Gpx 6000 compared to gpx 4500 depth on bigger nuggets

[dubbles]

Hi,all.i was wondering whether anyone had compared the 6000 to the 4500 same sized coil on maybe a 10 gram nugget or above for depth.i know the 6000 is great for small gold,but I don't want to buy one if it doesn't reach the same depth as my 4500.i haven't seen any you tube videos on this,maybe a member here might be able to enlighten me,thanks

 

[HarryHoudini]

Hi,all.i was wondering whether anyone had compared the 6000 to the 4500 same sized coil on maybe a 10 gram nugget or above for depth.i know the 6000 is great for small gold,but I don't want to buy one if it doesn't reach the same depth as my 4500.i haven't seen any you tube videos on this,maybe a member here might be able to enlighten me,thanks

The 4500 goes much deeper than the 6000.
I used the 4500 with 12” evo and I dug much deeper targets. The 6000 shines on very small gold.

 

[mbasko]

I think the views on questions like this are highly subjective at best.
There are also too many other variables, besides opinion, that can come into play with an accurate answer.
There were some videos around awhile back showing the 6000 definitely holding it's own on test bed sites but again they can be viewed as subjective & lots of variables.
My own personal opinion is that I don't feel I'm losing much, if any, depth at all with the 6000 v the 4500 with small (up to ~11") coils.
Although I haven't used it a lot I'm not entirely convinced on the 6000's 17" coil depth though & feel this is where the 4500 may still hold an advantage. Also a much better large coil selection for the 4500 meaning more versatility in detecting at depth ATM.

 

[DALEO8]

The biggest mistake people make with the 6000 is running the sensitivity to high this will render deep targets impossible to hear. and not running in difficult helps alot too if the sensitivity is down low you can run normal. Was the best day of my life when I sold my 4500 and upgraded to the 6000 paid it off in 2 months that's $8000 in 2 months detecting my 4500 did not pay for over 2 years of ownership

 

[user 12139]

a couple hour session, 1 bloke used a 45, the other a 6K

who used what?

 

[mbasko]

a couple hour session, 1 bloke used a 45, the other a 6K

who used what?

Who cares, unless you both went over each target individually to test it on both machines & even then what were the variables involved?
If you mixed both of those piles of rubbish together & added half dozen pieces of gold it would look like my few hours with the 6000 a couple of days ago. Oh you could throw in the piece of 1" x 12" strapping I dug out at over 15" deep too - what's that prove? Nought.
In fact if you mixed both piles together it would look like any other day with any other GPX/SDC/GPZ around here.

 

[Hawkear]

The biggest mistake people make with the 6000 is running the sensitivity to high this will render deep targets impossible to hear. and not running in difficult helps alot too if the sensitivity is down low you can run normal. Was the best day of my life when I sold my 4500 and upgraded to the 6000 paid it off in 2 months that's $8000 in 2 months detecting my 4500 did not pay for over 2 years of ownership

With some trepidation I will dip my toe into discussions concerning a 6000 as I don't have one but am confident enough with the feedback to get one for my next season.
I agree with DALEO8 and think so much does depend on preferred coils and settings that we chose, and for that reason there is considerable overlap in the subjectively perceived performance between detectors.
As an example I sold my 2300 last year and rebought a 5000 for the specific purpose of returning to deeper gold finds. It came with an 8" commander coil which is the same size as the standard 2300 coil, and I thought I'd give it a go on the 5 in fine gold setting going over ground that I had worked well with the 2300.
The results were interesting. The 5 and 8" combination had no trouble picking up similar numbers and sizes of nuggets to the 23, but clearly a lot were coming from deeper and a few were significantly larger bits missed by the 2300 on my "patches". This was offset in some way with the very tiny nuggets that the 5 missed but given the much less time using the 5 the results would have been on track to give me if not necessarily larger numbers but enough to keep me busy and certainly a larger weight of gold.
It seems interesting that people feel that the 6000 is in the ball park when it comes to depth with a 45 (or 5 presumably) as well is its well documented success so far.
Not yet ready to give up my 5 yet because of its potential to use large deep seeking coils but feel that a 6 as a companion detector will be my next step.

 

[HarryHoudini]

It comes down to the skill of the operator and their experience as well. Mind you I know guys that could find gold using a bent stick.

cheers

 

[mbasko]

It comes down to the skill of the operator and their experience as well. Mind you I know guys that could find gold using a bent stick.

cheers

100%. I've got a mate who I reckon would find gold with a bin lid nailed to a broomstick.

 

[user 12139]

Who cares, unless you both went over each target individually to test it on both machines & even then what were the variables involved?
If you mixed both of those piles of rubbish together & added half dozen pieces of gold it would look like my few hours with the 6000 a couple of days ago. Oh you could throw in the piece of 1" x 12" strapping I dug out at over 15" deep too - what's that prove? Nought.
In fact if you mixed both piles together it would look like any other day with any other GPX/SDC/GPZ around here.

variables = not many; same ground, day & time, but different operators & machines
results = "clearly" one machine consistantly returns larger solid like targets compared to the other that found more smaller & jagged type targets. The day of that photo is not the first time we have compared 45 & 6K finds, results are always the same regardless where we are and I'll add gold finds resemble the outcome that photo dipicts too!

I know where I'd prefer to use a 45 as apposed to a 6K, and visa versa. Do you?

A VLF could find 1 x 12" strapping at 15", whats that prove.. nothing beyond your most likely not on virgin ground & you need to stop playing at the tip

 

[Hawkear]

A VLF could find 1 x 12" strapping at 15", whats that prove.. nothing beyond your not on virgin ground & you need to stop playing at the tip

With my first detector (a whites VLF) arrived eager eyed in Dunolly 40+ years ago. Asked one of the locals where could I go to find gold. He gave me very specific directions. Turned out to be the old tip on Gooseberry Hill!

 

[user 12139]

With some trepidation I will dip my toe into discussions concerning a 6000 as I don't have one but am confident enough with the feedback to get one for my next season.
I agree with DALEO8 and think so much does depend on preferred coils and settings that we chose, and for that reason there is considerable overlap in the subjectively perceived performance between detectors.
As an example I sold my 2300 last year and rebought a 5000 for the specific purpose of returning to deeper gold finds. It came with an 8" commander coil which is the same size as the standard 2300 coil, and I thought I'd give it a go on the 5 in fine gold setting going over ground that I had worked well with the 2300.
The results were interesting. The 5 and 8" combination had no trouble picking up similar numbers and sizes of nuggets to the 23, but clearly a lot were coming from deeper and a few were significantly larger bits missed by the 2300 on my "patches". This was offset in some way with the very tiny nuggets that the 5 missed but given the much less time using the 5 the results would have been on track to give me if not necessarily larger numbers but enough to keep me busy and certainly a larger weight of gold.
It seems interesting that people feel that the 6000 is in the ball park when it comes to depth with a 45 (or 5 presumably) as well is its well documented success so far.
Not yet ready to give up my 5 yet because of its potential to use large deep seeking coils but feel that a 6 as a companion detector will be my next step.
View attachment 10135

absolutly!

 

[user 12139]

With my first detector (a whites VLF) arrived eager eyed in Dunolly 40+ years ago. Asked one of the locals where could I go to find gold. He gave me very specific directions. Turned out to be the old tip on Gooseberry Hill!

hahaha, you should have paid him the favour back by dropping him off some finds!

about 50 years ago Dad and I near paid for a Whites 5000 in the first 30 mins, a lovely ironstone hosted half Oz

 

[mbasko]

variables = not many; same ground, day & time, but different operators & machines
results = "clearly" one machine consistantly returns larger solid like targets compared to the other that found more smaller & jagged type targets. The day of that photo is not the first time we have compared 45 & 6K finds, results are always the same regardless where we are and I'll add gold finds resemble the outcome that photo dipicts too!

Different operators & machines. Clearly that is only the 2 biggest variables you can have. Machine settings the same to were they
Clearly you've missed my point. Mix both handfuls of your rubbish finds together & that would look like a normal day out with any GPX/SDC/GPZ for me. I tend to pick up a mix of all of that even with the GPX6000? Not sure why your mate isn't?
My GPX6000 near blows my hat off when it hits on .22's, musket balls & buttons (even at good depth).

I know where I'd prefer to use a 45 as apposed to a 6K, and visa versa. Do you?

Not sure . I've owned most model Minelab's from the SD2200D thru to GPZ7000. Found my most consistent gold with the SDC, GPZ & GPX4500 (heaviest piece but any one of them would have found it) prior to the 6000 which is also very consistent. Maybe it's just the machines not the operator

A VLF could find 1 x 12" strapping at 15", whats that prove.. nothing beyond your most likely not on virgin ground & you need to stop playing at the tip

Correct & exactly my point. What does your 2 x handfuls of rubbish prove. Nothing.
Maybe your tone deaf to some signals or your mate is? Maybe you run settings on the 4500 more conducive to bigger, deeper targets (as can be done)? Maybe your mate is struggling a bit with the GPX6000? etc. etc. etc.
No probs detecting around old tips if the gold's there bud but not on that occasion.
Maybe you should take your own advice so you won't have to compare handfuls of rubbish to prove some fanciful & incorrect in my own experience point?

You can always go back & edit your post for the 12th time today!

 

[user 12139]

1 mate is going back to a 4500 and selling his 6k, he's convinced he isn't pulling as bigger nuggets with the 6. The other mate is on the fence, I think it depends how mate 1 goes.

Sean at MD in Bendigo first words where after showing him photos of some RECENT 4500 finds.. "geez there is nothing small there". Ask him!

Have a look through what finds people post, they are getting smaller.

Sorry I don't buy gravy that easily. In this game, knowledge wins, you can't buy that.

Mod Edit: derogatory remark removed.

 

[fwdoz]

Until recently I owned both the 6000 & the 4500. I only sold the 6000 to fund my house renovations & ready myself for our move to Ballarat.

I love both of the detectors. The 6000 was so crisp & clear on most of the patches I frequented. The 4500 was mostly a backup machine for if something went wrong with the 6000, or for the ground that made the 6000 squeal. So for me it is horses for courses. Being closer to the GT, I expect to spend a lot more time on the ground & go back over areas where the 6000 was kind to me to see if the 4500 finds anything extra & give my detectors the workouts they deserve.

As with all machines, tweak the settings to what works for you. Like DALEO8, I ran my 6000 low & let the noise cancelling headphones do their job. Amazing how things sound so much clearer.

Post moving I might get another 6000 & pair it up with an aftermarket coil, if the real estate gods are kind enough to me!

 

[Deano]

1 mate is going back to a 4500 and selling his 6k, he's convinced he isn't pulling as bigger nuggets with the 6. The other mate is on the fence, I think it depends how mate 1 goes.

Sean at MD in Bendigo first words where after showing him photos of some RECENT 4500 finds.. "geez there is nothing small there". Ask him!

Have a look through what finds people post, they are getting smaller.

Sorry I don't buy gravy that easily. In this game, knowledge wins, you can't buy that so the delusional buy a 6000 and fall right into the ML hands in doing so

DALEO8

The biggest mistake people make with the 6000 is running the sensitivity too high because this will render deep targets impossible to hear, and not running in Difficult helps alot too if the sensitivity is down low you can run Normal. It was the best day of my life when I sold my 4500 and upgraded to the 6000 because I paid the 6000 off in 2 months, that's $8000 in 2 months detecting, my 4500 did not pay for over 2 years of ownership.


NENAD LONIC

The 6000 is kind of the missing link between the 2300 and 7000 but lighter than both of them. You can also sweep the 6000 a little faster than both the 7000 and 2300 before it loses sensitivity. The 6000 is using new technology which means finding gold that other machines will struggle on. The depth of the 6000 can exceed the 2300 and 5000 and can also give the 7000 a run for its money on “targets under one gram”. On “prickly-reefy type gold” the 6000 is far superior over the 5000. One time during field testing I found 5 nuggets in a small patch, when testing those pieces the 5000 would not even respond as I could only just get a response when virtually rubbing them on the surface of a 12×8 Evolution coil, but these were pieces that I found at several inches with the 6000. But both the 5000 and 4500 can go deeper than the 6000 on “larger chunky gold” (using the bigger coils and suitable timings) but how much of that type of gold is still left behind? In any given year I can probably count on one hand how many solid nuggety bits I find and the rest is all weird, odd ball shapes, flat thin pieces, or often iron encrusted specimens all of which the 6000 detects very well! The 6000 is also very light, well balanced, comes with wireless headphones, and collapses down to a very small size.

~There is no doubt in my mind, on “sub gram gold”, the 6000 is very, very good. If you add a “little texture and unusual shape” to the gold then the advantage of the 6000 is more noticeable over the 7000. But when it comes to larger targets then the comparison between the two gets a little more complicated that depends not only on target size but also target orientation, depth, mineralisation, and settings (mainly on the 7000). I found a “rough textured” 5.4g nugget with the 7000 and 12″ Z-search coil and later did a quick test with the 6000 (GPX 11”) and there was hardly any difference between the two machines, the 6000 maybe giving a slightly more defined signal response quite likely due to the monoloop coil. However when testing on a “more solid” 5 grammer then the 7000 showed its true colours particularly in General. One thing that clearly does stand out though is the 7000 in Normal Ground Type setting gives a greater boost in depth compared to the 6000 in Normal. And 7000 starts to win more as target sizes increase. So the bigger the gold and the milder the soils then the greater the advantage of the 7000. But bear in mind this is all in comparison to the 6000’s GPX 11” coil. On most targets under one gram the 6000 will do as good if not slightly better than the 7000, particularly when the 7000 needs to be used in Difficult Ground Mode.

~The 6000 is deadly with its GPX 11″ mono coil but being so sensitive and powerful does have a couple of drawbacks. 1) It does not quite handle very mineralised soils as good as the 2300 does and it will ping the odd hot rock that both the 2300 and 7000 will ignore. 2) Since using a much broader frequency band the 6000 is more prone to EMI so frequent Noise Cancels may be required on certain days. Luckily the auto noise cancel only takes about 4 seconds. If you want to quieten things down then this is where the 6000’s GPX 14″ DD comes in, it will handle mineralised soils very well including high salt content soils and this DD also cancels out bad EMI extremely well while remaining very sensitive to small targets.

 

[user 12139]

I am not interested in sub gram rabbit shit, some of you maybe are interested but not me. I'd much rather dig once for an Oz than 30+ holes for the same result. Besides, I don't do mullocks or creeks so chances of me finding sub gram finds are next to none.. My 4500 with the 11" DD works a treat in noisy ground, very little performance is given away compared to the 11" mono.

I'd much rather go back to camp and drink beer than dig holes all day.

I paid for my 4500 in under a month, also paid for a 2300 in under a month. Drank a lot of beer those months too

 

[Deano]

I am not interested in sub gram rabbit shit, some of you maybe are interested but not me. I'd much rather dig once for an Oz than 30+ holes for the same result. Besides, I don't do mullocks or creeks so chances of me finding sub gram finds are next to none.. My 4500 with the 11" DD works a treat in noisy ground, very little performance is given away compared to the 11" mono.

I'd much rather go back to camp and drink beer than dig holes all day.

I paid for my 4500 in under a month, also paid for a 2300 in under a month. Drank a lot of beer those months too

I see, yes I totally agree, and honestly if I did not want to bother with (the very best “VLF type” performance possible in a PI) finding sub gram (less than one gram) sized gold then I would “not” bother spending the extra money to purchase a 6000 and use a 4500 or 5000 instead (not considering the 7000 because of price). Yes, both the 4500 and 5000 can go deeper than the 6000 on “larger chunky gold” especially using the bigger coils and suitable timings. You are doing well and right, stick with what works for you.

But the 6000 has other benefits besides the best performance on sub gram “prickly-reefy type gold” which is also very lightweight, well balanced, comes with wireless headphones, lightweight battery that is attached to the detector, and collapses down to a very small size.

I am older and also a big, big beer fan, it settles my stomach and makes me feel that I can live again (a life saver). I add a little bit of bottled organic pure 100% “Lime juice”, not from concentrate, to my lager beer, having one now, acquired taste and sits very well with me. The odd time I add a bit of vodka and/or clamato juice to my daily beer. Yes I drink plain beer too, just like mix it up for variety, cheers!

 

[Hawkear]

I am not interested in sub gram rabbit shit, some of you maybe are interested but not me. I'd much rather dig once for an Oz than 30+ holes for the same result. Besides, I don't do mullocks or creeks so chances of me finding sub gram finds are next to none.. My 4500 with the 11" DD works a treat in noisy ground, very little performance is given away compared to the 11" mono.

I'd much rather go back to camp and drink beer than dig holes all day.

I paid for my 4500 in under a month, also paid for a 2300 in under a month. Drank a lot of beer those months too

I’ll take whatever I can get. At my age I don’t like walking miles and tend to concentrate around where I can park my car (and my wife). I like to work and rework an area with different coils (detectors) for whatever each can produce before moving on.
Remember when I first got a 45 and was doing well with a group over in WA. One of the group was swinging a 3000 which he loved. His method of detecting was to disappear for the day walking miles and occasionally would come back with a nice nugget. His wife convinced him to buy a 45 after seeing what my machine was doing. On the first day this time close to camp he found a half grammer and complained saying “ Is this the shit I am going to get from now on”. Later he and his wife found a four ouncer in a well detected area using a 45.
My take is it depends more your choice of detecting style as much as the machine you choose.
Must say though have not used a DD for many years ever since mono became controllable with the GPXs. That is something I might need to revisit.