Head to Head Battle..Fisher CZ6 Vs Garrett AT Pro...

[Cool Hand Fluke]

Last Saturday 12/28/14 myself and my hunting partner decided that both of us would check each others signals in a baseball field we
were hunting. I was using my Fisher CZ6, my hunting partner was using a Garrett AT Pro. The first signals we
compared were in that 3 to 4 inch range and both machines were equal in performance in that depth. After about 30 minutes
I had my first deep signal with the Fisher. At a solid 7 inches I had a perfect coin signal. I called over my hunting partner with
his AT Pro and he swept his coil over the target and said he received a week "iron signal". I then proceeded to dig the target and
was very surprised to dig up a 1942-S silver quarter! At 7 inches the Garrett could not pick up this target? We compared another 15 or
so deep coin signals during the day and the Garrett could only get targets that were 5" or 5 1/2" Anything over 6 inches was a real challenge for the At Pro.
My buddy tried to change to different modes, tried tweaking the buttons. At the end of our 5 hour hunt I had 3 silver quarters, 2 silver dimes, and
3 wheaties. Two of the silver quarters I dug were a solid 7 inches. My partner had just one wheatie. I had about 90 clads, partner had about 25. Any ideas?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[masterjedi]

That is just how the AT operates... I have an AT and have upgraded because of the lack of AT performance.... I know all of the AT guys gush about how great it is, but they do not know how many great targets they leave behind (they walk right over). It is a great detector for fresh water, pouring rain hunts and if you only want coin sized targets that are <6" in the ground...

 

[LuckyLarry]

Whoever said that the ATP would ever match a CZ? That's just plain unrealistic to even consider such a thing..

 

[cooper1841]

I know nothing about the cz6.........I have over 600 hours on my AT pro, which is my first machine. Last week I dug a silver dime at about 9-11 inches, and hit targets at that depth, quite often. Not going to get in a pissing match, over what machine is deeper, but if you missed a silver quarter at 7 inches, with an AT Pro,.....................that's on the operator!!! Ground balance........other settings, something

 

[dunnellondave]

I know nothing about the cz6.........I have over 600 hours on my AT pro, which is my first machine. Last week I dug a silver dime at about 9-11 inches, and hit targets at that depth, quite often. Not going to get in a pissing match, over what machine is deeper, but if you missed a silver quarter at 7 inches, with an AT Pro,.....................that's on the operator!!! Ground balance........other settings, something

Exactly. I bet mine can nail a quarter 7" deep with my 5x8 coil......with the sensitivity down 2 or 3 notches!

 

[cooper1841]

Exactly. I bet mine can nail a quarter 7" deep with my 5x8 coil......with the sensitivity down 2 or 3 notches!

That's exactly how I run.......... 99% of my hunts!! Pro Zero

 

[LuckyLarry]

According to our famous metal detector engineers Eric Foster, Jack Gifford, George Payne, (and my own tests show this too), it is questionable that a single or multi frequency detector can locate non-ferrous coins in soil deeper than the detector's radiated field, save for certain situations which induce "noise", or "interference". Iron though, has a much faster capacity to break down and disperse to form a greater sized target because Fe has a much greater boil-off behavior than precious or semi-precious metals (Jack Gifford and George Payne). Here is Eric's statement. I'll let folks find George's and Jack's writings too, because I don't have time right now to do it.

Posted by: Eric Foster
Date: October 19, 2010 02:19AM

Moderator
Registered: 6 years ago
Posts: 301


Hi Reg and all,

I totally agree. There is no reason an air test should be worse than an "in ground" test, except for noise. When I do tests in my garden, which is in quite a noisy location, it is very noticeable that the noise diminishes as the coil is lowered toward the ground, even from 6 inches down to 1inch height. For an air test, always have the coil horizontal. Noise signals are polarized so that a vertical coil will always pick up far more noise than a horizontal one. For a realistic air test, lay the coil on a piece of 1in thick wood, MDF, or plastic on the ground surface, then wave a target over the top of the coil. The range obtained will not be measurably different to that if the target was buried. The above is true for PI detectors, but not necessarily so for induction balance types, where the operating frequency can make a very noticeable difference.

Eric.

 

[masterjedi]

Let the AT guys love their AT's... We can go in after them and cleanup the quality targets... Thanks guys

 

[dunnellondave]

Let the AT guys love their AT's... We can go in after them and cleanup the quality targets... Thanks guys

Sweet dreams.

 

[LuckyLarry]

As (most) of us already know, various Fisher CZ's are all very similar in their depth and/or depth capabilities and varying no more than 1" in an air test or in the ground, regardless of some wild but unfounded claims... and the same goes for various Garrett AT Pro's too. . This is a total blowout, a train wreck! Any questions?

 

[I can dig it]

The guy who made the above video commented, " I have taken the AT Pro to spots I hit with the Etrac and 3030 and have found deep coins that I missed with those detectors. The AT Pro will be fine just take the time to learn it......."

 

[masterjedi]

The guy who made the above video commented, " I have taken the AT Pro to spots I hit with the Etrac and 3030 and have found deep coins that I missed with those detectors. The AT Pro will be fine just take the time to learn it......."

Hope all you AT guys keep believing that.... really

 

[LuckyLarry]

I have gotten coins with my trusty $69 Chinese Navigator detector that I missed with a Fisher CZ, my Minelab Sovereign, my Tesoro Tejon, etc, etc, but that does not mean that the cheap Chinese number is better than those others, it just means that I missed them as I was swinging my coil. The video was done to show the superior depth and the smoother operation difference of the CZ over the ATP, and we all know that.. There is no doubt that the CZ is far superior over the ATP, and it doesn't make those awful boing, boing, boing noises either. Sometimes we just have to like what we've got, even if we shouldn't have bought it.

 

[I can dig it]

"I have gotten coins with my trusty $69 Chinese Navigator detector that I missed with a Fisher CZ, my Minelab Sovereign, my Tesoro Tejon, etc, etc, but that does not mean that the cheap Chinese number is better than those others, it just means that I missed them as I was swinging my coil." Yes, and so the never-ending amount of variables continue. I guess the answer is to own every machine to be sure.

 

[LuckyLarry]

Dig it, I've been fooling around with these detectors since around 1972 when I built my first one. There are no constants at all, even each detector behaves differently than another one of the same brand with the same model number on it. This is not an exact science. I own more than 20 detectors right now. I worked in design and the supervision of metal detector circuit board production, and then I repaired them for awhile. After the last 30 or so years, metal detectors have not changed that much, but more and more toys have been added to them because we are now at the end of a design era of creativity and depth capability. On a decent well-made metal detector, the difference between one and the other is seldom more than 2 inches in depth IN THE GROUND, although many people will claim otherwise. Yes, we all have our preferences, but that doesn't make one thing necessarily better than another. Almost all people run with way too much sensitivity, and that defeats their goal for good depth. And just because someone pays more for one than another does not mean that a costlier one will work any better. Differently yes, but better not necessarily so. However, there are some that are (proven) to be superior to most of the others.

*Note: We are getting some new members in this game from the old Eastern block, namely the Czech Republic, and Hungary, etc, but those detectors are nearly useless in the western USA. In fact a Fisher F5 will work better here than a $2500 Blisstool, or Detech, or a Deep Tek, Vista, etc., and more often than not it will also go deeper in our bad soil.

Right now FT is carrying the ball, and Whites is guarding the goal post. Minelab does well, but not for the cost. Garrett has fallen behind in its technology and Nautilus has nearly fallen off the edge of the earth. In light Fe soil almost any metal detector will perform just about as well as a more expensive one. In high iron soil the whole game changes and a dual (not multi) frequency detector becomes vital, and we have to relearn and retrain ourselves totally and differently, and that takes a long, long time. Variables continue, but it is not necessary to own more than 3 hand-held metal detectors. And the right one will handle more than 90% of anybody's detector wishes anyway. Right now the best two (all-around) VLF metal detectors ever made are the Compass Goldscanner Pro #1, and the Fisher CZ3D #2, and that is why they are so popular. A Minelab 705 gives them a good run for the money but it does not do as well as the GoldScanner Pro on fine gold or compete with a Teknetics G2 on salt beaches. And in no way will it ever surpass the CZ's or Minelab Sovereigns on salt beaches or high magnetite or hematite soil, it is impossible. Yes, we can go to a PI, but that too is a whole different ball game, and they can cost too much money for most people's uses.

But no, it is not necessary to own every machine ever made, that would come to at least $3 million dollars. Never listen to the hype, go with the pros and see what really works and try before you buy. That system works the best. I can say for sure this very moment that if I could own only one metal detector it would be my Compass Goldscanner Pro, it covers clear from extreme iron soil searching and up to Na (salt) soil of any type. It even almost matches a dual or multi frequency machine on high salt, high black sand beaches too, and it out cherry-picks even an F75 or an Omega 8000. The ATP was an experiment, much like the Garrett Aces were, and now look at how many Aces are up for sale in pawn shops or on eBay. The ATP's are heading that way too, but it is nearly impossible to find an old CZ for sale because they are so valuable now, as are the old proven Compass metal detectors which for a time were going on eBay for over $1100, and gone almost instantly. Get into a club I can, see what the best guys use in your area, and that's probably the best one for you, but maybe not the best for someone else in some other area where the soil is all different. The best example; A Tesoro Tejon is a real deep machine where there is little Fe in the soil, but it basically sucks in our soil over here on the west coast. I traded mine straight across for a $1000 Browning A-bolt 338 mag and it almost seemed like I committed a crime.

 

[cooper1841]

As (most) of us already know, various Fisher CZ's are all very similar in their depth and/or depth capabilities and varying no more than 1" in an air test or in the ground, regardless of some wild but unfounded claims... and the same goes for various Garrett AT Pro's too. . This is a total blowout, a train wreck! Any questions?

Like I said this AT pro is the only detector I have owned, or used, and it seems to work as it should, and has produced some great finds, and hours of enjoyment......................but that is eye opening!!

 

[cooper1841]

Reading reviews.............seem like there are some that dont work right..............just like the ATP, newer ones,.......thats un-settleing Would hate to give up a unit that works fine to get a deep hitting, quality control problem, lemon. but I am adding another detector in the Spring................convince me

 

[masterjedi]

Dig it, I've been fooling around with these detectors since around 1972 when I built my first one. There are no constants at all, even each detector behaves differently than another one of the same brand with the same model number on it. This is not an exact science. I own more than 20 detectors right now. I worked in design and the supervision of metal detector production, and then I repaired them for awhile. After the last 30 or so years, metal detectors have not changed that much, but more and more toys have been added to them. On a decent well-made metal detector, the difference between one and the other is seldom more than 2 inches in depth IN THE GROUND, although many people will claim otherwise. Yes, we all have our preferences, but that doesn't make one thing necessarily better than another. Almost all people run with way too much sensitivity, and that defeats their goal for good depth. And just because someone pays more for one than another does not mean that a costlier one will work any better. Differently yes, but better not necessarily so. However, there are some that are (proven) to be superior to most of the others.

Right now FT is carrying the ball, and Whites is guarding the goal post. Minelab does well, but not for the cost. Garrett has fallen behind in its technology and Nautilus has nearly fallen off the edge of the earth. In light Fe soil almost any metal detector will perform just about as well as a more expensive one. In high iron soil the whole game changes and a dual (not multi) frequency detector becomes vital, and we have to relearn and retrain ourselves totally and differently, and that takes a long, long time. Variables continue, but it is not necessary to own more than 3 hand-held metal detectors. And the right one will handle more than 90% of anybody's detector wishes anyway. Right now the best two (all-around) VLF metal detectors ever made are the Compass Goldscanner Pro #1, and the Fisher CZ3D #2, and that is why they are so popular. A Minelab 705 gives them a good run for the money but it does not do as well as the GoldScanner Pro on fine gold or compete with a Teknetics G2 on salt beaches. And in no way will it ever surpass the CZ's or Minelab Sovereigns on salt beaches or high magnetite or hematite soil, it is impossible. Yes, we can go to a PI, but that too is a whole different ball game, and they can cost too much money for most people's uses.

But no, it is not necessary to own every machine ever made, that would come to at least $3 million dollars. Never listen to the hype, go with the pros and see what really works and try before you buy. That system works the best. I can say for sure this very moment that if I could own only one metal detector it would be my Compass Goldscanner Pro, it covers clear from extreme iron soil searching and up to Na (salt) soil of any type. It even almost matches a dual or multi frequency machine on high salt, high black sand beaches too, and it out cherry-picks even an F75 or an Omega 8000. The ATP was an experiment, much like the Garrett Aces were, and now look at how many Aces are up for sale in pawn shops or on eBay. The ATP's are heading that way too, but it is nearly impossible to find an old CZ for sale because they are so valuable now, as are the old proven Compass metal detectors which for a time were going on eBay for over $1100, and gone almost instantly. Get into a club I can, see what the best guys use in your area, and that's probably the best one for you, but maybe not the best for someone else in some other area where the soil is all different. The best example; A Tesoro Tejon is a real deep machine where there is little Fe in the soil, but it basically sucks in our soil over here on the west coast. I traded mine straight across for a browning A-bolt 338 mag and it almost seemed like I committed a crime.

LL.... great explanation.... Thanks for all of the info based on your past professional history with detectors.
What is FT ? You said... "Right now FT is carrying the ball"

I started detecting in the late 70's and have an approx 35 year old Bounty Hunter Raider that I sent videos of it and a Garrett ATP on the exact same iron test, and the Bounty Hunter was far superior for not masking good targets. I recently bought a new Fisher F75 SE (the new upgraded model) and love this thing. I used it to go over 3 old yards that I have ran the ATP over many times with many different coils and found (5 silver coins & a silver ring) that the ATP masked out and couldn't even hear the ring or the silver coins.... sad for a modern detector...

Thanks again!
Gary from Oregon

 

[I can dig it]

LuckyLarry, good post. You clearly have much experience with these things. I'm fairly new to them. Due to the internet, the amount of opinions, reviews, videos, comments, etc. comparing detectors is overwhelming. And each one seems to contradict the last. Hard to know what's correct and useful info or not.

"run with way too much sensitivity" I know this is an issue and I get the jist of it but could you go into more detail? Thanks.

 

[masterjedi]

LuckyLarry, good post. You clearly have much experience with these things. I'm fairly new to them. Due to the internet, the amount of opinions, reviews, videos, comments, etc. comparing detectors is overwhelming. And each one seems to contradict the last. Hard to know what's correct and useful info or not.

"run with way too much sensitivity" I know this is an issue and I get the jist of it but could you go into more detail? Thanks.

My sens...goes up to 99 and I run it at 60...