If anyone has compared the shadow X-5 and the Tejon, what were your findings?

[GaCracker]

Thinking about getting an X-5 if it is deeper than the Tejon

[l.cutler]

Not exactly a comparison, but my brother has used the Shadow and I have the Tejon at the same sites. I wouldn't say either is drastically better than the other. I personally prefer the Tejon.

[LuckyLarry]

I owned a Tejon. It worked much better in mild soil but REALLY SUCKED in high iron or high trash soil. Otherwise it got great depth in the wussie dirt, in fact beating the ML SE's, Sovs, and II's in all cases, all-metal or disc. My old Compasses and CZ Fishers beat the ML's too in all regards. The Shadows were Fishers in the beginning but later switched to being Tesoro built - with added bells and whistles. In real bad soil the Shadows will run smoother and will cherry-pick like a seasoned veteran, but they won't run as deep as the Tejon. In low-FE soils the Tejon will run right over the top of the Shadows for depth, ALL of them. It's a noisey thing though.

LL

[l.cutler]

Kind of backwards there, the first Shadows, the x2, were made by Tesoro. They were modified Silver umax. The next generation, the x3 and x5 were made by Fisher but were totally Troy's design.

[LuckyLarry]

This has been a subject of emense discussion and bitter debate for some years now, and the rage goes on and on. In truth, the only way to determine all that is to open one up and make one's own discoveries, something that any detector repairman or engineer can do right away. I think that their findings would surprise most people, but I'll let them make that discovery themselves. The truth is that aside from that the main differences are that they are Fishers and Tesoros inside and Shadows outside, to include the knobs and controls.. in most cases.

You all may be surprised to learn that a few other past detector manufacturers were washing each other's hands for some time. Similar practices with other manufacturers still happen today. If in doubt open up a few of them and check the electronics readouts and parts numbers.

Hope this helps.

LL

[SvenS]

I had both while living in Georgia. Actually had two Tejons and one X5.
The X5 was prefered by GA hunters, deeper and handled bad ground better.
The X5 was smoother in operation but, totally useless around microwave towers
or electrical lines.
I would be happy with either one. But you can get a used Tejon and an extra coil
for less than the X5.

The X5 has vastly more intense circuitry than the Tejon




More information at:
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/searc...earchid=605614

[Don in SJ]

The Tejon has the record for me for being the detector I owned the shortest amount of time. I loved the depth of it, the lightness, the price, hated the squeeky shaft/wobble, but hated most of all not having a true Tone ID. I would think the Shadow, despite it being more expensive would have been a hands down favorite for me.

With that said, Over 9 years of using the Explorer XS and all the negatives I hear and about this and that being better, well, to each his own. My finds with the XS over the past 9 years speak volumes of how good it is. I also have comprared it with the CZ70 which my son has been using for many years and we have compared almost all good signals while hunting together, I give the edge to the XS, totally....

Shadow vs Tejon, Shadow wins IMHO, and I have never used a Shadow but have friends who have. Tone ID is very important.

Don

[pjroo33]

I just recently acquired a Shadow X5 to compliment my Explorer II. Unfortunately we are under nearly 2 feet of snow, so I can't give my opinion yet. I can however tell you that it air tests MUCH deeper than any other machine I've tried. Of course air tests don't necessarily translate into the field. The machine is also built like a tank.

[wildrider]

I had both while living in Georgia. Actually had two Tejons and one X5.
The X5 was prefered by GA hunters, deeper and handled bad ground better.
The X5 was smoother in operation but, totally useless around microwave towers
or electrical lines.
I would be happy with either one. But you can get a used Tejon and an extra coil
for less than the X5.

I liked them both in Kentucky for relic machines.
Everyone around here liked the X5 because you COULD use it around powerlines and electric fences.

wildrider

[therover]

Just a question for Don...what Shadow X5 has tone ID ? None of the ones I used had it.

[Don in SJ]

Then I guess the X5 is a way overpriced Tejon and would not recommend that one either...................

[Bill - De]

Reading thru this thread has been interesting, and informative, but I am confused by Don's comment on tone ID. I neven hunted with an X5, but I found the specs here: http://www.troycustomdetectors.com/p...al_ver_1_2.PDF

It states the audio output is fixed aa a 1khz tone.

[dazoff]

The Troy X5 & X3 were only built by Fisher and serviced by them.
The X2 was Tesoro built.

I've used them all and still have the X2 and X5, used all the time. Anyone who thinks that the X5 & X3 were knockoffs of Fisher would first look at the fact that no other coil will work on them. They are weather sealed can you imagine never needing a rain cover.
The X2 had a very unique coil design.

The Tejon is a nice machine at 17.3 kHz the Troy 19.3 kHz. Troy's people designed the Troy line.

( emense discussion and bitter debate for some years now ) give me a break!

I do stay in touch with Troy! Dan

[U.K. Brian]

The X2 was not only built by Tesoro it was a Tesoro apart from the Troy designed coil that was wound differently. So you only got the build quality/water resistance when production was switched to Fisher for the X3 and X5.

I've still got a Shadow and the main advantage is that the performance is better throughout the conductivity range of all targets rather than limited to a few metal types. The drawback is that you have a small company and thats never as safe as a larger one. In Europe its impossible to find coil covers now for instance.
I have more EMI problems than with the Tesoro and being in a coal mining area there's problems with coal/coke which it seems to be able to find deeper than most other machines.

You really need to think what you would use them for and how each will cope with the soil conditions in your area.