TL;DR
Get cleaning gear 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 a lath-and-plaster section. The Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 correctly found the center of every stud in that test, while the less expensive M70/X700 also detected every stud but was less consistent about center placement.
Pro Tool Reviews tested six stud finders on a mock wall containing lath and plaster and found that the Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 was the only model to correctly identify the center of every stud in that test. The same model also produced false stud readings, while the lower-priced Franklin M70/X700 detected every stud but placed fewer readings directly on center, according to the report.
The test used a mock-up built by Tom Gaige, with sections of single-layer drywall, double-layer drywall, and lath and plaster. Objects behind the wall included standard and metal studs, a stud with live AC, electrical conduit with live AC, a PVC pipe, and a water-filled copper pipe. The report says the testers used repeated readings from opposite directions to judge detection and converted results into percentages.
On the plaster section, the M210/X2100 recorded 100% on-center detection, with no missed studs and no off-center readings. It also correctly detected AC 100% of the time in the test, but generated false stud detections 33% of the time. Pro Tool Reviews lists its price as $59.99 and advises taking multiple 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. The report lists it at $21.99, nearly $40 less than the M210, but says it does not offer AC detection. Zircon’s HD70 and JAXWQ’s 139-FYELLOW also detected most studs, though each had misses and false readings. The supplied report names six tested models but provides detailed results here for only four.
Choosing a Finder for Plaster Walls
The results matter to homeowners and tradespeople who need to locate framing before hanging heavy items or opening a wall. Lath-and-plaster construction can be thicker and less uniform than standard drywall, making readings harder to interpret. A false reading can lead someone to mistake a pipe or another object for a stud, while an off-center reading may leave a fastener with less framing behind it than expected.
The test does not establish that either Franklin model will perform the same way in every building. It does show a trade-off in this particular comparison: the M210 was more consistent at marking stud centers and also detected live AC, while the less expensive M70 avoided false stud indications but more often marked away from the center and lacked AC detection. Repeated readings and checking for agreement remain part of the report’s recommended approach, especially when the placement needs to be precise.
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 Was Set Up
Stud finders detect changes behind a wall, but lath and plaster creates a challenging surface because of its construction and thickness. The report cautions that even on drywall, a finder can mark an edge, miss a stud or signal where no stud is present. In older homes, framing dimensions and spacing can also differ from common modern layouts, so assuming a fixed distance between studs may mislead users.
To reduce errors, the tester recommends scanning from an area without a stud, marking a reading, then repeating from the opposite direction after the finder resets or recalibrates. The test applied this multi-reading method and measured on-center results, off-center readings, missed studs, false stud detections and AC detection. Those categories describe the reported test outcomes; they are not a guarantee of performance across all wall types or installations.
“It properly detected each stud and properly identified the live AC.”
— Pro Tool Reviews, describing the Franklin M210/X2100 test result
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Limits of the Reported Results
The supplied report does not state the publication date, number of individual readings, or exact test conditions such as the thickness and age of the plaster assembly. It also does not provide detailed results for two of the six tested models, so a full model-by-model comparison cannot be made from the supplied material. The percentages apply to this mock-up and testing method; the report does not establish how they translate to every lath-and-plaster wall.
The M210’s 33% false-detection rate is reported without a full breakdown of which objects triggered those readings. The source also does not say whether results were independently replicated. A stud finder’s AC alert should not be treated as proof that a wall is safe to cut into; the report’s test result alone cannot establish the absence of concealed wiring, plumbing or other hazards.
wall stud locator for plaster walls
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Verify Before Fastening or Cutting
The report offers product recommendations based on its test but does not announce further testing or a follow-up date. Readers comparing devices can use its findings as a starting point, then repeat scans from both directions and look for consistent center marks before fastening. Check the device instructions and consider confirming a critical location by another appropriate method.
For work that involves opening a wall, do not rely on a stud finder alone to rule out live wiring or plumbing. Use appropriate safety precautions and consult a qualified professional when the location or hazard is uncertain. The results published here remain a comparison of six devices on one constructed test wall, not a substitute for checking the conditions of a specific home.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Which stud finder performed best on the plaster test section?
The Franklin ProSensor M210/X2100 recorded 100% on-center detection in the reported test and detected the live AC 100% of the time. It also had a 33% false stud detection rate.
Was the less expensive Franklin M70/X700 effective?
It detected every stud in the plaster test and had no false stud detections, but only 67% of its readings were on center. The report lists its price as $21.99 and says it lacks AC detection.
Why can lath-and-plaster walls be difficult for stud finders?
The report attributes the difficulty to the wall’s thickness and differences in density, which can make it harder for a sensor to distinguish framing from other material or objects.
How should users check a stud finder reading?
Pro Tool Reviews recommends taking readings from opposite directions and looking for agreement between marks. It says additional scans may be needed on plaster walls.
Can a stud finder’s AC warning establish that a wall is safe to cut?
No. The test reports how often the devices detected live AC in its mock-up, but that does not prove a particular wall is free of wiring or other hazards. Do not rely on a stud finder alone before cutting into a wall.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
