is tempting and i still consider getting it too.

GC

[phrunt]

Manual leaves Geosense enabled, and it's what's causing the issues Jason is describing I think.  Manual is just the sensitivity adjustment isn't it?  I don't think it's related to the other "automatic" functions of the GPX.   I would much prefer my GPX if it had some reasonable level of manual control beyond sensitivity, I'd love to disable ground tracking on it in my mild ground.

I couldn't disagree more with the 17" has almost no sensitivity loss compared to the 11", I saw that one first hand with a nugget I found screaming on my 11" and JW's 17" had nothing, not a mouse fart out of it, and we were both in the same settings and doing side by side checks on this nugget before it was recovered from when it was first detected as a target.

[PhaseTech]

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

I couldn't disagree more with the 17" has almost no sensitivity loss compared to the 11", I saw that one first hand with a nugget I found screaming on my 11" and JW's 17" had nothing, not a mouse fart out of it, and we were both in the same settings and doing side by side checks on this nugget before it was recovered from when it was first detected as a target.

You sure you were both in Difficult ground setting? 

[jasong]

3 hours ago, phrunt said:

Manual leaves Geosense enabled, and it's what's causing the issues Jason is describing I think.  Manual is just the sensitivity adjustment isn't it?  I don't think it's related to the other "automatic" functions of the GPX.   I would much prefer my GPX if it had some reasonable level of manual control beyond sensitivity, I'd love to disable ground tracking on it in my mild ground.

Right, that's how it feels to me too - It adjusts sensitivity in "manual" too at least around heavy EMI, and it seems to stay adjusted even after a reboot - sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It's hard to know what's happening. Ground/iron part of Geosense seems to adjust back quicker? It's the unpredictability and opaqueness that has made me change my mind on the 6000. It's a good detector, don't get me wrong. I  just never know when it is good, and when it isn't, and that's the problem I personally have with it now. Is it only happening 1% of the time? 50%? No clue, it's totally opaque. There needs to be a "gauge panel" for users to see what setting is at what level, if we are going to have these automated controls - I'm writing that directly to any Minelab engineer reading this more than to any other fellow detectorists.

I'm actually all for Geosense style auto modes, I think they could keep improving it too. There is a time and place for them. But like Simon said, there needs to be manual overrides too. 

I'm curious if the Axiom does this too behind the scenes, or it's true manual? The people like myself who love to ramble on about the tiny minutia of detectors and equipment all seem to be quiet on this release, to my frustration as I keep coming here hoping to see a nitty gritty comparison between the Axiom and the 6 and leaving hungry. 😄 If it was cheaper (like, market shakeup less expensive), or not such a potentially lateral move, I'd be tempted to do it myself just because I am missing having a detector I trust 100%. 

[jasong]

1 hour ago, PhaseTech said:

You sure you were both in Difficult ground setting? 

Do you have a different result with the 17"? I wonder if there are large variations in quality/construction if so.

My experience was a little less demonstrative than Simon's, but the same general conclusion. Both 17's I've used seemed to have less sensitivity in terms of both size and depth than I would have expected for a coil of those dimensions. I never touch mine. My 11" on the other hand, has been my favorite OEM coil ever (usually my OEM's go directly in the closet), even though I know other's have had a lot of issues with them.

 

[phrunt]

2 hours ago, PhaseTech said:

You sure you were both in Difficult ground setting? 

We were both in normal.  I've heard people say difficult may work better on small gold, I haven't found that to be the case in my soil.  There really isn't much in it, but normal gives the slight edge.  It's not dramatic like the GPZ in normal being so much better than difficult.

I agree with Jason about the 11", other than the quality problems its an outstanding coil, something more I would think the aftermarket would have done and the standard coil would have been subpar on performance, the 11" surprised me with how sensitive it is and Minelab nailed it for sensitivity to small gold with that coil. 

My ultimate GPX 6500 would have manual ground balance where you can lock it, a way to disable whatever Geosense is doing in the background would be nice, just like Fixed on the older GPX, tracking was bad on that for me, Fixed as I was happy.   And in Auto and Auto+ it would be nice if it had a display number on the screen showing what sensitivity it's in, just giving some information so the user knows what's going on. 

They went a smidge too automated on the 6000, a little more control would have been nice, in saying that, now I've had mine all fixed up with coil replaced and EMI Fix it's a good detector for my needs and so light and easy to use.

[GR Guy]

Was in Kalgoorlie last week - 6000 flowing out of one store and at the peak of gold season the Garrett shop closed. Both are the same price in Oz and there would be at least 100 to 1  - 6000 to Axiom sold here. A large number of people make a living on gold here so I’d say if the performance was close we would see more Axioms here and there aren’t. 

[Gold Catcher]

It is totally ok to have different viewpoints on this topic. I enjoy the 6000 for what it is, and its automation does not bother me that much for what I use the detector for. I would like to know though how much of that "bad" automation really remains in manual mode, and whether it is the Geosense itself that does these "opaque" adjustments, or whether it is the Auto feature that does most of it when switched on. Either way, the 6k remains a fun, lightweight and ultrasensitive detector that does the job of finding small gold in shallow to medium depth ground better than any other detector I have ever used. Would I wish it had more options, like manual GB or volume adjustment (ala GPZ), of course. But then I also have the GPZ which I use equally often and that has all that, so I can choose which detector to use for what suits me best for the day. I remain of the opinion that the 17 inch retains much of the sensitivity of the 11 inch (perhaps 70-80%?), with roughly the same depth focus which is very unusual for this coil size. So, IMHO the focus of this coil is ground coverage but not so much depth. I remember JP (where is he?) reporting the same when he tested it. But I do realize that we all have different experiences with it, depending perhaps also on settings used, ground conditions and gold type. I am actually not often using the 17 inch as I prefer the smaller NF 12 x 7 as my to-go coil for areas where I use the 6000 the most. For bigger open ground I mostly use the GPZ anyhow. Back on topic though, the Axiom does appear to handle hot ground better, albeit some loss in sensitivity compared to the gpx. At least this is what I hear fairly often firsthand. To what extend this would be a game changer will depend on the individual user, but without a doubt the Axiom is the best non-ML detector out there with its own strengths and with features the 6000 clearly does not have, making it the more versatile of the two. Disclaimer, I don't own the Axiom, but this is the feedback I hear from operators who are using both.

GC

[afreakofnature]

We all know that Steve has run both detectors extensively. I would go with the advice that he gave.  I have not read Lunk‘s article yet, sorry amigo 😉 , but whatever he has to say, I would go with that as well.

[phrunt]

9 hours ago, Gold Catcher said:

I remain of the opinion that the 17 inch retains much of the sensitivity of the 11 inch (perhaps 70-80%?), with roughly the same depth focus which is very unusual for this coil size. So, IMHO the focus of this coil is ground coverage but not so much depth.

I guess what could explain what you're seeing is if with the 17' coil being larger they didn't need to do the semi spiral windings and were able to lay them out completely flat now as a full spiral coil not in layers on top of each other like the 11".  This would likely give the sensitivity increase that you're experiencing that allows it to somewhat keep up with the 11" coil.

I've run a lot of coils on my GPZ and older model GPX both bundle and spiral (flat wound) in a variety of different sizes, often the exact same coil size with different windings to see the real world differences between a coil being bundle and spiral and I'm sure many owners with an older model GPX have run say a 14x9" mono bundle coil and then a 14x9" mono spiral coil and seen first hand the extra sensitivity the spiral coil gives them.  I first run a semi spiral coil like the GPX 6000 has on my GPX 4500 when X-coils released the 12x6" coil for it which was their first Semi spiral coil as spiral windings wouldn't fit and they wanted a coil more sensitive than bundle windings so they made the 12x6" Semi spiral for the GPX 4500/5000, the same winding design was later used in the GPX 6000 coils.

We need @strick with his super-dooper X-Ray machine to X-ray the 17" coil to really get the answers. 🙂

It would explain the almost comparable sensitivity levels you're talking about. 

I haven't seen the two coils having similar performance on small gold here in my brief encounter with the 17" seeing it miss targets that were easy for the 11" but my grounds very different.  I haven't seen JW use that coil since that day.

The detectors not hindered by soil in my mild soils so much so I guess in optimal conditions the 11" can shine over the 17", weaken the more sensitive performance of the 11" with some bad soil and whatever Geosense does because of this and perhaps the gap in performance is less noticeable.   The more sensitive a coil the more it needs wound back in difficult ground to work optimally.  Much like the 14x9" Coiltek coil, I find that very weak on small gold compared to the 11" and 10x5" coil.  Some in Australia have said it's almost the same.... I could not disagree more so much so I never use it and may end up using it as a "sacrificial coil" to get its chip out..