After hearing about the ID problem with the Six shooter for my MX Sport, I had decided to wait before getting mine. Thought that Whites would have a recall on the coil so they could all be returned to the factory by all the dealers and distributors. After waiting for what I thought would be plenty of time to correct the ID problem, I ordered my coil. My local dealer didn't have any in stock so he had his distributor send him one. When it showed up it had the bad ID #s. So my dealer talked to his distributor about the problem and they said to send it back. They promised to check the replacement coil before sending it. Well it showed up last week, and had the same problem. Don't know if I should get hold of the factory about this problem. Just wish they could have made the effort to have all their first production models recalled once they new about the problem. Hopefully I can get a proper working coil. I really enjoy using my Sport. Mark
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Six shooter recall ?
- Thread starter SWMO Mark
- Start date
instead of going to the dealer. This was posted on another thread.
Re: Problem with the new Six Shooter Sport coil?
Posted by: tboykin [ Send a Message ]
Date: April 30, 2018 01:11PM Registered: 2 years ago
Posts: 89
Fix is in place. If you notice high-conductor VDI numbers reading too low with your coil please give us a call and we will gladly swap it out for you at no charge. 1-800-547-6911.
This one is my fault, but thank you guys for helping us catch this quickly - only about 50 coils went out with the problem
Re: Problem with the new Six Shooter Sport coil?
Posted by: tboykin [ Send a Message ]
Date: April 30, 2018 01:11PM Registered: 2 years ago
Posts: 89
Fix is in place. If you notice high-conductor VDI numbers reading too low with your coil please give us a call and we will gladly swap it out for you at no charge. 1-800-547-6911.
This one is my fault, but thank you guys for helping us catch this quickly - only about 50 coils went out with the problem
There are several reasons why we get a numeric VDI read-out and it isn't all related to the search coil's windings or calibration. A lot of the visual response, most of it really, is dependent upon the metal detector's circuitry design. Then, too, other outside factors can come into play, such as the ground mineral make-up, or the coin target's angle or relationship to the search coil, the coin's depth, the search coil's size and type, the amount of wear the coin might have., etc., etc., etc. Some of that etcetera part also has to do with the coin's metal alloy makeup and the purity of the metal alloys used.
Let me share this example which is actually a multiple of examples.
Let's first consider the lowly 1¢ US coin. The small cents we had from 1856 to early 1864 have been called 'fatties' because they were thicker than the pennies that replaced them. The Flying Eagle Cent and early Indian Head cents were the 'fatties.'. They were made of 88% Copper and 12% Nickel and called Copper-Nickel. In 1864 they also minted the newer version 1¢ coins that were thinner and comprised of 95% Copper and a 5% mix of Tin and Zinc, and all 1¢ coins used the same alloy mix until September of 1962 with the following exceptions:
1943 ... steel coated with zinc
1944-'46 ... they used spent shell casings
So other than those four years, small cents from 1864 thru 1962 were made of a 95% Copper and 5% Tin and Zinc mixture. Then, from September of 1962 through part of 1982 they eliminated the Tin and only used 5% Zinc. One would think, therefore, that almost all of the 'Bronze' 1¢ coins from 1864 through 1981 and part of 1982 would have a similar TID. In 1982 they changed up the 1¢ coin make-up to 97% Zinc with a 3% Copper plating. One thing to note here is that 'pocket change pennies' prior to 1982 and even some early 1982 pennies had a similar alloy mix [size=small](not counting the '43 thru '46 'war time' production)[/size].
Those would have been the coins that were handy when George Payne was designing the soon-to-come Teknetics Coin Computer 9000 and 8500 models which were the first to bring us visual Target ID which was announced and introduced in 1983. At that point in time, and with the soon-to-follow TID offerings from competitors, we often had display indications like 5¢ or 25¢ or 50¢ and $1, but because the 10¢ Dime is so close to a Bronze Cent in size and conductivity, we also saw a display indication like this: [sup]1¢[/sup]/[sub]10¢[/sub] But some of us more avid types knew there were differences based upon the use of Discrimination even before visual Target ID came along.
I hunt older sites and have for most of my detecting life, and that means I have found a lot of Indian Head and early Wheat-back 1¢ coins. I like to learn my detectors well, and that calls for some down-time or bench-test time to learn more about them. In doing so, I noted that there were times when a 'Bronze Cent' wouldn't respond the same or as well as others. Just using the variable Discrimination of various models in the latter '70s, I noted that most Indian Head Cents and many of the very early Wheat-Back Cents, from 1909 through to about 1920, would be rejected just before the bulk of the 'newer' Bronze type Lincoln Head Cents.
According to the books all of those coins supposedly had the same alloy mix, but most Indian Head and Wheaties to roughly 1920 rejected just a bit sooner and the reason was because they had a lower conductivity level. Why, if they all contained 95% Copper? The logic was due to the source of the copper and/or the processing of the copper ore that was of slightly lower quality and therefore less 'pure' or of a 'higher grade' than was used later.
Anyway, Target ID came about from detector design here in the USA with Mr. Payne's new Teknetics models in 1983. And the display easily showed that the 1¢ and 10¢ coins he used resulted in a visual display grouping them as [sup]1¢[/sup]/[sub]10¢[/sub] on the Coin Computer 8500. That TID segment was just below the Gold and Silver conductivity scale that also lumped the [sup]$20[/sup]/[sub]10¢[/sub] coins together because their numeric read-out was so close due to their conductivity. The broader-range scale just below the [sup]1¢[/sup]/[sub]10¢[/sub] and above the 5¢ Coin simply lumped common trash together and was labeled [sup]P. Tabs[/sup]/[sub]S. Caps[/sub].
Very quickly other detector makers followed their lead and offered similar visual TID scales. But also very quickly, since this was a brand new feature on detectors, the Coin Hunting group, who make up the bulk of the average metal detecting Hobbyists, started to complain because their detectors were not working properly. They kept finding new, modern Pennies that gave a read-out in the [sup]P. Tabs[/sup]/[sub]S. Caps[/sub] Target ID range, and others soon noted that some of the older coins, like most Indian Head Cents and a few early Wheaties also responded down in that range. The newer coins they were referring to were those crappy new mintage of Copper-plated Zinc Cents released starting in 1982.
Design engineers had to get both new Zinc cents and former Bronze Cents and realize that there was a difference in the conductivity level, and to please the Coin Hunting crowd they redesigned the visual TID scale to read with labels to separate the lower-conductive Zinc Cent from the better Copper-based Cents using labels such as: [sub]Zn[/sub]1¢ and [sub]Cu[/sub]1¢ but that was simply grouping the newer Zinc coins separate from the just-replaced Bronze or mostly Copper Cents. Once that change was made in the visual TID display, it then became obvious that a majority of the so-called 'Bronze' Indian Head and very early Wheat-Back Cents also have a lower conductivity level and respond in and about the [sub]Zn[/sub]1¢ level showing their lower conductivity.
Fast-forward, if you will, to the recent/current White's MXT Pro. Yes, it gives a visual numeric VDI display of a possible located target, and it kind-of tells us if it's a Penny or Dime, but look at the printed graph below the LCD display and you will see a range of targets labeled: 5¢ Tabs/Caps Zinc and up-scale from that there is 1¢ directly over 10¢. Why? Because the size and conductivity of these two round-shaped coins is very close. Also because it is a scale that is intended for the most commonly encountered US coins, and those are Zinc Cents, Copper Cents, and clad Dimes that have been around since 1965.
Using a full-bodied, older Silver dimes from '64 or prior that isn't worn thin, we will note a slightly up-scale VDI read-out.
Looking at the very narrow VDI numeric range of the new White's MX Sport and MX-7 models, of which I own both, we can see that the Pennies and Dimes have a very narrow numeric range. Most Copper Pennies read out at '73' or '74' but they can read as low as '70' and the upper limit is '74'. Most of the modern Clad Dimes read out at '74' which suggests a Copper Penny, but some read with a '75' which says Dime. The older and better quality, and higher conductive Silver Dimes will respond, most of the time, with a slightly higher VDI number and read Dime on the display.
My modified Classic ID doesn't have VDI numbers, it just has two Penny segments. One for [sub]Zn[/sub]1¢, and the next one that groups both [sub]Cu[/sub]1¢ and 10¢ coins together. I don't care if I am Coin Hunting a modern urban location, maybe some older area renovation, or out Relic Hunting an old town site or homestead or ??? If I get a targets that reads above iron nails, I am going to investigate it [size=small](recover it and take a look)[/size], and any targets that reads as a 1¢ or 10¢ probability are definitely going to be recovered.
Ground conditions have had Clad Dimes read as a Dime, and many Copper, called Bronze, Cents have also responded with a slightly up-scale display that read Dime. It's like trying to ask a manufacturer to make a clean separation between the US 5¢ coin and all of the older Ring-Pull tabs or their separated rings or beavertails, or especially so many modern rectangular Pry-Tabs that have a numeric VDI or Nickel-named response. It's not going to happen. TID is based on a targets conductivity level and will be influenced by the ground ,mineral environment, amount of moisture present in the ground, and the target's depth and orientation to the search coil. It's just not a perfect world.
What we do have are excellent detector designs in the MX Sport and MX-7 models, and they are complemented in performance afield by a well-designed 6½" diameter Concentric search coil. Rather than fuss about some lower-conductive modern clad Dimes or occasional Copper Cents that kind of share the '73' and '74' VDI report, just get out and learn the detectors, put in a lot of hunting time, and recover all the targets that sound potentially good and display that they might be as well.
Monte's early morning opinions
Let me share this example which is actually a multiple of examples.
Let's first consider the lowly 1¢ US coin. The small cents we had from 1856 to early 1864 have been called 'fatties' because they were thicker than the pennies that replaced them. The Flying Eagle Cent and early Indian Head cents were the 'fatties.'. They were made of 88% Copper and 12% Nickel and called Copper-Nickel. In 1864 they also minted the newer version 1¢ coins that were thinner and comprised of 95% Copper and a 5% mix of Tin and Zinc, and all 1¢ coins used the same alloy mix until September of 1962 with the following exceptions:
1943 ... steel coated with zinc
1944-'46 ... they used spent shell casings
So other than those four years, small cents from 1864 thru 1962 were made of a 95% Copper and 5% Tin and Zinc mixture. Then, from September of 1962 through part of 1982 they eliminated the Tin and only used 5% Zinc. One would think, therefore, that almost all of the 'Bronze' 1¢ coins from 1864 through 1981 and part of 1982 would have a similar TID. In 1982 they changed up the 1¢ coin make-up to 97% Zinc with a 3% Copper plating. One thing to note here is that 'pocket change pennies' prior to 1982 and even some early 1982 pennies had a similar alloy mix [size=small](not counting the '43 thru '46 'war time' production)[/size].
Those would have been the coins that were handy when George Payne was designing the soon-to-come Teknetics Coin Computer 9000 and 8500 models which were the first to bring us visual Target ID which was announced and introduced in 1983. At that point in time, and with the soon-to-follow TID offerings from competitors, we often had display indications like 5¢ or 25¢ or 50¢ and $1, but because the 10¢ Dime is so close to a Bronze Cent in size and conductivity, we also saw a display indication like this: [sup]1¢[/sup]/[sub]10¢[/sub] But some of us more avid types knew there were differences based upon the use of Discrimination even before visual Target ID came along.
I hunt older sites and have for most of my detecting life, and that means I have found a lot of Indian Head and early Wheat-back 1¢ coins. I like to learn my detectors well, and that calls for some down-time or bench-test time to learn more about them. In doing so, I noted that there were times when a 'Bronze Cent' wouldn't respond the same or as well as others. Just using the variable Discrimination of various models in the latter '70s, I noted that most Indian Head Cents and many of the very early Wheat-Back Cents, from 1909 through to about 1920, would be rejected just before the bulk of the 'newer' Bronze type Lincoln Head Cents.
According to the books all of those coins supposedly had the same alloy mix, but most Indian Head and Wheaties to roughly 1920 rejected just a bit sooner and the reason was because they had a lower conductivity level. Why, if they all contained 95% Copper? The logic was due to the source of the copper and/or the processing of the copper ore that was of slightly lower quality and therefore less 'pure' or of a 'higher grade' than was used later.
Anyway, Target ID came about from detector design here in the USA with Mr. Payne's new Teknetics models in 1983. And the display easily showed that the 1¢ and 10¢ coins he used resulted in a visual display grouping them as [sup]1¢[/sup]/[sub]10¢[/sub] on the Coin Computer 8500. That TID segment was just below the Gold and Silver conductivity scale that also lumped the [sup]$20[/sup]/[sub]10¢[/sub] coins together because their numeric read-out was so close due to their conductivity. The broader-range scale just below the [sup]1¢[/sup]/[sub]10¢[/sub] and above the 5¢ Coin simply lumped common trash together and was labeled [sup]P. Tabs[/sup]/[sub]S. Caps[/sub].
Very quickly other detector makers followed their lead and offered similar visual TID scales. But also very quickly, since this was a brand new feature on detectors, the Coin Hunting group, who make up the bulk of the average metal detecting Hobbyists, started to complain because their detectors were not working properly. They kept finding new, modern Pennies that gave a read-out in the [sup]P. Tabs[/sup]/[sub]S. Caps[/sub] Target ID range, and others soon noted that some of the older coins, like most Indian Head Cents and a few early Wheaties also responded down in that range. The newer coins they were referring to were those crappy new mintage of Copper-plated Zinc Cents released starting in 1982.
Design engineers had to get both new Zinc cents and former Bronze Cents and realize that there was a difference in the conductivity level, and to please the Coin Hunting crowd they redesigned the visual TID scale to read with labels to separate the lower-conductive Zinc Cent from the better Copper-based Cents using labels such as: [sub]Zn[/sub]1¢ and [sub]Cu[/sub]1¢ but that was simply grouping the newer Zinc coins separate from the just-replaced Bronze or mostly Copper Cents. Once that change was made in the visual TID display, it then became obvious that a majority of the so-called 'Bronze' Indian Head and very early Wheat-Back Cents also have a lower conductivity level and respond in and about the [sub]Zn[/sub]1¢ level showing their lower conductivity.
Fast-forward, if you will, to the recent/current White's MXT Pro. Yes, it gives a visual numeric VDI display of a possible located target, and it kind-of tells us if it's a Penny or Dime, but look at the printed graph below the LCD display and you will see a range of targets labeled: 5¢ Tabs/Caps Zinc and up-scale from that there is 1¢ directly over 10¢. Why? Because the size and conductivity of these two round-shaped coins is very close. Also because it is a scale that is intended for the most commonly encountered US coins, and those are Zinc Cents, Copper Cents, and clad Dimes that have been around since 1965.
Using a full-bodied, older Silver dimes from '64 or prior that isn't worn thin, we will note a slightly up-scale VDI read-out.
Looking at the very narrow VDI numeric range of the new White's MX Sport and MX-7 models, of which I own both, we can see that the Pennies and Dimes have a very narrow numeric range. Most Copper Pennies read out at '73' or '74' but they can read as low as '70' and the upper limit is '74'. Most of the modern Clad Dimes read out at '74' which suggests a Copper Penny, but some read with a '75' which says Dime. The older and better quality, and higher conductive Silver Dimes will respond, most of the time, with a slightly higher VDI number and read Dime on the display.
My modified Classic ID doesn't have VDI numbers, it just has two Penny segments. One for [sub]Zn[/sub]1¢, and the next one that groups both [sub]Cu[/sub]1¢ and 10¢ coins together. I don't care if I am Coin Hunting a modern urban location, maybe some older area renovation, or out Relic Hunting an old town site or homestead or ??? If I get a targets that reads above iron nails, I am going to investigate it [size=small](recover it and take a look)[/size], and any targets that reads as a 1¢ or 10¢ probability are definitely going to be recovered.
Mark, I really don't consider this a major issue. My prototype 6½" Concentric I've been using since last November displays many/most modern CLAD Dimes as a C.Penny, but not all of them. And every Silver Dime I have found gives me a solid Dime read-out.SWMO Mark said:
Ground conditions have had Clad Dimes read as a Dime, and many Copper, called Bronze, Cents have also responded with a slightly up-scale display that read Dime. It's like trying to ask a manufacturer to make a clean separation between the US 5¢ coin and all of the older Ring-Pull tabs or their separated rings or beavertails, or especially so many modern rectangular Pry-Tabs that have a numeric VDI or Nickel-named response. It's not going to happen. TID is based on a targets conductivity level and will be influenced by the ground ,mineral environment, amount of moisture present in the ground, and the target's depth and orientation to the search coil. It's just not a perfect world.
What we do have are excellent detector designs in the MX Sport and MX-7 models, and they are complemented in performance afield by a well-designed 6½" diameter Concentric search coil. Rather than fuss about some lower-conductive modern clad Dimes or occasional Copper Cents that kind of share the '73' and '74' VDI report, just get out and learn the detectors, put in a lot of hunting time, and recover all the targets that sound potentially good and display that they might be as well.
Monte's early morning opinions
Monte, thanks for all the info. Should help a lot of the newer hunters understand their detectors better. I have been hunting since 1971. My coil mis-ID the quarters in a air test. I know many different factors will effect coin IDs. Having different coins in the same hole will also change IDs. Such as finding a nickel with a quarter will pull your ID #s down to a lower level. Finally received my coil from the factory last week. Really happy in how it rejects iron bottle caps and nails. Monte, thanks for all the info you contribute to everyone. Thanks, Mark
Yes, some can be off just a little and maybe have a clad Quarter register in the upper Dime VDI range, or a clad Dime produce a high Copper Penny read-out just barely below a Dime. Usually the silver dimes and silver quarters read where they are supposed to. My MX Sport can sometimes be just slightly 'off' as well, but I keep my 6½" Concentric on my MX-7 and White's 7" DD from Detech on my MX Sport as it works well in shallow water.
As usual, the MX-7 with that nice smaller Concentric coil does do a very good job at handling bottle caps, nails and most ferrous debris.
I'll have both of those units loaded up tomorrow evening, along with my XLT w/6½" Concentric and modified Classic ID w/5½" Ferret Concentric and a CoRe w/a small 'OOR' DD coil, when I take two or three days to go over and visit White's. I need to get a few parts and have them take care of my broken waterproof MX Sport headphones, then, if I am really lucky, I might find a few shady and cooler places in Western Oregon to get some detecting time in. It's just been too hot here in far Eastern Oregon the past several weeks so my detecting has been very limited.
Anyway, I enjoy my 6½" Concentric and MX-7 as one of my favorite detector/coil set-ups to grab most often. It's good to hear your new coil is working OK for you.
Monte
As usual, the MX-7 with that nice smaller Concentric coil does do a very good job at handling bottle caps, nails and most ferrous debris.
I'll have both of those units loaded up tomorrow evening, along with my XLT w/6½" Concentric and modified Classic ID w/5½" Ferret Concentric and a CoRe w/a small 'OOR' DD coil, when I take two or three days to go over and visit White's. I need to get a few parts and have them take care of my broken waterproof MX Sport headphones, then, if I am really lucky, I might find a few shady and cooler places in Western Oregon to get some detecting time in. It's just been too hot here in far Eastern Oregon the past several weeks so my detecting has been very limited.Anyway, I enjoy my 6½" Concentric and MX-7 as one of my favorite detector/coil set-ups to grab most often. It's good to hear your new coil is working OK for you.
Monte