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 wall that included lath and plaster. The Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 detected the center of every test stud and live AC, while the less expensive M70/X700 had no missed or false stud readings but was less precise and lacked AC detection. The findings reflect this test setup, and the report advises taking repeated readings because plaster walls can produce misleading results.
Pro Tool Reviews tested six stud finders on a mock wall section made with lath and plaster and found that the Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 was the only model in the test to identify the center of every stud. The report also recommends the less expensive Franklin ProSensor M70/X700, which had no missed or false stud readings but was less consistent at marking the center and does not detect live AC.
The report says the M210/X2100 recorded 100% on-center detection, with no missed studs or off-center readings, and correctly identified live AC in all the test instances. It also produced false stud detections 33% of the time, so the reviewers advise checking questionable readings rather than treating every alert as a stud. The model was listed at $59.99 in the report.
The M70/X700 had 67% on-center detection, and identified the stud edge as the center in 33% of readings. It had no missed studs and no false stud detections in the test, but the report lists its AC detection as not available. At a listed $21.99, the reviewers call it their Editor’s Choice, while noting that it is not the right substitute when AC detection is needed.
Two other models had mixed results. The Zircon HD70 recorded 67% on-center detection, 7% missed studs and 47% false stud detections; its AC detection rate was 50%. The JAXWQ 139-FYELLOW recorded 60% on-center detection, 7% missed studs and 33% false detections, also with 50% AC detection. The supplied report excerpt does not give the results for all six models, so the available figures do not support a full ranking of the entire test group.
Choosing a Finder for Plaster
Finding framing behind lath and plaster matters when people need to hang heavy items or plan a wall installation. A misplaced reading can mean a screw misses the stud, while a false alert may send someone looking in the wrong place. The test suggests that center accuracy and false readings are separate considerations: the M210/X2100 led on center identification but still reported some non-stud objects as studs.
The M70/X700’s results offer a different trade-off for basic locating work: it was cheaper and had no false or missed stud readings in this test, but one-third of its detections marked an edge as the center. Neither set of results guarantees performance in every home. The report’s measurements come from a specific mock wall and should be read as a comparison under those test conditions, not a promise of identical results on all plaster walls.
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 Test Wall Was Built
Pro Tool Reviews says Tom Gaige built a mock-up containing sections of single-layer drywall, double-layer drywall, and lath and plaster, with gaps between sections to make the objects behind them visible to the testers. The test targets included standard studs, studs with live AC, metal studs, electrical conduit with live AC, PVC pipe and a water-filled copper pipe.
The reviewers assessed on-center detection, off-center detection, missed studs, false stud detections and AC detection, then expressed results as percentages. The source explains that lath-and-plaster construction can be thicker and harder for sensors to read than drywall. It also cautions that framing spacing in older homes can be inconsistent, so measuring a second stud from a presumed 16- or 24-inch interval may not be reliable.
For technique, the report recommends taking readings from both sides of a suspected stud and averaging the marks. It says repeating the process can help when readings do not agree, particularly on plaster. The authors also note that some current models do not require calibration in a stud cavity, but still recommend multiple readings to improve confidence.
“only one nailed the center of every stud”
— Pro Tool Reviews
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Limits of the Test Results
The source material does not specify the test’s total number of readings, the exact construction dimensions of the plaster section, or how each percentage was calculated from individual attempts. It also gives detailed results for only four of the six models in the supplied excerpt. The listed prices are the prices reported by the review, and the source does not establish whether they remain current.
The report does not show how the tested devices perform across different plaster mixes, lath materials, wall thicknesses or older framing layouts. Its results therefore cannot establish that either Franklin model will perform the same way in every building. The M210/X2100’s false alerts also leave open which particular targets caused those readings in each instance; the report suggests a pipe may be mistaken for a stud but does not identify every false detection.
best stud finder for accurate center detection
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Verify Before Making a Cut
The report recommends repeating scans from both sides of a suspected stud and comparing the marks before relying on a center reading. Readers choosing a detector can weigh the M210/X2100’s stronger center and AC results against its false alerts and higher listed price, or the M70/X700’s lower price against its lack of AC detection.
For work that involves cutting or opening a wall, a stud finder’s AC alert should not be treated as proof that an area is free of wiring. The supplied report does not describe an upcoming follow-up test or a new testing date. Its immediate practical advice is to use multiple readings and interpret results cautiously, especially where a mistaken location could affect concealed pipes or electrical wiring.
affordable stud finder for drywall and plaster
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Which tested stud finder performed best on lath and plaster?
In Pro Tool Reviews’ test, the Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 had 100% on-center detection and no missed studs. It also correctly detected live AC in the test, but produced false stud readings in 33% of instances.
Was the less expensive Franklin model accurate?
The M70/X700 had no missed or false stud readings in the test, but marked the center correctly 67% of the time. In 33% of readings it identified an edge as the center, and the model does not provide AC detection according to the report.
How many stud finders were tested?
The review says it tested six popular models on a mock wall with a lath-and-plaster section. The supplied source excerpt provides detailed results for four models, not all six.
How should I scan plaster walls for studs?
The report recommends taking readings from both sides of a suspected stud, allowing the detector to reset or recalibrate, and comparing the marks. Repeating the process can help when readings do not agree.
Can these results guarantee a stud finder will work in my home?
No. The figures describe performance on one mock test wall. Different wall thicknesses, materials and framing layouts may affect readings, so the report advises using repeated scans rather than relying on a single alert.
Source: rss
NFL season / tailgating Picks
team gear
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
