Safari vs E-Trac in heavy iron

[Andrew Bleecker]

Most of my hunting is at parks or beaches where it seems the Safari would work just fine. However I also have beach areas where there were very active shipyards back in 1900 that I think would be very interesting to detect at but there is so much old rusty iron in the ground that seeing anything through the iron may be impossible. I have been hunting with a Garrett 1250 for about 5 years and have pretty much stretched this machine to it's limits and it has no chance in the heavy iron soil.

so the question is, would the e-trac be able to handle searching in the heavy iron, or the Safari for that matter??? If not, or not a big difference between the two, then I can not really justify the added expense of the E-trac.

Also , seems to me that searching by sounds works the best, does having the Fe/Co scale on the e-trac really make a big difference over the simple ID scale on the Safari ?? thanks

 

[nick hunter]

I'm not convinced the Etrac would do better than the Safari in such ferrous conditions. Not even convinced the Safari would do well (and I am a Minelab enthusiast !).

I too am confronted with nail-packed sites, and the only way to get something out of it is to use a non motion circuit and throw it out of balance manually so that it wouldn't respond to the nails.

Now using this setting in your naily area will result in not signaling the nails, and signalling non ferrous targets even under/near/above ferrous ones.

I used this trick with an XLT (autotrac off, manual gb somewhere between 110 and 130) and it should be easy to set on detectors having a non motion mode and a manual gb, which is alas not the case with my Sov GT. DFx, Garrett 1500GTI, XLT, V