Best PI machine for Salt beach

[dirtdigger1581]

I'm thinking about buying a PI machine for hunting the wet sand and shallow water(up to chest deep) of a salt water beach. I'm wondering what the opinions of everyone here are as to what PI machine is best for this application. I currently use an Excal II for the beach and it's been great, but I've heard there is a big depth advantage over the Excal when going to a PI machine. How deep can they actually get compared to the Excal? I don't mind digging a few more targets while on the beach if it gets me a few more goodies that are missed by the Excal. What's everyone's take on this? And what does anyone have experience with? Thanks for your help!

Happy Hunting!

-Nate

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Terry Soloman]

One of the great things about PI's is that you can easily test them against one another. No need to bury the sample targets. You have to conduct the test the right way, though. I used to think that PI's didn't air test well...that is not the case. I just did not know what I was doing. Do a Google search of "PI air test eric foster wood interference" and you will readily find the information I am talking about. If you don't believe Eric Foster...well...he is probably the most knowledgeable PI designer on the planet. He moderates a "PI Technology Forum" which is a wealth of information. Get a few PI's together by hook or cook and test them against each other with various targets. Borrow them. Invite others to join in the test. Apples to apples, oranges to oranges. See what you find. If what you are looking for is the deepest detecting machine on small low conductors you will NOT be buying the Tesoro Sand Shark. I love the Sand Shark. It has other virtues. I posted those that I like previously. I am now going to compare apples to oranges. I am opening myself up for ridicule, but I don't mind: in a lightly mineralized salt water beach environment (those may not be your conditions), the Sand Shark optimumly set with an 8 inch coil is not as deep as a properly tuned White's BHID in all metal with a 10 inch coil. And the BHID, even in all metal, still gives visual target ID, though not tone ID. There is another advantage: The visual target ID on the BHID does not work on deeply buried objects. Why is that an advantage? It is a kind of "depth indicator", similar to what you get with a Nautilus DMCIIba where you work in all metal with low sensitivity on one channel and discriminate with high sensitivity on the other. If the all metal side does not sound off, but the descriminate does, you know you've got a deep non ferrous target. Similar deal with the BHID. If you get an audible signal, but the lights don't flash, you know you've got a deep target (or possibly a very small one) which may or may not be iron. I like this because I don't trust ANY machine's discrimination on very deep targets, including the EXCAL. And it is really nice to know when you've got a deep target in the surf. All that being said, the Sand Shark will blow away the BHID in an area with lots of black sand. The BHID is a very poor detector on the beaches of Southern California, for instance.

Great post!

What I LOVE about knowledgeable beach hunters is their inability to out-and-out trash the Tesoro Sand Shark. They will tell you that it is fine in “mild” conditions, but X, Y and Z are superior in “these” conditions. Then, they usually end up contradicting themselves by concluding that, in heavy black sand the Sand Shark can’t be beat..

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[U.K. Brian]

Detecting since 1969. Full time for nearly twenty five years now. Gold hunting in Wales, Scotland, New Zealand, Hungary, North Africa and Brazil. Pulse detectors used include all the U.S. models, many Australian, all Eric Foster machines, most German standard and hoard hunters. Four or five Polish and Bulgarian. One Russian that was supposed to be a discriminator but was found lacking. All discriminating including the PPD1, Pulse Analyst, Wrights Ground Hawk, Titanium Adonis and Dave Emery's Pulse Devil.

I keep some so that people can see for themselves the shortcomings. I can make a very nice living and don't have to charge $300 or $400 to provide training. As for the Tesoro I like Tesoro products but they charge the right price for the Sandshark to make it competitive. When they come up with a class leader no doubt they will be able to charge more then.

 

[StormSurge]

Detecting since 1969. Full time for nearly twenty five years now. Gold hunting in Wales, Scotland, New Zealand, Hungary, North Africa and Brazil. Pulse detectors used include all the U.S. models, many Australian, all Eric Foster machines, most German standard and hoard hunters. Four or five Polish and Bulgarian. One Russian that was supposed to be a discriminator but was found lacking. All discriminating including the PPD1, Pulse Analyst, Wrights Ground Hawk, Titanium Adonis and Dave Emery's Pulse Devil.

I keep some so that people can see for themselves the shortcomings. I can make a very nice living and don't have to charge $300 or $400 to provide training. As for the Tesoro I like Tesoro products but they charge the right price for the Sandshark to make it competitive. When they come up with a class leader no doubt they will be able to charge more then.

So in your expert opinion and in all the years and places and the time you've logged using the Sand Shark, it is not a Class Leader ?

 

[hobbit]

Great post!

What I LOVE about knowledgeable beach hunters is their inability to out-and-out trash the Tesoro Sand Shark. They will tell you that it is fine in “mild” conditions, but X, Y and Z are superior in “these” conditions. Then, they usually end up contradicting themselves by concluding that, in heavy black sand the Sand Shark can’t be beat..

I don't understand the supposed "contradiction". In a salt water environment with low mineralization, a quality dual frequency machine will out perform the Sand Shark. In an area with heavy mineralization, the Sand Shark will out perform a dual frequency. This cuts to the real advantage of a PI...they are better in heavy mineralization than VLF's. Outside of that, a multi-frequency or dual frequency machine may be the way to go. I have already stated how much I appreciate the Tesoro Sand Shark. It is a real workhorse which will keep you in the field. It is very stable. It pinpoints well. It is ergonomic. It is battery friendly and easy to maintain. It is NOT deep. As a matter of fact, coil for coil, the Tesoro Sand Shark is probably the least sensitive Pulse Induction metal detector on the market. That doesn't mean it's not good. It just doesn't match up with the higher end PI's in terms of raw performance. It is a typical Tesoro product: a quality built, mid- level performer. Nothing wrong with that. It is a good business model.

 

[DewGuru]

It is NOT deep. As a matter of fact, coil for coil, the Tesoro Sand Shark is probably the least sensitive Pulse Induction metal detector on the market.

I have to respectfully disagree and have the finds to show otherwise. I get an average depth of 1 foot, on both my 8" and 10" sand shark coils. Deepest target having been around 2 foot. Personally, I don't wish to/have the desire to, dig any deeper.

 

[bigscoop]

Salt. Damp salt. Saturated salt. Regardless what machine you use its performance is reduced as you move from dry sand, to damp sand, to saturated sand. This is because the mixture of water and salt gradually increases as you move from dry sand to saturated sand. It is the increase in "solution" that causes the problem, not so much mineralization. The best PI machine in the world won't make any difference unless the user understands the above. A hunter who understands the above will hunt circles around those who don't understand it. I'm just discovering this for myself by spending a lot of time playing around the beach with various items, but mainly nickels. It's all explained here.....and it can be easily put to the test for those who don't believe it. I know I didn't understand it until I put it to the test myself. If you don't have an assortment of small gold items then use nickels....gives pretty much the same results.

CZ owners - Salt training 101

 

[Terry Soloman]

I don't understand the supposed "contradiction". In a salt water environment with low mineralization, a quality dual frequency machine will out perform the Sand Shark. In an area with heavy mineralization, the Sand Shark will out perform a dual frequency. This cuts to the real advantage of a PI...they are better in heavy mineralization than VLF's. Outside of that, a multi-frequency or dual frequency machine may be the way to go. I have already stated how much I appreciate the Tesoro Sand Shark. It is a real workhorse which will keep you in the field. It is very stable. It pinpoints well. It is ergonomic. It is battery friendly and easy to maintain. It is NOT deep. As a matter of fact, coil for coil, the Tesoro Sand Shark is probably the least sensitive Pulse Induction metal detector on the market. That doesn't mean it's not good. It just doesn't match up with the higher end PI's in terms of raw performance. It is a typical Tesoro product: a quality built, mid- level performer. Nothing wrong with that. It is a good business model.

Could someone pass me a fork, because this thread is done.. Seriously Hobbs, I use a Sand Shark and I know better. I also use a Minelab GPX 5000, and the Sand Shark can't touch that. But if you are talking about the TDI or Dual Field - same, same. It's all about the power supply and the 8" coil is nominal. Only a person that has never used a Shark would agree with your opinion..

 

[hobbit]

I have to respectfully disagree and have the finds to show otherwise. I get an average depth of 1 foot, on both my 8" and 10" sand shark coils. Deepest target having been around 2 foot. Personally, I don't wish to/have the desire to, dig any deeper.

You can make great beach finds consistantly and in volume with a department store metal detector...if you are persistant enough and frequent the right beaches.
"I get an average depth of 1 foot..." an average depth of one foot on what? All targets? Thin gold chains? Nuisance gold earring backs? Aluminum cans?

You get the same depth with both the 8 inch and 10 inch coils? That is very interesting...It actually makes me seriously question your other observations.

What did you dig at 2 feet? I once dug an object at 2 feet with a Sand Shark...a crab trap...Of course, I knew it was a big piece of junk long before I unearthed it, but curiousity got the better of me.

 

[hobbit]

Could someone pass me a fork, because this thread is done.. Seriously Hobbs, I use a Sand Shark and I know better. I also use a Minelab GPX 5000, and the Sand Shark can't touch that. But if you are talking about the TDI or Dual Field - same, same. It's all about the power supply and the 8" coil is nominal. Only a person that has never used a Shark would agree with your opinion..

Sorry, dude, a thread isn't done because you would like it to be so. I realize it is tough to defend an indefensible position, but you got yourself into it. Here is a copy and paste from one of your earlier posts on this thread: "OK, let’s nip this “Pulse Delay” rubbish in the bud right now. The pulse delay argument is a red herring, started by Whites because the Sand Shark is eating the Dual Field’s lunch in sales – period"...really? Really? That is interesting. White's didn't introduce the Dual Field until 2008. No one had heard of pulse delay until 2008? That statement is so ludicrious it defies belief. What does the "delay" control actually do on those high quality pulse detectors? Do other manufacturers feel compelled to go along with White's charade and add a useless knob to their machines?

 

[hobbit]

Salt. Damp salt. Saturated salt. Regardless what machine you use its performance is reduced as you move from dry sand, to damp sand, to saturated sand. This is because the mixture of water and salt gradually increases as you move from dry sand to saturated sand. It is the increase in "solution" that causes the problem, not so much mineralization. The best PI machine in the world won't make any difference unless the user understands the above. A hunter who understands the above will hunt circles around those who don't understand it. I'm just discovering this for myself by spending a lot of time playing around the beach with various items, but mainly nickels. It's all explained here.....and it can be easily put to the test for those who don't believe it. I know I didn't understand it until I put it to the test myself. If you don't have an assortment of small gold items then use nickels....gives pretty much the same results.



CZ owners - Salt training 101

Well, this is a good site... they are talking about VLF detectors, primarily, though. The big advantage of PI's is their ability to ignore salt and minerals more easily. I read the thread and here is a copy and paste job from it: " About PI's. PI's are JUST as gold-dead as VLF detectors. PI's do indeed operate on a different principle; yet, most are still small gold-dead. One thing on a PI that makes a huge difference is the Pulse Delay. If the pulse delay can be adjusted down to the 10uS range.....small gold items 'START' becoming detectable in the wet salt. Florida beaches ..... with its higher level of salinity......the pulse delay may be dialed down to around 8.8uS (8.8 micro-Seconds).....if I remember correctly. Any lower.....and the salt becomes a 'full-on' target. There are other things that are critical to small gold detection IRT a PI unit. SAT speed affects performance a bit. The slower the SAT speed......the better the detectability of small gold; yet, the slower the SAT speed.....the more unstable the detector to small variations of salinity deltas (changes). Transmit power is an obvious one. Transmitter 'on' time (pulse width) is yet another factor. There are plenty of other factors that can make a difference in detecting the most commonly lost gold. So far............Eric Foster has done the best in this department....with his custom-built, one-at-a-time PI units. I believe he is now retired. Dave Emery might have a trick-or-two up his sleeve; yet, still waiting release and field validation."

This quote is from the forum moderator. I just found it hilarious that yet another "expert" has fallen for the White's "pulse delay myth"...

 

[bigscoop]

Dew's statement that "he who digs the most trash gets the most gold" gets truer and truer the closer you move to the waterline and finally into the surf, regardless what machine you're using. VLF, PI, Dual field, the effectiveness of all of them is reduced with the increased mixture of salt and water. A stable, all metal machine/mode is the best choice beyond the damp sand, so in essence, as you progress from dry sand to saturated sand you need to start digging everything or you're going to pass on some gold. So Dew's statement is accurate. I can take the Excal with the WOT and I can read a nickel pretty deep in the dry sand. However, if I take that same nickel and I bury it in the wet, saturated sand near the waterline I can't read it at half that depth, and the signal is faint and quite a bit different. When I pushed the discrimination from 1 to 3 I couldn't read that shallower nickel in the saturated at all.

 

[hobbit]

Dew's statement that "he who digs the most trash gets the most gold" gets truer and truer the closer you move to the waterline and finally into the surf, regardless what machine you're using. VLF, PI, Dual field, the effectiveness of all of them is reduced with the increased mixture of salt and water. A stable, all metal machine/mode is the best choice beyond the damp sand, so in essence, as you progress from dry sand to saturated sand you need to start digging everything or you're going to pass on some gold. So Dew's statement is accurate. I can take the Excal with the WOT and I can read a nickel pretty deep in the dry sand. However, if I take that same nickel and I bury it in the wet, saturated sand near the waterline I can't read it at half that depth, and the signal is faint and quite a bit different. When I pushed the discrimination from 1 to 3 I couldn't read that shallower nickel in the saturated at all.

That is because an Excal is a VLF and, as such, is highly affected by the combination of dissolved minerals in the water and the mineralization in the sand. Try the same test with any PI and you will find the results radically different. The PI is not nearly as affected by mineralization as is a VLF. That is why the PI is king on deep gold in the gold fields...they can see through mineralization much better than a VLF. Same is true on a beach. A PI is not totally impervious to mineralization, of course, but they deal with it much better. That is the real PI "secret". A Sand Shark will allow you to move from the dry sand to the damp sand to the wet sand to the surf with almost no change in the threshold. Why are they so stable? Because they have such a high pulse delay!!! Try working perpendicular to the beach and going into the water with a really sensitive PI like the Headhunter Pulse. You will get variations in the threshold and "falsing" when the water touches the coil...and even more "falsing" when waves start passing over the coil. This is not "falsing" at all...it is the machine "detecting" the dissolved minerals in the salt water. It can be adjusted out, if necessary, by manipulation of the Frequency control. You can "eliminate" the effects of the salt water. This comes at a price, of course. You may lose some sensitivity to small gold. But the bottom line is that in high ground mineralization and salt water, a PI will detect much deeper than a VLF.

Think about this: in some areas of Florida, people actually get very decent results in the surf using the Fisher 280X and the Tesoro Tiger Shark...both single frequency VLF's !!!
How can this be so? It is because there is such a low amount of ground mineralization present in the sand...

 

[U.K. Brian]

Stormsurge, the Tesoro (like most Tesoro's) is good value for money but the reason people pay out so much more for other detectors is because they suit their conditions or what they are searching for so much better.

Many in Australia really don't like Minelab that much especially as they tend to pay a premium over other countries but it comes down to the fact that some gold areas have so much iron dust in the soil that features they offer become essential. In New Zealand the beaches range from golden sand to places like Sandspit where the sand is a muddy colour and overlies solidified volcanic mud to jet black volcanic sand. Your Tesoro, Whites DF or C-Scope just can't cope. Then add there's places where what I assume are mobile phone towers prevent the use of the cheaper detectors. South Africa has what they call "titanium" sand. Like Australia its old iron ground whilst the U.S. can be classed as new (though still in the hundreds of thousands of years age range).
Even my old Deepstar has a SAT control, Reject adjustment and Frequency change on top of the adjustments that the lower price detectors have. It means you can cope on most beaches (NOT most land sites as it lacks DVT).

As for the commonly made statement that on mineralised wet salt a P.I. is always the best choice it should be but its not a hard and fast rule as there's loads of P.I.'s around that have terrible performance that were produced in Poland and Bulgaria ten or more years back but still surface on E-Bay and a range of Chinese detectors from the likes of Xing Jang.

 

[hobbit]

You are right, of course. I should have said "quality PI's". Shaing-Hi specials and , as of now, manufacturers from former Eastern Bloc countries should be ruled out.

 

[DewGuru]

You can make great beach finds consistantly and in volume with a department store metal detector...if you are persistant enough and frequent the right beaches.

We'll have to agree to disagree with that.

"I get an average depth of 1 foot..." an average depth of one foot on what? All targets? Thin gold chains? Nuisance gold earring backs? Aluminum cans?

Yep. All targets. Coins, Chains and Earrings included, come in regularly at over 1 foot. Aluminum cans - Don't dig many of them, but the few I do, their super deep as well.

You get the same depth with both the 8 inch and 10 inch coils? That is very interesting...It actually makes me seriously question your other observations.

I stated "I get an average depth of 1 foot, on both my 8" and 10" sand shark coils." I did not state they get the same depth. The 10" coil gets a -slightly- deeper gain over the 8" and the 8" has a -slightly- better sensitivity over the 10". Question all you like. Thems the facts.

What did you dig at 2 feet? I once dug an object at 2 feet with a Sand Shark...a crab trap...Of course, I knew it was a big piece of junk long before I unearthed it, but curiousity got the better of me.

15g 10k ring, 366 diamonds, to name but 1. Photo attached.

My posts are solely mine, I stick by them based on actual field usage and not based simply on an opinion. My views/findings address the original posters question:

I'm thinking about buying a PI machine for hunting the wet sand and shallow water(up to chest deep) of a salt water beach. I'm wondering what the opinions of everyone here are as to what PI machine is best for this application.

You don't have to agree with me. Won't hunt my feelings. In fact, I employ you to not use the Sand Shark, especially on any of the beaches that I hunt.

So many fall into the "it costs more, its better" mantra. Simply ain't so, i've proven it 100 fold.

 

[bigscoop]

Hobbit,
I understand what you're saying. But my point was that even with a good VLF and a knowledgeable operator, that machine really isn't capable of accurately working deep targets in the saturated sand and surf unless it's in all metal....and even then it's ability to find small gold in the saturated sand and surf is extremely diminished, so it's pretty much a dig it all situation regardless what machine you're using after a certain point. In other words, Dew is better off in the saturated sand and surf then I am because he's simply digging it all versus trying to I.D. what can't be accurately located and identified at a decent depth anyway. So say, for me, the Sand Shark would be an advantage over the Excal. Yes?

 

[dirtdigger1581]

DewGuru - Nice ring! A real treasure! I was afforded the opportunity last week to play with a sand shark and can say it was a delight to use. Your finds as well as Terry's prove that it's a serious contender in the beach hunting arena. The sand shark will be at the top of my list when I make my PI purchase. There very well may be some short-comings of this machine at certain places, but at Virginia Beach where I tested it out, I had a great time with it.

 

[Terry Soloman]

Sorry, dude, a thread isn't done because you would like it to be so. I realize it is tough to defend an indefensible position, but you got yourself into it. Here is a copy and paste from one of your earlier posts on this thread: "OK, let’s nip this “Pulse Delay” rubbish in the bud right now. The pulse delay argument is a red herring, started by Whites because the Sand Shark is eating the Dual Field’s lunch in sales – period"...really? Really?..

Yes, really. You cannot "win" this debate. You can hold on to your "opinion," and disagree with me till next year, I really don't care. If you want needless controls, bells and whistles, well, great! Whites is your company! They put a different shade of lipstick on their pigs every year and come up with a new name for them, and a lot of folks get a huge kick out of that - I don't. Hey, I hear the TDI can even "discriminate.." LOL!

 

[hobbit]

Hobbit,
I understand what you're saying. But my point was that even with a good VLF and a knowledgeable operator, that machine really isn't capable of accurately working deep targets in the saturated sand and surf unless it's in all metal....and even then it's ability to find small gold in the saturated sand and surf is extremely diminished, so it's pretty much a dig it all situation regardless what machine you're using after a certain point. In other words, Dew is better off in the saturated sand and surf then I am because he's simply digging it all versus trying to I.D. what can't be accurately located and identified at a decent depth anyway. So say, for me, the Sand Shark would be an advantage over the Excal. Yes?

There is no way that question can be answered definitively without knowing the mineralization level at the beaches you detect. You have to figure it out, no one else really can. That is why I posted Eric Foster's PI air test advice. It is crucial when selecting a PI for a low/moderately mineralized area to get the most depth you can, because you might not be getting that much more depth than by using a VLF. A quality PI will still perform well, of course. But you may be better off sitcking with a VLF, it just depends on your conditions. Also, don't discount the effect of water depth and coil size on detector performance...especially VLF performance. That big WOT you are using senses everything around it, above and below. Ground minerals, salt water, etc. And it has to cope with those factors. It is easy to fall in the trap of thinking that you will always get better depth with a bigger coil. With a PI it pretty much is true, with the caveat that some smaller items will be lost with increasing coil size. With a VLF it is not necessarily true because targets can get "swallowed up" and "masked" by the increased ground and water mineralization both below and above the coil. That is why you will not generally see underwater salvors using VLF detectors in a deep, salt water environment. I love the BHID in certain situations. I have the 10 inch coil in preference to the 12 inch for precisely this reason. I would never even consider using it in deep, salt water, though.

Someone, I believe it was Clive Clynick, said that his "secret" was using his detectors "as if they all were pulse induction detectors". I think that is pretty sound advice because a sand scoop or a hand fan really is the "ultimate descriminator". One of the reasons I like the BHID so much is that the visual ID works even in all metal...except on very deep or very small targets. This is a nice feature to have, especially coupled with what "all metal experience", pulse or otherwise, will give you: the ability to discern many ferrous targets from non ferrous ones based on detector response. It is reinforcement. The more information you have, the better decisions you will make. Anyone who has worked in the surf enough has lost targets. Sometimes you have to cut and run. It is very tough for me to cut and run when I am using a BHID and that yellow light has flashed. Or when using an Excal and that mellow "gold" tone has sounded...

I can tell you one thing for sure: I once did a field test on one of the beaches of San Diego ( Coronado ) between a Sand Shark with an 8 inch coil and an Excalibur fitted with a WOT. It was quite the "apples to oranges" test, really. I buried the targets and saturated the already wet sand with five gallon buckets from the surf. I was really curious because I had been using both detectors extensively, and while the Sand Shark was much more pleasant to use, I seemed to dig deeper targets with the Excal. The test was definitive: the Excal in all metal was deeper on small, low conductors...considerably so. As a matter of fact, it was deeper in minimum discriminate as well. This is not surprising when you think about it. We are talking a 15 inch coil VS. a 8 inch coil. But that test is valid only for those conditions. It was not underwater. It was in well saturated wet salt sand. On that particular beach. I repeated the same test some years later when I got my HHPI with the 11 3/8 coil. I never used my Excal on the wet sand in San Diego again...

 

[hobbit]

Yes, really. You cannot "win" this debate. You can hold on to your "opinion," and disagree with me till next year, I really don't care. If you want needless controls, bells and whistles, well, great! Whites is your company! They put a different shade of lipstick on their pigs every year and come up with a new name for them, and a lot of folks get a huge kick out of that - I don't. Hey, I hear the TDI can even "discriminate.." LOL!

White's is not my company. I don't have a favorite company. That is the fundamental difference between us. I am simply objective in my evaluation of detectors. And I have enough sense to listen to authors who really are experts in their fields. Like Eric Foster. Your comparison of Vince Gifford to Eric Foster a few posts back was illustrative. Vince Gifford's PI resume: the Tesoro Piranaha and the Tesoro Sand Shark. Eric Foster's PI resume: longer than I care to type...the best pulse induction metal detectors in the world...it is a little like comparing Secretariat to Mr. Ed