TL;DR
Pro Tool Reviews tested six stud finders on a mock-up lath-and-plaster wall and reported that Franklin’s ProSensor M210/X2100 correctly identified every stud center in the test. It also produced false stud readings, while the less expensive M70/X700 missed no studs and generated no false detections, but was less precise and lacked AC detection.
Pro Tool Reviews tested six stud finders on a mock-up lath-and-plaster wall and found that the Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 correctly identified the center of every stud in its test. The device also registered false stud readings, while the less expensive Franklin M70/X700 recorded no misses or false detections but was less accurate at locating centers.
Get business pricing on your home office setup
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
The testing took place on a wall mock-up built by Tom Gaige, with separate sections of single-layer drywall, double-layer drywall and lath and plaster. Pro Tool Reviews tested each finder against several objects placed behind the wall, including standard and metal studs, a stud with live AC, electrical conduit with live AC, PVC pipe and a water-filled copper pipe. The report says testers used repeated passes from opposite directions to assess readings.
On the plaster section, the M210/X2100 recorded 100% on-center detection, no missed studs and 100% AC detection. It also had a 33% false-stud detection rate, according to the report, so the result does not mean every indication from the device was a real stud. Pro Tool Reviews listed a price of $59.99.
The M70/X700 recorded 67% on-center detection, with no missed studs and no false detections in the test. Its reported price was $21.99, nearly $40 less than the M210, but it does not include AC detection. Other tested models included the Zircon HD70 and JAXWQ 139-FYELLOW; both had some missed and false readings in the reported plaster results.
Choosing a Finder for Plaster Walls
Lath-and-plaster construction can make it harder for electronic stud finders to distinguish framing from surrounding materials. The results matter to homeowners and contractors because a misplaced reading can lead to drilling or fastening in the wrong spot, while a false indication can make a pipe or another object appear to be a stud.
The test points to a trade-off rather than a single choice for every job. The M210/X2100 had the strongest reported center-finding result and detected live AC in the test, but it also produced false stud indications. The M70/X700 costs less and had no missed or false detections in this test, yet it located the center less often and cannot detect AC. These are results from one mock-up and test procedure, not a guarantee of performance in every older home.
Products Worth Considering
Philips Hue Festavia 130-Foot Indoor/Outdoor Smart String Lights, 500 LEDs
Philips Hue Play HDMI Sync Box 4K
Roborock Q7 M5+ Robot Vacuum and Mop with Self-Emptying Dock
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Plaster Test Was Run
Pro Tool Reviews says stud finding can be inconsistent even on ordinary drywall, and that the narrow face of a standard stud presents a limited target. The report recommends taking readings from both sides and comparing them, allowing the finder to reset or recalibrate between passes. It advises taking additional readings when working through plaster if marks do not agree.
The testers converted their observations into percentages for five categories: correct center detection, off-center readings, missed studs, false stud detections and AC detection. The report also cautions that stud spacing in lath-and-plaster walls may not follow the common 16- or 24-inch pattern, so measuring from one detected stud to find another may not be reliable.
“Only one nailed the center of every stud.”
— Pro Tool Reviews
Limits of the Reported Results
The source describes a single mock-up wall test; it does not establish how the devices perform across the full range of real lath-and-plaster walls, which can vary in thickness, materials and condition. The supplied report excerpt also does not provide the complete results for all six models: it gives detailed plaster figures for the Franklin M210/X2100, M70/X700, Zircon HD70 and JAXWQ 139-FYELLOW, but not the remaining two models.
The report does not specify the number of trials behind each percentage in the supplied material, and its figures should be read as outcomes of that test rather than universal accuracy rates. It also does not establish that a stud finder’s AC warning can replace checking for wiring before drilling or cutting.
Verify Before Drilling or Cutting
Readers considering a finder for plaster should compare the test’s priorities with their own work: center accuracy, false readings, AC detection and price. The report recommends repeated measurements from opposite directions and says additional passes may be needed when readings do not agree.
For any installation that requires drilling, and especially any remodeling that involves opening a wall, treat finder readings as one source of information rather than proof of what is behind the surface. The supplied report does not announce further testing or a follow-up date; broader testing across different plaster-wall constructions would be needed to show whether the reported ranking holds in other conditions.
Key Questions
Which stud finder performed best on lath and plaster in the test?
Pro Tool Reviews reported that the Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 had 100% on-center detection in its plaster test, with no missed studs. It also produced a 33% false-stud detection rate.
Was the Franklin M70/X700 also tested?
Yes. The report gave the M70/X700 a 67% on-center detection rate, with no missed studs and no false detections in the plaster test. It does not have AC detection.
Can these results predict performance in every older home?
No. The figures come from a single mock-up wall. Real lath-and-plaster walls vary, and the supplied report does not establish results for every wall type or condition.
What does the report recommend when readings do not agree?
It recommends taking multiple readings from opposite directions and allowing the finder to reset or recalibrate between passes. It says plaster may require more passes before the center marks agree.
Does an AC warning make it safe to cut into a wall?
No. The test reports how often a model detected AC in its setup, but it does not establish that a finder can reliably clear a wall for cutting. Treat the reading as limited information, not a safety guarantee.
Source: rss
