TL;DR
Get home appliances 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 that included lath and plaster, finding substantial differences in accuracy. The Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 detected the center of every tested stud but also produced false detections; the less expensive M70/X700 missed none and produced no false detections, though its on-center rate was lower.
Pro Tool Reviews tested six stud finders on a mock-up lath-and-plaster wall and found that Franklin’s ProSensor M210/X2100 had the highest on-center detection rate, identifying the center of every tested stud. The test also recorded false stud readings from that model, while the less expensive Franklin M70/X700 missed no studs and produced no false detections but was less precise in locating centers.
The review’s tester evaluated the devices on a wall mock-up built by Tom Gaige, with separate sections of single-layer drywall, double-layer drywall, and lath and plaster. Gaps between the sections allowed the testers to see the materials and objects behind each surface. Those objects included standard studs, studs with live AC, metal studs, live electrical conduit, PVC pipe, and a water-filled copper pipe.
For the plaster section, the M210/X2100 recorded 100% on-center detection, with no missed studs and 100% AC detection in the reported test. It also had a 33% false-stud detection rate. The review recommends taking repeat readings rather than treating a single alert as conclusive; the false readings may have involved other objects behind the wall, but the supplied results do not identify each false signal.
The M70/X700 recorded 67% on-center detection, 33% off-center detection, no missed studs, and no false stud detections. It did not include AC detection, according to the report. The review lists prices of $59.99 for the M210/X2100 and $21.99 for the M70/X700. Prices are the report’s listed figures and may not reflect current retail prices.
Choosing a Finder for Plaster
The findings matter to people mounting shelves, cabinets, or televisions in older homes, where lath-and-plaster construction can make stud readings less dependable than on ordinary drywall. A false center mark can send a fastener into the wrong spot, while an off-center reading can leave less material for a secure attachment. The review’s results offer a comparison from one controlled test, not a guarantee that either model will perform the same way in every home.
The two Franklin recommendations involve a practical trade-off. The M210/X2100 delivered the best reported center accuracy and detected live AC in the test, but it also generated false stud alerts. The M70/X700 cost less and had no false or missed stud readings in this test, but it did not provide AC detection and more often marked an edge as the center. The appropriate choice depends on the task and the need for electrical detection; a stud finder’s AC alert should not be treated as proof that a wall is safe to cut or drill.
Franklin Sensors ProSensor M210 stud finder AC detection
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Test Measured Accuracy
The review notes that stud finders can give inaccurate results even on standard drywall. Its tester recommends scanning from a stud-free area, marking a reading, then repeating from the opposite side after the device resets or recalibrates. Comparing readings from both directions can help estimate the center, and the tester says plaster may require additional passes before readings agree.
The review counted results in five categories: on-center detection, off-center detection, missed studs, false stud detection, and AC detection. These percentages describe the devices’ performance in the reported tests; they are not independent certifications or a guarantee of performance in different wall assemblies. The report also cautions that stud spacing in lath-and-plaster walls may be inconsistent, so assuming a fixed 16- or 24-inch spacing can lead to errors.
Other tested models had more mixed results. The Zircon HD70 recorded 67% on-center detection, 7% missed studs, 47% false detections, and 50% AC detection. The JAXWQ 139-FYELLOW recorded 60% on-center detection, 7% missed studs, 33% false detections, and 50% AC detection. The supplied source identifies six models in the test but provides detailed plaster results here for four.
““Some worked on plaster walls better than others, but only one nailed the center of every stud.””
— Pro Tool Reviews tester
Franklin Sensors ProSensor M70 stud finder
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Limits of the Reported Results
The supplied report does not give the number of trials behind each percentage, the full results for the other two tested models, or enough detail to determine how the test wall compares with different types and ages of plaster construction. It also does not identify the exact objects responsible for each false stud reading. Those gaps limit how broadly the percentages can be applied.
The report’s listed prices may have changed since publication, and no publication date was supplied in the source material. It is also unclear whether performance would hold on walls with different lath materials, plaster thicknesses, repairs, or hidden wiring and plumbing. A stud finder can assist with locating framing, but its reading does not establish that an area is free of electrical wiring or pipes.
stud finder for lath and plaster walls
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Verify Before Drilling or Cutting
Readers choosing a device can compare the report’s accuracy measures with the features needed for their project, then take multiple readings from opposite directions and look for a consistent center. Where a false reading could cause damage or create a safety risk, the review’s results should be treated as a guide rather than a substitute for checking the wall by other appropriate means.
The supplied report does not announce further testing or a follow-up date. Before drilling or cutting, users should account for possible live wiring and plumbing; the test’s AC-detection results do not guarantee that hazards will be found. The next confirmed development, if any, would be additional testing or updated product information from the review publisher.
deep scan stud finder with live AC wire detection
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Which tested stud finder had the best on-center result on plaster?
The Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 recorded 100% on-center detection in the report’s lath-and-plaster test. It also had a 33% false-stud detection rate, so the review recommends taking repeat readings.
Which model had no missed or false stud readings?
The Franklin ProSensor M70/X700 recorded no missed studs and no false stud detections in the plaster test. Its on-center detection rate was 67%, and the model did not include AC detection.
Does a stud finder reading confirm that a wall is safe to drill?
No. The report tested AC detection on some models, but those results do not prove that an area is clear of wiring or plumbing. Treat readings as one source of information and use appropriate precautions before drilling or cutting.
Did the review test only plaster walls?
No. The mock-up included single-layer drywall, double-layer drywall, and lath and plaster. The results summarized here concern the plaster section; the supplied material does not include complete results for all six models across every wall type.
Source: rss
NFL season / tailgating Picks
team gear
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
