Minelab 4500 Vs Garrett Axiom

[phrunt]

How does the Axiom go on different types of gold, I was recently experimenting with my GPX 5000 and 4500 and trying them over bits of gold I'd found recently with mostly the 7000 and some with the 6000.   The 7000 and 6000 both seem to hit on difficult types of gold, most types of gold that I've encountered really whereas the 4500 and 5000 which I primarily used sensitive extra are weak on this sort of gold, to the point sometimes of not even being able to detect it touching the coil even though its a size bit they should be screaming on.

Where my experiment shocked me was switching to fine gold which doesn't exist on the 4500 but on the 5000 and fine gold was able to pick up these bits much better, not near as well as the 6000 or 7000 but at least it was hitting on them and possibly would have found them in the wild, where as sensitive extra would completely miss them.

This really disappointed me as I'd only ever stuck to using Sensitive extra when using my legacy GPX's believing it was the best timing for me here, and I was clearly wrong when around half my recent small nugget finds were entirely missed by sensitive extra yet fine gold was reasonable, not good on them but reasonable.

The nuggets I'm talking about aren't porous, they aren't specimen types of gold, just normal everyday NZ gold.  I can put photos of the nuggets up and even a video of my little testing efforts, I was doing it for myself really and it was a windy day so the video isn't the best but it was a bit of a lesson for me.  Happy to upload it if anyone wants to see.  I should probably re-do it on a nicer day.

The thing I very much like about the 6000 over the 4500/5000 is it's more broad in the gold types it will detect with only one setting, the 7000 is the same from what I've seen, both have little trouble with these otherwise difficult bits of gold for a PI.

Would the Axiom be more like the 5000 needing adjustments yet still quite weak or more like the 6000 and 7000 picking up all types of gold well with just the one setting and picking it up decently?

Some marketing I saw for the GPX 5000 was saying it's like having multiple detectors in one because of the different timings, that's clearly marketing fluff as now the 6000's out and doesn't need all the different timings, does it all without needing that when with the 5000 you'd need to go over the ground multiple times in different timings to get the best results.

[Redz]

Did you try lifting the stabilizer too. That should give smaller gold

[phrunt]

4 minutes ago, Redz said:

Did you try lifting the stabilizer too. That should give smaller gold

Yep, tried that.  thanks for the tip though, can easily go forgotten.

[Steve Herschbach]

12 hours ago, phrunt said:

How does the Axiom go on different types of gold, I was recently experimenting with my GPX 5000 and 4500 and trying them over bits of gold I'd found recently with mostly the 7000 and some with the 6000.   The 7000 and 6000 both seem to hit on difficult types of gold, most types of gold that I've encountered really whereas the 4500 and 5000 which I primarily used sensitive extra are weak on this sort of gold, to the point sometimes of not even being able to detect it touching the coil even though its a size bit they should be screaming on.

Where my experiment shocked me was switching to fine gold which doesn't exist on the 4500 but on the 5000 and fine gold was able to pick up these bits much better, not near as well as the 6000 or 7000 but at least it was hitting on them and possibly would have found them in the wild, where as sensitive extra would completely miss them.

This really disappointed me as I'd only ever stuck to using Sensitive extra when using my legacy GPX's believing it was the best timing for me here, and I was clearly wrong when around half my recent small nugget finds were entirely missed by sensitive extra yet fine gold was reasonable, not good on them but reasonable.

The nuggets I'm talking about aren't porous, they aren't specimen types of gold, just normal everyday NZ gold.  I can put photos of the nuggets up and even a video of my little testing efforts, I was doing it for myself really and it was a windy day so the video isn't the best but it was a bit of a lesson for me.  Happy to upload it if anyone wants to see.  I should probably re-do it on a nicer day.

The thing I very much like about the 6000 over the 4500/5000 is it's more broad in the gold types it will detect with only one setting, the 7000 is the same from what I've seen, both have little trouble with these otherwise difficult bits of gold for a PI.

Would the Axiom be more like the 5000 needing adjustments yet still quite weak or more like the 6000 and 7000 picking up all types of gold well with just the one setting and picking it up decently?

Some marketing I saw for the GPX 5000 was saying it's like having multiple detectors in one because of the different timings, that's clearly marketing fluff as now the 6000's out and doesn't need all the different timings, does it all without needing that when with the 5000 you'd need to go over the ground multiple times in different timings to get the best results.

Eliminating any amount of ground or hot rocks eliminates gold. Gold and ground and hot rocks overlap. Ground balance is discrimination. Just like multifrequency VLF gets better discrimination, dual channel PIs use the extra info to try and eliminate more ground, while reducing the famous "ground balance hole" but the reality is simple. For any particular ground balance setting, a certain class of gold is missed. Every timing on a Minelab detector targets a certain ground type, while missing a certain gold type. Or targets a certain gold type, but while continuing to signal on certain hot rocks. If there is a hot rock that is difficult for detectors to balance out, rest assured it's because doing so would come at the cost of some gold.

Long story short with Axiom the "timing" is a combination of the primary ground balance, and the "hot rock window", which is a secondary, adjustable ground balance window. The more aggressive you are in combining these two ground balance systems, the greater the chance certain gold will be weaker or missed. It will be 100% dependent on where you are, and how the machine ends up set for the ground. Just like the GPX 5000, and which timing you choose. Wise operators will experiment in new areas until they are familiar with any detector, to get used to the reponses. Test targets always have been a good idea in new locations, for this very reason.

Too many people get lazy with a favorite setting. Fine Gold on the GPX 5000 for example. Really gets rid of hot rocks. But really misses some nuggets if used in ground where you should be using Normal or Sharp instead. Yet a lot of people liked Fine Gold and it just became their default setting. That is a bit harder to do with the Axiom, as setting a new ground balance for new areas is much more part of the routine. I prefer to apply as little ground balance as needed for the job. If I have a shallow hot rock that I find every 15 minutes or half hour, I am not going to use the ground balance window to eliminate it. I will just dig them. If I am finding one actually under the surface, less than every 5 minutes, now I'm probably going to tune it out. I am always skeptical of detectors that are too quiet, so a little bit of ground feedback, and digging a few hot rocks, makes me feel good, not the other way around. Everything with detector tuning is a trade off, especially discriminating ground or targets of any type… never forget that.

Your result surprises me Simon, not what I’d expect. That’s the problem though, expectations versus knowledge. None of us test enough while in the field really, even me. The main issue with the GPX 5000 and earlier was too many timings. Too much room for error. The 6000 goes directly away from that, as does Axiom.

[jasong]

Interesting, not the result I would have expected, but not surprising either.

At the time the 5000 came out, there wasn't nearly the concentration on the dinks as there is there is today. The main focus then, even here in the US from my experience anyways, was mostly the 1/2 gram+ stuff and spending a lot more time in areas with deeper big pieces as 1-2 ouncers were not uncommon (well, not exactly common either, but obtainable). 

So there wasn't as much concentration on optimizing for finding ultra tiny stuff as it just wasn't worth the effort at that point, especially since prior to the GPZ you could still clean up those dinks in droves with a GB2 if it came down to it, much quicker than with a 5000.

This concentration on dinks with high dollar machines only feels like it came into focus after the GPZ, and then only after it was clear that a lot of bigger stuff was now gone after a year or two of it in the field. That's just my experience though, certainly not speaking for everyone.

[Gerry in Idaho]

7 hours ago, phrunt said:

Yep, tried that.  thanks for the tip though, can easily go forgotten.

Simon,  One of these days if you ever get to the US and want to take my training, you my friend get a free pass.  The knowledge and gold we show is very eye opening to 99% of the folks chasing gold.  They have no clue to the amount of gold their PI's are missing.  Sure there are certain dealers who say "well yes you might miss that 1 piece on a rare occasion"  Fact is they have no clue either.  It's just easier for them to be lazy and not accept it.  I find that you are the type who wants to know as much as possible and not miss gold period.

There are many areas in numerous states of the US and the gold is missed by most older PI's.  I get the occasional Expert who feels they know their PI better than I as they hunt gold full time.  When I show multi ounces of gold they have missed, it totally blows their mind and ego as well.  Heck, I've found some VLF's pull $10K+ rocks at greater depth than even the newest PI's on the market.  As Steve H and I have said before, there is no "best" detector for all gold.

The pic below is US Postal scale.  The rock is over 2 pounds troy and there is well over $10,000 in gold in it.  What's amazing is when most folks pick it up and feel the weight vs size they know it's loaded.  Then when they test it with their PI, they want to cry.  As I say many times over "detector knowledge is power".