steveg

HardPack -- sounds good. Perhaps once you've made your decision, I'll have S-shafts for the Equinox ready to go... Thanks for your interest! Steve

midalake -- I'll check my email, thank you! Sinclair -- yes, shipping would make a field test a costly proposition in this case, but if the prototype is well-received, getting you a shaft in the future is something that can certainly be worked on. Yes, there are some ergonomic deficiencies with the Equinox, no doubt about it... Steve

For what it's worth, I am in the process of building a couple of carbon-fiber S-shaft prototypes right now, for the Equinox. I'll be doing some for the Garrett AT series, soon. If anyone is interested in field testing an Equinox S-shaft, let me know... Thanks, Steve

GB -- my bad; I misunderstood/misread, in my haste. I thought that .01" was what was worn from each WASHER, but now I see your measurement was the decrease in total width. Makes sense now. Yes, .25mm out of tolerance is less significant, but possibly still enough, given the propensity for failure of the EQX ears... My bad on the minsunderstanding. Steve

GB_Amateur... Yep, from my perspective, I would suspect that washers worn down .01 inches (0.254mm) would be a stressor on the Equinox ears...that's over 1/2mm less "width" of your lower rod to fit between the coil ears. Given that we know the Equinox's ears are, shall we say, less than "stout," and prone to breakage, that would be enough of a difference (1/2mm too small on the lower rod's "width") to be at least suspect... The .890 to .899 inch measurement range you stated, with respect to your stock lower width, is exactly correct. 22.70mm is what the stock shaft usually measures for me, and that is what I aim for with my shafts as well, or perhaps a hair larger (22.70mm is .894" -- right in the middle of the range you stated). As you are noting, given the Equinox ears' propensity for breaking, a bit more attention is required as you note. When the washers wear down a bit (usually an issue for beach hunters), a washer swap is a good idea...OR...an alternative idea is the use of spacers "behind" the washers (as you noted). Along these lines, I now am selling 0.2mm thick "spacers" that are designed fit behind the washers (installed inside of the "washer cavity" in the lower rod head prior to washer installation), for just that reason. Using such a spacer behind your washer, to "replace" the lost washer thickness that can occur over time (by "pushing" the washer "out" a bit, thus recovering some of that lost width) can be helpful in this regard (that, or a washer replacement). SORRY to hear about your coil ear breakage. Frustrating... Steve spacer installed behind the washer...

Dan, IMO the EQX is not the best choice of machines, if you are trying to cherry-pick deep nickels. It LOCATES them just fine; quite deep, in fact. BUT -- way too many other targets ID extremely similar to a nickel on the EQX. Nickels are MUCH easier to cherry-pick at depth with FBS. On an Explorer, for instance, with stock Pro coil, I could cherry-pick deep nickels with a good bit of accuracy. CO number almost ALWAYS 06, but on a deep one, the FE number would creep up into the teens. I used to LOVE cherry-picking deep V nickels with the EQX at one particular old park I hunt; any soft 14-06 or 15-06 target was getting dug, and there was a pretty good chance it was a deep V. NOT so, on the EQX. WAY too much trash IDs the same as a deep nickel. That said, Dan, I would be willing to open a notch up to 11, and if it's deep, dig it. A shallow 11 is usually a beaver tail or .22 casing, but deeper/old nickels can throw off 11s along with the 12s and a few 13s at depth. The other reason to open up your notch to 11? One-dollar gold coins! 😉 Steve

I am having a hard time believing that Minelab's policy is that your unit would not be replaced, if you have another water intrusion failure. A warranty is a warranty, and if your replacement machine remains under the original unit's 3-year warranty, I cannot imagine a scenario where Minelab would refuse to replace it in the event of a shallow-water water intrusion failure. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would be quite surprised... Steve

Thanks for the kind words, Steve, and the heads-up on the need for GPX6000 lower rods... Much appreciated! Steve

Thanks, guys; I hadn't seen this post. I now offer two-piece lower shafts, for the Tarsacci...the middle shaft connects directly to your Tarsacci upper, while the middle and lower two sections are connected by one of my own cam locks -- the same ones I use on my other shafts, and very similar to the Tarsacci cam lock. Advantages of my shaft include both sections being smaller in diameter than the stock shaft (and thus less hydrodynamic drag in the water), and also that I can build the shaft to custom lengths -- including extra length, if necessary. I am also in the very early stages of being a Tarsacci dealer, and so if you are interested in buying an MDT-8000, and would like to work with me on the sale, please contact me... THANKS! Steve email: steve@stevesdetectorrods.com www.stevesdetectorrods.com

Good report, F350, and hey -- nice-looking shaft! 😄 Steve

F350 — Got it! Thanks for the info, that makes more sense now! I was certain that the camo tubes aren’t appreciably different in weight compared to the others. I couldn’t figure out why the weight would be “off.” Now, it makes sense; I can rest easier now, LOL! Thanks! No worries! Joe D. — LOL! 😂 OK, I will try! I am in PA, back where I grew up, visiting family. I am getting in just a bit of detecting while I am here, and will be playing a round of golf with my dad on Monday — so it’s all good! 🙂 Thanks! Steve

LOL -- thanks, rvpopeye! F350, it's interesting that you say there was "no weight savings." Something seems off... I did NOT weigh the camo carbon-fiber tubes prior to building your shaft; I just got the very first shipment in, and didn't weigh them before building your shaft -- and I'm on vacation now, so can't weigh them. BUT -- I find it really strange that you are saying there was no weight savings. My "non-camo" carbon-fiber shafts weigh around 30% less than the stock shaft, and I can't imagine that the camo ones should be appreciably different, weight-wise, as compared to the others. Are you sure you are weighing the machine with your new shaft installed "apples to apples" with what your machine was beforehand, with the stock shaft attached? I know you said you added one of those "bumpers" to the control box, and I know you are using a Detect-ED arm cuff, which is heavier than the stock cuff. Did you have these same items included on your unit when you weighed in, prior to my shaft arriving? Are there perhaps any other items you may have added to the unit, along with installing my shaft, that would have added to the weight, as compared to the "stock" shaft configuration? I can't recall exact numbers, but if I remember correctly, the stock Minelab shaft runs about 10 oz., give or take, and mine are about 7 oz., give or take. I can confirm when I get home, and will also confirm that the camo tubes are of similar weight to my other tubes. But you should have experienced some weight savings switching to my carbon fiber. Something seems a bit "amiss" here... Steve

F350 -- thank you! The pleasure has been mine! 🙂 Steve

F350 -- THANKS for the very kind words, and for the great picture. I think it looks great (but, I'm probably biased, LOL)! THANKS for your business, and for being "the first one!" Thank you! Steve

Thanks, mn80403, and thanks, ColonelDan! Steve

Airtemisa -- sounds good, thanks! Just FYI, I could build you a dive shaft for your Excal, as well; particularly if you hip-mount the Excal, a custom dive shaft would be easily do-able, for an Excal. My guess is that you already have a dive shaft for it, but just thought I'd toss that out there... Thanks! Steve

Airtimesa -- For what it's worth, I've built one-piece carbon-fiber dive shafts for folks before, so if your idea proves to be a bit too long, I can hook you up with a one-piece carbon-fiber one, built to whatever length you prefer... (or, it could be a two-piece with a short upper and very short lower, just enough to allow a small amount -- a few inches or whatever -- of adjustability in terms of length...) I can do whatever you like -- as I'm always happy to do custom builds... Thanks! Steve

You might try these...the same "BT-80" type of headphone as the Minelab ML80, the Miccus, etc., and these ones ARE aptX-LL... Amazon.com: AKSONIC Athlete Bluetooth Headphones Over Ear Headset aptX Low Latency Wireless with Mic, Dual Device Connection, Comfortable Protein Leather Earpads Works with Metal Detector: Electronics I have not tried this particular set, but they appear to be the same "BT-80" headphones that have been re-branded by many, many companies and sold under various model names... Steve

Just a word of possible caution... From what I can tell, the ANC7 phones are NOT aptX-LL. All of the specs I've seen for them, say they are aptX, but I haven't seen anything to say they are LL (low latency...) Steve

Nice mods, guys! Steve

relicmeister -- you, up there in PA dealing with square-nail-littered sites, will be the PERFECT test case, for what I'm curious about. I'll look forward to your report as to whether you think the 5x10 handles square nails better (more correctly IDs them as iron, more often) vs. the 6"...or at least gives better "clues," in that regard... Steve

Tom, THANKS for the report. Sounds good so far. What I want to know about this coil are two things -- one, is it ANY deeper than the 6" (an 8" deep wheatie is a good sign), and just as important, if not more, does it do any better at IDing square nails properly. My Minelab 6" coil is more prone than the 11" coil to give a good, coin-like read on certain square nails. While the 11" does this, also, as do other machines of course (square nails are difficult, in this regard), but the Minelab 6 seems ESPECIALLY prone to this, for me. In fact, for me, this trait of the Minelab 6 is such that any possible improvements in separation are completely negated (for me) when working in a square-nail-littered site. I would expect that in more "modern" trash, that the smaller size of the 6" would provide separation benefits, but I bought it SPECIFICALLY for a couple of sites in PA that have given up some good finds, but are full of square nails. And that coil has proven to be of little if any benefit in those sites, due to the coil's increased affinity for square nails... SO -- if Coiltek offers improvement in that area, without any depth loss vs. the MInelab 6", then I'll jump on board. Last thing I'll say, is, this (greater affinity for square nails) may just be a trait of smaller (round) coils in general, I'm not sure; I don't use small coils that often. But, I recall back when swinging a Minelab Explorer, that I got a 6" SunRay coil, and that coil behaved similarly. That coil was plenty deep, but was more prone to giving coin-type audio/ID on certain square nails, than the stock Explorer coil. As I said, I don't use smaller coils often, and the ones I have used for the most part have been round ones (I have VERY little time with a small elliptical). Perhaps a small elliptical behaves a bit differently with square nails, than a small round coil? Bottom line, I am VERY interested in any reports from anyone who runs the new Coiltek 5x10 in a site where they are trying to pick out non-ferrous targets from amongst square nails, specifically... Steve

Gentlemen, THANK YOU for the very kind words! They are always appreciated! Steve

Thanks for posting, Chase! Al F -- this is indeed where my "counterbalance system" shines (swinging the EQX with a large/heavy coil attached), and the main impetus behind designing it as an optional but very helpful (in many cases) addition to my carbon-fiber shafts... If you have any questions, let me know. I'd be happy to talk to you about the subject at hand... Steve

Hi all! The cam locks being shown in this thread are mine...and I'm happy to provide them to anyone who needs one. They are $15, plus $5 for USPS First Class shipping. They are the same ones I've been using for a couple of years now, on my Equinox shafts. I only have this one size -- which is designed for Equinox shaft diameters, but the shaft diameters of the AQ are similar enough that the cam lock works well for this machine, also. It's injection molded, very heavy-duty, there's a thumb screw to adjust/fine-tune clamping tension, and all hardware is 316 marine-grade stainless... The cam lock will work well for upper shafts ranging from about 21.5mm or so to about 23mm or so, and for lower rods ranging from about 19mm to about 20mm. You can reach me at steve@stevesdetectorrods.com. Thanks all! Steve www.stevesdetectorrods.com www.facebook.com/stevesdetectorrods