Coinstrike

[Bill W.]

I had over 150 hours on my C$. For ME in my area it wasn't as deep as my CZ. As you said differences in ground conditions can put an end to blanket statements. Didn't work in my area but I am glad it does in your area...

-Bill

 

[OldeTymer]

n/t

 

[BuckeyeBrad]

the differences being discussed are due to local soils and or unit to unit variations of the particular detectors individuals have used to come to these conclusions. This would be VERY interesting to get to the bottom of, but I know it's all but impossible.

 

[Mark in NC]

I think this may be the key to the depth issue between the CZ's and the C$. I think Tony's point was that from his observation, in his soil, the C$ was the best. NC has lots of areas with red, mineralized clays (high iron). I bet Tony hunts a lot of those types of dirt, in which the C$ excels. In low mineralization (which I don't have) the CZ gets great depth also... so I agree with the "no blanket statement" point of view. With a good healthy mix of "user preference" thrown in. Like I said before, I have both and like both, different tools in the toolbox.

Mark in NC

 

[Bill Ladd]

that he never even got it out of his yard??.......

 

[NEBeachcomber]

Please forgive me for just jumping into your thread... but I find this topic interesting, especially since I have been anxiously following all of the CoinStrike threads on this site for the past month. Yes... I've been a lurker , but I hope to be able to add some useful information in the future.

I think you are on a track where all CoinStrike users could learn something from this topic. I know I would like to learn what areas of the United States that the CoinStrike performs "flawlessly" in and what areas it performs at a lower level than expected? Knowing how the CoinStike will perform in a given area should allow the CoinStrike users on the forum to interpret the patterns and relate their ideas for dealing with the ground conditions of that area?

As a thought... If the Coin Strike Users were to include the State, the type of soil and ground conditions they are detecting in, it might be possible to develop conversations into dealing with the patterns of (un)favorable conditions for the CoinStrike? (Rather than the "I agree" or "I Disagree" approach going on now.)

Again, please accept my apology for jumping it uninvited.


Safe Hunting,
NEBeachcomber
[Massachusetts: The land of sandy beaches & historical black soil]

 

[BuckeyeBrad]

Unfortunately, even though there is obviously room for more controlled and precise data collection, I don't see much happening to the degree that we can actually make some conclusions. For one thing, unless if you have a Technetics T2, you don't really know exactly what degree and of what type mineralization you're dealing with. Big unfortunate outage there. An individual's perceived depth is also related to hearing and the tones and volumes of the C$ and CZ's are different. I've had a C$ and 2 different CZ's for quite some time and my take is their depths are more "different" than superior or inferior to each other. How many times have folks actually carried around both a C$ and a CZ, checked each and every target detected with both while the other was switched off? I've done that some, but certainly not enough for me to say one is consistantly deeper. IMO, the C$ has better all around "functional" depth (not to be necessarily confused with "raw depth"), in other words, it will hit more targets in conditions that the CZ's handle a little less effectively. I've seen quite a few times where the C$ is still ID'ing a deep fringe target with positive numbers while a CZ has already relegated the target to iron status. That's an example of what I mean with the phrase "functional depth".

 

[Bill Ladd]

I'll jump back in again I think the best news overall is that we are talking about 2 Fishers. This isn't one brand vs. another Don't get me wrong, I own & love them both (actually have CZ-5, 6a, 7a). If they were not good & deep they'd be gone & I love CZ for the beaches. But, like a few others gut tired of the same exact blanket statement. Another thing we have to keep in mind is that folks run different settings & such, & that we are really talking about 2 entirely different units. This is not a close comparison of same engineer designs like Excel/Edge or something. In disc mode with a CZ/C$ for me (& my soils) it may be too close to call?. I said "all metal" is where the C$ is crazy deep & where I see a noticeable difference. In comparing disc mode I have not witnessed anything sufficient yet. I'm not 100% certain because I don't carry a tape measure around every hole. Or do like Brad mentioned, have 2 detectors on at the same time to compare weak signals or something. This would be the best way to do it. I usted to have like those little flags & usted to mark targets, & then go back to the car for another unit. That can be helpful (although I find myself dying to dig after several flags go up) Then, so if I started with a CZ on senstivity 5 to locate the targets initially, what do I set an entirelly different Coinstrike on?? Not sensitivity 5? Perhaps 8? This is all subjective. Put them both on 10 & they are unstable in my soil. In other states the C$ rocks on 10. So maybe the answer is the highest STABLE sens. setting would be fair?
The deep, faint musketballs I found a few weeks ago would have been a really good test. I used a C$ with the 10.5 coil & sensitivity 9. If I'd marked the spots & gone back to the car for my back-up, the CZ-7A with a 12.5" Sunray coil is that a fair fight? I just might have to give marking some targets off a try again.....

 

[Kevin[NC]]

I have a C$ And a CZ5. I have used a C$ ever sense they came out and have used the CZ5 even longer. I can say for sure that in the best soil conditions, the CZ goes a little deeper, but as the soil gets more mineralized the depth between the 2 shifts. I have hunted some areas in western NC that the CZ would ID ever thing below 2 inches of soil as iron. The CS$ WILL STOMP THE CZ IN BAD GROUND. The first time I hunted the really bad red clay in Western NC, me and my uncle both were using CZ5s. Everything at this old school IDed iron. I knew there had to be more than iron there and started digging iron tones. Less than half the iron tones were iron. The C$ IS good in most every soil condition I have tried, and deeper than anything I have tried in tough conditions.
HH'n

 

[Bill W.]

Bill,

I agree they're all good points. I mostly hunted in DISC with my C$. I knew there was a learn curve to the machine when I bought it. I spent over 150 hours on the machine and my 3D was deeper in DISC. I did dig dimes with the C$'s depth at 10-12 on the pinpoint. So, I know I could hear the deep coins that I hit in DISC. Maybe it was a bad machine or a 'sub-par' coil. Maybe all-metal is the only mode that has any advantage in my area over DISC. I've always tried to be as objective as one can be when it comes to detecting as it can only benefit myself. I would have loved for the C$ to work great in my area. The biggest problem by far I had with the C$ was digging hot rocks that hit in the 20's. I tried everything to get rid of those suckers but could find them by the pouch full no matter what I did... I found them almost exclusively in the 1800's era sites I hunt. Jackpine Savage (Tom) offered alot of suggestions for my problems but I couldn't remedy that problem. My Explorer wouldn't hit on those rocks so it definitely had me scratching my head... Believe me when I say I am not bashing the C$. I have no reason to. If I knew I could remedy the problems I had in the past with the C$, especially with the hot rocks, I would buy one tomorrow. I love my 3D and like the Fisher quality alot and that is coming from some who is NOT brand loyal.

-Bill

 

[Bill Ladd]

I guess it all comes down to soil mineralization conditions for each persons area. In Rhode Island, I have a hot rock infested soil & I can only get the C$ up to 8 or 9 ONLY if I drop threshold way down. Even there, I will experience some chatter, but I bear with it to maximize depth @ 1700's sites. Perhaps the best & easiest way of testing 2 similar units for depth is if ya gut a buddy with say a CZ & you have a C$ (or vice versa). If you stick sorta close by, then you can get a deep or weak signal & have your buddy check it with his machine & see if he would dig or not. (But then again, ya gutta factor in settings, coil size, etc...) I remember when I had the 1270, it was hitting deep musketballs that another brand I won't mention wouldn't even peep on when I called my pal over. But, like I said I had a 10.5 coil on & he had a small coil & who knows how "hot" his settings were? Maybe his 10" coil could have hit the musketballs? These are the kinds of tests I'd like to make the effort to run more often. I did try to do alot of Edge vs Excel/C$ tests before I started writing the field test, but deadlines didn't allow a "BarnicleBill" type effort It would be nice to get a bunch a those little flags that like the lawn/sprinkler compaines use to mark targets, unless someone else has any other ideas?