TL;DR
Get furniture and decor 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 against a mock lath-and-plaster wall and found the Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 had the highest on-center detection rate, at 100%. The test also recorded false stud readings, so the report recommends taking repeated measurements rather than relying on one scan.
Pro Tool Reviews tested six stud finders on a mock lath-and-plaster wall and reported that the Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 detected the center of every test stud, while also producing false stud readings. The results offer homeowners and contractors comparative test data for a wall type that the report says can be difficult for stud-finder sensors to read.
The test was conducted on a mock-up wall built by Tom Gaige, with separate sections of single-layer drywall, double-layer drywall, and lath and plaster. Objects behind the sections included a standard stud, a stud with live AC, a metal stud, electrical conduit with live AC, PVC pipe, and a water-filled copper pipe. The report says each model was tested using repeated scans from both sides to assess its readings.
The Franklin M210/X2100 recorded 100% on-center detection, zero off-center readings and missed studs, and 100% AC detection in the reported results. It also had a 33% false-stud detection rate. The report lists its price as $59.99. Franklin’s less expensive M70/X700 recorded 67% on-center detection, 33% off-center detection, no missed studs and no false stud detections; it does not include AC detection. Its listed price was $21.99.
Other results were mixed. 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 report says six models were tested, but the material provided here gives results and prices for only four, so the remaining two models cannot be compared from these figures.
Choosing a Finder for Plaster
The results matter because an inaccurate reading can lead someone to mark the wrong location before hanging a heavy item or opening a wall. The test suggests that performance varies by model, and that even a finder with a perfect on-center result in this test can also mistake other objects for studs. A single alert is not proof that a stud is behind the wall.
The report’s findings also distinguish between two different needs: locating a framing member and detecting live AC. The M70/X700 had no AC-detection function, while the M210/X2100 recorded 100% AC detection in the test. That difference may matter for people planning work that involves cutting into a wall. The test does not establish that any consumer detector can rule out electrical hazards; its reported percentages apply to the tested setup only.
For buyers, the comparison presents a trade-off between the M210/X2100’s stronger center readings and higher price and the M70/X700’s lower price and lack of false readings in this test. Those figures are useful as a guide, not a guarantee that either model will perform the same way 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 Wall Test Worked
The report explains that lath-and-plaster construction can be harder for sensors to read because of differences in density and thicker wall construction. Studs are typically framed with a narrow face toward the wall; the report describes the target width as 1.5 inches, while cautioning that framing in older homes may vary.
To reduce errors, the tester recommends scanning from a section without a stud, marking the indicated center, then repeating the process from the opposite side after the finder resets or recalibrates. The report says repeated readings can help identify a more reliable center, particularly when readings disagree. It also cautions that stud spacing in lath-and-plaster walls may be inconsistent, so users should not assume that measuring a standard distance from one detected stud will locate the next.
The test categorized results as on-center detection, off-center detection, missed studs, false stud detections and AC detection. These are test-specific percentages; the supplied material does not provide the number of trials behind each percentage or full results for all six tested models.
“It properly detected each stud and properly identified the live AC.”
— Pro Tool Reviews, describing the test’s leading model
best stud finder with AC detection
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Limits of the Test Results
The supplied report excerpt does not name the other two of the six tested models or provide their results, and it does not state the number of trials used to calculate the percentages. It also does not provide a publication date, a full account of the test conditions, or evidence that the same results apply across different plaster mixes, wall thicknesses, or older framing.
The reported 100% on-center result for the M210/X2100 describes its performance in this test, not a guarantee of accuracy in a reader’s home. The report itself records false detections for that model. It is also unclear from the supplied material how the tester’s findings would compare across a broader range of lath materials and wall conditions.
electrical wire detector for walls
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Verify Before Wall Work
The report recommends taking repeated readings from opposing directions and comparing the marks before choosing a fastening point. Homeowners should treat the test as a model comparison rather than a substitute for checking the wall and the proposed installation. The report does not provide a separate follow-up testing plan or announce additional results.
For projects that involve cutting into a wall, a stud finder’s AC reading should not be treated as the sole safety check. The test material does not establish that a detector will identify every wire or hazard. Readers should follow applicable safety procedures and seek a qualified professional when the work or wall conditions require it.
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 stud finder performed best on lath and plaster in this test?
The Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 had the highest reported on-center detection rate, at 100%, and recorded no missed studs. It also had a 33% false-stud detection rate in the test.
Was there a lower-priced model the report recommended?
The report also favored the Franklin M70/X700, listed at $21.99. It recorded no missed studs or false detections in the plaster test, but its on-center detection rate was 67% and it does not have AC detection.
Why can stud finders struggle with plaster walls?
Pro Tool Reviews says thicker construction and differences in wall density can make it difficult for sensors to distinguish studs behind lath and plaster. Results can vary with the wall and the device.
How should I use a stud finder on a plaster wall?
The report recommends scanning from both sides, allowing the device to reset or recalibrate, and comparing multiple marks. Repeated readings can help reduce reliance on one potentially misleading signal.
Does a stud finder’s AC detection make cutting into a wall safe?
No. The test reports AC-detection results for some models, but it does not establish that a stud finder will identify every wire or hazard. Do not rely on a single detector reading as the only safety check before opening a wall.
Source: rss
Evergreen bestsellers Picks
bestsellers
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
