looking for info on fisher water machine the 1280 aqua

[grumpyaz]

we been looking for a water machine again sold our excal and looking at the fisher 1280 aqua an wondering what its feedback is? I also need to use it in all general hunting as a backup machine. Our fisher f75s seem to die once in a while and without a machine to use is not good. any info appreciated. grumpy

 

[Larbear2]

The 1280 Aquanaut has been around for a long time, I bought mine in ‘86. It was the only detector I used for a lot of years, used it in the fresh water lake and on dirt. After using it for awhile, I found a discrimination setting of 3 worked best for me. Then a few years later I reduced the disc to 2 1/2 to make it even more sensitive. If I went below 2 1/2 then I would dig more iron than I cared to.
Found a good amount of silver with the 1280, I learned to listen for deep repeatable whispers. Max depth in my dirt was 5 or 6 inches on a dime. After a good rain it would go a little deeper.
It gets lighter if you belt mount or chest harness it. If you submerge it in the water, make sure the battery gasket is lubed with something, I used to use a light coat of Vaseline, or silicone grease. Very few problems with my 1280X over the years, they are built like a tank and if you lube the battery gasket before submerging it, and tighten the screws (don’t over tighten), It should do a good job.
I still use my 1280X in the water and an AT Pro in the water. For land hunting I now use other detectors. Good luck with yours.

 

[u2robert]

Single frequency unit unlike the fisher CZ 20/21 water detectors and every bit as heavy.
It's built like a tank.
Had one in the early 90's sold it for a CZ5

 

[OldBeechnut]

I would look around for a deal on the CZ20/21. It would be more equal to the excalibur performance wise. Maybe TVR will chime in on this, he's more up to date on all three. Good Luck!

 

[tvr]

Sorry I was behind on this thread. Agree with OldBeechnut. The 1280X is not a bad detector, but the discrimination is not nearly as sharp as either the CZ or an Excal. By sharp I mean the cut off is more like a slope than a cliff. So, even when discriminating out most iron, you will still dig a bit and may loose more small gold. It also seems to me to be more sensitive on the silver end of the conductivity range than on gold. Deeper on silver than on gold. The audio is more linear, meaning that there is no deep target boost. When there are waves and wind, it is difficult to hear the faint deep targets. For water a good used CZ 20 / 21 or an excal makes a good pick.

Now as to general use; a CZ 20 / 21 with the 8 inch coil does well over dirt but is heavy to detect with for long. If budget is an issue, it might be worth looking at something like the Simplex. I have not pick one up yet to try, but reading the reports and looking at some videos of it, it seems to do well in both general dirt detecting and water / beach use.

I do see a lot of AT Pro's in use in the water. I have not used one; but they also are well spoken of both in the water and for land use.

 

[Larbear2]

Good answers, yes , if cost is not an issue,definitely go with newer technology than the 1280X. I think Fisher is still making the 1280X, but maybe the only reason is to provide a lower cost alternative to the CZ20/21 and the Excal?
Also, if I recall correctly, the 1280X is not good in salt water? Because of the single frequency? That might be a factor in your decision. The 1280X does fine in freshwater, but not as sensitive as the others mentioned.

 

[u2robert]

Not for salt water or wet sand

 

[tvr]

Also, if I recall correctly, the 1280X is not good in salt water? Because of the single frequency? That might be a factor in your decision. The 1280X does fine in freshwater, but not as sensitive as the others mentioned.

Not for salt water or wet sand

It is a low frequency, 2.4 kHz. It does just fine in salt water and over the wet salt sand. It is essentially the same design that was later used in the Detector Pro VLF series of detectors. I've got both a Detector Pro Wader and a Detector Pro Underwater that I pack as back ups in case I have other detectors fail. They have no problems with the salt.

 

[u2robert]

It's a single frequency detector so no it does not do just fine in salt water & wet salt sand.
I had 1280 and used it at the beach erratic with no depth.
What you need is the Fisher CZ series detector multi-Frequency & deep.

 

[tvr]

It's a single frequency detector so no it does not do just fine in salt water & wet salt sand.
I had 1280 and used it at the beach erratic with no depth.
What you need is the Fisher CZ series detector multi-Frequency & deep.

Maybe you had a bad one. One I had and the Detector Pro vlf units work just fine. They are not as deep as a CZ or Excal; but they are stable and work well in the salt water.
Cheers,
tvr
Edited to add: I'll add a picture of my first test with the single frequency 2.4 Khz Detector Pro underwater. The numbered items (1-5) are things I took to test and set up discrimination; the rest were found in the first couple hours after testing. This was over the wet salt sand in Myrtle Beach. Two of the quarters were pretty deep.

 

[u2robert]

Maybe you have a special one?
Anyone who's hunted salt water beaches knows
single frequency detectors just don't cut it at the salt water beaches.

 

[tvr]

Maybe you have a special one?
Anyone who's hunted salt water beaches knows
single frequency detectors just don't cut it at the salt water beaches.

It is the low frequency that helps a lot with the 1280 and HeadHunter vlf's. I have also been able to get good depth over wet salt sand by staying right on top of the ground balance with my F75LTD. It is not a relaxing detector to use over the wet salt, so I don't pack it for the beach anymore, but single frequency can work. Take a look at the Tarsacci MDT 8000. It has 4 selectable frequencies, but uses one at a time (single frequency) and is reported as very deep in the salt water.

 

[H2OAU]

1280 is next to worthless on southern California beaches. Had two over the years, neither was any good in our black sand

 

[Rick K]

TVR is correct and summarizes the 1280’s salt water capabilities, such as they are. As far as black sand goes, that kills almost any single freq detector. It also hits multifreakers hard on depth, but they do better than singlefreakers.