10-28-2016, 08:02 AM
Monte, thank you for a detailed, lengthy, informative reply!
I have heard nothing but great things about the Explorer 2's, and, matter of fact, according to many, they feel they were among the deepest of the entire Minelab line...ever. I am open to getting one, but the reservation I have is about the possibility of repair if a breakdown occurs. But outside of that, again, I most certainly would consider an Explorer 2.
I understand your point about having an amalgam of different machines for different tasks, and I happen to agree with it 100%. Since I partake in mostly (90% or more) deep coin hunting in parks, fields, etc. though, in all but the trashiest of spots, I find the Minelabs work best. But in general, the sentiment about having a couple different units is spot on.
To paint a picture of our spots, I would say about half are only minimally/moderately trashy, and the Safari has no issues at these locales. However, the other half of our spots tend to have a lot more trash/iron, and this is where the Safari lacks. To be sure, it still works and can get the job done, but not with the same ease and ability that some of the newer Minelab models can, due to their faster processors and enhanced separation abilities.
One of the liabilities we have is, aside from trashy/iron heavy sites, another whammy is added into the mix...
We have fairly mineralized soil AND the vast majority of our spots have been hunted extremely hard over the years and/or have had fill added. So, in addition to dealing with trash, the older targets tend to be quite deep (6+"), with the occasional exceptions. So, depth is a primary concern in a unit, in addition to it being quicker. And it needs to handle fairly mineralized ground well.
Aside from the weight, is there any other reason you no longer use a Minelab, Monte?
Joe
I have heard nothing but great things about the Explorer 2's, and, matter of fact, according to many, they feel they were among the deepest of the entire Minelab line...ever. I am open to getting one, but the reservation I have is about the possibility of repair if a breakdown occurs. But outside of that, again, I most certainly would consider an Explorer 2.
I understand your point about having an amalgam of different machines for different tasks, and I happen to agree with it 100%. Since I partake in mostly (90% or more) deep coin hunting in parks, fields, etc. though, in all but the trashiest of spots, I find the Minelabs work best. But in general, the sentiment about having a couple different units is spot on.
To paint a picture of our spots, I would say about half are only minimally/moderately trashy, and the Safari has no issues at these locales. However, the other half of our spots tend to have a lot more trash/iron, and this is where the Safari lacks. To be sure, it still works and can get the job done, but not with the same ease and ability that some of the newer Minelab models can, due to their faster processors and enhanced separation abilities.
One of the liabilities we have is, aside from trashy/iron heavy sites, another whammy is added into the mix...
We have fairly mineralized soil AND the vast majority of our spots have been hunted extremely hard over the years and/or have had fill added. So, in addition to dealing with trash, the older targets tend to be quite deep (6+"), with the occasional exceptions. So, depth is a primary concern in a unit, in addition to it being quicker. And it needs to handle fairly mineralized ground well.
Aside from the weight, is there any other reason you no longer use a Minelab, Monte?
Joe