TL;DR
Get compact home essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Pro Tool Reviews tested six stud finders on a mock-up wall that included lath and plaster. The Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 detected every stud center and live AC in that test, but also gave false stud readings; the less expensive M70/X700 missed none and produced no false readings, though it did not detect AC.
Pro Tool Reviews tested six stud finders on a mock-up wall section covered in lath and plaster, and reported that the Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 correctly located the center of every stud in its test. The same model also produced false stud readings, while the Franklin M70/X700 offered a less expensive alternative that missed no studs but did not include AC detection.
The report describes a test wall assembled by Tom Gaige with separate sections of single-layer drywall, double-layer drywall, and lath and plaster. A gap behind the sections allowed the testers to check readings against the objects placed behind the wall. Those objects included standard and metal studs, a stud with live AC, electrical conduit with live AC, PVC pipe, and a water-filled copper pipe. The report does not provide the full results for every model or wall section in the supplied material.
For the plaster section, the M210/X2100 recorded 100% on-center detection, with no missed studs or off-center readings, according to the report’s test categories. It also correctly detected live AC 100% of the time, but registered a false stud detection in 33% of the test instances. The report lists the model at $59.99 and advises taking repeated readings because some apparent studs may be pipes or other objects.
The Franklin M70/X700 recorded 67% on-center detection, 33% off-center detection, no missed studs and no false stud detections. Its listed price was $21.99, nearly $40 less than the M210, but it had no AC detection. The report also lists results for the Zircon HD70 and JAXWQ 139-FYELLOW: both had missed readings and false detections in the plaster tests. Their reported on-center rates were 67% and 60%, respectively.
Choosing a Detector for Plaster
The results offer homeowners and tradespeople a comparison for a wall type that can be difficult to scan with common stud finders. Lath and plaster can be thicker and denser than drywall, according to the report, making it harder for sensors to distinguish framing from other materials. A misplaced reading can lead to an unsuccessful fastener placement or, when drilling or cutting, contact with concealed pipes or wiring.
The test also shows why a high center-detection score is not the only useful measure. The M210 located every stud center in this test but generated false indications, while the M70 had lower on-center accuracy but no false stud readings. The report’s findings can help readers weigh precision, false readings, AC detection and price, but they are results from one test setup, not a guarantee of performance in every older home.
stud finder for lath and plaster walls
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Plaster Test Worked
The report says the tester used a repeated scanning technique: begin in an area without a stud, move the finder until it indicates a center, mark the result, then repeat from the opposite side after the device resets or recalibrates. The reviewer says taking several readings can improve confidence, particularly when the marks do not agree. Some devices may not require calibration in a stud cavity, but the report still recommends comparing readings.
For its comparison, the report converted observations into percentages for on-center detection, off-center detection, missed studs, false stud detection and AC detection. These are separate measures: a device can locate a stud without identifying its center, or flag another object as a stud. The report also cautions that framing in older homes can vary, so standard 16- or 24-inch spacing should not be assumed when locating additional studs from one known point.
“It properly detected each stud and properly identified the live AC.”
— Pro Tool Reviews, describing the M210/X2100
Limits of the Reported Results
The supplied report excerpt does not state the number of trials behind each percentage, the date of publication, or complete results for all six models. It also does not include the names and full plaster-test scores for every device tested. The listed prices are those reported in the article and may not reflect current retail prices.
The findings describe performance on one mock-up wall, not a broad sample of historic buildings. Wall composition, repairs, framing, wiring and plumbing can differ from house to house. The test results do not establish that any model will reliably identify every stud or concealed hazard in a particular wall.
Verify Before Drilling or Cutting
The report recommends making repeated passes from opposing directions and comparing marks before deciding where a stud center lies. Readers choosing between the two Franklin models can use the reported trade-off as a starting point: the M210/X2100 had the highest center-detection result and AC detection in this test, while the M70/X700 cost less and recorded no false stud readings but lacked AC detection.
There is no follow-up test or product update specified in the supplied material. Before drilling or cutting, users should treat a stud finder as one source of information and check for possible wiring and plumbing with appropriate methods. The report’s results alone cannot confirm that a location is clear.
Key Questions
Which stud finder performed best on the tested plaster wall?
According to Pro Tool Reviews, the Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 had 100% on-center detection in the plaster section of its mock-up wall. It also recorded false stud detections in 33% of test instances.
Is the Franklin M70/X700 a better buy?
The report lists it at $21.99, compared with $59.99 for the M210/X2100. It had no missed or false stud readings in the reported plaster test, but only 67% on-center detection and no AC detection. Which is preferable depends on the task and the features needed.
Why can lath and plaster be hard to scan?
The report says plaster walls can be thicker and denser than drywall, making it harder for stud-finder sensors to distinguish studs from other materials behind the surface.
How should I use a stud finder on plaster?
The report recommends scanning from opposite directions, marking readings and comparing multiple passes. If readings do not agree, repeat the process rather than relying on a single indication.
Do these results guarantee a stud finder will work in my home?
No. The results come from one mock-up wall, and wall construction and concealed objects vary. The test does not guarantee performance in a specific home or confirm that a spot is clear of wiring or plumbing.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
