# Stabila Accuracy and Consistency



## thehockeydman (Dec 19, 2012)

I've always used FatMax levels. My old boss used them, many other crews around here use them, so when it came time to buy my own I picked them up. 

When I was an employee, I assumed my boss' levels read true. After buying my own, I noticed that the readings we're _ever so slightly_ off. I went back to the store, and noticed that the other FatMax levels seemed to be similarly off, although I couldn't measure as precisely as with my own at home. 

The FatMax guarantees accuracy within 0.0005 inches/inch (barely over 1/32" over six feet). Technically, my level meets this standard. I've Sharpie'd arrow marks onto the box by the vials of my own level, and have grown accustomed to aiming for readings off by the smallest possible margin to to ensure the work is truly plumb. 

To me, the big problem is my levels speak a language that only I understand.

Stabila has been on my list of items to buy for quite some time. Up until now, I've assumed they were perfect. However, when I was reading the specs, I noticed that their accuracy guarantee is only marginally better than the Stanley (.29 degrees, or 0.00045 inches/inch). If I'm going to put that kind of money on a level, I want it to be bang on perfect.

So for those of you who swear by Stabila, and have tested them to the strictest of standards, what is the accuracy of your own level? And for those who have bought multiple ones, how consistent are they off the shelf (are some perfect, while others fall in the 0.00045 tolerance)?

Thanks in advance for the input.


----------



## Warren (Feb 19, 2005)

I think that accuracy when using a level depends more on your eye and less on the level. I have checked my 20 year old Stabila against my laser occasionally, and I can not detect it being off at all. For an 80 inch level, to me a 64th is about as accurate as my eye of pencil can fathom.


----------



## AccurateCut (Mar 20, 2015)

Warren said:


> I think that accuracy when using a level depends more on your eye and less on the level. I have checked my 20 year old Stabila against my laser occasionally, and I can not detect it being off at all. For an 80 inch level, to me a 64th is about as accurate as my eye of pencil can fathom.



I agree after time you develop an eye if you will for it, when I am putting rails on a fence for instance I can tell with the level and my eye where it should be verses where the level tells me it should be, same with pickets.


----------



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

0.0005 is 1/2 of 1/1000th of an inch (not going to happen), 1/32nd is 0.03125. You may be seeing a 0.5mm accuracy number.

My Stabla is label 0.029 accuracy over 78". 

Tom


----------



## thehockeydman (Dec 19, 2012)

tjbnwi said:


> 0.0005 is 1/2 of 1/1000th of an inch (not going to happen), 1/32nd is 0.03125. You may be seeing a 0.5mm accuracy number.
> 
> My Stabla is label 0.029 accuracy over 78".
> 
> Tom


Yes... And if you multiply the 0.0005 inaccuracy over the 72" that makes up six feet, you get a bit over 1/32. Or 3/64 over eight feet.

The number 0.0005 is accuracy over a single inch. If that was the accuracy over six feet, I'd be laughing.


----------



## carpenter uk (Nov 25, 2009)

Is your material flat enough to be that accurate?


----------



## thehockeydman (Dec 19, 2012)

carpenter uk said:


> Is your material flat enough to be that accurate?


Tested on multiple surfaces. Consistent results. 

Yes, in the real world a minor inconstancy could throw something off 1/64 - 1/32, but I'd like the baseline measurement tool to be as perfect as possible.


----------



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

thehockeydman said:


> Yes... And if you multiply the 0.0005 inaccuracy over the 72" that makes up six feet, you get a bit over 1/32. Or 3/64 over eight feet.
> 
> The number 0.0005 is accuracy over a single inch. If that was the accuracy over six feet, I'd be laughing.


They would never give you the numbers per inch. The paint film or polish will throw the unit off more that 0.0005 per inch. 

I used to calibrate EDM machines, the one in the plant was in a climate controlled room and was accurate to 0.0005 in 36". The equipment to adjust the machines cost as much as one of the machines. Every year the tools had to go out to a certified calibration lab to be check for accuracy. 

Tom


----------



## WarnerConstInc. (Jan 30, 2008)

I was just thinking it's over the entire length. 

Some here are approaching what they say my Starrett machinist level is.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Level accuracy is described as 0.0005in/in

Close enough for the girls I go out with.


----------



## thehockeydman (Dec 19, 2012)

tjbnwi said:


> They would never give you the numbers per inch. The paint film or polish will throw the unit off more that 0.0005 per inch.


It's printed right on the level.


----------



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

thehockeydman said:


> It's printed right on the level.


I think the screwed up the printing, how can you have 0.0005 per inch, but 0.5mm per meter? 

Tom


----------



## JR Shepstone (Jul 14, 2011)

Are we really that worried about 1/64th" or even 1/32nd" over 4, 6, even 8 feet?

I've got my own OCD, if you will, about plumb, level, and square, however, if you're trying to get tolerances that tight, I don't think a spirit level bought off the shelf at a big box store, or online, is what you're looking for. No matter the brand.


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

That's great to work to tight tolerances.

The material we use on construction jobs where a level would be used don't have these kind of tolerances.


----------



## WarnerConstInc. (Jan 30, 2008)

tjbnwi said:


> I think the screwed up the printing, how can you have 0.0005 per inch, but 0.5mm per meter?
> 
> Tom



Special math.


----------



## thehockeydman (Dec 19, 2012)

JR Shepstone said:


> Are we really that worried about 1/64th" or even 1/32nd" over 4, 6, even 8 feet?
> 
> I've got my own OCD, if you will, about plumb, level, and square, however, if you're trying to get tolerances that tight, I don't think a spirit level bought off the shelf at a big box store, or online, is what you're looking for. No matter the brand.


If you read my first post, my issue isn't that I'm trying to plumb walls 1/64th more accurate. It bugs me that I know that my current levels don't read bang-on true.

My question is if I buy Stabila, will I be getting a level that reads at least closer to true, even though the listed tolerances on the Stabila are similar to Fatmax?


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

tjbnwi said:


> I think the screwed up the printing, how can you have 0.0005 per inch, but 0.5mm per meter?
> 
> Tom


Close enough. Canucks can't always have nicer stuff.

.5mm = approx 20 thou, 20 thou/3 = approx 8 thou per 1/3 meter, a little less when its feet.

Somebody with a calc could be a real mathamagician and get it right to the Planck scale.


Also shows the same on the Stanley web site - so they seem convinced....

Whatdya gonna do - its an imperfect world.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

thehockeydman said:


> If you read my first post, my issue isn't that I'm trying to plumb walls 1/64th more accurate. It bugs me that I know that my current levels don't read bang-on true.
> 
> My question is if I buy Stabila, will I be getting a level that reads at least closer to true, even though the listed tolerances on the Stabila are similar to Fatmax?


In other words, your real life level never quite matches up with the specs?

Hmmm, I wonder how well my 40 yo mahogany level is doing these days?


----------



## thehockeydman (Dec 19, 2012)

tjbnwi said:


> I think the screwed up the printing, how can you have 0.0005 per inch, but 0.5mm per meter?
> 
> Tom





WarnerConstInc. said:


> Special math.


Your math is wrong. 0.5mm/m is exactly the same as 0.0005 in/in.


----------



## thehockeydman (Dec 19, 2012)

SmallTownGuy said:


> In other words, your real life level never quite matches up with the specs?
> 
> Hmmm, I wonder how well my 40 yo mahogany level is doing these days?


In other words if I'm going to pay five times the price I've paid on my current levels, I just want the damn things to read perfectly :laughing:


----------



## thehockeydman (Dec 19, 2012)

griz said:


> That's great to work to tight tolerances.
> 
> The material we use on construction jobs where a level would be used don't have these kind of tolerances.


Again, it's not so much that I think I'll be able to built to tighter tolerances, it's more the satisfaction of knowing the level I'm using reads dead-on, perfectly level.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

thehockeydman said:


> In other words if I'm going to pay five times the price I've paid on my current levels, I just want the damn things to read perfectly :laughing:


I agree.

In machining, our micrometers are dialed in to a tenth, even though the job tolerance might be +/- 5 thou.


----------



## thehockeydman (Dec 19, 2012)

I'm going to regret this thread if I become known as the delusional putz who thinks he can plumb walls within 1/64th of an inch


----------



## JR Shepstone (Jul 14, 2011)

thehockeydman said:


> Again, it's not so much that I think I'll be able to built to tighter tolerances, it's more the satisfaction of knowing the level I'm using reads dead-on, perfectly level.


It will. If you read it exactly the same way every time. :laughing:


----------



## JR Shepstone (Jul 14, 2011)

thehockeydman said:


> If you read my first post, my issue isn't that I'm trying to plumb walls 1/64th more accurate. It bugs me that I know that my current levels don't read bang-on true.
> 
> My question is if I buy Stabila, will I be getting a level that reads at least closer to true, even though the listed tolerances on the Stabila are similar to Fatmax?


The way I see it is, if you buy Stabila, you buy a product that has years of quality product behind them. A company that stands behind their product with few, if any, questions asked when a problem arises. So yes, it may read closer to "true".

As we may all know, these tools are subjective based on temperauture and humidity, even line of sight.

If you find enough evidence that Stabila's are more accurate, more often than not, and you feel better with that, then yes, buy Stabila.


----------



## Xtrememtnbiker (Jun 9, 2013)

I'm interested in a level that stays accurate. Not like my last 6' level that varied by 1/2" in 6' depending on which way you plumbed it.

I've talked to a couple guys who have had Stabila's for around 20 years and they still are accurate.

When they say they are accurate, it's referring to being able to check level both ways and upside downand plumb both ways and your eye sees the bubble the same for all readings of level and plumb.


----------



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

What I find unusual is how they list the spec. Just picking up the level will cause a change due to the heat of your hand of 0.0005. It should perform well for you and that's what really maters.

Tom


----------



## VinylHanger (Jul 14, 2011)

I use a 20 year old gold I beam Johnson level. Cost me Luke 20 bucks 20 years ago. First tool I bough when I got into the trades. Still works fine. I do hold it one way and it's accurate.

I have bought other levels and right out of the box and they test 1/4 inch off. My old level keeps going and going, despite having a saw cut through it.

Anything more than my 4 footer will do, I usually pull out the laser.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

thehockeydman said:


> I'm going to regret this thread if I become known as the delusional putz who thinks he can plumb walls within 1/64th of an inch


I seriously could see a carbon fiber level in my future.


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

thehockeydman said:


> I'm going to regret this thread if I become known as the delusional putz who thinks he can plumb walls within 1/64th of an inch


:laughing:


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

I once left my 8' stabila in the back of my truck with my tailgate opened. When I got home I noticed my level gone. Needless to say I jumped in my truck to get to the lumberyard before they closed to buy a new one because I needed it the next day. On the way, there was my level in the middle of the road and cars were going around it. Took a leap and is still as accurate as the day I bought it, I want to say 15 or 16 years ago.


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

thehockeydman said:


> if I become known as the delusional putz who thinks he can plumb walls within 1/64th of an inch


:whistling Recognizing a problem is 90% of the solution.

:laughing: Just buy the Stabila for proven durability and long term performance. Do not mention the tool accuracy fetish again ... you'll be fine :thumbsup:


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

I don't view this (1/64") as practical. Before checking for level performance, you have to check for planarity of the base, which no one does. Throwing it up against a wall or on a table to check if it reads the same both ways is a rough check only.


----------



## thehockeydman (Dec 19, 2012)

tjbnwi said:


> What I find unusual is how they list the spec. Just picking up the level will cause a change due to the heat of your hand of 0.0005. It should perform well for you and that's what really maters.
> 
> Tom


It makes perfect sense that they would put that.

I think you're looking at 0.0005 as a number much smaller than it is. That number is per inch. Let's say it was slightly less accurate: 0.001. At that range, you're off 1/16 over six feet. Some might be ok with that, but I know I'm not alone in expecting higher accuracy from my tools than 1/16.

.002 would mean your level is out 1/8th over just six feet. That's not going to pass for a level.

As much as it seems like a small number, I would absolutely expect a level manufacturer to be within that 0.0005 (or under) range to get my business. 

And I certainly don't think the heat of my hand is going to factor into the accuracy of the reading.


----------



## thehockeydman (Dec 19, 2012)

If Kiteman sees me talking about numbers this small he's probably going to shoot me.


----------



## pizalm (Mar 27, 2009)

The reason I justify the stabila over a fat max is it stays true longer in my experience. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Other levels may work just as good, but I can't afford to experiment nor am I wanting to, when Stabila has been proven.


----------



## aptpupil (Jun 12, 2010)

pizalm said:


> The reason I justify the stabila over a fat max is it stays true longer in my experience.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


This.
Stabila stays accurate, that's what you're paying for.


----------



## Mort (Jul 18, 2012)

It's threads like this that make me glad I'm working as an excavator. We work to the nearest foot or two.


----------



## Rustbucket (May 22, 2009)

If you're looking for "dead nuts accuracy", you will unfortunately not find it. Everything expands and contracts. Science has even gone away from using the official reference meter, yard, foot etc that used to be kept in a temperature and humidity controlled room. They found that even they would not remain consistent, and was impossible to reproduce with 100% accuracy. Back in the 80's they switched to using the speed of light in a vacuum over a set time, which could be reproduced anywhere. 

The reason I switched to Stabila was for their durability and long term accuracy. I got tired of cheaper levels losing accuracy, even though they were almost babied. There is nothing worse than having things suddenly not lining up because a vial somehow moved! 5/10,000 of an inch per inch isn't too bad. A little more than 1/32" over 6'. I bet you can't read the vials that accurately!


----------

