Detector Comparisons - Test Result Compilation in inches

More charts made from collected testing data - but this time rather than using a formula to normalize differing coil surface areas I simply chose similar size coils within a narrow range. I made the charts with the chart bars facing downward, where the longer the bar the deeper into the ground the detector operates. That is a stylistic change, but I also moved away from the unit-less rankings used before with average distance to target or target depth in the ground, in inches.

The same caveats apply, the charts are based on dissimilar testing done under less than controlled circumstances by various individuals with unknown abilities. The results are given for an individual target (a coin) and averaged. Thus, some testing had deeper and/or shallower results but the average distance is what is displayed here. Again, the greater the number of individual tests performed on a detector of identical targets, the increased likelihood that the result is more precise and more reliable.

This is provided just for informational purposes ... under different soil conditions, coil, or setup/adjustment the results could differ significantly (and of course depth is not the end-all of detector performance). Enjoy!























-Johnnyanglo

Wow - lots of work there JohnnyAnglo - thanks for sharing -

The old Wilson RC IV can hold its own with the best on a dime. That's great for a detector of that age. But they must mean 0 Disc. as Wilson RC Detectors don't have a true All Metal mode. I guess Dan,Pa. Was rite when He said they had CZ type depth. To bad They are rare as Hen's teeth and not being made anymore. People who have them won't give them up.

I've seen this chart many years ago,you notice it has no newer machines..
Also a Fisher 1235x getting 13" vs 1266x getting 7"? Also beat the cz20 by 2.1"..
I've owned all three of those machines and my results were much different with the cz and 1266x both are far deeper.

------------"Cz's still bad to the bone".------------
Living on a big ass Astroid.
The woman that got my rib,I want it back.

Quote

"I've seen this chart many years ago,you notice it has no newer machines.."

You've seen other charts like this one perhaps, but I created this last week and this is the first time its ever been shown. The database covers many years of collected data, hence the older detectors.

This chart appears to be saying the Xcal will get a quarter at 17" in AM. We have some of the best sand in the US and id challenge anyone to hit a quarter at 17" that can PP properly. The Xcal does better in AM on a quarter....... but it has a real hard time on deep quarters in disc. For it to be leading the pack.......... ill just say im surprised.

Dew

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This chart appears to be saying the Xcal will get
> a quarter at 17" in AM. We have some of the best
> sand in the US and id challenge anyone to hit a
> quarter at 17" that can PP properly. The Xcal
> does better in AM on a quarter....... but it has a
> real hard time on deep quarters in disc. For it
> to be leading the pack.......... ill just say im
> surprised.
>
> Dew

I can get 13'' on an air test with a quarter in Disc and PP. I think it would be very difficult to set up an environment where I could get better without different headphones and coil.

_________________________________

Nox600, CTX, CZ21, Excal II and White's DF with 920i stealthscoop...I live and hunt at the beach in Wilm NC



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2016 07:46PM by adamBomb.

Big difference when u know a target is there as well.

Johnny a lot of work went into your research and the results are very interesting --Thanks for sharing.

The AT Pro goes deeper than the Etrac? I don't think I can trust your data.

Johnny, I appreciate the time and effort you've taken to compile these graphs over the years, but...

Seeing detectors like the Cz-3d, T2. and E-Trac near the bottom of in ground depth, below the Ace 150, Tesoro Amigo and the Bounty Hunter Jr, makes me question the value of these composite numbers.

When you say "the charts are based on dissimilar testing done under less than controlled circumstances by various individuals with unknown abilities," I can surmise the ability of some of these various individuals is pretty awful.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2016 05:58AM by marcomo.