Why Do Hobbyists Purchase The Most Expensive Handheld DMMs

[EEVblog]

AS I SAID, Fluke makes good meters. Excellent meters, even. But not the best meter for everyone or every use case. I'm beginning to see why Joe and Eddie get so much hate for their Fluke opinions, lol. Even Dave has stated that Flukes aren't the best meters by every metric. Which is all I'm saying.

Fanboys be fanboys.

Of course Fluke have had their flops. The Fluke 19 is a classic, almost every one of them failed in the field, I personally had half a dozen on a factory floor at work eventually fail, plus my own personal one. Quite rare to find one still working today.

Of course I've done two videos on this. Almost 900k views now 

[EEVblog]

I have never had a DMM dead due to transient voltage the kind the Joe Smith tested. However, I have dropped my DMM from 20ft height down to concrete and got water sprayed on my DMM. So the kind of robustness I need is more of a mechanical/physical than electrical. Oh yeah electrically I have many time trying to make a 480V voltage measurement when the test lead is in the current jack. Yes I do work with 480V power daily.

I'll cop a lot of hate for this, and that's fine. But everyone obsessing over CAT ratings and the intricasies of Joe's overload testing isn't really being practical.
That's not to take anything away from Joe's overload testing, it's great data and nice to know, but I would not put a lot of empahsis on it, and I wouldn't use it as a purchasing decision.
The fact is that meters rarely fail due to such overload impulses. Very few people would be in a position where the absolute differences seen in Joe's overload testing makes a difference.
If it's a name brand and has been independently certified, just run with that and base your buying decision on other stuff that really matters.
I've sold 10's of thousands of Brymen meters (Joe's favourite), and many die due to silicon issues or other unknown manufacturing issues, not from overloads. The same can be said for Fluke or any other brand I'm sure.
IIRC the 121GW for example is middle of the road in Joe's overload testing, and not one that I am aware of has ever been damaged by overload.

[wilfred]

So what is the purpose of the post?

Participating in the forum and social discourse not considered valid anymore? The forum community could do with fewer righteous judgmental responses. I don't agree with everything in the OP but I am reluctant to get swept up in a general pile-on. And if others feel the same we'll be left with the pile-on. Great.

[bdunham7]

Fanboys be fanboys.

It goes both ways, it sometimes seems that almost every proponent of anything else just can't wait to start a debate comparing whatever they're advocating to Fluke.  Try doing a "Why my Brymen meters are a better value than Hioki" video and see how many views that gets.

My first response to the OP pointed out that there are plenty of decent products not named Fluke.  Fluke has gotten pretty expensive here in the US and probably more so in the rest of the world.  However, they still have an overall excellent product--the one everyone else compares themselves to.  I just think those comparisons need to remain factually accurate, thus my rather strong response to Veteran68's statement.  You're right, the actual differences in the level of protection or robustness between decent products probably doesn't matter much.  But asserting--as some do--that the Brymen 869S is 'safer then Fluke' because it says CAT IV/1000V on the front is a pretty dubious claim IMO.  It would be best if they competed on price and feature set instead. 

[EEVblog]

It goes both ways, it sometimes seems that almost every proponent of anything else just can't wait to start a debate comparing whatever they're advocating to Fluke.  Try doing a "Why my Brymen meters are a better value than Hioki" video and see how many views that gets.

Yes, it's good to have an industry standard so to speak for comparisons. Someone has to be it, and Fluke it's always been because of the longevity of their models, and that they pioneers the industry.

[schmitt trigger]

Exactly!
There is a reason why everyone and their brothers compare themselves against Fluke.
A recognized industry leader, with a sterling hard-won reputation. This doesn’t happen by accident.

[Veteran68]

@bdunham7, I'm not sure where we got sideways, but you seem to think I'm a "Fluke hater" and a "Brymen fanboy" based on your comments.

I'm neither. I thought I was making it clear -- I own twice as many Fluke meters as I do Brymen meters. They're both GREAT meters. I love DMMs of all stripes. If you have forum signatures enabled, take a look at mine. That's not all the DMMs I own, just the major sampling. You'll notice the Fluke and Brymen representation, along with a bunch of others.

My first "dream" meter that took me years to work up to owning was an 87-V, after having the opportunity to use the 87-III back in the early 90's at my job. And I had a great deal of pride in finally be able to get one. And still do! I have a HUGE amount of respect for Fluke, and their reputation. Me simply stating that they're not the best meter for every situation is not betraying that respect. It's an opinion based on what I'd consider widely available evidence, and Joe's work was only an anecdotal example of that. And to that point, you used the term "safety," not me. I used the term "robustness" as Joe has drilled home the difference. I consider Fluke's extremely safe, as in when they fail I feel confident they're unlikely to take me out with them (not that I'd be working on energy levels that would scare me much even with a DT830). So no, I don't consider Joe's work to be the final word on what makes a good vs bad meter. I only offered it as an anecdote to counter the notion that Fluke's are often raised up to be faultless and above everything else, the holy grail of DMMs. That's all. I seemed to have struck a nerve with you though. Sorry about that.

[Simon]

So what is the purpose of the post?

Participating in the forum and social discourse not considered valid anymore? The forum community could do with fewer righteous judgmental responses. I don't agree with everything in the OP but I am reluctant to get swept up in a general pile-on. And if others feel the same we'll be left with the pile-on. Great.

the thread has been reported and the OP has posted an unusual thread. Usually threads that don't actually ask a question are a sign of trouble so I tagged along to see how it flows, I guess Dave was also brought here by the reports.

[BeBuLamar]

A lot of people think that the Brymen is the good alternative to Fluke and I wonder why Brymen doesn't sell their DMM's in the USA? I know that Greenlee is brand labeling their products but I think it would be much better for Brymen to sell them as Brymen and also offering the entire line instead of only few models.

[bdunham7]

@bdunham7, I'm not sure where we got sideways, but you seem to think I'm a "Fluke hater" and a "Brymen fanboy" based on your comments. That's all. I seemed to have struck a nerve with you though. Sorry about that.

No, we're not sideways and my nerves are fine.  Just disputing (rather bluntly I suppose) a particular conclusion that has been repeated in one form or another on this forum--it's not just you. 

To further the original supposed point of this thread and in case anyone thinks I'm a 'fanboy' of sorts, for budget-minded hobbyists looking for the best 'bang-for-buck' DMMs today, IMO they are the (handheld) FLIR DM64 and (bench) a used HP 34401A [not the super-early versions]. At the prices you can get those for (or could recently), there's no reason to be buying crap. OTOH, these statements that people are buying Fluke products as a fashion statement or to show off seem a bit ridiculous.  The reasons that the OP cites in his advertorial aren't really all that far off as far as what some customers actually think.  But that's all just my opinion.

 

[bdunham7]

A lot of people think that the Brymen is the good alternative to Fluke and I wonder why Brymen doesn't sell their DMM's in the USA? I know that Greenlee is brand labeling their products but I think it would be much better for Brymen to sell them as Brymen and also offering the entire line instead of only few models.

Well, Brymen already is an alternative of sorts because they manufacture part of Fluke's line.  So they do sell their meters in the US, they're just yellow and green, not red or blue.  Perhaps their contractual agreements prohibit direct sales, perhaps they don't want to endanger a lucrative business deal.  IDK what percentage of Brymen's business is Fluke products, but it could be a pretty big part.  I also recall Dave saying the Brymen is doggedly loyal to their existing distributors, and Greenlee has been around and selling their meters for quite a while.

Edit:  According to ImportYeti, Brymen imports (into the US) to Fluke, Greenlee, Tempo, Astro and FLIR. 

[Bud]

Most expensive handhelds DMMs are typically of better ergonomics design, made of quality materials and  nicer to operate (quality switches, buttons and lead sockets).

[BeBuLamar]

A lot of people think that the Brymen is the good alternative to Fluke and I wonder why Brymen doesn't sell their DMM's in the USA? I know that Greenlee is brand labeling their products but I think it would be much better for Brymen to sell them as Brymen and also offering the entire line instead of only few models.

Well, Brymen already is an alternative of sorts because they manufacture part of Fluke's line.  So they do sell their meters in the US, they're just yellow and green, not red or blue.  Perhaps their contractual agreements prohibit direct sales, perhaps they don't want to endanger a lucrative business deal.  IDK what percentage of Brymen's business is Fluke products, but it could be a pretty big part.  I also recall Dave saying the Brymen is doggedly loyal to their existing distributors, and Greenlee has been around and selling their meters for quite a while.

Edit:  According to ImportYeti, Brymen imports (into the US) to Fluke, Greenlee, Tempo, Astro and FLIR.

Although the data shows that Fluke imports some Brymen I don't see in any of the Fluke lineup has a model that looks like Brymen design. Perhaps Fluke imports the Brymen to sell them as Amprobe?

[bdunham7]

Although the data shows that Fluke imports some Brymen I don't see in any of the Fluke lineup has a model that looks like Brymen design. Perhaps Fluke imports the Brymen to sell them as Amprobe?

I can't get free access to the info anymore, but the last time we looked at it they made some of the Fluke clamp meters and yes, some Amprobe products.  For big customers like Fluke or Teledyne (FLIR) they aren't likely to just rebadge an existing model like they did with Greenlee or EEVBlog, those customers are going to want a specific custom product. The Fluke 373 is one example IIRC.   

[Veteran68]

I knew of Greenlee and FLIR (I have one of each) but I'd never heard of Brymen making Flukes -- that's interesting!

Most expensive handhelds DMMs are typically of better ergonomics design, made of quality materials and  nicer to operate (quality switches, buttons and lead sockets).

Price, features, reputation, and all else aside, I've said it before and will say it again -- out of all the meters I own, the most ergonomic and comfortable in my hand is the Fluke 117. It's not so small and fiddly as pocket meters, and not so large as the 87-V and my Brymens. Even the Fluke 17B Max which is a better electronics meter than the 117 is just slightly too big to be as comfortable in the hand.

[Nusa]

"$3-$150USD" isn't even close to the "Most Expensive" by a couple orders of magnitude, so that's a fail from the start.

[EEVblog]

A lot of people think that the Brymen is the good alternative to Fluke and I wonder why Brymen doesn't sell their DMM's in the USA? I know that Greenlee is brand labeling their products but I think it would be much better for Brymen to sell them as Brymen and also offering the entire line instead of only few models.

I can tell you why, loyalty, and possibly a contract. Brymen have insane loyalty to their dealers and contracts, to the point of absurdity. It's likely that Brymen have an exclusive contract with Greenlee for US sales.
It's the reason why I cannot just sell any Brymen meters, because there already is an "official" Australian dealer in CABAC. This is why Brymen had to create the special model 786 just for me, to get around this.
I wanted to the sell the BM257 at the time, but they wouldn't let me. And as CABAC hadn't agreed the sell the BM235 yet, I was free to sell that. But not so with the BM789, so they created the BM786 just for me.
They have always refused to let me sell the BM869.
The nuts thing is, I bet you I sell countless more meters than CABAC.

[vk6zgo]

Everything i've touched from Fluke has always exceeded spec, so would be my first choice. Only just recently retired an ancient 8021B, after decades of use on the bench. Dropped once too often and broke the thick film tag bondings. Why look elsewhere ?...

In my experience, the early generations of Fluke bench DMMs weren't that spectacular.
I can't remember the model numbers, but we had two types.

The older ones tended to fail, but were easily repairable, & the later ones didn't fail as often, but were absolute swine to repair!
This was back in the late 1970s, & they were expected to work full time, sometimes in the workshop & sometimes in the field.

Multimeters needed to be as tough as an Avo model 8 to "hack it" in such service.

The catch cry at my work was "If it works, it's a Fluke", & not in the complimentary meaning of the phrase!

Interestingly, when my section of Telecom Australia got handheld DMMS, they were from Beckman.
The "Beck Persons" were "tough as old boots" & hung in there for years.

When I left & went to Commercial TV, I was issued with a Fluke 77, which fulfilled the promise of Fluke reliability, operating flawlessly ever since, apart from losing the continuity beep after I accidentally dunked it in a bucket of salty water (don't ask!).
When I finally left that company, it was presented to me, & is still giving good service.

[vk6zgo]

I have never had a DMM dead due to transient voltage the kind the Joe Smith tested. However, I have dropped my DMM from 20ft height down to concrete and got water sprayed on my DMM. So the kind of robustness I need is more of a mechanical/physical than electrical. Oh yeah electrically I have many time trying to make a 480V voltage measurement when the test lead is in the current jack. Yes I do work with 480V power daily.

I'll cop a lot of hate for this, and that's fine. But everyone obsessing over CAT ratings and the intricasies of Joe's overload testing isn't really being practical.
That's not to take anything away from Joe's overload testing, it's great data and nice to know, but I would not put a lot of empahsis on it, and I wouldn't use it as a purchasing decision.
The fact is that meters rarely fail due to such overload impulses. Very few people would be in a position where the absolute differences seen in Joe's overload testing makes a difference.
If it's a name brand and has been independently certified, just run with that and base your buying decision on other stuff that really matters.
I've sold 10's of thousands of Brymen meters (Joe's favourite), and many die due to silicon issues or other unknown manufacturing issues, not from overloads. The same can be said for Fluke or any other brand I'm sure.
IIRC the 121GW for example is middle of the road in Joe's overload testing, and not one that I am aware of has ever been damaged by overload.

I have always had reservations about the current paranoia about "transients" on the Mains.
If they are such a hazard, how come people have used Mains operated equipment for many decades without say, Mum's vacuum cleaner expiring, or the TV, or perhaps, in later times, modems?

The "meter thing" assumes that a transient will conveniently come along & blow your DMM apart in your hands, just at the very moment, out of a million other moments, that you are testing the Mains voltage.

Beasts like AVO 8s, or Simsons, weren't CAT rated, & arguably "didn't need no steenkin' CAT ratings", as they were too big & heavy to be "handheld" & were usually placed on the floor or a "technician's stool" so were a metre or more away from the user. They also had heavy Bakelite cases which were a lot harder to vapourise than a nice molded thermoplastic case.

Just the statistics of thousand of Techs & EEs using such meters over many decades is a potent argument against the response that seems to be the default today.

One favourite peeve I have about modern meters is the habit they have of turning themselves off after a set amount of time, even if you are in the middle of using them.
Even modern Flukes seem to do it, whereas my ancient Fluke 77 doesn't turn off unless it has been unused for a fairly long time, & even then, if it detects that there is a reading other than "OL" it aborts the turn off.

[joeqsmith]

My ears were ringing....

... However Fluke DOES NOT make the best meters for every use case. And some of those whiz bang features that Fluke doesn't include (because not their target market) are actually useful to some people. It's also been clearly proven that Fluke does not make the most robust meters, and that you can buy well equipped meters at a fraction of Fluke's cost that will survive transients that kill Flukes.

At least from my testing they (Fluke) has some of the most robust products available today.    Feature wise, it's why you don't see me using them. 

Hmmm, that's seriously cherry-picking some data from Joe Q. Smiths chart and applying a very narrow definition of "robust" to a few one used sample of one legacy model, IIRC.  Look at that data a little more and tell me which meters passed at column AB or higher without modification. 

I defined my use of the term robustness in the FAQ as: "...describing a meter’s ability to perform without failure under a wide range of
electrical transient and steady state conditions. "

I have never had a DMM dead due to transient voltage the kind the Joe Smith tested.

Had my first Fluke meter not been damaged so many times from various transients, I most likely would have never started testing them.  The 8000A was a princess and you best treat it that way.  Repairing it was costly pop back then even with my labor to replace the custom ICs.   After I restored it, it has never failed again (It's a shell queen now).   I replaced it with brand new HP, and that meter has never been damaged.  When I was wanting an even better meter, guess which brand I went with?

I'll let Joe defend his results and opinion of Flukes based on his testing. I'm well familiar with that spreadsheet and have it saved in my own Google Drive. He didn't test all Flukes to the same level, and only the 101 and 115 passed every single tests he threw at them. He damaged *three* 87V's, arguably Fluke's most well known and respected model. He also hasn't updated that sheet with every meter he's tested. He's also done videos on Fluke 189's and the 77, they're not listed (I don't recall if I watched those videos, I just see them in his video list, so am not speaking to their outcome).

I did not test all the meters to the same levels as it takes a very long time to run these tests and in many cases, I just didn't care.   If a meter makes it past that new generator which can put out a 100us FWHH pulse with a peak of about 6kV, I call it robust.   Again, I chose that criteria based on where the runner up failed in the very first meters I looked at.   You need to realize that I could damage EVERY meter I looked at.  That's not really what my goal was.  I was more interested in if there were trends in the data from various manufactures, which there is.  Testing at these absurd levels is just for fun.  To damage that Fluke 107 that was donated, I had to change that original generator to output a 15kV 100us FWHH pulse.   That's not something I expect me, or anyone else would subject a meter to. 

Yes, I ran an old 77 I pulled from a dumpster and a 189 that I bought as junk just out of my own curiosity.   That 77 didn't survive much of anything.  The 189 was never damaged and I still have that meter.  Both were in very bad condition and I saw no reason to record them.    I learned that lesson when I tested an old Fluke 87V and blew the ass out of it.  Even in this thread it seems people like to point it out.  Of course, after I repaired it, that same meter survived the low voltage generator just fine.

All the other data should have been current but sure enough.  I last bought a very expensive Keysight that had a very short life.  That's two for two with Keysight.  So many other problems with that meter.   It may have just been an oversight or I was just so pissed off at Keysight's inability to do what companies like Brymen, Hioki, Gossen, Fluke or even Joeqsmith modified meters are able to achieve, that I just set it aside.  Odd is my local copy is current.

*************  SPREADSHEET HAS NOW BEEN UPDATED TO INCLUDE THAT DATA ***************

..
Yes, he damaged 3 meters, two of the by applying transients that exceed the stated design limits of the meters (presuming you correlate his transients with the similarly specified CAT tests, something he has disavowed so I'm doing that on my own). 

I assume everyone now understands what an IEC combo generator is and why my testing has nothing to do with the CAT standards. 

One of them got the full 13kV/100µs monster pulse, the other the 12kV/50µs.  All of the Brymen's also failed at or below the 12kV/50µs level.  In fact, 869S #2 failed at the AA level, one below the AB level that I would have expected it to pass.  Of the Flukes, only the 17B+ failed at this level, and it is rated at CAT III/600V, whereas the 869S is CAT IV/1000V.  So other than one used 87V with unknown history (AFAIK) which had failed diode clamps (not catastrophic), every single Fluke either equalled or outperformed every Brymen on the list.

Yes, but again I doubt the hobbyist is ever going to see these large transients.   Once you get above that 6kV number, personally, I don't really care but it is interesting that you continue to see trends in this region. 

I don't have a problem with opinions, but factual statements need to be....factual.  There are very few data points and these test are not rigorously uniform and thus difficult to interpret, but as an example it looks like a Fluke 11x series, rated CATIII/600V, is more robust than a Brymen 78x series, rated CAT III/1000V and CAT IV/600V.  In fact, it passed at the AB level and no Brymen passed at that level--they either failed at a lower level or weren't tested at AB.  Brymen's best meter is equal in robustness to the Chinese-market 17B+.  That's what I see.

Hopefully that's not true.  The meters are new except a few small exceptions.  They all get subjected to the same levels up to the point where they are damaged, or they survive that low voltage generator.   My conclusions from running these tests, most UNI-T products can easily be damaged by ESD.   Most off brand meters, if they even survive to get connected to the low voltage generator are damaged below 2kV.   Looking at the name brands like Hioki, Gossen, Fluke and I will include Brymen now as a main player, they all know how to design a robust product.   Last, the higher the cost doesn't suggest a more robust product.   

I'll cop a lot of hate for this, and that's fine. But everyone obsessing over CAT ratings and the intricasies of Joe's overload testing isn't really being practical.
That's not to take anything away from Joe's overload testing, it's great data and nice to know, but I would not put a lot of empahsis on it, and I wouldn't use it as a purchasing decision.

First, let me say the offer is still on the table if you are interested.  As far as using the data for a purchasing decision, I certainly would.  First, because I paid some major $$$ for a product that was easily damaged.  I had a lot of down time and heart break over that shit Fluke.   If I had know it was so sensitive, I would have purchased something else. 

The fact is that meters rarely fail due to such overload impulses. Very few people would be in a position where the absolute differences seen in Joe's overload testing makes a difference.

I can't answer that.  I wouldn't be too surprised if what has damaged more meters wasn't things like, let me just measure the output of my MOT.  Or, let me just measure my flyswatter.   And of course, let me measure the output coil of my cars ignition system.   My favorite  was the person who did a write up on a Fluke 189 they had repaired.  I asked them what had happened to it and the original owner had it connected to the HV supply in a jet plane.  Funny story...

If it's a name brand and has been independently certified, just run with that and base your buying decision on other stuff that really matters.
I've sold 10's of thousands of Brymen meters (Joe's favourite), and many die due to silicon issues or other unknown manufacturing issues, not from overloads. The same can be said for Fluke or any other brand I'm sure.
IIRC the 121GW for example is middle of the road in Joe's overload testing, and not one that I am aware of has ever been damaged by overload.

Don't be jinxing my meters!!   Seven years on the clock (first BM869s), well beyond infant mortality.  Guessing I will drop first. 

The production 121GW I purchased from you was damaged by the grill starter.  It had enough leakage that the readings were way off.   Normally, I would stop the test but it's a special meter and deserved to see where a hard failure would occur.   Looks like I stopped at 2kV 100us FWHH.   Meter also was damaged from the chemical tests and there was not much left of it after the switch cycle tests.   
 

[xrunner]

When I left & went to Commercial TV, I was issued with a Fluke 77, which fulfilled the promise of Fluke reliability, operating flawlessly ever since, apart from losing the continuity beep after I accidentally dunked it in a bucket of salty water (don't ask!).
When I finally left that company, it was presented to me, & is still giving good service.

I had a Fluke 77 also, in my days. However, it was in a gentle environment with no chance of salt water dunking. 

[bdunham7]

I have always had reservations about the current paranoia about "transients" on the Mains.
If they are such a hazard, how come people have used Mains operated equipment for many decades without say, Mum's vacuum cleaner expiring, or the TV, or perhaps, in later times, modems?

Appliances with electronics do occasionally get blown up, especially TVs and washing machines for some reason.  But the actual transient hazards on household circuits are actually pretty low despite the occasional debate about where the CAT lines are drawn.  Just don't do your electrical troubleshooting during a thunderstorm and you'll be OK.  480V 3-phase panels are where the real excitement starts.

[bdunham7]

Hopefully that's not true.  The meters are new except a few small exceptions.  They all get subjected to the same levels up to the point where they are damaged, or they survive that low voltage generator.   My conclusions from running these tests, most UNI-T products can easily be damaged by ESD.   Most off brand meters, if they even survive to get connected to the low voltage generator are damaged below 2kV.   Looking at the name brands like Hioki, Gossen, Fluke and I will include Brymen now as a main player, they all know how to design a robust product.   Last, the higher the cost doesn't suggest a more robust product.

What I meant wasn't that each individual test lacked rigor or uniformity, but rather that you didn't treat each meter in the exact same way and that can make the data susceptible to misinterpretation.  That's fine, I'm not expecting you to sacrifice $10K+ in new meters in a uniform way.   If you look at the data the way you seem to suggest and just use it to differentiate between meters with reasonable transient protection and those that just blow up way too easily, then it tell the story that Brand A,B and C have no real protection while brands X, Y and Z all seem to be robust enough.  I think it is clear enough that brand X,Y and Z are good enough in this department that discussions of which to buy should move to a different topic, such as warranties and color.   

Also, this is a complex topic, but I would assume that certain advanced features and characteristics in meters are harder to implement without compromising protection.  So simpler meters are easier to make robust. 

[BrokenYugo]

I have never had a DMM dead due to transient voltage the kind the Joe Smith tested. However, I have dropped my DMM from 20ft height down to concrete and got water sprayed on my DMM. So the kind of robustness I need is more of a mechanical/physical than electrical. Oh yeah electrically I have many time trying to make a 480V voltage measurement when the test lead is in the current jack. Yes I do work with 480V power daily.

I'll cop a lot of hate for this, and that's fine. But everyone obsessing over CAT ratings and the intricasies of Joe's overload testing isn't really being practical.
That's not to take anything away from Joe's overload testing, it's great data and nice to know, but I would not put a lot of empahsis on it, and I wouldn't use it as a purchasing decision.
The fact is that meters rarely fail due to such overload impulses. Very few people would be in a position where the absolute differences seen in Joe's overload testing makes a difference.
If it's a name brand and has been independently certified, just run with that and base your buying decision on other stuff that really matters.
I've sold 10's of thousands of Brymen meters (Joe's favourite), and many die due to silicon issues or other unknown manufacturing issues, not from overloads. The same can be said for Fluke or any other brand I'm sure.
IIRC the 121GW for example is middle of the road in Joe's overload testing, and not one that I am aware of has ever been damaged by overload.

I have always had reservations about the current paranoia about "transients" on the Mains.
If they are such a hazard, how come people have used Mains operated equipment for many decades without say, Mum's vacuum cleaner expiring, or the TV, or perhaps, in later times, modems?

The "meter thing" assumes that a transient will conveniently come along & blow your DMM apart in your hands, just at the very moment, out of a million other moments, that you are testing the Mains voltage.

Beasts like AVO 8s, or Simsons, weren't CAT rated, & arguably "didn't need no steenkin' CAT ratings", as they were too big & heavy to be "handheld" & were usually placed on the floor or a "technician's stool" so were a metre or more away from the user. They also had heavy Bakelite cases which were a lot harder to vapourise than a nice molded thermoplastic case.

Just the statistics of thousand of Techs & EEs using such meters over many decades is a potent argument against the response that seems to be the default today.

One favourite peeve I have about modern meters is the habit they have of turning themselves off after a set amount of time, even if you are in the middle of using them.
Even modern Flukes seem to do it, whereas my ancient Fluke 77 doesn't turn off unless it has been unused for a fairly long time, & even then, if it detects that there is a reading other than "OL" it aborts the turn off.

Yeah, if you actually look into said CAT ratings you'll find that unless you poke at 3 phase service drops or perhaps the DC in an electric car you probably don't need a CAT IV meter.

[joeqsmith]

What I meant wasn't that each individual test lacked rigor or uniformity, but rather that you didn't treat each meter in the exact same way and that can make the data susceptible to misinterpretation.  That's fine, I'm not expecting you to sacrifice $10K+ in new meters in a uniform way.   If you look at the data the way you seem to suggest and just use it to differentiate between meters with reasonable transient protection and those that just blow up way too easily, then it tell the story that Brand A,B and C have no real protection while brands X, Y and Z all seem to be robust enough.  I think it is clear enough that brand X,Y and Z are good enough in this department that discussions of which to buy should move to a different topic, such as warranties and color.   

Also, this is a complex topic, but I would assume that certain advanced features and characteristics in meters are harder to implement without compromising protection.  So simpler meters are easier to make robust.

You would need to provide me with detailed examples of what you are referring to and we can go from there.  Free free to toss out as many examples as you like.     

I am not sure what you mean by simpler meters.  Simpler as in highly integrated hardware or lack of features.  From damaging so many over the years, there is another trend.  Meters that do well all follow a couple of common ways to protect them.  Certainly not rocket science.   I've taken some fairly complex meters, like the UNI-T UT181A which was damaged from ESD and made it very robust.   I demonstrated the problems with UT61E and showed how it could be mitigated.   I think the most complex meter I have looked at may have been that Gossen.   The simplest, maybe the free one from HF.