Gold Prospector Nugget With The Axiom

[Steve Herschbach]

The Axiom is a detector designed for gold nugget detecting, that has yet to be released. It may very well prove to have applications for gold coins and relics, but frankly, your question is too early. Right now, the most highly regarded detector for what you are inquiring about is probably the Minelab GPX 5000. Personally, I think the Axiom is going to prove to be a very popular alternative to the GPX 5000 for coins, relic, and beach, but at this stage of the game, the only thing I willing to swear to is that it is a very good gold nugget detector. Once it actually hits the market, and some relic hunters run it through its paces, a clearer picture will develop.

 

[botics]

How about the Garrett ATX with the Garrett ATX Pro Deepseeker Package Metal Detector 11x13" Closed DD Coil and 15x20". I know its an older model but what are your thoughts on that for civil war caches?

[Swegin]

 

2 hours ago, botics said:

How about the Garrett ATX with the Garrett ATX Pro Deepseeker Package Metal Detector 11x13" Closed DD Coil and 15x20". I know its an older model but what are your thoughts on that for civil war caches?

This may help you.   https://www.detectorprospector.com/metal-detector-database/    Page 2.

 

 

[Steve Herschbach]

5 hours ago, botics said:

How about the Garrett ATX with the Garrett ATX Pro Deepseeker Package Metal Detector 11x13" Closed DD Coil and 15x20". I know its an older model but what are your thoughts on that for civil war caches?

If you want to know about various PI detectors and how they compare for relics, a thread asking about that on the coin and relic forum is the best bet. Ask what people are using at Culpepper. But personally I’d get an Axiom before I’d go back to an ATX, unless it needed to be submersible. The Axiom is simply a more modern, more powerful detector.

[Kostas 13]

On 8/4/2022 at 5:07 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

In general, PI detectors handle high mineral ground and hot rocks that impede VLF performance. This also means they can handle large coils more effectively than a VLF, which can add to the depth equation. In low mineral ground there is not a huge need for a PI, as it is not so much that a PI goes a lot deeper than a VLF per se, but that they lose a lot less depth than a VLF in bad ground. That is why air tests of PI vs VLF are kind of worthless. It's all about the ground. But to give you an idea, a good PI can go twice as deep as your CTX, even more, in really bad ground.

PI detectors also lack anything remotely close to VLF style discrimination, relying more on various audio characteristics and experience to determine whether to dig or not. In the crudest sense, PI detecting is for people who tend to dig most everything, VLF detecting for those who need lots of discrimination.

• Understanding the PI Metal Detector by Reg Sniff. An excellent, understandable primer on pulse induction metal detectors.

This link, and the articles it links to, will tell you more about ground balancing pulse induction (GBPI) discrimination than you will find anywhere else:

https://www.detectorprospector.com/forums/topic/11421-fisher-impulse-aq-discrimination-explanation/

let's not forget that there are many pulse detectors on the market for relic hunters that do not have ground balancing and this makes them completely unsuitable for heavy terrain.

[Steve Herschbach]

On 8/3/2022 at 8:22 AM, Gold Catcher said:

Gerry, thinking back to our "is the 6000 the king" thread, what are your thoughts about Axiom vs 6000? What do you recommend if one would have just one choice to make? Your quote from the King thread: "As a well known Minelab Dealer who’s sold more GPX-6000 than most dealers and my Field Staff/I keeps in contact with many of the customers, I can assure you it’s earned the status of “KING” in the US.". So, do we have a new king now just a few months after the old one was crowned? 🙂 And even if the 6000 would remain king, is it really worth the 2k extra bucks based on your judgement? Just curious what your thoughts are as I am sure you will get asked this question a lot. Thx.

GC

I'll take the bullet. 

Wes is saying what I've said in other posts. We have 5000 and 6000, and Axiom is in the middle somewhere, kind of a mix of both. There is no pat answer, and personal preferences about small details do matter. Technically speaking, anyone with a 6000 and a 7000 need look no further. But fact is I like my Axiom, good chance I'll be selling my 6000. But is it because Axiom is better on small gold, or something like that? No, I enjoy the versatility, the extra control. I’m heading to Tahoe right now to hit the beach.

There are areas of detecting that are gray zones, and only using the machines in question can determine for people what they really like. I can't tell people if they will like a Deus 2 vs an Equinox vs a Legend. THEY ALL WORK!! All will sell, all will have fan clubs. The Axiom works. Some will like it, many will stay with Minelab. But my opinions and Gerry's opinions only get you so far, and a person using the machines could come to the exact opposite conclusions, as far as which it is they prefer to use. But in general, I see no pressing need for anyone using both a 6000 and 7000 to get an Axiom. Maybe an extreme hot rock problem?

Is a GPX 6000 worth $2000 more than an Axiom? Not from my perspective. I think the GPX 5000 is worth $2995 (it's overpriced at this point), and Axiom and GPX 6000 both worth $3995. The 6000 was too much from the git go. Put GPZ 7000 at $4995. But that's just my opinion of relative worth, others will differ. It's all just blah blah blah until you lay hands on both and use them, and people with opinions about one who have not used it.... worthless. "well, the Infinium"......  

[Gold Catcher]

Many thanks, Steve (and Gerry). And BTW, no bullet intended at all. It's just that I get asked this question a lot from local fellow prospectors and those who want to become one, and since I don't own the Axiom I wanted to give the best possible answer, coming from those who can actually speak to it. In particular, re Axiom vs 6000. Great perspectives, thanks guys. Will pass it on.

GC  

[Jonathan Porter]

On 8/4/2022 at 6:20 AM, Jonathan Porter said:

I had to listen through all the shot gun pellets near the surface and focus on the edge of detection signals at depth, it paid off.

I’ve been asked to elaborate on my comments about listening through bird shot, and considering this relates to all detectors not just what I use, I’ll reply here and Steve can move it if it doesn’t fit in with the content of this thread.

A highly sensitive early sampling PI like the Axiom and the GPX6000 will hit HARD on tiny birdshot near the surface, as such they can become extremely pesky for these PI’s as most areas will have a plethora of these pesky little non-ferrous targets scattered about over the gold areas, especially in and around diggings and workings etc. 

If I know there is an elluvial/alluvial/collivial gravel layer sitting under the surface gravels or soils generally, nuggets will be sitting on bottom in those soils/gravels mixed clays ect due the way gold bearing rocks weather and the age of those gravels. As such if the surface gravels have a peppering of shot gun pellets I just force myself to ignore the loud signals even though they sound sweet (non-ferrous) and instead focus on the broader quieter repeatable signals that can more often than not ONLY be gold as the shot can’t work its way in that deep.

When I’m detecting in known areas I often just ignore loud surface targets even the non-ferrous single signal ones and focus on the broader range of motion signals, this immediately improves my success rate and time spent chasing nonsense signals. My maxim in old workings is theres a 90% chance a surface target is rubbish and a 80% chance a deep target in unturned over ground is gold, so I focus on those types of signals instead.

Hope this helps
JP

[Dan Smith]

46 minutes ago, Jennifer said:

This deserves more than just the purple "thank you" emoji... thank you JP.. you are a true asset to the knowledge base on the board... thank you so much.

Jen

Great advice JP. I am guilty of focusing on those sweet shallow signals. Pesky buggers can get real frustrating after the first 20😃 thanks 👨🏻‍🦯⚒️👍

[Gerry in Idaho]

22 hours ago, Jonathan Porter said:

When I’m detecting in known areas I often just ignore loud surface targets even the non-ferrous single signal ones and focus on the broader range of motion signals, this immediately improves my success rate and time spent chasing nonsense signals. My maxim in old workings is theres a 90% chance a surface target is rubbish and a 80% chance a deep target in unturned over ground is gold, so I focus on those types of signals instead.

Hope this helps
JP

We've been doing the same thing with the Axiom at a couple known sites we've detected in times past.  We Play the odds and do not exert energy to chase those boomer signals, which is normally trash.  We've been listening for the softer and deeper signals.  Usually, the deeper the better of the odds of Au.

The surface BB's and small rubbish can be quite annoying in some areas, but you learn to deal with it.  An experienced ear can tell the width of the signal and even if it's a surface target.  Another thing to do in areas (you know) with surface trash, is to scuff the top inch and if it moves, I usually walk on while trying to spend the time on targets that are not surface.  Again, I mentioned in ground you know from previous success hunts.