Written by the Treasureguide for the exclusive use of the Treasure Beaches Report.
Today I'll talk about metal detectors and search strategies. I'll pick two detectors that I used a lot this year for the examples - the Garrett ATX and Minelab Equinox. I'm not really evaluating those detectors, although I'll mention some of the things I like or don't like about those detectors.
The ATX and Equinox detectors are very different kinds of metal detectors. The ATX is what I would call a power detector. It's major strength, as I use it, is depth. The Equinox, on the other hand is an easy-to-use general purpose detector that does a great job. I use it a lot.
The Garrett ATX is a detector that for me took a long time to learn to use well. It is not what I would call a turn-it-on-and-go metal detector. You can use it in motion mode or non-motion mode. There are few people these days that use a non-motion mode very much.
I used a non-motion mode so much for so many years that I am very comfortable with that. To me, it seemed that I could hear more in a non-motion mode. You gey something closer to the raw data rather than hearing the filtered data produced by a detector trying to do some of the decision making for you. Even when I used an Excalibur a lot, I almost always used it in the pinpoint mode, which is a non-motion mode.
I'm leading up to something else, but I have to talk about differences in metal detectors before I can get to my main point.
The ATX has virtually no discrimination. That is something that a lot of people would not like very much about the ATX, but as I've described several times in the past, I prefer to dig everything and believe digging everything is the best policy, but there are times when discrimination can be helpful, such as when you are short on time and there are tons of targets.
The ATX is a very sensitive detector when properly ground balanced and used well. It will make tiny almost invisible pieces of metal sound off loud and clear.
When switching between the Equinox and the ATX, until you adapt to the ATX, it will seem like every target is huge. Not only does the ATX give a loud signal, but the signal seems to cover a lot of ground. It can make a dime sound like an aluminum can. That makes pinponting difficult. Of course, most people would switch to the pinpoint mode anyhow, but I don't like having to take the time to do that. And with many other detectors, I don't feel much need to switch to pinpoint mode. You can pinpoint pretty well in discrimination mode.
I also like the frequency scanner the ATX provides. That can be a big help in some situations.
One of the things many people will not like about the ATX is the weight, but it actually swings lighter than it is. It is well balanced.
One of the things I like about the Equinox, as compared to the ATX, is the light weight. I've also found the target ID signals useful, as well as the conductivity numbers, to some extent.
I've been very happy with the Equinox and used it a lot this year even though several experienced detectorists that I talked to don't like it because they don't think it gives much depth. I was not disappointed with the depth, but I'll say more about that in a minute. On one occasion, I watched some very experienced detectorists with detectors that cost two or three times more than the Equinox walk right over a very nice but thin gold chain that was found by the Equinox.
You can cover a lot of ground quickly using the Equinox. You can use a fast sweep speed without too much loss of performance. And paying attention to the signals and numbers, you can ignore a lot of junk targets without making a huge number of mistakes.
I tend to use the Equinox when I want to cover a lot of ground. I use it to assess large areas of the beach. After exploring with the Equinox, I might get the ATX, slow down and focus on getting whatever I might have missed with the Equinox.
I am of the feeling that the ATX does generally detect deeper, but I often prefer quickly exploring wide areas with the Equinox first.
I've commented in the past about comparing detectors for depth, and the problems with air tests and tests gardens and won't get into that now. For a few comments on that sort of thing see some of my previous posts such as this 2014 post.
But now I'll get down to the nitty gritty. If you are going to choose one metal detector, are you better off using a detector that will do a good job of covering a lot of surface area like the Equinox even if it isn't the deepest seeking detector in the world or one that detects a bit deeper but seriously slows you down.
I think it is worth remembering that when I say deeper, I'm talking in terms of a few inches.
So to ask the question again, do you think it is better to cover a lot of surface area, or get that last inch of two of depth?
Of course, the answer must be, "It depends." Where are the targets?
Consider the following illustration which compares a hypothetical area of coverage of two detectors. One covers a more spread out shallower area and the other a deeper area but a smaller surface area.
You can either explore a lot of surface area or take some time on a smaller area and spend a lot of time digging deep holes.
The first strategy works well when you are looking for a good spot, or when many good targets are scattered near the surface. The second strategy works well when you have an area of known or suspected good deep targets. It becomes a matter of statistics, which search pattern is best under specific circumstances. Use any and all clues to refine your probability estimates.
Before I go any farther, I know what some of you are thinking. You are thinking that you have the best super-duper detector, and it can do everything well. But then let me ask you this - how often do you change modes or settings to adjust to the situation? That is the point. Do you select a search strategy that fits the situation and make the necessary adjustments? You can do that by either selecting another detector, or if your detector provides all the necessary capabilities, adjusting modes and settings.
Back to the important question: how are the targets distributed? How many good targets are near the surface and easily detected compared to how many targets are deeper? That is what you need to know in order to select the best search strategy. Will you do better skimming the surface or going for maximum depth even if it means cutting down on the area you cover?
There are times when there are a lot of good targets near the surface, and there are times when the good targets are deep. You first need to assess the situation. You can collect data by covering a lot of surface area as a first step.
After clearing out the more shallow surface targets, sometimes you'll then find the deeper targets that were originally masked by the surface targets. And sometimes mother nature will deeply bury all the good targets. But if you figure out how the good targets are distributed, then you can select the best search strategy.
It all depends upon what you have learned about or believe about the distribution of targets. Are there enough deep good targets to slow down in one area or are the majority of good targets more shallow or spread out over a larger area.
Those are some things you might want to consider. I personally believe that if you've found a good area, and that is what reading a beach is all about, you won't need a lot of depth for a lot of the targets, and you might be better off quickly taking the easier targets before you lose the tide and run out of time. On the other hand, once you have reason to suspect the presence of quality deep targets, it might be well worth slowing down and going for maximum depth.
There are many factors to consider, and I've just discussed a few of them, but I think you will be better off having thought about some of the trade-offs.
So which metal detector is better? It depends upon the situation and what you want to do.
---
No big change in the surf or beach conditions is expected.
Happy hunting,
TreasureGuide@comcast.net