Gold Hog stream sluice - low flow

[Hunt4gold]

Reviewing Gold Hog stream sluice - low flow and Bazooka

Just received a Gold Hog stream sluice - added to my prospecting arsenal that includes my 36" Bazooka sniper, which really works well.

Question is for all you folks out there with GH stream sluices - using the low flow mat, how little of water flow has worked for you? Photos and/or videos of low flow operating would be great. I am assuming that if the flow is good enough to run my 36" sniper, then it should be enough to run the GH stream sluice.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldfleks]

Doc has a vid on the site about the mats running high and low flow.

 

[Hunt4gold]

Have watched Docs videos - guessing the answer to my question is to test min flows myself and determine when the material no longer exchanges - its too slow. Will be testing tomorrow...

 

[agolddigger]

Have watched Docs videos - guessing the answer to my question is to test min flows myself and determine when the material no longer exchanges - its too slow. Will be testing tomorrow...

Let us know what you found, I'm looking into getting one of these as well.

 

[Hunt4gold]

Digger, will be running the GH stream sluice against my 36" Bazooka sniper for about four hours. will post results and opinions.

 

[Goldfleks]

You should eliminate large gold from your comparison, since pickers are often just luck. Maybe compare mesh sized since the concentration of fines is fairly consistent. To be a real test you would need substantial yardage to eliminate pockets of gold from skewing your data. Or "seed" gold or lead into similar number of buckets and compare final capture rate.

Good luck with the test, looking forward to the comparison. I know Sluice Goose did something similar between the Hog Mats and the Bazooka on YouTube but he never showed the gold the Hog Mats recovered. Only that he said it was higher than his recovery and that the other guys must have found a pocket.

 

[kcm]

Have watched Docs videos - guessing the answer to my question is to test min flows myself and determine when the material no longer exchanges - its too slow. Will be testing tomorrow...

Flow would be WAY too slow here - it's 4° now! Course last week we were at -20°, so this is an improvement.

 

[Hunt4gold]

My "field testing" was not to see which sluice catches more gold. I was more curious to evaluate the GH stream sluice, with low-flow mat, on the creek I have been working this past month. The stream does not have great flow - that said, there is enough flow to get a good run with my Bazooka 36" sniper. Also wanted to compare ease of setup, clean outs, time to clear deck area (Bazooka) and mats in GH, amounts of black sands captured, how small rocks (1"-3" sizes) cleared deck or mats, and fine gold sizes.
So I did get out today and ran both sluices (alternating in same setup spot). Will be posting my observations within a few days. Need to process cons from each and review videos, still photos, and then write up my observations.
Over the course of the next month will be running 2-3 more comparisons.

One note on all of this. I am confident that both sluices/brands are awesome products. I do believe, however, that there are situations where one sluice may better suited for prospecting on different stream/rivers with different flows and setup situations - at least that is my hypothesis at this time.

 

[Hamfist]

One note on all of this. I am confident that both sluices/brands are awesome products. I do believe, however, that there are situations where one sluice may better suited for prospecting on different stream/rivers with different flows and setup situations - at least that is my hypothesis at this time.

There definitely are situations where one works better than the other. For example, a Bazooka is useless when there is a lot of sediment and/or debris suspended in the stream. The compartment under the deck will fill with debris, clogging the tubes, which depressurizes the fluid bed and allows gold to pass right through the sluice.

I don't have a GH stream sluice, but I have adapted my Piglet extension for use as a stream sluice and it works surprisingly well for low flow, high sediment situations when I can't use a Bazooka.

 

[G-bone]

Pretty much have the same thing in the Royal Folding sluice.
I replaced the expanded metal and carpet with GH mats and it really does well.

After it's all said and done, cost wise it's all about the same.
The only real benefit over the GH model is being able to fold it up and place it in my pack.

The Mat's are the heaviest part of the system to be sure.
The GH stream Sluice gives you two versions of Mat's - low flow or high flow.
So if you take both set-ups with you, it's gonna be heavy!!
But if your not carrying far, then maybe no big deal.

Here's my set-up....


And remember to Classify for the Standard sluice vs the Bazooka.
That might need to be included in the comparison?

 

[Hunt4gold]

Good points Hamfist - I can imagine a variety of situation where one sluice style or the other would function better or be more efficient.

 

[Hunt4gold]

G-bone, I like the Royal setup you have there. You're correct about the mats - definitely don't want to be carrying around both sets of mats. Good thing is that I can likely anticipate which mat I'll need for a given water. I did not classify the material on Sunday, just picked out the larger rocks (+3") and dumped the rest onto the GH. Doc had suggested that I classify to 1/2" for really low flow, but for the setup I had, most rocks (-3") rolled right through the GH - except for the flatter ones.

 

[KevinInColorado]

For any comparison, avoid running the same amount of material thru each. Instead, run each for the same amount of time/effort. More gold in the same time wins!

 

[Hunt4gold]

Gold Hog Low Flow Mat Test
The creek where I ran this test was running fairly low this week – so it provided a good situation to test low flow mat in the Gold Hog stream sluice. The photo below and video will show the creek’s flow and how I set up the Gold Hog. Note: this was the first time using the stream sluice (just got in last week).


After setting and tuning it, the water depth in the sluice was approximately 1 inch – pretty even from top to bottom of sluice.


Ran the GH for about 1 ½ hours, emptying it twice to examine what the mat was holding.

As seen in video, the material was unclassified gravel/sands with ¼” to 3” rocks. Larger rocks were pulled out of shovel before dumping onto flare. Considering how low the water flow was, I was able to load material onto the GH at a reasonable rate. Each shovel (or portion of shovel) of material cleared the riffles within 4-5 seconds, which I thought was pretty good for the low flow mat. The lighter material (blond sands) exchanged out really well. After 6-7 shovels, I started seeing gold in the UR mat at top just below the flare and in the downdraft mat below it. After 45 minutes (around 37 shovels of material), I pulled the mat and washed it out in a bucket – reverse rolling it twice. Time required to pull and wash out mat was just over 3 minutes. It then took me another 3 minutes to put the mat back into the sluice and reset in stream. Since this was my first time using the GH, I will likely complete these steps more quickly with practice.
Gold in Mat:


Gold Hog sands from 1st clean out:


Gold Hog Captured Material and Cons: I was surprised at how much super fine black sands were captured in the mat. It captured finer black sand than the Bazooka at this same location. I believe this may translate into catching finer gold (-100 and smaller) than the Bazooka.
View of gold from first GH clean out:


So how did the Gold Hog do? It’s not logical to base an opinion on just one outing, but I felt that the GH stream sluice performed great. I actually did not know if I could set up and run the sluice and mat combination with the creek’s slow flow – but it worked and captured good gold from a few +20 flakes to -100 size. Since I did not classify, I was able to run about the same amount of material as I did with the Bazooka 36” sniper (which was about 40 shovels in 45 min).

Next post will cover the Bazooka running at same spot, same day, same flow… And gold found that day from GH and Bazooka.

 

[Goldwasher]

Pretty much have the same thing in the Royal Folding sluice.
I replaced the expanded metal and carpet with GH mats and it really does well.

After it's all said and done, cost wise it's all about the same.
The only real benefit over the GH model is being able to fold it up and place it in my pack.

The Mat's are the heaviest part of the system to be sure.
The GH stream Sluice gives you two versions of Mat's - low flow or high flow.
So if you take both set-ups with you, it's gonna be heavy!!
But if your not carrying far, then maybe no big deal.

Here's my set-up....
View attachment 1411504

And remember to Classify for the Standard sluice vs the Bazooka.
That might need to be included in the comparison?

.I promise you don't Have to classify. Sluices are classifiers. The only time I classify is if I can't get the material through the sluice because of flow. If you have to do this you wouldn't be able to run a prospector. probably not even a Sniper.

I know your gonna think I'm full of it. I double dog dare you to try it.

With low profile recovery. Proportional force moves material much easier. Drop riffle, gold hog or expanded over moss or carpet. Will get you excellent recovery and throughput.
run flat and fast shovel right in

 

[Goldwasher]

Here's my set up. The first box is a royal folder fixed to not fold. Inspection Matt removed to create a slick plate
Expanded over moss. Diamond drop riffles over carpet. Feeding an old proline with moss into a sluice with gold hog. Each box is a little wider than the previous.

99% of the heavies end up stuck to the front of the expanded and moss.

9 feet of sluice. Lots of water way less than an inch per foot drop.
I am not blowing out gold and I run three and four inch cobble and slate makes its way through.
I couldn't run as much material through a Bazooka.

Does just fine on fine gold.

 

[Hunt4gold]

Bazooka Sniper Low Flow Test
Here are the photos and video of running my Bazooka 36" Sniper same spot, same day, same flow, as the Gold Hog (review above).


Since I've used the Bazooka quite a few times this winter, I'm pretty quick at setting it up. Only problem was that wing dam I made to channel the water into the sluices was starting to leak in several places so I have to keep making adjustments to its position. I was the cause of the dam leaking - since I was digging just below it and collapsing the back wall.

Ran the Bazooka for about the same amount of time as the Gold Hog - 1 1/2 hours with two clean outs.
The rate at which I was able to shovel in material was about the same as the GH. Video below shows the amount/makeup of material I was digging. One note about the material, there is a lot of angular gravels in this area that lodge into the grizzlies, so on occasion I have to take a few seconds and clear them out. When the Bazooka is set up with right flow and angle, it can process a lot of material.


The long runway on the Bazooka lets you monitor the gold in each shovel - I feature I really like. If the setup is properly tuned, you can watch the backside of the sands as it moves down the plate. I use this to help monitor that I am still on the pay streak.
Hard to see, but the image below shows gold flakes trailing behind the heavier sands as it tracks down the runway and into the fluidizing chamber.


Both clean outs had nice gold. As I mentioned above, there is less ultra fine black sand in the Bazooka cons compared to the Gold Hog stream sluice. This said, I still had gold that is in the -100 size in the cons. Look closely at the photo below along the left side of the image and within the black sand - you will see -100 size gold.


So which sluice won?

The both win... which is what I expected. The Gold Hog stream sluice and the Bazooka 36" Sniper captured about the same amount of gold for the time ran - 1 1/2 hours each. They are both well made and engineered. The Gold Hog mats are well known and used around the world - because they work. Doc and his team have spent the time, research, and development to make mats for most any situation. The Bazooka is an awesome design, light weight, fast to set up, and one of the fastest to clean out. Contrary to some peoples thoughts, you can get an idea as to whether or not you are getting gold by watching the tailing section of material flowing across the runway plate. With the GH, I had a blast seeing gold trapped in the upper riffles in the mat - pretty cool. When I'm backpacking into a mountain stream this summer, I will take the 6 pound Bazooka. If I am at a wide river or stream, I'll be glad that I have the GH with adjustable legs that can be easily set up in the current without building rock dams to hold the sluice.
I still consider myself a rookie prospector with a lot to learn, but for me, these two sluices are a good fit within my arsenal of equipment for the prospecting I foresee in my near future. Of course, this does not mean I am done buying gear...

Gold captured by both sluices:

 

[Hunt4gold]

Here's my set up. The first box is a royal folder fixed to not fold. Inspection Matt removed to create a slick plate
Expanded over moss. Diamond drop riffles over carpet. Feeding an old proline with moss into a sluice with gold hog. Each box is a little wider than the previous.

99% of the heavies end up stuck to the front of the expanded and moss.

9 feet of sluice. Lots of water way less than an inch per foot drop.
I am not blowing out gold and I run three and four inch cobble and slate makes its way through.
I couldn't run as much material through a Bazooka.

Does just fine on fine gold.

Nice setup and gold Goldwasher!

 

[Goldfleks]

9 feet of sluice. Lots of water way less than an inch per foot drop.

I'm imagining you with a bunch of donkeys packing all that stuff in every day.

 

[Goldwasher]

BTW I was all Gold Hog until the first major flood came up about three feet higher than Iplanned. So ma nature decided to move some stuff for me.

This is my recovery recovery effort. I've found one piece of razor back so far and my sluices only ended up in a snag a few hundred feet away. I probably won't get all my matt back but, it doesn't float so Im hoping to get some of it out of the pool down stream of me.