Relic Hunters - Time Searching vs Time Digging

Let me just say, I'm not a relic hunter. But I've often wondered whether relic hunters typically spend more time digging than they do searching. I ask the question because relic hunters seem to talk about a detector's depth capability more than any other detector attribute, suggesting to me that they may be spending as much or more time digging targets than searching for targets.

Thoughts?

It varies too much to give a straight answer. I have spent hunts searching for new sites and not found anything after all day of hunting and covering many acres of land. Then I have found sites and filled my pouch with relics and never move outside of a football field size area. I've actually had to go back to the truck and empty my pouch of bullets because they were pulling my pants down. At some of the DIV hunts I have spent all 3 days of 10-12 hour days hunting in small areas and never take more than a water break from digging relics or to change out batteries.

Well,,it could cut both ways,,a lot of digging,,and not much at all.

Site dependent,,,and a person can also cherry pick when relic hunting sometimes.

Could also be detector dependent too.

Some folks hunt sites,,,and approach from many angles,,, like target conductivity,,,could be depth.

And then there are those sites that have been productive in the past,,,but hunted hard--- and some detectorists go on a rampage of sorts chasing lesser textbook signals,,hoping to pull a deepie or a maybe more masked target,,,this can turn into a lot of digging with little to show--- but how many holes would a person dig with actual junk/ iron in the bottom to find one impressive worthy find???? Obviously the answer here will vary.

A good question you asked though..

We all see the fishing shows on TV,,,where someone like Roland Martin just keeps reeling them in--- like this gent never has a bad day fishing.

Well metal detecting-- sorry to say,,is just like fishing,,in reality you have bad days,,mediocre days,,and good days,,,and occassioanly an outstanding day.
But even here the difference ratings could vary depending on sometimes where a person lives geopgraphic wise.

Cheers.

For me the digging is just as fun as the finding. Relics I think can be harder to dig. Sometimes there are nail and small iron that have to be taken out of the hole to find your target. Sometimes we are digging under logs or rocks. I like to hunt so it would be like asking a deer hunter. What do you like more the preparing and the hiking and the waiting or do you just want to shoot the deer and get it over with...I think it's the hunt first..

LowBoy

TAKE A LITTLE TIME KICKBACK AND WATCH SOME OF MY DETECTING VIDEO'S BELOW ON YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

If you don’t dig it, then how are you going to know what you’re missing!
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!

I usually get in a 20 Sq Ft area and stay for hours ..and dig A LOT of holes..

Not deep holes but alot of holes...maybe 100 or more in a few hours..

Keith

“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
-Nikola Tesla

Researching is the key as you know but yes we speak of depth due to a lot of folks can easily pull up the net and research. These sites over this way have been hit a ton and those missed items were missed due to not only depth but other factors. When I go to a area where depth is a key to missed targets I like a large digger and Daniel put me on a great one. Fast recovery and move on. Saves in every hole...lol...heck no. Relics come in many different forms as well, your trash may be anothers save as a relic hunter...axe heads, old farm tools and the list goes on.

If you want to say research is a form of searching then I search more. Sometimes I get lucky in that small key spot and dig more though.....sometimes

Mike it really depends on the site. If it's an iron infested site, like many that I dig, then depth isn't the key to success as much as unmasking non-ferrous targets in the sea of iron.

On the sites were targets are sparse, depth can be a factor, but it's really site specific. I'm always surprised that a lot of old sites that remain undisturbed by modern influence, the targets can (not always) be fairly shallow (6" or less).

Others can be depth, others are trying to get through the mineralization. I have one site that I hunt once and a while that doesn't yield a lot of targets and because it gets plowed, targets can be shallow or deep, but you want to dig anything non-ferrous at this site.

hh,
Brian