Garrett Axiom Vs Minelab 6000

[davsgold]

Start of another nice patch of small tiny nugglets with the new 6000, seems to be going good, but have not tried the Axiom 

 

 

 

 

cheers dave

[dig4gold]

Hi Davsgold. Is that a patch you hadn't had an X coil over on the GPZ 7000? Thanks.

D4G

[jasong]

Things like ground and EMI handling can make all the difference in some places. Also, the 6000 suffers from auto adjustments in an opaque way that makes it impossible to tell if it's adjusted down or failed to adjust sensitivity back up, and this in my experience has caused a number of instances I've missed what should have been some very easy targets. I have no idea if the Axiom does this auto adjusting too, but to me it's a deal breaker in a machine the way the 6000 does it after I've used it and understood it more.

If I was choosing between the two right now I'd personally try an Axiom just to see for myself. I personally feel the 6000 is a subpar detector for both EMI and opaque auto adjustments, it does ok with ground but I suspect based on reports the Axiom does better. For weekend detecting or working small areas it probably makes no difference though. Where it makes a difference is covering 50 square miles of land and then wondering at night if you need to go redetect weeks worth of work because you can't trust if the detector was running right or not, that's incredibly annoying. 

If it didn't seem like the next GPZ had to be on the horizon I'd try an Axiom just to see how it does in field and experiments. Been tempted numerously to buy one just to see then inevitably figure the 6000 will be good enough until the GPZ. Too expensive for an experiment at this point it seems, as I'd rather replace the 6000 with a light weight GPZ if such an option presents itself, which at this point may or may not even happen and is looking less likely, who knows...

[Gold Catcher]

Running in manual will avoid the auto adjustments and you always remain in full control. I often run at full manual max and only go to auto if I run into issues, kind of as my first line of defense. Both NF and Coiltek coils run more stable at full gain than the mono stock coils.  The 17 inch is great for ground coverage albeit a bit unbalanced. But still practically no sensitivity loss compared to the 11, however only with marginal depth gain IMO. Overall, a great choice for most conditions. Re new gpz, this might take a while and I won't jump the gun with the first production series, given the track record of the 6000. So, at the earliest this would be late 2024 for me for the new gpz if it were to be released late this year. The axiom is tempting and i still consider getting it too.

GC

[phrunt]

Manual leaves Geosense enabled, and it's what's causing the issues Jason is describing I think.  Manual is just the sensitivity adjustment isn't it?  I don't think it's related to the other "automatic" functions of the GPX.   I would much prefer my GPX if it had some reasonable level of manual control beyond sensitivity, I'd love to disable ground tracking on it in my mild ground.

I couldn't disagree more with the 17" has almost no sensitivity loss compared to the 11", I saw that one first hand with a nugget I found screaming on my 11" and JW's 17" had nothing, not a mouse fart out of it, and we were both in the same settings and doing side by side checks on this nugget before it was recovered from when it was first detected as a target.

[PhaseTech]

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

I couldn't disagree more with the 17" has almost no sensitivity loss compared to the 11", I saw that one first hand with a nugget I found screaming on my 11" and JW's 17" had nothing, not a mouse fart out of it, and we were both in the same settings and doing side by side checks on this nugget before it was recovered from when it was first detected as a target.

You sure you were both in Difficult ground setting? 

[jasong]

3 hours ago, phrunt said:

Manual leaves Geosense enabled, and it's what's causing the issues Jason is describing I think.  Manual is just the sensitivity adjustment isn't it?  I don't think it's related to the other "automatic" functions of the GPX.   I would much prefer my GPX if it had some reasonable level of manual control beyond sensitivity, I'd love to disable ground tracking on it in my mild ground.

Right, that's how it feels to me too - It adjusts sensitivity in "manual" too at least around heavy EMI, and it seems to stay adjusted even after a reboot - sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It's hard to know what's happening. Ground/iron part of Geosense seems to adjust back quicker? It's the unpredictability and opaqueness that has made me change my mind on the 6000. It's a good detector, don't get me wrong. I  just never know when it is good, and when it isn't, and that's the problem I personally have with it now. Is it only happening 1% of the time? 50%? No clue, it's totally opaque. There needs to be a "gauge panel" for users to see what setting is at what level, if we are going to have these automated controls - I'm writing that directly to any Minelab engineer reading this more than to any other fellow detectorists.

I'm actually all for Geosense style auto modes, I think they could keep improving it too. There is a time and place for them. But like Simon said, there needs to be manual overrides too. 

I'm curious if the Axiom does this too behind the scenes, or it's true manual? The people like myself who love to ramble on about the tiny minutia of detectors and equipment all seem to be quiet on this release, to my frustration as I keep coming here hoping to see a nitty gritty comparison between the Axiom and the 6 and leaving hungry. ? If it was cheaper (like, market shakeup less expensive), or not such a potentially lateral move, I'd be tempted to do it myself just because I am missing having a detector I trust 100%. 

[jasong]

1 hour ago, PhaseTech said:

You sure you were both in Difficult ground setting? 

Do you have a different result with the 17"? I wonder if there are large variations in quality/construction if so.

My experience was a little less demonstrative than Simon's, but the same general conclusion. Both 17's I've used seemed to have less sensitivity in terms of both size and depth than I would have expected for a coil of those dimensions. I never touch mine. My 11" on the other hand, has been my favorite OEM coil ever (usually my OEM's go directly in the closet), even though I know other's have had a lot of issues with them.

 

[phrunt]

2 hours ago, PhaseTech said:

You sure you were both in Difficult ground setting? 

We were both in normal.  I've heard people say difficult may work better on small gold, I haven't found that to be the case in my soil.  There really isn't much in it, but normal gives the slight edge.  It's not dramatic like the GPZ in normal being so much better than difficult.

I agree with Jason about the 11", other than the quality problems its an outstanding coil, something more I would think the aftermarket would have done and the standard coil would have been subpar on performance, the 11" surprised me with how sensitive it is and Minelab nailed it for sensitivity to small gold with that coil. 

My ultimate GPX 6500 would have manual ground balance where you can lock it, a way to disable whatever Geosense is doing in the background would be nice, just like Fixed on the older GPX, tracking was bad on that for me, Fixed as I was happy.   And in Auto and Auto+ it would be nice if it had a display number on the screen showing what sensitivity it's in, just giving some information so the user knows what's going on. 

They went a smidge too automated on the 6000, a little more control would have been nice, in saying that, now I've had mine all fixed up with coil replaced and EMI Fix it's a good detector for my needs and so light and easy to use.