Axiom Vs GPX For Relics???

[Soky72]

Now that the Axiom has been out awhile are there any relic hunters that can provide some feedback on how the Axiom compares to the GPX 4500/5000 on discrimination? I've scoured the internet and have found a couple of competing opinions but very little other than that. I've owned the GPX 4500 and now 5000 and for 2 years I didn't own a vlf machine and I was very successful at finding Civil War relics in pounded sites in my area. Once you get your ear "tuned" I dug very little iron. Also on the Axiom is the iron check a button you hold down or a mode you can leave it in for those high iron areas?

[timbus59]

I'm not a relic hunter, but I can tell you that the iron descrimination on the Axiom is not a mode that you can leave on. You have to press and hold a button.  In my experience the iron check on the axiom is good, but not as good as my VLF.  I dont trust it until I've partially dug the target to the point where the signal is strong and then done a 360 sweep with the coil from all angles getting an iron grunt on each sweep. I've definitly dug targets that partially grunt once or twice that turn out to be non-ferrous.

[Jeff McClendon]

3 hours ago, Soky72 said:

I've scoured the internet and have found a couple of competing opinions but very little other than that.

Have you scoured this area of the internet yet?

 

I am a new Axiom owner so I am still scouring that Essential Information area myself. 

I used a GPX 4800 and 5000 for relic hunting. They did okay. So far the Axiom and its Iron Check feature used with its DD coils has worked well on small nail sized to larger, shallower iron targets but where I have used it was on moderate to highly iron mineralized ground. I have no idea how it will work at saltwater beaches, alkaline soil conditions or on less iron mineralized sites. My biggest hurdle is just getting used to the type of DD coils that the Axiom has and how different size and type of targets respond using them.

The huge plus with the Axiom compared to the GPX 4000 to 5000 models is I don't need a harness, bungie, hipstick, guide arm or a bionic arm to swing the Axiom even using the 13X11" coils. Ergonomics are fantastic.

[Chase Goldman]

Agree with what Jeff said on relic detecting and timbus59 on Axiom discrimination.  I use Axiom in highly mineralized, red Virginia clay and have about 100 hours on it.  I previously owned a GPX 4800 and an ATX before that.  I am glad I made the switch to Axiom from the GPX.  The ergonomics and straight forward setup are such that I would consider using it even in mild dirt conditions where the depth advantage is not as great.  Regarding the implementation of iron rejection, I prefer the “on demand” iron check approach rather than the continuous iron blanking, though the GPX iron blanking might have an ever so slight advantage when it comes to identifying iron at slightly deeper depths.  Both are subject to false positives, I.e., buzzing or blanking on non-ferrous targets so you can never put full faith in them 100% of the time.  You need to integrate what iron check is telling you with the unfiltered target audio characteristics and then make a dig call (or just dig every target if you want to be 1000% certain).  I find that the Axiom may hold the edge when it comes to non-ferrous “confidence”. By that I mean that if the Axiom does not buzz on a strong (shallow) target, very high confidence it is non-ferrous.

Ground balancing is easy and you can even use it (with caution) to balance out hot rocks and even shallow square nails (see @Steve Herschbach’s various Axiom tips and tricks posts and videos).

I love the stock DD and opted to add the smaller DD coil vs. the small mono that is included in the US kit.  

The integrated Z-Lynk wireless works well.

If I were going to ask for a tweak, it would be enable a way to manually select/adjust  the operating frequency channel on the fly vs. having to go through the entire channel scan again should you run into interference after you initialize GB and frequency at the beginning of your hunt.

Overall, I have no regrets going to Axiom for hot dirt relic detecting. See below for some of my Axiom finds.

[Steve Herschbach]

I will just comment that with any PI the more mineralized the ground, the less accurate the PI disc. I have seen the GPX models call 1/4 gold nuggets in plain view as ferrous, and similar issues with Axiom. We of course have to use the tools we have as best we can and so I’d rather have the feature than not. But that said I cherry pick based purely on tone myself. PI detectors are like old analog VLFs in that they impart a lot of info through the target audio that is lacking in modern digital VLF detectors, and those with a knack for hunting by ear can do well getting to learn a PI, but it does take some time and patience to build the skill.

This was brought home to me this last year. I have hunted some places for gold nuggets by cherry picking basically sweet high tones, and passing on most low tones or broken/raspy high tones. I figured I must have left some large gold behind, which goes low tone. Or specimens which give trashy signals. I did a bunch of dig it all detecting in those areas this summer and was amazed in a bad way at how well I had cherry picked out the gold. I mean like a pound of gold. So now I go back with a dig it all mind set and dig nothing but nails and assorted ferrous junk. It turns out I was remarkably effective at cherry picking targets by tone, far better than I even thought. I really don’t need the ferrous check stuff and tend to forget it’s even an option. Just give me that sweet gold tone.

Final thought on the PI disc whether Minelab or Axiom. And yes Minelab can be full time on, Axiom you need to press the button. Setting full time is convenient but also means simply walking over stuff and not knowing it was there. Theory with Axiom is acquire the target first before playing with admittedly lousy PI disc. It works best for areas littered with surface trash. Neither Minelab nor Garrett helps with the targets I need the most help with - the nail at 18”. The Axiom grunts on ferrous targets. If you sweep 10 times and get ten grunts it’s probably ferrous, except in very high mineral ground, where all bets are off. But if you sweep ten times and get nine grunts there is a 10-20% chance it’s non-ferrous. Sweep ten times and only five grunts, 60-80% chance it’s non-ferrous. I am pulling those numbers out of my posterior because the ground messes too much with the odds, but I hope you get the point. Any non-ferrous indication at all should be given high weighting.

This versus that? Nothing at all wrong with the Minelabs. More coils, more settings, great detectors. Axiom is just an alternative for those wanting something different and I doubt going from one to the other will change much about what gets found. A good detectorist in a good location should do well with either.

[Soky72]

3 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I will just comment that with any PI the more mineralized the ground, the less accurate the PI disc. I have seen the GPX models call 1/4 nuggets in plain view as ferrous, and similar issues with Axiom. We of course have to use the tools we have as best we can and so I’d rather have the feature than not. But that said I cherry pick based purely on tone myself. PI detectors are like old analog VLFs in that they impart a lot of info through the target audio that is lacking in modern digital VLF detectors, and those with a knack for hunting by ear can do well getting to learn a PI, but it does take some time and patience to build the skill.

This was brought home to me this last year. I have hunted some places for gold nuggets by cherry picking basically sweet high tones, and passing on most low tones or broken/raspy high tones. I figured I must have left some large gold behind, which goes low tone. Or specimens which give trashy signals. I did a bunch of dig it all detecting in those areas this summer and was amazed in a bad way at how well I had cherry picked out the gold. I mean like a pound of gold. So now I go back with a dig it all mind set and dig nothing but nails and assorted ferrous junk. It turns out I was remarkably effective at cherry picking targets by tone, far better than I even thought. I really don’t need the ferrous check stuff and tend to forget it’s even an option. Just give me that sweet gold tone.

Final thought on the PI disc whether Minelab or Axiom. And yes Minelab can be full time on, Axiom you need to press the button. Setting full time is convenient but also means simply walking over stuff and not knowing it was there. Theory with Axiom is acquire the target first before playing with admittedly lousy PI disc. It works best for areas littered with surface trash. Neither Minelab nor Garrett helps with the targets I need the most help with - the nail at 18”. The Axiom grunts on ferrous targets. If you sweep 10 times and get ten grunts it’s probably ferrous, except in very high mineral ground, where all bets are off. But if you sweep ten times and get nine grunts there is a 10-20% chance it’s non-ferrous. Sweep ten times and only five grunts, 60-80% chance it’s non-ferrous. I am pulling those numbers out of my posterior because the ground messes too much with the odds, but I hope you get the point. Any non-ferrous indication at all should be given high weighting.

This versus that? Nothing at all wrong with the Minelabs. More coils, more settings, great detectors. Axiom is just an alternative for those wanting something different and I doubt going from one to the other will change much about what gets found. A good detectorist in a good location should do well with either.

Probably what I needed to hear at the end of the day. No real improvement other than ergonomics and water resistance. I run a custom battery and rod I both made along with a wireless setup. It's really quite manageable and I have several coils. Maybe an update to the Axiom or another PI contender is what I should wait for.

[Steve Herschbach]

An Axiom update or a new PI from Nokta or Fisher won't change anything. We are near the limits of the tech. People don't want to hear that and many refuse to believe it but that's where we are. If you want more and better finds put more effort into research and finding new places to hunt. That will pay off far more than waiting for an Axiom update or Nokta Super Duper Whiz Bang PI. There is no update to the Axiom that will substantially change how it currently performs. All I expect to see is much like we saw with Axiom - better packaging, better prices. But two more inches of depth? I'm not holding my breath.

Maybe it's your 5000 that needs the update. 

 

[RiverRat]

On 11/7/2023 at 12:44 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

An Axiom update or a new PI from Nokta or Fisher won't change anything. We are near the limits of the tech. People don't want to hear that and many refuse to believe it but that's where we are. If you want more and better finds put more effort into research and finding new places to hunt. That will pay off far more than waiting for an Axiom update or Nokta Super Duper Whiz Bang PI. There is no update to the Axiom that will substantially change how it currently performs. All I expect to see is much like we saw with Axiom - better packaging, better prices. But two more inches of depth? I'm not holding my breath.

Maybe it's your 5000 that needs the update. 

Steve, I couldn't agree more. There is only so much the manufacturers can do. Sooner or later they're going to run out of tricks.  That's why I don't play the latest and greatest game. I'm just interested from a technical standpoint what they're coming up with to solve certain problems.  Other than that just like has been said before, it's experienced detectorists who will find the majority of the gold. I don't need the latest and greatest to have fun, which is evidenced by the fact that I bought GPX 4800 after I bought my GB 2. I can already hear the groans, oh my God he's swinging a 4800. Here's the deal, I bought it because it has DVT and SETA and it will do what I need it to do. The rest is getting it over the gold, same as the rest of these machines. 

As far as new tech, it can only go so far. One of my friends is an engineering tech, what used the be called an engineer before they came up with fancy degrees. He's worked for several big electronic companies and been a lead on projects where they reverse engineer their competitors products. It's kind of like scavenging tech from another company but In a slightly different way. That might be what's going on now with the detector companies.  There's ne real groundbreaking stuff going on with these companies. Sure ZVT is a different bent on it but it's not earth shattering by any means.

Sorry, my two 2 cents.

[Jeff McClendon]

For my hunting style, the Axiom is a better choice. I do like using my GPX 4000 for relics and deep coins but I just like the Axiom's press the button for on demand iron ID with typical Garrett iron grunt audio instead of using iron reject on the GPX and having it on all the time. Like Steve H and Chase said above, that could create unwanted target masking. I do like how the GPX iron reject is incremental but being threshold based, it to me anyway is more prone to masking.