MD test site

[Merf]

I just found this test site.
Looks like Fisher F75 and Minelab are among the best according to the tester.

http://www.detectortest.info/

[Ads]

TreasureNet.com is the premier Treasure Hunting Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!

[Sierra Kid]

Pretty interesting. Looking at the stats makes me wonder though. I have an MXT 300 and can find .22 lead over 10" deep.

[Tin Nugget]

Those charts have been around for a long while. Looks like they pulled the old coil they were pushing and put in the 14" De-tech and slapped a current date on it. I don't brag about depths because there are to many variables and levels of experience. I have been using an MXT for over 6 years and I can tell you their chart is pretty much crap. I did pretty extensive testing with the MXT awhile back on silver coins through clad and some jewelry. When I finished I didn't bother posting because when I looked at it, I said well, If someone doesn't own an MXT they are not going to believe this. So rather than looking like another biased post, I just left it alone.

Take a look at this http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/clubtest.html
This testing makes a pretty good argument for finding a detector you enjoy using rather than one from a depth chart.

Just my opinions :P
HH

[Lowbatts]

Gotta agree with Tin Nugget, Merf.
The best comparison methodology I've known is in the field, on detected unknown targets. Unfortunately this type of test is limited to the detectors on hand.

If I see a signal and call someone over to check it out, we can argue the merits of digging or not in a typical hunt setting, then dig and see who had either better signal indication or who read their own machine better. Of course this proves little if the latter is the case.

I'd buy into a test scenario with no known targets only, and using every high end machine from each maker, or midrange machine from each maker, and so on with each target signal checked through each machine by each user. As each unit is tested, the user would have to rate the signal quality of the target as either positive id or intermittent id. Ideally those answers would be the same from user to user, on the same machine with the same target. This would be alright for any target id type machine.

[Merf]

Thanks Tin Nugget
I will bookmark your test site. It sounds much more credible than the one I discovered.

Thanks for the feedback Lowbatts and Cork, I agree.