Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine got the Anderson shaft for his Nox, put it together, and when he has the coil on the ground and turns his wrist left and right, while holding the handle, the upper rod twist with his hand movements while the coil stays flat on the ground. Is this normal? Or, should the coil be lifted a bit depending on which way his wrist is turning? 

I hope I'm explaining this well enough to be understood. Thanks for any info you may have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's twisty. I think they are a terrible shaft for the money. Pluggers shafts are solid all the way around. A lot easier on the wallet too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Anderson shaft and mine is rock solid. More than pleased with mine. It's well made and looks good

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it's not twisty as I just ordered one a few days ago and should be here today.   I got the Anderson over the Pluggers because the Anderson comes with a carbon fiber lower shaft which is hopefully a better spec shaft than than the plastic stock one.  Which should prevent any twisting or wobbling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 be sure to check when you have the shaft all together, lay the coil flat on the floor and put your hand on the handle and twisted left and right. My Anderson shaft does not lift the coil off the ground. The whole upper shaft twists. Just to be clear, the twist is about one half inch in either direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unearth said:

 be sure to check when you have the shaft all together, lay the coil flat on the floor and put your hand on the handle and twisted left and right. My Anderson shaft does not lift the coil off the ground. The whole upper shaft twists. Just to be clear, the twist is about one half inch in either direction.

I had the same problem. I heard that Anderson was using a double hole in the upper shaft for the double spring clip in the lower rod in some of the first ones produced. Now it has a single hole with a chinsey plastic bolt that you seat down to the lower rod to lock it in place. No side to side movement. It's only when the coil is flat on the ground with twist left to right if and when you rotate your arm. Hopefully Anderson steps up and takes care of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops! I just received my Anderson shaft and will check it out for this problem. Thanks for the heads up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SDMiner said:

It's twisty. I think they are a terrible shaft for the money. Pluggers shafts are solid all the way around. A lot easier on the wallet too!

Not having that issue that I know of. Jammed into some rough surf this week and it was totally solid - arm rest, control head, and lower rod held up under some extreme torque.  Granted just a few times out so far.  I have the single spring clip version.  I will try the grounded coil twist (not something I would ever intentionally do - I don't lean on my detector shaft for support during target recovery) but the surf torque seems like a similar situation and I did not have issues.  Will report back if I do.

You do pay extra for the lower shaft and arm rest on the Anderson, but prefer the Anderson lower shaft vs. the ML which you have to reuse on the Plugger (I know that there are two ways to look at this). You can easily drive the price up on the Plugger if you opt to not reuse the ML components you don't like (arm rest, lower shaft).  I like the Plugger travel shaft option, though. Not clear if the Plugger allows choices on where to mount the control head like Anderson.  Love that feature, with the distance between the arm rest and control head being user adjustable, it has greatly reduced arm fatigue for me.  If so, may just get the Plugger travel shaft for my 800 (my 600 water machine has the Anderson)

In the end, glad there are more than one third party options for Equinox.  It's good to have choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one i tested on the Nox......... works outstanding.  BUT..... they changed it a bit.   What they did is went to a single spring clip (like ML) and eliminated double holes.    For water hunting....... that could still allow some coil movement even with their bolt much like the problem with the ML shaft and the twist locks. If it were me........ id put a double spring clip in it and drill out a couple of the holes.   I have NO movement and mine gets a work out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Received my anderson shaft today and just put it together.  I do have the shaft twist...it's very slight, but if I tighten the screw pretty tight it's pretty much rock solid.  But that screw is small and the surface area that makes contact with the lower shaft is very small and I just don't know how it will hold up over time.  And I don't want to strip that screw as it's plastic.  My main concern is with the lower rod on the closest hole to the head unit and with the head unit on the lowest hole, the detector is still about 1/2" higher (longer) than with the stock set up where the lower rod is on the 4th hole from the top.  I'm 5'10" and don't have exceptionally long arms so it feels that the detector is still just a little long for my tastes.  There's plenty of room in the upper rod for more holes.  I wonder why Anderson didn't drill more for shorter people.  For people shorter than me or people with long arms this shaft would be too long unless you like swinging way out in front of you.   

I also weighed the detector totally stock and with the new shaft and anderson cuff.  It's slightly heavier now, but it seems a little better balanced.  Hard to tell for sure on the balance because I don't have two to compare side by side...one stock and one with the anderson set up.  I'm just going by remembering what the stock setup felt like before I changed it over to the Anderson.

My only other gripe is that I originally took the Anderson cuff off as I wanted the stock one with the "feet" on it.  (The Anderson doesn't have any feet on it's cuff to help keep the detector upright when you set it down.)  As I slid it off the screw holes in it were not deburred and scratched the shaft pretty badly...it's just superficial, but it looks bad.  I ended up putting the Anderson cuff back on because with the detector head in the lower hole the minelab cuff was up near my elbow...there's no adjustment for it, only one hole.  The Anderson cuff has three adjustment holes and on the lowest one it feels good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 steveg
      Hi all.
      Now that I have the prototype shafts built, I've been able to work some more on the counterweight design, and I have moved very close to finalizing the design. 
      I have discovered through this extensive testing/design that the amount of weight needed to achieve proper counterbalance is a bit more than I was originally thinking, after the preliminary, "rough" proof-of-concept testing.  I would like to present the findings, and get some opinions -- from anyone who has been potentially interested in the counterbalance system -- as to whether these changes are acceptable, or if this would change your desire to possibly purchase the counterweights.
      1.  The weight needed to counterbalance the 12" x 15" coil, (based on an "average" lower rod extension length), is roughly 28 oz.  This is a fairly substantial amount of weight -- BUT -- I must note that when the weight is applied, the machine swings BEAUTIFULLY.  It FEELS lighter, even though the "absolute weight" -- i.e. according to measurement as provided by a scale -- is obviously greater.  With my forearm in the arm in the arm cuff, swinging the machine normally, I was literally able to hold the handle of the machine with only my thumb and index finger -- and swing the machine effortlessly!  The sensation is that the machine FLOATS across the ground!  (For the 11" coil, the amount of counterweight needed is of course slightly less -- roughly 25 oz.)
      2.  To include this amount of weight in the tube extensions, and yet not have the extensions excessively long, I must use larger-diameter carbon-fiber tube than I planned -- I've decided on 31mm outside diameter tubes.  I had intended to use the same diameter of tubing as used on the upper shaft (22.15mm outside diameter), but the extension length required was far too long.  
      3.  Using the 31mm outside diameter tube for the counterweights, I calculate that length of the tube extending beyond the end of the shaft will be 7 1/2" for the 12" x 15" coil, and 6 1/2" for the 11" coil.  
      4.  There would be no changes to the shaft design needed; anyone wanting the counterweight system in the future would still purchase a shaft with the same threaded female fitting installed in the butt end of the shaft, and the same threaded end cap that screws into the butt end.  The only changes would be to the counterweights themselves (as comparted to what I had originally planned) -- i.e. larger diameter carbon-fiber tubing, and thus a larger end cap for the ends of the counterweights themselves.
      SO, my questions are, with the counterweight lengths needed now a pretty-well "known quantity" -- i.e. 6 1/2" and 7 1/2" long (11" coil and 12" x 15" coil, respectively), and the weights to achieve balance being also a pretty-well "known quantity" -- i.e. 25 oz. and 28 oz., respectively, would those interested in the weights find these specs acceptable?  Please offer your comments.
      Preliminary/rough pricing info would be as follows.  One counterweight, $22.50 plus shipping ($30 total).  If an EQX user only wanted to order one weight, I would suggest the 6 1/2" long, 25 oz. weight, designed for the 11" coil; this amount of counterweight still achieves a degree of balance that feels GREAT with the 12" x 15" coil.  I am of the opinion that no counterweight is needed, for the 6" coil.  Two counterweights, one for the 11" coil and one for the 12" x 15" coil, $42.50 plus shipping ($50 total).  
      Thoughts?
      Steve
    • By groundscanner
      Is there a way to view which software version my new machine is running?
      Thanks
    • By groundscanner
      Has there been any talk of an eight or nine inch coil for the nox in the future?
    • By groundscanner
      My 800 came by the little brown truck this morning!!  I am hoping that the rain holds off until after it is charged so I can go out and dig up the yard.

       
    • By schoolofhardNox
      This weeks beach hunt was split between the GPX and Equinox. The GPX scored 5 deep silvers, but this item is the reason I love the way the Equinox ID's targets. To some, they may not like the jumpy numbers on mixed metal targets, but I appreciate the added information, as I always like to be the one making the final decision to dig or not. The GPX would have read this as Iron, especially at the depth it was. But the Equinox read the copper content as well as the iron. Since I run with no discrimination, the detector sees both metals and reports them as such. That is a good thing. But I also like to run my iron volume on zero, that way I am not swayed by the iron sound to possibly not dig it. The iron numbers still flash to give me that information, I just prefer not to hear it. That makes these type of targets easier to examine. If you have not tried you Equinox that way, give it a try. For me it is one of those perks of a well designed machine.


    • By groundscanner
      Hello all,
      I am new to the forum and this is my first post.  I have an Equinox 800 coming via the Brown Truck and I was wondering if anyone could tell me the approximate Target Id numbers for the following:
      Eagle buttons
      Flat buttons
      58. cal Minnie balls
       
      Thanks!! I am really enjoying the wonderful post here.
×