BH 3300 / F4

[ivconic]

Are the Bounty Hunter Discovery 3300 and Fisher F4 one and the same detector?

[Dave J.]

Circuit architecture somewhat similar, and same searchcoils except for the connector. But circuit details all different, many differences in features as well.

[ivconic]

Circuit architecture somewhat similar, and same searchcoils except for the connector. But circuit details all different, many differences in features as well.

Thanks.
I asked that because i noticed similarity (actually are identical) between detectors enclosures, front panels and front panel element placements.
As well as measured data from some coils.
I am having F4 here at home. Not bad at all... actually excellent "collector" of ancient Roman coins, especially on plowed fields.
I was wandering is BH3300 with similar performances?
Because i saw one on sale for twice as lower from F4's regular price.
Also i was thinking to diy a bit larger coil, maybe i can get bit more depths.
Also having F2 with smaller round coil.

[Dave J.]

The BH3300 is a good performer in its own right, but it's not an F4. Whether you would like it or not, only one way to find out.......

You probably already knnow that larger searchcoils usually don't deliver much more depth, their primary advantage is in broader coverage.

[Skippy]

There is a 10 inch concentric coil for the BH range that would fit the F4, maybe with a connector swap. It would save you building one, and it would probably be cheap to buy on the second-hand market, but whether it would perform any better than the DD that comes with the F4 is debatable.

[eduardo1979]

Fisher F2

Here is an outline of Fisher F2 which is quite similar to F4 and Discovery 3300. There are few differences in reality, as Noch mode, screen size, etc.

[ivconic]

The BH3300 is a good performer in its own right, but it's not an F4. Whether you would like it or not, only one way to find out.......

You probably already knnow that larger searchcoils usually don't deliver much more depth, their primary advantage is in broader coverage.

Sometimes gaining even only 1/2" more depth is a big deal, especially if coins are preferable targets.
It is a matter of 1/10" whether it will receive enough good signal or not; to be able to accurately accept/reject the target.
Again; this is significant mostly in coin shooting. And especially on sites with such targets.
And by the unfortunate "rule"; such sites are almost always heavily infested with other undesired stuff.
Ancient Roman sites are usually situated in leveled terrains, plowing soils now days.
Lot of broken ceramics, ferro oxide materials and a lot of modern junk above.
Coins are mostly made from bronze and in time adopted layers of "good" and "bad" patina.
Along with tiny layers of limestone. Indeed tough targets even on very shallow depths.
Most of the detectors fails to clearly indicate such finds.
Usually it's up to one's experience to distinguish among such signals and decide whether to dig or not.
That's why "gaining bit more of depth" is holly grail and always fresh and actual among the detectorists.
Bit larger coil will certainly give a bit more depth... along with broader coverage, of course.
Not much... but maybe enough to make difference on previously already well explored sites.

[ivconic]

There is a 10 inch concentric coil for the BH range that would fit the F4, maybe with a connector swap. It would save you building one, and it would probably be cheap to buy on the second-hand market, but whether it would perform any better than the DD that comes with the F4 is debatable.

It's alright to buy another coil.
But also is very tempting challenge for passionate diyer to try to make one.

[ivconic]

Here is an outline of Fisher F2 which is quite similar to F4 and Discovery 3300. There are few differences in reality, as Noch mode, screen size, etc.

Yes i saw it before, already having it in "collection".
Pretty straightforward analogue part.
Could be tried to adapt it as diy project without mcu.
One of the possible tasks for next winter maybe...