Garrett Axiom Vs Minelab GPX 6000 On Small Gold

[Lunk]

I've been doing a little comparison testing lately between the new Garrett Axiom and the Minelab GPX 6000. My focus was on sensitivity to small gold, as most areas I hunt still have plenty of tiny nuggets left; if there are any large, deep pieces left, they’ll still be there for the next generation GPZ to unearth. This comparison is not scientific by any means, and was done just for my curiosity, but I've decided to share my methods and observations for anyone here that may be curious as well. 

So first up was comparing the Ax fitted with its 11”x7” mono coil to the GPX 6k with its stock 11” mono coil. Settings for the Ax were Fine Mode, Tone at 77 (which is the same pitch as the fixed threshold tone that the GPX 6k runs at), Audio 01, MS-3 wireless headphones wirelessly connected, Speed set to Slow, Volume 25, Threshold 15, Sensitivity 8 and Ground Track Off. And the 6k sensitivity set at Manual 10 (I typically always run on Auto+, but since there were high voltage power lines near this location, I didn't want the Auto sensitivity reducing itself to compensate), Volume at 1 bar and the Avantree Torus neck speakers wirelessly connected via the 6k's inbuilt bluetooth, and Normal selected for the ground type. For this test, I selected a small area that had been raked and detected in the past, most likely during the late 80's to early 90's era, with the VLF detectors of that time. My comparison method was simple: I slowly and carefully gridded the raked area with the 6k until it hit a target, then switched off, fired up the Ax and gridded the same area in the same direction that I just did with the 6k, until I reached the same target. After digging the target, the gridding would continue, this time with the Ax, until another target was encountered, then switched off, fired up the 6k and re gridded that same area, etc. The idea was to see if either machine would see (or not see) targets that the other could (or could not) see. After gridding the entire raked area in this manner, all targets found were detected by each machine, and there were no targets found by either that the other could not detect. All targets save one were small gold nuggets, the only exception being a weak magnetite hot rock.

The only thing I wasn’t liking about the Axiom at this point was the sound quality of the signal through the MS-3 headphones; it was no where near as clean and crisp as the target signal from the 6k and Avantree Torus speakers. It was a little cleaner using the Ax's inbuilt speaker, but it was still not to my liking, so I sent for a small Bluetooth transmitter from Amazon that I could plug into the Ax's headphone port and receive the signal with the Avantree Torus Speaker (you’ll see it attached to the Ax in the photo below), and that did the trick. 
A friend generously sent me his Axiom 11”x7” DD coil to test on small gold, and this time I pitted it against the 6k outfitted with Coiltek's hot little 5”x10” Goldhawk coil:

Same settings on each machine, except nowhere near power lines, so was able to run the 6k on Auto+ sensitivity. This time, I selected as the testing area a small dry wash gully that had some old dry-blow heaps (dry-washer piles to us yanks) up on the banks. Small nuggets can always be found by following the dry-washers, especially in their fine tailing piles. Though many targets were found, only one turned out to be the color we all look for; the rest were small bits of wire brush bristles, aluminum foil and some small pieces of bullet jacket shrapnel. As far as the comparison goes, it was the same story - each detector heard all targets, and none were missed by either.  As I noted at the beginning of the post, the comparison between the two machines wasn’t scientific, in fact I didn't bother measuring target depths or weights of the nuggets found; it was mainly to see if the Ax can keep pace with the 6k on sensitivity to small gold, and it appears to me that it certainly can.

 

 

 

[UtahRich]

Lunk,

I really appreciate you taking the time to do a little side by side with the 6000 and Axiom. I'm guessing most feel Minelab is the measuring stick out there for competent gold detectors and seeing a fresh face (axiom) hanging with the trusted and proven gives encouragement to those looking to participate at a decreased ticket price.

It is going to be interesting to see how the rookie (axiom) holds up to my freshman 2023 PI season. 

[Steve Herschbach]

6 hours ago, Lunk said:

My comparison method was simple: I slowly and carefully gridded the raked area with the 6k until it hit a target, then switched off, fired up the Ax and gridded the same area in the same direction that I just did with the 6k, until I reached the same target. After digging the target, the gridding would continue, this time with the Ax, until another target was encountered, then switched off, fired up the 6k and re gridded that same area, etc.

That's how I like to test detectors myself, so thank you for that, and a great report Keith. Note that on some ground and gold combinations the 11" DD may also be the better choice for the smallest gold. Garrett DD coils are different than people expect.

I am not a fan of the MS-3 audio myself, and just posted an article on the subject. Bottom line is the Garrett WR-1 solves the problem, while being seven times faster than Bluetooth, and compatible with the Garrett wireless pinpointer and other metal detectors. Best part is it uses the inbuilt Axiom transmitter, so no need for the separate WT-1 transmitter box, unless you also want to use it with other detectors.

 

 

[Norvic]

Many Thanks Lunk, my Ax is in the mail, so I`ve 🤞 the wet stays away in FNQ downunder for a few more weeks

[blackjack]

3 hours ago, Lunk said:

I've been doing a little comparison testing lately between the new Garrett Axiom and the Minelab GPX 6000. My focus was on sensitivity to small gold, as most areas I hunt still have plenty of tiny nuggets left; if there are any large, deep pieces left, they’ll still be there for the next generation GPZ to unearth. This comparison is not scientific by any means, and was done just for my curiosity, but I've decided to share my methods and observations for anyone here that may be curious as well. 

So first up was comparing the Ax fitted with its 11”x7” mono coil to the GPX 6k with its stock 11” mono coil. Settings for the Ax were Fine Mode, Tone at 77 (which is the same pitch as the fixed threshold tone that the GPX 6k runs at), Audio 01, MS-3 wireless headphones wirelessly connected, Speed set to Slow, Volume 25, Threshold 15, Sensitivity 8 and Ground Track Off. And the 6k sensitivity set at Manual 10 (I typically always run on Auto+, but since there were high voltage power lines near this location, I didn't want the Auto sensitivity reducing itself to compensate), Volume at 1 bar and the Avantree Torus neck speakers wirelessly connected via the 6k's inbuilt bluetooth, and Normal selected for the ground type. For this test, I selected a small area that had been raked and detected in the past, most likely during the late 80's to early 90's era, with the VLF detectors of that time. My comparison method was simple: I slowly and carefully gridded the raked area with the 6k until it hit a target, then switched off, fired up the Ax and gridded the same area in the same direction that I just did with the 6k, until I reached the same target. After digging the target, the gridding would continue, this time with the Ax, until another target was encountered, then switched off, fired up the 6k and re gridded that same area, etc. The idea was to see if either machine would see (or not see) targets that the other could (or could not) see. After gridding the entire raked area in this manner, all targets found were detected by each machine, and there were no targets found by either that the other could not detect. All targets save one were small gold nuggets, the only exception being a weak magnetite hot rock.

The only thing I wasn’t liking about the Axiom at this point was the sound quality of the signal through the MS-3 headphones; it was no where near as clean and crisp as the target signal from the 6k and Avantree Torus speakers. It was a little cleaner using the Ax's inbuilt speaker, but it was still not to my liking, so I sent for a small Bluetooth transmitter from Amazon that I could plug into the Ax's headphone port and receive the signal with the Avantree Torus Speaker (you’ll see it attached to the Ax in the photo below), and that did the trick. 
A friend generously sent me his Axiom 11”x7” DD coil to test on small gold, and this time I pitted it against the 6k outfitted with Coiltek's hot little 5”x10” Goldhawk coil:

Same settings on each machine, except nowhere near power lines, so was able to run the 6k on Auto+ sensitivity. This time, I selected as the testing area a small dry wash gully that had some old dry-blow heaps (dry-washer piles to us yanks) up on the banks. Small nuggets can always be found by following the dry-washers, especially in their fine tailing piles. Though many targets were found, only one turned out to be the color we all look for; the rest were small bits of wire brush bristles, aluminum foil and some small pieces of bullet jacket shrapnel. As far as the comparison goes, it was the same story - each detector heard all targets, and none were missed by either.  As I noted at the beginning of the post, the comparison between the two machines wasn’t scientific, in fact I didn't bother measuring target depths or weights of the nuggets found; it was mainly to see if the Ax can keep pace with the 6k on sensitivity to small gold, and it appears to me that it certainly can.

 

 

 

Great Information Lunk, Thanks for taking the time to relay it to us. You did say you didn't test depth or weight, just doing a comparison but can you give us a guess at how small a piece these detectors are able to pick up, say at 1"

[Lunk]

2 hours ago, blackjack said:

Great Information Lunk, Thanks for taking the time to relay it to us. You did say you didn't test depth or weight, just doing a comparison but can you give us a guess at how small a piece these detectors are able to pick up, say at 1"

Less than 0.05 of a gram.

[Aureous]

10 hours ago, Lunk said:

As far as the comparison goes, it was the same story - each detector heard all targets, and none were missed by either.  As I noted at the beginning of the post, the comparison between the two machines wasn’t scientific, in fact I didn't bother measuring target depths or weights of the nuggets found; it was mainly to see if the Ax can keep pace with the 6k on sensitivity to small gold, and it appears to me that it certainly can.

Wow, thats excellent news! If the Axiom can keep up with the 6K, then the aftermarket coils from Detech will add a positive direction as well. Seeing that Garrett didn't go down the greedy BS chipped-coil direction, its a real win for Axiom owners!  Cheaper, better and more coil options without the ridiculous pricetag! Win, win and win!

[Steve Herschbach]

Gun to head for gold nuggets I still tend to give the nod to the 6000, but it is a close thing, and on most targets you’ll get the nugget with either detector. Coils matter a lot and having the right coil will make a big difference in how these various tests go. But I think in the end ground conditions will be paramount in deciding which way the scales may tip, and some conditions will favor the 6000, while others will be better with the Axiom. A few operators may end up keeping both around. The 6000 is absolutely my favorite Minelab, no doubt about that. The Axiom will also without a doubt tackle some situations that will have a 6000 owner pulling their hair out. It’s a win win for everybody as far as I am concerned.

It is a case where there is no need for anyone who is happy with their 6000 to ditch it and get an Axiom instead. For a new person trying to decide which way to go, I’ll offer this one tidbit. The 6000 is pretty well focused as being just for nugget detecting. You can use it for other things, but in general I’d say it’s the less versatile of the two. But an excellent choice for nugget detecting, for sure. The Axiom on the other hand, will find great favor not just with nugget hunters, but relic hunters, and once we get a good neutral buoyancy coil, the beach and water hunters. If versatility matters, Axiom is the hands down winner in my opinion.

Now if we can just get Fisher and Nokta to the table, to make the choices even harder. Me, I love options, and competition is needed to give us the options. It’s better for us as consumers, and ultimately healthy for the manufacturers themselves. Companies need competition to help them be their best, and I’m really glad Garrett has stepped up to help keep that competition alive.

[Purplehays69]

Thanks Lunk,

Will the Avantree setup with ur Ax be ur go to? I love my Avantree/6000 combo.

[Beeper Bob]

Great job of field testing the machines. Both machines seem quite comparable to each other. Wonder how well the discrimination works on the axiom.