Fisher 1266 vs. CZ?

Anyone ever use a 1266 for Coin Hunting? If so have Your ever compared the Depth to a CZ? I never used a 1200 Detector, But have CZ for years. Always was curious? Also does if have Modulated Audio like the CZs where deeper coins sound softer? Thanks.

Harold

I tried a 1266 years ago and although deep it also has too much of a liking for iron. OK for relic hunting but not in areas where you don't want to be digging a lot of holes. The 1270 has a much improved iron disc.

Tom

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.

Depth in good ground about equal - in bad ground CZ stomps it - at least that's what Dave Johnson who designed both machines told me a while back.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

Jackpine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harold
>
> I tried a 1266 years ago and although deep it also
> has too much of a liking for iron. OK for relic
> hunting but not in areas where you don't want to b
> e digging a lot of holes. The 1270 has a much impr
> oved iron disc.
>
> Tom

My god,
I thought the 1270 had woeful iron discrimination!
When I got it, I gave it a lot of time, around 2005 if I remember? But I kept digging an above average of ferrous and that was even 'worse' than the amount of ferrous dug with a Goldmaax!
The X-Terra outclassed both of them.

My 1270 went back in the box and remained there unused until last year when someone offered to buy it: it was mint.

The 1266 was better in that the iron recoveries were fewer and the coin recovery was above average from open farmland.
I only ever hunted parks and picnic groves with the 1220-X and then the 1260-X, the precursor to the fabulous 1265.

Des

Did you adjust the internal preset GB pot? It was too positive in my ground, I adjusted it to where it was good enough for most areas near me.

Tom

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.

I used my 1266 as a coin machine back when they were new, mine was a floor demo unit I bought from Chuck at Clevengers....I run the sensitivity at normal, not boosted and run the primary Disc. at zero and second Disc. at beaver tail pull tab rejection. It was slow going because the 1266 lets you have a lazy slow sweep speed. I would get a beep then trigger the toggle to second Disc. to check signals. It worked good if you had the patience......LOL

Harold,

Does this mean that you aren't leaving the business?

I had the 1265-X (predecessor of the 1266) and original CZ-6 and the CZ-6a. I agree with Tom on this. Better discrimination on the CZ. (I think the CZ is a better detector overall) And I preferred the segmented meter on the CZ to toggling between the dual discrimination circuits of the 1265. CZ also worked much better in the dirt here is Utah. A little disclaimer here; the guy that bought my 1265-x used if for decades and thought it was great. So go figure, different stokes for different folks.

Rich -

Jackpine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harold
>
> I tried a 1266 years ago and although deep it also
> has too much of a liking for iron. . . . . . .
>
> Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------

Just one more good target before I go.

Gonebeepin, sold all My Herd except Ireland Made Etrac and Hot CZ-3D. Figure better hold on to those in case I get the itch as too hard to replace them. Besides I ain't Dead yet. Lol.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2017 12:59AM by Harold,ILL..

I love both of these machines the 1266x has excellent depth but after 7 inches the disc was useless. Now to CZ machines they were also very deep but had a love for deep rusty nails but with use you could tell the difference between a deep coin or a deep nail. Out of all the beep and dig machines I've used the 1266x was hands down the best.

88junior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love both of these machines the 1266x has excell
> ent depth but after 7 inches the disc was useless.
> Now to CZ machines they were also very deep but ha
> d a love for deep rusty nails but with use you cou
> ld tell the difference between a deep coin or a de
> ep nail. Out of all the beep and dig machines I've
> used the 1266x was hands down the best.



Yes agree they went deep for rusty nails, they had good pin point but chattered like crazy near power poles, but was a pretty good detecter in general.
I think there are better choices now to buy. It was an icon in it's hay day

88junior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love both of these machines the 1266x has excell
> ent depth but after 7 inches the disc was useless.....

That was my experience on the 1266 too. Heck, in moderate minerals : everything beyond 5 or 6" sounds the same. Thus they would make terrible park turf machines (where a little TID is in order).

But when using the 10" coil on the 1266, you could get a quarter to 1.5 ft. deep ! But there is next to no place on earth where a person could avail himself of this depth. Perhaps on dry white sand, is about the only place I think a person could avail himself of this depth.

I dug way to much iron with both. But silver coins were easy to tell with a CZ. Had a "ping sound"

Here's something Dave Johnson – the designer of the CZ series post a while back.

Nonferrous range target ID is done using (superior) multifrequency methods that have no correspondence in single-frequency technology.

The distinction between ferrous and nonferrous is done using a single-frequency method, inasmuch as multifrequency methods tend to erase the distinction between ferrous and nonferrous. In the multifrequency domain, ferrous looks nonferrous, mostly in the mid conductivity range. NOTE: a simplified explanation is this: multifrequency methods are superior because they mostly ignore the iron minerals in the ground. But because they do this, they also lose the ability to respond to the distinctive magnetic susceptibility signature of iron metal, making it "look" nonferrous.

The people who really clean up with CZ's on the deep silver, don't reject iron. If a target classifies as iron, sweep back and forth over it from several different directions and for the time being, ignore the hits where the machine says it's iron. But keep score.

If nearly all the hits are iron, it's probably iron.

If the non-iron hits classify mostly in the high coins range, it's probably a high coins.

If the non-iron hits classify mostly in the nickel & foil range, it's probably nonferrous. Experienced users of the CZ's describe them as "nickel magnets".

If the non-iron hits hit consistently in a particular mid-conductivity range, it's probably nonferrous, possibly a ring. Iron tends to bounce around.

If the non-iron hits bounce like heck but mostly in the mid-conductivity down to and including nickels, well, that's typical iron behavior, not giving clean consistent ID. If it's easy to dig, whip out your digging tool and let your eyes do the final discrimination. If you don't feel like digging, this is one to leave in the ground.

--Dave J.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

So true the above. ^

The only nail problems I had with the CZ-5 were the rusty ones lying flat. They pinpointed OK but were always in the side of the hole. LOL

Tom

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.