1280-X Depth

[CoilFisher]

Anyone can tell me what kind of depth they are getting with these machines?

I just did an air test on new machine and it really isn't pinging solidly with a quarter until about 3.5" from the coil.
I am like what the?

I had a 1266-X years ago and that did like a 15" air test.

I turned the battery test dial and did the check. Got a good signal and a strong red light. These are the same batteries from the factory.

Thx

[Sandman]

It is hard to judge the depth of a detector as there are many variables, but almost four inches at an air test with settings at the presets doesn't sound right. First thing you should do is toss those factory batteries and use fresh Duracell's, but I don't think that is the problem if you get a good tone at battery test.

You said new 1280, you mean factory new or new to you but from ebay? To be confident in the unit you should send it back for tests.

[woof!]

The 1280-X is an easygoing machine, not a smokin' sonavagun like the 1256\66. (With single-frequency VLF, gobs of air hots works against you in the salt water.) As I recall it air tests on the order of 8-9 inches (8 inch searchcoil) on a quarter, another inch with the 11 inch semiellptical searchcoil, maybe someone who's got one handy can provide more accurate data. The audio is amplitude modulated, not full blast on everything, so a target isn't going to hit hard until it's a lot closer than its air test fringe distance.

--Dave J.

[CoilFisher]

Well, I replaced the batteries with fresh duracells just to be sure.

I am getting signals in the air at about 6" and a loud tone (the I got a keeper tone) at about 3", and that is with the sensitivity and volume maxed.

I spoke to another member here who owned 2 machines in the past and he said all he got out of these machines was 5" depth.

I am not saying depth is everything, but wanted to make sure I have a functioning unit as they advertise it for land and water use.

All detectors I have ever owned went down pretty deep, which is why I am concerned.

[njnydigger]

I was using another hunters 1280 Aquanaut a few weeks ago on the beach. Everyone's always saying how they are NOT good in saltwater locales, but, not only did I find (2) gold rings, I was also digging some pretty BIG holes. I surely had a few targets that were a good 12" to 14" While the 1280 definitely ISN'T on par with a Sov., Excal or any of the CZ's, I think it comes pretty darn close

[CoilFisher]

I got this info back today from a dealer.
Sounds like good advice.

I assure you that your 1280-X is not defective. What you are encountering and experiencing is a common misconception
with metal detectors. An “air test” is never a proper way to judge the capability of a detector, especially since you aren’t really detecting for objects that are not in the ground. You see when you are detecting for buried objects they will have bonded with the soil and the accompanying moisture which allow an object to be detected so much better and deeper. Also, there can often be
an “Halo Effect” which will cause the object to appear larger to the detector than what it really is. This can be helpful as well.

[dneyedli@res1.mts.net]

A couple of things......
To get maximum depth out of the aquanut, you have to go real slow. It's a finicky old girl.
Also, I noticed that it likes fresh batteries and will perform it's best with a full charge of juice. Weaker batteries will significantly limit it's performance.
The 1280X was the best water machine to get in the the late '80's/early 90's but I think there are better water machines to get nowadays and this is coming from someone who promotes old school detectors.
It still will do a pretty good job though and is responsible for a ton of treasure found over the years. I will always consider it a great water machine.
Cheers,
Dave.