Zircon 56892 Triscanner Stud & Joist Locator

According to the advertisement, this product is capable of finding joists through conventional plywood. Unfortunately, this is greatly exagerated. The unit is incapable of finding joists (I have tried it in 5 different houses) and it's powerline detection has an accuracy of give and take 5 inches (with currently available technology this is a joke). Considering the price tag, the value of this product is mediocre. If I only wanted to find studs, I could go with a cheaper unit from a more honest manufacturer.

I was very disappointed to learn that the "Triscanner cannot scan through . . . , in most cases, lath and plaster." (This, by the way, was in the instructions fine print under "Textured Ceilings"!)All 4 homes I have owned have lath and plaster walls. I think the manufacturer should have been a lot more up front with this information. To find out this important limitation you have to buy it and then read the small print at the end of the instructions.You'd think something that could scan through concrete could handle lath and plaster.

I thought it was junk when I first tried it out....But that all changed after I figured out how the sensitivity levels work. In the directions, it tells me to mark a line when it first senses a stud or pipe or electrical wire in one direction. This I did. I crossed over the stud until the lights went off, went back the opposite direction and made a mark on the other side. The center of the stud etc is half-way between the two marks, it didn't matter if the marks were two inches apart or five. It was important for me to make marks every time.It seemed to read a further distance from one edge to the other, depending on the thickness, and makeup of the surface I was scanning, at first, this frustrated me. I have a variety of surfaces in my house, 1/2 in sheetrock, 5/8 sr, 1x8 carsiding and old barnwood amongst others. All the readings were different, except for the fact the stud was in the center of the two marks I made. As a test, I took a scrap piece of 5/8 sr and nailed a scrap 2x4 to it. I made my marks, and was completely satisfied with the results. It was within an 1/8 of an inch, every time. I repeated this test with a few different surfaces.With a little practice, I was able to use it with excellent results. I had to do tests on the metal scan setting as well, with the same results. At first, a lot of frustration, but as time went on, I understood what it was trying to tell me.It would be great to pull a gadget out of it's box and have it take all the guesswork out immediately, but as with most (remote controls and video games come to mind), it takes a bit of time to figure it out. I kept an open mind, and figured out it was human error that stopped me from getting the results I wanted. This thing does everything it says it does.......I only gave it 4 stars instead of five, because it feels [flimsy] in my hand. If they would have put a rubberized surface on the area where you'd grip it, 5 stars.....oh well...

We want to give the explanation for why Zircon stud finders are not well suited for lath and plaster applications.Zircon (and all) stud finders measure "density" or "capacitance" behind a wall, floor or ceiling. For them to function correctly, they need to move from a point of lower density to one of higher density. You can think of it as going from a place that is more hollow to a place that is less hollow. Stud finders don't work well in lath and plaster for that exact reason -- because there are multiple pieces of wood (lath), coupled with the fact that plaster inconsistently leaks through the laths to create varying depths (or densities). So, because of the constantly varying depths, the stud finder is constantly trying to recalibrate, and therefore will not find the studs.They do work in concrete, by the way, because the material is of a more consistent density than lath and plaster.This is NOT something that is particular to Zircon stud finders, however. Any manufacturer's product will produce the same results. And we do try to alert users to this in the operating instructions.There is a work-around. If you turn the TriScanner on "Metal" scan, you can locate nails behind your wall. By locating a vertical row of nails, you have a pretty good, although not certain, idea that you've found a stud. Then switch back to "Stud" scan to verify. As I said, this isn't foolproof, but many owners of lath and plaster walls have found it effective.Dan Harrell, Director of Marketing, Zircon Corporation

I've already got a stud finder that I bought from Home Depot that scans studs through 3/4" wallboard as well or better than this thing does. And it only cost me in the neighborhood of [price] and fits in my shirt pocket like a ball point pen.I wanted something that would find studs behind 3/4" siding and paneling. This thing advertises that it can, but it's hardly more accurate than guessing. And, yes . . . I got myself a magnifying glass and read the directions just to see what I was doing wrong, if anything.Like I said, it's reasonably accurate on 3/4" wallboard in standard mode. But go to deep scan mode on ANYTHING and FORGET IT ! ! ! No matter how you try to calibrate it, it will both miss studs that do exist and find phantom studs that don't exist.Considering it doesn't do what they say it will and it's cost, I'd call it a rip-off. Don't buy it.

This is the third stud scan I have owned and curiously the least effective. I was scanning a garage wall for studs to mount a long strip of wood to in order to spread out wall load. Results were pretty bad- 2 out of 7 tries were studs the rest were dry holes. Ive attached some photos of the adventure. According to this there are some studs 6 inches wide in here- not unheard of if a 2x6 is in there sideways to support something, but in this case not even that. Little better than random chance. Does find ac lines pretty well however but that's not a hard trick. See photo of drywall screws punched into voide and a couple which bit into wood. That gives me stud to stud distance at least after 7 holes....