ColonelDan

That reflects a ton of work.  Great job!

Super job CPT!   Great report 👍🏻

4 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

Not unless a Bobcat backhoe comes along with it.  Not interested in digging that deep.  Would like to know how it does in hot dirt, though.  Might be useful for digging out huts and privies at the known long-term CW winter encampments around Culpeper, VA if it can actually function under those conditions.

I totally agree with Chase.  I have no interest in getting one unless that Bobcat comes with it...and at no charge!  🤣 

10 minutes ago, F350Platinum said:

Totally agree with you Colonel, I'm not disparaging SteveG at all, the initial post was regarding the WS6 puck popping off if you have large hands, at least that's where we ended up. 🙂

Since BT man bought the Anderson rig, to me it wouldn't make sense to spend more on the SteveG shaft as he would have the same issue unless he tried raising the puck with the top cam lock. Dimensions are nearly the same from grip to mount. While I was at this I merely pointed out some minor troubling observations.

One thing I like about the XP stock shaft is the trapezoid, that and the scale engraved on the lower. Great design in concept, not particularly in materials.

I'm not familiar with the Anderson offering other than I know it is expensive. Seems like an equally good option. I'm glad he was able to lighten it a bit, everything helps.

My two main detectors both have SteveG creations, and both of my sand scoops have his CF shaft offerings. I am a fan as well! 👍

Good points.

From my previous post on Steve's rods.  My opinion has not changed

Bottom Line up front: This is simply a work of art that promises to significantly improve the detecting experience of Deus II users.

Fit, Finish, Balance and Weight: As in all of Steve’s shafts, the fit and finish is truly superb. He has once again gone to great lengths to make a shaft that is really superior. The weight is a feather light 16.61 ounces and I can sense that the balance has been improved over the stock version

Shaft Length and Lock up: The length of the lower rod and overall shaft is longer than the stock XP shaft which allows the lower shaft to extend farther up into the middle shaft providing greater stability. The cam locks are far superior to the stock shaft and are the same ones he used on his Equinox version--tight as a bank vault.

Arm Cuff and Stand: The cuff and stand are much improved over the stock set up. The cuff is also of carbon fiber and extremely stiff. The stand is wider and taller resulting in greater stability when resting the Deus on the ground and is infinitely adjustable to any length of reach. Steve even provides the Allen wrench needed to tighten it down.

Grip: The grip is carbon fiber and very comfortable with a slight finger bump which helps to insure a firm hold. Great pains were taken here regarding the angle of the grip which provides a comfortable hold and the length of thumb reach to the Remote Control (RC) buttons is very accessible.

Mount and Coil Attachment: Steve’s rod came with a cap over the RC mount as does the stock shaft. This was a bear to remove as the fit has been improved to prevent unintentional dropping of the RC when in use. The RC mount is very solid with tighter tolerances. This resulted in a much better fit than the stock mount with which Deus II users are all too familiar—the RC can easily drop off the stock shaft after an inadvertent bump. Steve’s mount really secures the RC tightly. Even so, he designed an attached locking mechanism that can be thumb or screw driver tightened which provides an added level of security. The coil attachment uses the stock XP hardware so there is no need for anything proprietary.

Shaft: As I said, the shaft is not only longer than the stock shaft but round versus the triangular shape of the the XP shaft. This may take a little getting used to as the shaft now freely rotates when the locking cams are opened. I questioned this at first but then realized the benefit. I can now precisely select the angle of the RC so I can view the screen better if that’s what I wanted to do. Great!

Options: Steve offers several options that will personalize your shaft. If you like he will provide the capability for an internal channel for the underwater antenna and can outfit the upper shaft to accommodate a counterbalance weight just as he did with the Equinox. Even though this shaft is longer than the stock one, he can also provide additional length for those really really tall folks.

Conclusion: This shaft is an extremely usable thing of beauty in my view. It has been very well thought out and in great detail. It’s rugged and stiff with absolutely no wobble. It was very simply and very clearly designed and built with the user in mind and with user input from multiple user sources.

You can read Steve’s own words about this shaft with photos at:

https://www.detectorprospector.com/forums/topic/20979-deus-shafts-in-production/#comments

I use nothing but Steve's rods.  Best on the market...by far. Precisely made by one who detects and has a sterling reputation for top notch products and customer service.

Buy with confidence...

CPT,  Thank you!

When this becomes available in the US, I'll be downloading it.  👍

Significant upgrade on small gold per Jeff’s report.  Thanks.

Having said that, right now I don’t plan on upgrading to 2.0 for the same reasons Chase outlined.    I’m not going to get the 2 box system, I don’t prospect for small gold in the goldfield program and I really don’t want to re-do all my custom programs.   Version 1.1 works very well on the beaches I hunt.

 I too would like to see XP develop a process wherein an upgrade could be installed without losing the custom settings.

We’ve all seen numerous separation tests posted on YouTube and the vast majority that I’ve seen are simply air tests. I've conducted numerous separation tests over the years and one thing is most apparent....at least to me....air testing separation capabilities borders on a waste of time...for the most part.

Most recent example; I successfully separated good targets from bad using the Deus II in Beach Sensitive during an air test i.e. targets were exposed on the ground’s surface with approximately 1 inch separation. When I buried those same targets at the same distance, one from the other, at a depth of 3 and 6 inches, NO separation….and this is not unusual.

I pretty much ignore air tests of any kind. Why? That's obviously NOT the way we hunt. We detect targets that are buried in sand or soil don't we? I always abide by the Army approach from my day...."Train as you fight."

Can you get something out of air testing? Doubtful, maybe, sometimes, but don't take those results to the bank...if you do you'll be sorely disappointed when you apply those same parameters/results to buried targets.

Bottom line...for me: Tests that are conducted under the same realistic conditions that we find in the field will be much more reliable than those conducted under artificial conditions such as air tests...no matter how elaborate. I've seen far too many spurious results from tests conducted under artificial conditions.

 

Just the experience from my old foxhole....you may have a different experience.

I use the short cable XP offers...much easier to install and more convenient. 

Just getting back in the game.  I was more concerned with hurricane prep the last few days than the forum to be quite frank about it.  

F350 gave you an effective program from which to start.

Keep in mind that pre-determined settings only serve to get you in the ballpark.  It’s then up to you to pick the best seat!   😊

Adjust/tailor those settings to your particular environment and you’ll be fine👍🏻

Go get ‘em…..

Nice….very nice!

48 minutes ago, F350Platinum said:

Thanks! Do you hear a lot of chatter with AR that high, and are you using Beach Sensitive? I might need to look at another setting. 🤔 Or another program.

Really appreciate the info. 👍

I'm using the modified beach sensitive program that you and I have discussed/shared.  I don't get a lot of chatter...any initial chatter I do experience, I can deal with by noise cancelling and/or adjusting the sensitivity and/or reactivity. 

6 hours ago, midalake said:

Well I completed AR testing today and it did not take long to see where strengths lay. 

To sum it up before the longer version: Keep your AR high and control detectability with sensitivity. 

 Went to a second beach today and was able to work slightly higher sensitivity 91-92 in beach sensitive and AR at 6. Still could not work in the water without the Black Sand crippling the detection field. 

Buried two different sized targets a Mex ten-peso coin and a coper Canada penny at about 12"> Wet Sand, slight water contact. 

Both sounded good with a solid TID reading with sensitivity at 91 and AR 6.
Changed the AR to 1 and sensitivity to 97 and could not hear either target.
It was not until AR hit 3 that the target had a good response you would not walk by, but the TID was not reliable. At an AR of 4 the TID was better but read a bit low for both targets. AR of 5 had good TID lock. 

I do not think it is wise to turn AR down from 5 or 6. There was nothing to be gained in a sensitivity boost from 91 to 97 and a lower AR. Clearly, reducing sensitivity to get to your desired huntable level with a high AR is a winning combination. 

Your results mirror mine.  Ergo, I keep the AR at 7 in my environment

Steve, I agree with your approach on clearing out the stock of multiple detectors.  After all, as Leonardo de Vinci said, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."

My simplicity level has landed on XP products.  Deus II, MI-6, WSA II XL.  I also have a set of Tony Eisenhower headphones but I very rarely go into the water these days.

I sold my CTX 3030, gave one of my Equinox 800s to my son in law, gave the Vanquish to my granddaughter and donated my Excal II to the local metal detecting club.

Simplicity.....that's me.  😄

On 8/12/2023 at 4:48 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

The Gold Bug 2 has been doing that for as long as I air tested them - amazing demo to see. In ground it all falls apart though so I'd like to see real world results on in ground targets.

EXACTLY!!!! 

I've run numerous separation tests over the years and one thing is most apparent....at least to me....air testing separation capabilities borders on a waste of time...for the most part.

Most recently, I successfully separated good targets from bad using the Deus II in Beach Sensitive during an air test i.e.targets were exposed on the ground with approximately 1 inch separation.  When I buried those same targets at the same distance, one from the other, at a depth of 6 inches, NO separation.

I pretty much ignore air tests.  Why?  That's NOT the way we hunt.  We detect targets that are buried in sand or soil don't we?  I always abide by the Army approach from my day...."Train as you fight."

Can you get something out of air testing?  Maybe, sometimes, but don't take those results to the bank...if you do you'll be sorely disappointed when you apply those same parameters/results to buried targets.

Just the experience from my old foxhole....you may have a different opinion.

Excellent report CPT!  I can clearly see that was a lot of work.  I'd go back there several times were I you.  Potential abounds.  👍

Good job soldier!!!👍🏻

On 7/28/2023 at 12:27 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

You know, I can understand the Equinox having water intrusion issues, being a totally new design. But Manticore? As a second try, knowing full well about the issue with Equinox? Something is wrong with the pressure testing regimen.

Steve,  My guess is that these problems are due to more than just a pressure testing shortcoming.

Recall the flooding issues of the CTX3030. After spending untold amounts of money on warranty replacements, the solution was found to be a thicker gasket!  Probably at a cost of maybe a penny each.

Then came the Equinox and the broken coil ears because they were too thin and weak.  Again, more money on warranty replacements…three new coils for me alone.

Then the infamous Equinox flooding issue as the seals failed.

It seems to me that the failure was in the original design process and perhaps driven by a budgetary philosophy of penny wise pound foolish.

Now don’t get me wrong, I was a devoted MineLab guy for years.  Now however, I use XP equipment exclusively.

I honestly hope MineLab can overcome these issues as strong competitors only serve to improve the equipment for everyone.

Just the view from my foxhole….

Excellent report.  Time very well spent with a super outcome! 

Land hunters have more challenges to deal with as demonstrated by this video.  I can run my AR at 7 on our beaches and it runs smooth, quiet and stable.  
Everything depends on the environment and that’s a very big reason pre-determined settings serve only to get you in the ballpark.  Dialing in the detector is key.

Tony Eisenhower....comfortable, excellent quality and performance

1 hour ago, CLH said:

Lucky dog. Every beach I hit I think they piled up pallets and burned their years supply of beer cans on them, then went over the pile several times with a disk and harrow.

We certainly have our fair share of aluminum…pull tabs, beer cans, can slaw etc.  but very little iron on the beach compared to land hunts.

Suggest Dive program and 9 inch coil which is easier to manipulate in water if totally submerged.  Adjust settings to the environment and go for it.

I wouldn’t hesitate in saying that you had a very successful 6 days.  I can guess each day was many hours in length.  
I can see dedication oozing from you on that trip. 
 

Good job😊